Edit Preferences
Logout
Scarabus's Comments (87)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 87
The Moral Hazard of U.S. Global Interventions
Commented Dec 18, 2009 at 20:05:23 in World
“You know, how you say something is often as important as what you say. Take, for example, the assertion that other nations are confident "no U.S. president is going to cut and run from Afghanista
Sheesh! Let's hope so! To "cut and run" is to exhibit craven lack of character and cowardliness. But that's quite different from "make a strategic withdrawal," "learn from millennia of history," "make a rational redistribution of resources," etc.
Personally, I'd prefer other nations accept that the U.S. is going to act in the common world interest as far as possible, given limits imposed by rational self-preservation. And they accept that doing so might sometimes involve rational, moral withdrawal and reallocation of resources.
They *should* assume we won't cut and run. They should not assume we won't make a rational, orderly withdrawal.”
Sheesh! Let's hope so! To "cut and run" is to exhibit craven lack of character and cowardliness. But that's quite different from "make a strategic withdrawal," "learn from millennia of history," "make a rational redistribution of resources," etc.
Personally, I'd prefer other nations accept that the U.S. is going to act in the common world interest as far as possible, given limits imposed by rational self-preservation. And they accept that doing so might sometimes involve rational, moral withdrawal and reallocation of resources.
They *should* assume we won't cut and run. They should not assume we won't make a rational, orderly withdrawal.”
Goodbye to USA Today...And All of That
Commented Dec 03, 2009 at 21:39:30 in Media
“Mind your metaphors! You can't really run. You need to row or swim. Unless, of course… :-)”
Forgiving Political Correctness At Fort Hood On Thanksgiving
Commented Nov 26, 2009 at 17:54:12 in Politics
“Yes, you're right in your very first assertion, Alex. And your articulateness and civility are gratifying. But you're still wrong about the "victimhood" thing. That's a whole 'nother issue. Both valid and relevant in itself, but peripheral to this question.
The key is *why* one speaks, writes, or acts in a particular way. You say it because you truly believe it? That's legitimate discourse. (Maybe mistaken, but still legitimate
Yes, of course, the term was invented and was for a long time used against those on the left. (By me along with a gazillion other "non-lockstep" liberals, I might add.) But it could equally as well be used against those on the right. (As my 4 year old granddaughter used to say, point one finger at others and you point three back at yourself.)
The reason is that it's not *what* you say or do that's relevant, but *why*. Two persons might say or do the very same thing, the first because she has an open mind, a sound factual basis, and a logical argument; the second because that's the talking point of the day. The former is engaging in legitimate discourse. The latter is being politically correct.”
The key is *why* one speaks, writes, or acts in a particular way. You say it because you truly believe it? That's legitimate discourse. (Maybe mistaken, but still legitimate
Yes, of course, the term was invented and was for a long time used against those on the left. (By me along with a gazillion other "non-lockstep" liberals, I might add.) But it could equally as well be used against those on the right. (As my 4 year old granddaughter used to say, point one finger at others and you point three back at yourself.)
The reason is that it's not *what* you say or do that's relevant, but *why*. Two persons might say or do the very same thing, the first because she has an open mind, a sound factual basis, and a logical argument; the second because that's the talking point of the day. The former is engaging in legitimate discourse. The latter is being politically correct.”
Forgiving Political Correctness At Fort Hood On Thanksgiving
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:34:33 in Politics
“Does the term "political correctness" as applied in current politics have any comprehensible meaning? Historically it derives from the era of Communist ascendancy, when truth was defined by party orthodoxy, independent of truth or actuality.
In other words, in its essence it isn't restricted to those on the left. Quite the contrary. When Rush Limbaugh said he was glad he would no longer have to "carry water" for Cheney and Bush, McCain and Palin, what did he mean? He meant he had been pontificating, not about what he thought was correct, but what Republican talking points required. He was being politically correct.
To leap on Hamid's act, assume that Muslim=Terrorist, and start calling for a lynch mob…? Now *THAT* would be political correctness: trumpeting an over-hasty sweeping generalization because it encapsulates the radical right's biases and susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
Advocating learning the facts, knowing what one's talking about, before taking a position? And then affirming that position, whether ideologically convenient or not? That isn't political correctness. That's courage and rationality.”
