AMA: Fuzzy Bear

[T'Chenka]

What is your opinion of Marilyn Manson and heavy metal music?

[Arson Plus]

Opinion of Allard Lowenstein and Michael Harrington and the Buckley's and Rocky/Jarvits?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Why are you the most revered and controversial member of the Atlas forum?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Opinion of Allard Lowenstein and Michael Harrington and the Buckley's and Rocky/Javits?

Which Michael Harrington are you talking about; the socialist or the rather ordinary Democratic Rep. from the 1960s and 1970s?  Truthfully, I don't care for either one.

Lowenstein was an anti-war hero and a Massive FF. 

After an upset win in 1968, Allard Lowenstein was gerrymandered out of his seat in 1970.  Those times were not the partisan times they are now, and mid-decade/pre-Census map redistricting rarely happened, but the Nassau GOP pulled strings in the than-Republican legislature to gerrymander Lowenstein out of office by taking liberal Jewish areas of Nassau County out of his district and added heavily conservative Catholic areas like Massapequa to his district.  (Conservative Catholics who often were NYPD and FDNY who commuted to the city, I might add.) 

After 1970, Lowenstein went shopping for a district.  He challeneged Rep. John Rooney (D-Brooklyn) in 1972.  Rooney was a rather conservative Democrat who was pushing 70 and ill.  The first primary was tossed due to irregularities, where Lowenstein lost by a few votes.  In the rerun, the Brooklyn Machine of Meade Esposito was ready and Lowenstein was defeated decisively.  In 1974 Lowenstein ran in another Nassau District, but he lost to moderate Republican John Wydler.

Lowensteiin was an FF.  I wouldn't want a Congress full of Allard Lowensteins, but a few are
necessary.

Javits was a great Senator and a Massive FF.  I campaigned for Ramsey Clark in 1974.  I regret that now.  Clark turned out to be a massive HP and an anti-Semite.  If George Romney had been the GOP nominee he would have picked Javits as his running mate, and that would have been a wonderful thing.

Nelson Rockefeller's drug laws were awful; they spoiled his legacy.  Nelson Rockefeller was, however, the Governor that built suburban NY, the place where I grew up.  For all his faults, he was far-signted and he understood what it took to build and maintain a middle class society.  Ford should never have dropped him as his VP; he would have beat Carter if he hadn't.

One thing that should be said is that Nelson Rockefeller was not a "liberal Republican".  Jacob Javits was.  Rockefeller was a moderate Republican who was not a fiscal conservative, but he was not a "liberal Republican" as Javits was.  Javits could easily have switched parties, run as a Democrat, and won without breaking a sweat, but Rockefeller was, very much, a Republican at heart.

William F. Buckley was the defining media conservative back in the day.  MAD Magazine once desecribed "liberals" as people who "Secretly wish William F. Buckley was a liberal." and "Secertly wish David Susskind wasn't."  He shot himself in the foot when he ran for Mayor of NY, however.  He sought to divert votes from John Lindsay, the liberal Republican, but he diverted votes away from Democrat Abe Beame, who was a real Democrat, backed by the LBJ White House, but a clubhouse pol who was not viewed as a progressive liberal.  Buckley's focus was very much in stopping Lindsay, and he ultimately did so.  Lindsay lost the GOP nomination in 1969 and won as the nominee of NY's Liberal Party.  He soon became a Democrat in order to run for President.  (Lindsay tried to make his party switch seem some kind of principled act, but the fact was that he had been flat run out of the GOP unceremoniously.) 

James L. Buckley was a fluke winner who picked up traction to win in 1970.  His first break was that the GOP incumbent (appointee Charles Goodell) was an anti-war candidate who was disavowed by the White House.  The Democratic nominee, Rep. Richard Ottinger, was a standard Rockland County Democratic Liberal who was fighting for the same voters that Goodell was fighting for.  In most cases, Goodell would have sank, or would have moved to the right to minimize Buckley, but he was a dove on the war who angered Spiro Agnew (who called Goodell "the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party).  In this environment, Buckley picked up the endorsement of some of NY's more conservative Democratic Representatives (James Delaney of Queens and Mario Biaggi of the Bronx).  He eked out a 39% victory by 2 points.  I certainly wished Buckley to lose in 1976, and he did; he was pro-war and I wasn't the social conservative then that I am now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why are you the most revered and controversial member of the Atlas forum?