In other words, in its essence it isn't restricted to those on the left. Quite the contrary. When Rush Limbaugh said he was glad he would no longer have to "carry water" for Cheney and Bush, McCain and Palin, what did he mean? He meant he had been pontificating, not about what he thought was correct, but what Republican talking points required. He was being politically correct.
To leap on Hamid's act, assume that Muslim=Terrorist, and start calling for a lynch mob…? Now *THAT* would be political correctness: trumpeting an over-hasty sweeping generalization because it encapsulates the radical right's biases and susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
Advocating learning the facts, knowing what one's talking about, before taking a position? And then affirming that position, whether ideologically convenient or not? That isn't political correctness. That's courage and rationality.”
alex61 replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:44:36
“Nice try. Political correctness in our culture for the last several decades has been almost exclusively the purview of the left. Certain "politically correct" groups were labeled off limits to criticism as they were, by virtue of their "victimhood" held not responsible for their faults and failures and were therefore above criticism.
Even the best of intentioned constructive criticism was silenced with the words "racist" or "sexist" etc. People were attacked and silenced for daring to break the rules of political correctness.
PC is one of the nastiest, vicious, and destructive things ever to happen to modern American culture.”
Even the best of intentioned constructive criticism was silenced with the words "racist" or "sexist" etc. People were attacked and silenced for daring to break the rules of political correctness.
PC is one of the nastiest, vicious, and destructive things ever to happen to modern American culture.”
Hold the Hofstadter: Why the GOP Is Winning 2010
Commented Nov 11, 2009 at 20:35:46 in Politics
“Really interesting. I myself am a "pretty high information" Obama voter. I'm not bothered by the feeling that those who have less education and income than I might receive more individual benefit than I. I like that. What bothers me is that they seem *not* to be getting that benefit.
A very cynical thought. What if the obscenely arrogant bankers are deliberately flaunting the rewards of their greed. Combine that with unemployment figures? Looks as if Obama's administration is screwing the men and women who shower after work, while rewarding the "we deserve it because we work so hard and are so productive" merchants of greed. The more outrageous the boasting from Goldman-Sachs, the more the Republicans profit (so to speak).”
A very cynical thought. What if the obscenely arrogant bankers are deliberately flaunting the rewards of their greed. Combine that with unemployment figures? Looks as if Obama's administration is screwing the men and women who shower after work, while rewarding the "we deserve it because we work so hard and are so productive" merchants of greed. The more outrageous the boasting from Goldman-Sachs, the more the Republicans profit (so to speak).”
DannyDanson replied on Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:40
“Your are right, if spun correctly the whole situation looks as though this administration is oblivious to the concerns of working class people and pandering to corporate interest, but everything that would address their concerns is being evicerated by the opposition and their "anti-government" brigade of low information voters who 's attention have been misdirected from the past 30 years of conservative policy which put us in this position and convinced that any instance of progressive policy is poison to the nation. Healthcare and Energy reform would create the quality jobs that will never return to the manufacturing sector, but why would corporations with a global footprint take that route of their own accord, corporations are not fearful of high unemployment numbers, that's like a casket maker who is depressed because people are dying and buying caskets. Unemployment means higher profits especially when your are a multi-national entity headquartered in the country with the low employment numbers, while the national currency just happens to be losing strength, that means exports to countries were people have money and jobs (our jobs) will grow with the same level of productivity, they could create new jobs (check out the returns) but why would they? If the working class suffers long enough eventually they'll except pennies on the dollar for a job, and if you want to retire guess what you'll probably have to give most of those pennies back to those who started this crisis in the form of 401k contributions.”
Prudens replied on Nov 12, 2009 at 09:01:40
“First off, the majority of extremely liberal voters are among the richest people (salaries over 100,000 annually) in the country, that or the poorest. It is easy to say you dont mind higher taxes when you are taking money out of the pockets of the working poor to pay for your policies. Most Rebpublican voters are the in the lower and middle classes, check recent polling data if you dont believe me regarding voter demographics. The middle class are the people who get squeezed most with new tax and social policies. These rich Republicans you speak of are a myth. Any smart Goldman-Sachs fatcat would lobby anyone to pass legislation that benefits them, not just one party. I would be surprised if the percentage of the Republican party that are rich robber barons even reached 0.5% of the registered voter population.”
Obama Online -- Where Are the Young Supporters?
Commented Oct 26, 2009 at 16:49:05 in Technology
“This post blends two separate, if related, topics: the young and the tech-savvy. A recent New Yorker cover is emblematic in this context. It shows a kid standing on a pile of books writing "texting" jargon on a chalkboard. His students are older people.
My first thought was that this reflects the ho-hum standard line that kids know much more about technology than do older generations. On further reflection, though, it struck me that the cover also shows how technology can provide motivation for bridging the gaps among generations.
Two widely separated generations are depicted, each eager both to teach and to learn. The idealism of youth and the wisdom of experience are symbiotic qualities.
Disclaimer: I'm 67. I just finished creating a couple of composite images in Photoshop, and posting one of them to Facebook. As soon as I send this email, I'm going to text my daughter in another city. To read the message, she'll probably have to wrestle the iPhone away from my 6 year old granddaughter.”
My first thought was that this reflects the ho-hum standard line that kids know much more about technology than do older generations. On further reflection, though, it struck me that the cover also shows how technology can provide motivation for bridging the gaps among generations.
Two widely separated generations are depicted, each eager both to teach and to learn. The idealism of youth and the wisdom of experience are symbiotic qualities.
Disclaimer: I'm 67. I just finished creating a couple of composite images in Photoshop, and posting one of them to Facebook. As soon as I send this email, I'm going to text my daughter in another city. To read the message, she'll probably have to wrestle the iPhone away from my 6 year old granddaughter.”
Why Visiting Pompeii Has Me Thinking About the Smoke Billowing Out of Our Economic Mt. Vesuvius
Commented Jul 21, 2009 at 18:39:40 in Business
“"Pecora"? That means "sheep" in Italian, right? A cosmic warning?
Anyhow, the people in Pompeii recognized the warnings. They just didn't know what they meant. Same problem now. The signs are manifest. The question is, "Who ya gonna trust to interpret the meaning and import of those signs."”
Anyhow, the people in Pompeii recognized the warnings. They just didn't know what they meant. Same problem now. The signs are manifest. The question is, "Who ya gonna trust to interpret the meaning and import of those signs."”
PBMac replied on Jul 21, 2009 at 19:18:13
“Pecora was the man, (of Italian extract) who after the fall of the stock market in the 1930's called for an investigation as to why it happened. He made quite an impression in those days, shaming some big wig financiers in those Senate hearings. He is exactly what we need now. We need hearings that do a little more than spread platitudes around.”
National Security vs. Our Values: "The Toughest Issue We Will Face"
Commented May 23, 2009 at 20:18:52 in Politics
“Terrorism is a tactic. It’s adopted by nation states, as when the allies firebombed Hamburg during WW II. It's adopted by rogue organizations, like the one Timothy McVey represented. It’s adopted by single disaffected and/or disturbed individuals, like Richard Poplawski, who killed the Pittsburgh police officers.
To say that we are at war with terror is meaningless. Neither our nation nor any other will ever or could ever be free from the threat of terror. Thus, to say that our constitution and commitment to international treaties will be suspended until we have concluded the war on terror is to say that our nation will henceforth forever be rogue and lawless.
And this is to keep us "safe"? Red herring! Americans do not need to be kept “safe.” We can take care of ourselves. What we need is leadership. Nothing in the presidential oath of office mentions "safety." The president swears, not to keep Americans safe, but to defend and preserve our constitution.”
To say that we are at war with terror is meaningless. Neither our nation nor any other will ever or could ever be free from the threat of terror. Thus, to say that our constitution and commitment to international treaties will be suspended until we have concluded the war on terror is to say that our nation will henceforth forever be rogue and lawless.
And this is to keep us "safe"? Red herring! Americans do not need to be kept “safe.” We can take care of ourselves. What we need is leadership. Nothing in the presidential oath of office mentions "safety." The president swears, not to keep Americans safe, but to defend and preserve our constitution.”
dwright replied on May 25, 2009 at 07:52:45
“You say that the president takes the oath to defend and preserve our Constitution, but not to keep Americans safe? Correct?
I guess you neglected to read the Preamble of that Constitution: domestic Tranquility, general Welfare etc. The Preamble IS the platform or spirit where the Articles stand. The rest of the Constitution is simply outlining our governmental structure.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."”