I don't know if I'm the "most revered".  I'm "controversial" because I fight back effectively.  By "effectively", I mean that I don't give people material with which they can use moderators to drive me from the forum.  At this writing, I've had 115 reported posts and 12 deleted/moderated posts.  Some of them are posts I've reported when others have posted the exact same thing and nothing was done. 

As for why I'm controversial:

I usually find his posts long-winded and unpersuasive, but for reasons that I've never understood he also tends to expose some serious ideological blind spots in those who disagree with him most vehemently.

I've seen it in discussions of everything from abortion, to immigration, to religious freedom. There is value in that, especially when he's often the only person voicing opinions that are common elsewhere.

I do the highlighted part here.  Whenever you hear the self-righteous cries about "whataboutism", it's a sign I've hit that particular mark. 

[Arson Plus]

Seeing as you are online, why did the New York Liberal Party fall after the 90s and what do you think of Pat Moynihan?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What is your opinion of Marilyn Manson and heavy metal music?

I like some metal.  Not Marilyn Manson and stuff like that; it's too dark and depressing.  I do like Billy Squier, Aerosmith, and some metal like that.

I'm actually a pre-Beatles Doo Wop fan.  I consider Doo Wop harmony to be the folk music of the inner city as much as Bluegrass is the folk music of rural Appalachia.  If it weren't for YouTube much of this would have died out.   

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

What are your thoughts on my kind of Republican (pro-choice, pro-2A, pro-ACA, etc.) can your own vision for the party?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What are your thoughts on my kind of Republican (pro-choice, pro-2A, pro-ACA, etc.) can your own vision for the party?

Being pro-life is one of the biggest reasons I'm a registered Republican.  I believe we should have at least one pro-life.

On the other hand, my favorite local Republican elected official has been pro-choice in the past.  She does hold an office that has no position on abortion.  So I'd vote for you for Tax Collector or Clerk of Court or Supervisor of Elections, or even County Commission.

Honestly, though, if I had your list of issue positions AND I was considering running for office, I'd run as a Democrat unless I lived in an area where Democrats weren't going to get elected, period.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What do you think of these proposed reforms to the regulatory state :


- Every proposed regulation by an executive branch department has to prove its benefits outweigh the costs to be implemented

- A commission made up of 3 appointees (one appointee made by the house , one by senate and one by states) has to approve any proposed regulation made by the executive branch


Also what’s your opinion on Tort reform

[Ferguson97]

What are your thoughts on my kind of Republican (pro-choice, pro-2A, pro-ACA, etc.) can your own vision for the party?

TBH with everything I've heard from you, you'd probably fit better as a Conservative Democrat than a Liberal Republican

[Fuzzy Bear]

Seeing as you are online, why did the New York Liberal Party fall after the 90s and what do you think of Pat Moynihan?

The Liberal Party was, basically, a patronage organization.  It was NOT the counterpart of NY's Conservative Party, which was formed to take over NY's GOP and make it a more conservative governing body.  The Liberal Party is an organization that would run 3rd party candidacies in the suburbs to siphon votes from Democrats in exchange for patronage appointments.  As such, it did little organizing and ultimately folded.  The Working Families Party fills its niche (sort of).  It's long-time leader, Ray Harding, died, and it stopped being relevant.


In 1981 I attended the Suffolk County Democratic Committee's fundraising dinner.  Pat Moynihan was the guest speaker, and he was HAMMERED!!!  Despite this he took questions from members, including a public school teacher who was not happy about Moynihan's position on aid to Parochial Schools.  It was awesome!  I've never seen a guy think on his feet that well, given his "handicap".  

I didn't like Moynihan in 1976.  He had been part of the Nixon Administration, and I was a Democratic Partisan then, so I was not thrilled to think that a US Senate Candidate in liberal NY was silent on the issue of endorsing McGovern.  I had voted for Ramsey Clark (who I regret supporting) and would have preferred Bella Abzug (who I met at a house party and promised to work to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act), but Moynihan was one of the best Senators in my lifetime.  He was an adult who recognized the need for legislative bodies to actually accomplish goals for the sake of the people they govern.  We have different parties these days, and this has produced a different kind of Senator.  Neither development has been positive.