I guess you neglected to read the Preamble of that Constitution: domestic Tranquility, general Welfare etc. The Preamble IS the platform or spirit where the Articles stand. The rest of the Constitution is simply outlining our governmental structure.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."”
BevfromNYC replied on May 23, 2009 at 23:29:11
“Well, if being the "Commander
FYI - There is nothing in the Presidential Oath of Office or in the Constitution that gives the President the power to nationalize private industry, yet that is exactly what is happening with the auto industry.”
FYI - There is nothing in the Presidential Oath of Office or in the Constitution that gives the President the power to nationalize private industry, yet that is exactly what is happening with the auto industry.”
NotProvenGuilty replied on May 23, 2009 at 22:11:28
“I learned in my M.B.A. program that if you listen to a conversation long enough, someone may say what you would have said. Thank you for making my post unnecessary. Yours is perfect.
But I WILL add, Prof. Stone is obviously bright and thoughtful. He delineates the issues well. But your point is his huge blind spot. John Kerry got pilloried for suggesting the "war on terror" should be thought of more as a police action. He was right.”
But I WILL add, Prof. Stone is obviously bright and thoughtful. He delineates the issues well. But your point is his huge blind spot. John Kerry got pilloried for suggesting the "war on terror" should be thought of more as a police action. He was right.”
Restore the Republic
Commented Feb 25, 2009 at 16:51:42 in Politics
“"Community organizing" is about bringing members of a community together, showing them how and why to make a difference, and providing the inspiration and leadership to make it happen. President Obama began his career by doing that successfully in a small area of Chicago. Anyone who believes in America should stand with him to make it happen on a national level.”
RamonBackwards replied on Feb 25, 2009 at 18:05:05
“And had he been forced into that service it would be of no value whatsoever.”
The Media Business: It's the Perspective, Stupid
Commented Feb 23, 2009 at 20:55:25 in Media
“Nice. I like it when arguments are supported by accurate data. (As opposed to George Will's Post article, supported by falsehood.
The Versailles analogy is trickier. Personally I love it. It's absolutely perfect. On the other hand, how many of The Rest of Us will recognize the reference to Louis XIV's moving his court out of the city and into a compound over which he exercised unquestioned autocracy?
In other words, what's the audience for an essay on... well, audience?”
The Versailles analogy is trickier. Personally I love it. It's absolutely perfect. On the other hand, how many of The Rest of Us will recognize the reference to Louis XIV's moving his court out of the city and into a compound over which he exercised unquestioned autocracy?
In other words, what's the audience for an essay on... well, audience?”
karinova replied on Feb 23, 2009 at 23:54:04
“In defense of the author, I do think he's (theoretically) addressing the Beltway navel-gazers, not "The Rest of Us."
The Rest of Us clearly already get it.”
The Rest of Us clearly already get it.”
Restoring Science To Its Rightful Place
Commented Jan 30, 2009 at 16:05:29 in Politics
“Is there any way to get the commercial broadcast media to stop the insanity of "balancing" serious scientists, as disinterested as possible, with either nuts or bought and paid for industry puppets?”
BrettnCalgary replied on Jan 30, 2009 at 18:47:50
“It would be nice, but I can't see any way of making them change that philosophy. The concept of balance is great. but having a climate scientist on, and a denier is 50-50 coverage, when it should be 99 climate scientists and one denier. Heck if you insist the denier be a qualified scientist without conflict of interest, I bet the ratio would be even worse for the deniers. The media is what makes most people think the science isn't settled.”
Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Net Erodes the Authority of the Press
Commented Jan 14, 2009 at 18:05:20 in Media
“Zbigniew Brzezinski nailed it when he told Scarborough that he is "stunningly superficia
RobinSeattle replied on Jan 14, 2009 at 18:29:42
“It got Reagan elected president and Regis Philbin and Kathy Lee Gifford lucrative careers.”
What Spies Think of Panetta
Commented Jan 09, 2009 at 17:51:44 in Politics
“Reminds me of the admission by Porter Goss: "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified.
Seriously, like every other federal agency, the CIA has been intensely politicized and de-professionalized over the past 8 years. Panetta knows politics, and he can manage the return to sanity. Main thing is that he focus on administration and let the career professionals focus on intelligence.”