The Liberal Party rose up during a time when the American Labor Party was being tarred with the "Communist" label.  In NY, you can run with the nomination of more than one party and your name will appear on the ballot on every party line that endorsed you.  This was a device so liberals could vote for HHH and Jacob Javits on the same party line.  Nelson Rockefeller never got the Liberal Party nomination, but Javits and former AG Louis Lefkowitz did.  

The GOP does not have any more Javits's and Lefkowitz's.  It did nominate Rudy Giuliani each time he ran.  (Yes, Rudy Giuliani was the LIBERAL Party nominee; he was NOT the Conservative Party nominee.)  That, too, was a common practice in Mayoral races from LaGuardia to Lindsay to Giuliani.  It was the "Fusion" concept.  Former Mayor Robert F. Wagner was approached by Nelson Rockefeller to run for NYC Mayor in 1973 as a Fusion (Republican-Liberal) candidate, but he passed, thinking he didn't wish to be Rockefeller's stooge.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you think of these proposed reforms to the regulatory state :


- Every proposed regulation by an executive branch department has to prove its benefits outweigh the costs to be implemented

- A commission made up of 3 appointees (one appointee made by the house , one by senate and one by states) has to approve any proposed regulation made by the executive branch


Also what’s your opinion on Tort reform

Point 1:  That should be the presumption of every government regulation.  There is no "proving" it because there are ALWAYS unforseen consequences to regulations.  Of course, there are sometimes unforseen BENEFITS as well.  These things can't always be measured beforehand.

Point 2:  The establishment of such a commission would upset the current checks and balances.  It would actually produce a 4th branch of government of a sort.

Point 3:  I certainly believe in tort reform.  We have become such a litigious society that people are afraid to ordinarily socialize.  There is a problem when so many people are unwilling to do good things or help people without fear of being sued.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Fuzzy Bear.

A pillar of integrity rising from a sea of dross and successfully navigating negativity from a plethora of real life leftist anxiety attack victims.

Why is this person not a moderator?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So--and forgive me if I'm wrong--you seem to have implied hawkishness or anti-communism in a Cold War context, but have explicitly referred to yourself as "anti-war" in some of the above text. The latter is consistent with your statements elsewhere, and reminds me a bit of Pat Buchanan, who in his 1980s writing was clearly hawkish to the point of using War on Terror-style phraseology regarding "with us or against us", but made an about-face on US intervention in the 1990s. How do you square the two, and on what rationale was the US' mission in the Cold War justified, but the US' mission today unjustified?

Do you know much about George Kennan? And, if so, what are your thoughts on him?

[Fuzzy Bear]

So--and forgive me if I'm wrong--you seem to have implied hawkishness or anti-communism in a Cold War context, but have explicitly referred to yourself as "anti-war" in some of the above text. The latter is consistent with your statements elsewhere, and reminds me a bit of Pat Buchanan, who in his 1980s writing was clearly hawkish to the point of using War on Terror-style phraseology regarding "with us or against us", but made an about-face on US intervention in the 1990s. How do you square the two, and on what rationale was the US' mission in the Cold War justified, but the US' mission today unjustified?

Do you know much about George Kennan? And, if so, what are your thoughts on him?

I know of him.  He held a number of diplomatic positions, most notably Ambassador to the USSR and Ambassador to Yugoslavia.  He is credited for authoring the bulk of the Truman Doctrine, although he dialed a bit of that back during his years under the more hawkish Dean Acheson.

The Cold War with Russia was with an imperialistic military power that rivaled us in strength.  The treaty agreements we made that made us part of NATO and SEATO were war guarantees for other nations.  Kennan was the ultimate "moderate hero" in that he recognized the evil intents of the USSR but had limits as to how far he was willing to intervene.  Kennan was a stealth dove on Vietnam.  My view is that Kennan deliberately cultivated a non-partisan image to give him credibility with Administrations of both parties.

Your question is, indeed, very deep.  The Soviet Union was an expansionist empire that wanted to dominate the world, and they were willing to prohibit liberty of peoples to do it.  Today's enemies are less so (although China is now assuming the role the USSR once did). 

To sum up my opinion on Kennan:  He was influential beyond his titles.  His moderation was a reason why, during the Eisenhower years, we were able to keep out of new wars.  He was certainly right in his counsel to avoid entanglements with Middle East dictators, and he did not agree with Eisenhower's position in 1956 on Israel, Britain, and France taking over the Suez Canal.  Kennan's views, from what I can tell, is that Britain and France were our friends, and Abdel Nasser wasn't.  He was right in seeing Pan-Arab Nationalism as an anti-American force.