Seriously, like every other federal agency, the CIA has been intensely politicized and de-professionalized over the past 8 years. Panetta knows politics, and he can manage the return to sanity. Main thing is that he focus on administration and let the career professionals focus on intelligence.”
schatsie replied on Jan 09, 2009 at 21:19:02
“I have to agree about the Politicization of the Civil Service is a really big problem... A survey would be very interestin
Blocked from Blair House
Commented Jan 02, 2009 at 19:19:33 in Politics
“Yes, the current administration can manage Blair House as they wish, but it's a public building and the way it's used should be public knowledge. (I don't know if the regulation about guests applies also to receptions, but it should. Indeed, the regulation shouldn't even be unnecessar
wdw505 replied on Jan 02, 2009 at 19:41:42
“because it is indeed a non story
name one president that stayed in government housing more than one week out from inauguration”
name one president that stayed in government housing more than one week out from inauguration”
The New York Times Wrong-Headedly Propagandizes for an Obama Gasoline Tax
Commented Dec 30, 2008 at 19:21:27 in Business
“Two quite different issues here: principles and policies. I'd like to focus on principle. Americans have shown through many decades that a majority of us will make sacrifices if we are shown that those sacrifices are in the interest both of idealism (however perceived) and the common good; if we are shown that the tides of fortune raise or lower all of us in the same boat.
WW II. Draft, to which (theoretically) everyone was subject. Even the politically connected like Joe and John Kennedy and George Bush the elder and movie stars like Jimmy Stewart did their part. The war was financed in part by the sale of war bonds to American citizens.
Now? A draft-dodging president and vice president have led us into a disastrous war of choice, fought largely by the middle and working classes for the enrichment of the mega-rich (including, conspicuously, the vice president and his friends). Millions of honest, hard-working citizens have lost their homes to foreclosure while bank executives were accepting multi-million dollar "bonuses" in return for their "success" in destroying the companies they led. Where's the fairness? Where's the common sacrifice?”
WW II. Draft, to which (theoretically) everyone was subject. Even the politically connected like Joe and John Kennedy and George Bush the elder and movie stars like Jimmy Stewart did their part. The war was financed in part by the sale of war bonds to American citizens.
Now? A draft-dodging president and vice president have led us into a disastrous war of choice, fought largely by the middle and working classes for the enrichment of the mega-rich (including, conspicuously, the vice president and his friends). Millions of honest, hard-working citizens have lost their homes to foreclosure while bank executives were accepting multi-million dollar "bonuses" in return for their "success" in destroying the companies they led. Where's the fairness? Where's the common sacrifice?”
America is Primarily at Fault for the Conflict in Gaza
Commented Dec 30, 2008 at 18:59:32 in Politics
“I'm always both puzzled and irritated when someone says, "America did X" or "Iceland did Y." What exactly is a nation state? Was what used to be called Yugoslavia a nation? (Not in any moral sense. It was the product of a shotgun marriage between Croatians and Serbs.) Is what we continue to call "Iraq" a nation? (Fragmented by ethnicity and religion, it was created artificially by British and French agreement after WW I.)
I'm a native-born citizen of the U.S. I have participated actively in the political process. I did not vote for George Bush, and I reprehend his policies. I have said so frequently. So am I to blame for what's happening in Palestine? I'm willing to be convinced. In the meantime I will maintain that to either praise or blame an entire nation for what specific parties, organizations, or individuals within that nation have done is both wrong and counterproductive.”
I'm a native-born citizen of the U.S. I have participated actively in the political process. I did not vote for George Bush, and I reprehend his policies. I have said so frequently. So am I to blame for what's happening in Palestine? I'm willing to be convinced. In the meantime I will maintain that to either praise or blame an entire nation for what specific parties, organizations, or individuals within that nation have done is both wrong and counterproductive.”
BayAreaResident replied on Dec 30, 2008 at 20:18:24
“If anything it was Croatia a shotgun state created by the Nazis for the sole purpose of easier management of the conquered Balkans... But i guess different people have different standards.
So you have no problem P a l es ti nians being labeled as one for the purpose of mass reprisal, but you find it objectionable that we as Americans are de facto complicit in approving this policy?”