I'm not real familiar with him, however.  In the 1970s, when I went to college, he was far more in the news, but that was a long time ago. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So--and forgive me if I'm wrong--you seem to have implied hawkishness or anti-communism in a Cold War context, but have explicitly referred to yourself as "anti-war" in some of the above text. The latter is consistent with your statements elsewhere, and reminds me a bit of Pat Buchanan, who in his 1980s writing was clearly hawkish to the point of using War on Terror-style phraseology regarding "with us or against us", but made an about-face on US intervention in the 1990s. How do you square the two, and on what rationale was the US' mission in the Cold War justified, but the US' mission today unjustified?

Do you know much about George Kennan? And, if so, what are your thoughts on him?

I know of him.  He held a number of diplomatic positions, most notably Ambassador to the USSR and Ambassador to Yugoslavia.  He is credited for authoring the bulk of the Truman Doctrine, although he dialed a bit of that back during his years under the more hawkish Dean Acheson.

The Cold War with Russia was with an imperialistic military power that rivaled us in strength.  The treaty agreements we made that made us part of NATO and SEATO were war guarantees for other nations.  Kennan was the ultimate "moderate hero" in that he recognized the evil intents of the USSR but had limits as to how far he was willing to intervene.  Kennan was a stealth dove on Vietnam.  My view is that Kennan deliberately cultivated a non-partisan image to give him credibility with Administrations of both parties.

Your question is, indeed, very deep.  The Soviet Union was an expansionist empire that wanted to dominate the world, and they were willing to prohibit liberty of peoples to do it.  Today's enemies are less so (although China is now assuming the role the USSR once did). 

To sum up my opinion on Kennan:  He was influential beyond his titles.  His moderation was a reason why, during the Eisenhower years, we were able to keep out of new wars.  He was certainly right in his counsel to avoid entanglements with Middle East dictators, and he did not agree with Eisenhower's position in 1956 on Israel, Britain, and France taking over the Suez Canal.  Kennan's views, from what I can tell, is that Britain and France were our friends, and Abdel Nasser wasn't.  He was right in seeing Pan-Arab Nationalism as an anti-American force.

I'm not real familiar with him, however.  In the 1970s, when I went to college, he was far more in the news, but that was a long time ago. 

So would you view the Russian Federation as (a) not a threat to America's interests (or only such because of prior American actions); or (b) simply a lesser threat in the face of a far more robust China?

And in dealing with the Russian Federation, what of former Soviet countries? Should we appease the ego of a certain current and former adversary by recognizing allegedly sovereign nations as part of a neo-imperial sphere of influence, regardless of the feelings of local populations? Should America's past actions in our own neighborhood perhaps lead us to grant more leeway towards other "big" nations with their own sins? While I definitely lean in one particular direction on this issue, it's not a question I have any definitive answer for, and I enjoy hearing others more fully flesh out their thoughts, especially when they likely run counter to my own.

As for Kennan, he's definitely an interesting guy. I stumbled upon him by way of Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis, who is a bit of a Kennan obsessee. Kennan's Containment doctrine puts him in the IR history as relatively hawkish, but a review of his full writings and, in particular, how he acted after the late 1940s, reveals a far more complex thinker.

So far as I have been able to ascertain, he conceived of world industrial power as existing in five key centers--the USA/North America, W Europe, the USSR/E Europe, Japan, and China. His hope was to keep a simple majority of those in the American camp in a confrontation with the Soviet Union that was in his mind driven more by the prerogatives of imperial strategy than simple ideological confrontation. It was for this reason that he was opposed to US action in Korea and Vietnam, and was in no way upset to see the KMT in China fall. This puts me in a tough position, as I regard preventing the DPRK conquest of South Korea as an indisputably good thing for the people of South Korea, but I can see the strategic wisdom behind not simply jumping at any communist provocation, particularly when we would be using US lives in a fight that did not even directly involve the Soviets. It was likewise with this framework in mind that he opposed what he considered unnecessary confrontation with the Soviet Union; he believed that a perception by the Soviets of a relative balance of power would lead to negotiations, whereas others in the Truman administration believed that only when the US exhibited unquestionable strength would it be in a position to negotiate.

Moreover, while Kennan was correct on the prospects for cajoling communist countries such as China into our camp in a strategic sense, I can't speak to the morality of such a position, particularly given the PRC's trajectory since 1989 and our complicity in its rise (in a way that very much made sense given the logic of the day).

[T'Chenka]

Do you have any tattoos?

[Calthrina950]

I'll ask you the same question I've asked Xing on his AMA thread: Which Governors do you think have had the best and worst responses to the pandemic?

[Hindsight was 2020]

You’ve made your feelings on BLM well know but how come you have seem fine with what Trump did in LaFayette Square when those protestors were 100% peaceful?
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1306396231392952322?ref_src=twsrc...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you have any tattoos?

No.  I've never liked them and I'll never get one.  I also don't like the idea of ink and needles.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You’ve made your feelings on BLM well know but how come you have seem fine with what Trump did in LaFayette Square when those protestors were 100% peaceful?
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1306396231392952322?ref_src=twsrc...

This was preparation, not action.  

The 100% peaceful comment just isn't true.  And these violent demonstrations were occurring in a context of nationwide violent protests in over 40 cities.  Preparation for measures that will minimize loss of life and minimize injury is prudent.  I note that you decry the preparation for violence (which has occurred in 40-plus American cities.  I note that you never decry the specific violence that violent leftist political protesters cause.

Why is that?  What specific actions of the Left appall you?  None?  Is political violence really OK with you?  I see little reason to think otherwise, not by what you post, but by what you DON'T post.

I take little joy in any of the events in America this year.  But I am certainly glad that this election cycle has forced many people like yourself to have to choose between being OK with political violence and actually being liberal, in the best sense of the word.  It really is a choice.  I am awaiting you making your choice public on this forum.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'll ask you the same question I've asked Xing on his AMA thread: Which Governors do you think have had the best and worst responses to the pandemic?

It's very hard to say.

I do approve of Gov. DeSantis's approach; it has been a balanced approach that has protected the most vulnerable.  I'm in the midst of this, and I've been an essential worker through it.  Florida is not New York, however, and it doesn't have that kind of population density in its cities, so I'm not going to criticize Cuomo and Murphy (in NJ) all that much.  I do believe that Cuomo's decision to put COVID-19 patients in nursing homes when there were other options was an incredibly bad decision, but it IS New York and New York City, so I'll suspend judgement.

The jury's still out, however.  Not all of the facts are in.  I don't think Trump has particularly mismanaged the COVID-19 epidemic; he has tried to contain the disease with maintaining as much normality as possible.  His ACTIONS have been far more reasonable than what others have proposed, and all sides have gotten it wrong about some aspects of this whole thing.  I do think that Trump did an excellent job of getting supplies to states and municipalities hard hit.  Whether someone else could have or would have done better is honestly open to question.

I'll honestly revisit this in six (6) months or more. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

You’ve made your feelings on BLM well know but how come you have seem fine with what Trump did in LaFayette Square when those protestors were 100% peaceful?
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1306396231392952322?ref_src=twsrc...

This was preparation, not action.  

The 100% peaceful comment just isn't true.  And these violent demonstrations were occurring in a context of nationwide violent protests in over 40 cities.  Preparation for measures that will minimize loss of life and minimize injury is prudent.  I note that you decry the preparation for violence (which has occurred in 40-plus American cities.  I note that you never decry the specific violence that violent leftist political protesters cause.

Why is that?  What specific actions of the Left appall you?  None?  Is political violence really OK with you?  I see little reason to think otherwise, not by what you post, but by what you DON'T post.

I take little joy in any of the events in America this year.  But I am certainly glad that this election cycle has forced many people like yourself to have to choose between being OK with political violence and actually being liberal, in the best sense of the word.  It really is a choice.  I am awaiting you making your choice public on this forum.

So despite the fact that every news source on the ground (including international) said the protest was peaceful and the congressional hearings established on record it was peaceful you say it wasn’t because of a sketchy YouTube video? 🙄 Also it is kinda ironic you say I’m ok with political violence when between this and the Portland kidnappings you’ve been twisting yourself into a knot to defend authoritarian/violent actions by this administration time and time again

[lfromnj]

The funny thing is Trump could have handled that so much better by just going into the basement of the charred church.(politically speaking)