So you have no problem P a l es ti nians being labeled as one for the purpose of mass reprisal, but you find it objectionable that we as Americans are de facto complicit in approving this policy?”
Top 10 Reasons to Become a New Radical
Commented Dec 27, 2008 at 19:00:17 in Living
“Don't shoot the messenger! :-)
I know a lot of students and adults who would embrace these affirmations but would be scared away by the big bad word "radical."
Any suggestions?”
I know a lot of students and adults who would embrace these affirmations but would be scared away by the big bad word "radical."
Any suggestions?”
RaeDae replied on Dec 28, 2008 at 22:29:43
“How about Agent of Change? As in Agent of Social Change, etc.?
(Of course, I know all change is not necessarily good, but "Agent of Positive Social Change" could get unwieldy.)
This has been the year of change, so anything with "Change" in the title will definitely have an appeal at this time.”
(Of course, I know all change is not necessarily good, but "Agent of Positive Social Change" could get unwieldy.)
This has been the year of change, so anything with "Change" in the title will definitely have an appeal at this time.”
DebraCraig replied on Dec 28, 2008 at 10:58:21
“I'm so glad you brought up this point about being labeled a "radical." Under Julia's definition, I guess I am a "New Radical" because I so desperately want to change our public education system and am working hard to do so in subtle, but I hope, effective ways. While I am passionate about my cause, I am very uncomfortable being called a "radical." I often overlook her articles because I just don't see myself as a " new radical."
Personally, I like to think of myself as a "visionary," using this definition: a tenacious person with unusually keen foresight who works hard in accomplishing goals that will be of great benefit to society.”
Personally, I like to think of myself as a "visionary," using this definition: a tenacious person with unusually keen foresight who works hard in accomplishing goals that will be of great benefit to society.”
LaHenche replied on Dec 27, 2008 at 21:34:03
“How about "Futurists" or better yet, "The New Realists".
Bottom line, charity is the currency of the future. It's not how much you have, but what you have to share.”
Bottom line, charity is the currency of the future. It's not how much you have, but what you have to share.”
Karl Rove, Washington Media's Conspiracy of Silence, and the Holder Nomination
Commented Dec 16, 2008 at 16:57:39 in Media
“Is there anything--
BTW, nice reference to Jackson and Thriller after Rove's "moonwalking" stunt at the correspondents' dinner. Which is more responsible for their treatment: that "we're all playing our roles in this game--just politics, nothing personal" or fear of his persistent capacity for evil?”
BTW, nice reference to Jackson and Thriller after Rove's "moonwalking" stunt at the correspondents' dinner. Which is more responsible for their treatment: that "we're all playing our roles in this game--just politics, nothing personal" or fear of his persistent capacity for evil?”
Caroline's Consummate Qualifications
Commented Dec 16, 2008 at 16:29:01 in Politics
“Obviously the Kennedy legacy continues: Some people love them, and some people hate them. That includes Jane Hamsher. I wish Carmichael, Hamsher, and others would preface their remarks by saying, "This is why I'm biased [positively or negatively] toward the Kennedy's in general and/or Caroline in particular: X [whatever it is]. Now, having provided that disclaimer and putting personal bias aside, here are the reasons why she should or should not be considered for the job."”
Miami Basel Reflections
Commented Dec 15, 2008 at 16:58:10 in Style
“To what extent are you responding to the art *on* display, Ms. Brooks, and to what extent to the art *of* display (and of orchestrating publicity and ambiance)? Don't know the basis on which you selected the photos you share, but the results are truly fascinating. But not for reasons you would appreciate, I imagine.”
Colin Powell a Reformed Sinner?
Commented Dec 15, 2008 at 16:41:17 in Politics
“We really need to separate the issues here. (1) Do we believe that a person's honest opinion, once set, can never be changed? That opinions are unaffected by maturing and by changing personal/cultural circumstances? If not, we all should be held to the opinions we held as age 5 or 6. (2) If not, then what changes in learning, maturity, personal/cultural circumstances, etc. will be accepted as sufficient explanation for trusting a person's having had her or his "consciousness raised"? (3) Has Powell experienced those conditions? What talk is he talking right now? What walk is he walking right now?”
Things Fall Apart
Commented Dec 13, 2008 at 16:30:42 in Business
“This has been going on forever. Ask Duke Cunningham or Ted Stevens.”
Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Listen -- My Encounter with Fox News
Commented Dec 12, 2008 at 19:45:47 in Media
“Fox is by no stretch a legitimate news organizati
Forgive the mixed metaphors, but if they get to choose the ground of encounter, they get to set the rules, they get to control the on/off switch for the mikes, and they absolutely always get to fire the last shots? That can't even pass the laugh test, let alone pass for either fair or balanced.
Can't help thinking that the best strategy would be to de-legitimize them. In other words, to make obvious the blatant, bullying lack of legitimacy that has defined them from the get-go. Don't appear on their shows. Don't invite them to press events. Don't answer their questions (because you know that you'll be quoted out of context, misrepresented, and mocked).
But always, always repeat this mantra to explain your behavior: They are a propaganda mill, not a legitimate news organization. To treat them as legitimate is an insult to the integrity of the profession and a profound disservice to the honest civil discourse on which our democracy depends.”
Forgive the mixed metaphors, but if they get to choose the ground of encounter, they get to set the rules, they get to control the on/off switch for the mikes, and they absolutely always get to fire the last shots? That can't even pass the laugh test, let alone pass for either fair or balanced.
Can't help thinking that the best strategy would be to de-legitimize them. In other words, to make obvious the blatant, bullying lack of legitimacy that has defined them from the get-go. Don't appear on their shows. Don't invite them to press events. Don't answer their questions (because you know that you'll be quoted out of context, misrepresented, and mocked).
But always, always repeat this mantra to explain your behavior: They are a propaganda mill, not a legitimate news organization. To treat them as legitimate is an insult to the integrity of the profession and a profound disservice to the honest civil discourse on which our democracy depends.”
Now, Finally, We Can Clean Up This State
Commented Dec 09, 2008 at 18:55:22 in Chicago
“Change the law? Not the kind of law suggested here. Special election? No.
Laws should be based on strategy, not tactics. Laws should be changed after due deliberation and research, not after a neurologist's rubber hammer causes the collective knee to jerk. Laws should be proactive, not reactive.
Special election? Public funding, then I'm reluctantly OK with that. Otherwise, no. An expensive election campaign that will encourage pay to play financing? in response to a pay to play crime? Give us a break, please!
Doesn't the Illinois constitution specify succession? If you want to pass a law, then pass a law that says a governor under federal indictment must provisionally yield authority to the next in line--immediately. And then play power politics to ensure that the successor appoints a person of unquestionable cred to serve until the 2010 election.”
Laws should be based on strategy, not tactics. Laws should be changed after due deliberation and research, not after a neurologist's rubber hammer causes the collective knee to jerk. Laws should be proactive, not reactive.
Special election? Public funding, then I'm reluctantly OK with that. Otherwise, no. An expensive election campaign that will encourage pay to play financing? in response to a pay to play crime? Give us a break, please!
Doesn't the Illinois constitution specify succession? If you want to pass a law, then pass a law that says a governor under federal indictment must provisionally yield authority to the next in line--immediately. And then play power politics to ensure that the successor appoints a person of unquestionable cred to serve until the 2010 election.”
The Shameful Bloviation About Whether Caroline Kennedy Is "Qualified" To Be A Senator
Commented Dec 08, 2008 at 21:22:47 in Politics
“Reminds me of the Brit-Com series "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister." In other words, reminds me of a serious truth cloaked in comedy.
But Bobby (forgive the familiarity, sir) and his cousin Caroline (forgive the familiarity, ma'am) his cousin are seriously bright, educated, idealistic, socially committed, aware, caring, and understanding of "the system."
I'm a resident of Florida, and I would be ecstatically happy to trade either of these Kennedys for the greasy slimeball Mel Martinez..
But Bobby (forgive the familiarity, sir) and his cousin Caroline (forgive the familiarity, ma'am) his cousin are seriously bright, educated, idealistic, socially committed, aware, caring, and understanding of "the system."
I'm a resident of Florida, and I would be ecstatically happy to trade either of these Kennedys for the greasy slimeball Mel Martinez..
glorialovelace replied on Dec 08, 2008 at 22:03:00
“If you're a citizen of Florida, then it's really none of your business.”
1 - 25 of 87
