May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
HansB
Recent comments by this user
GOP' Needs New Slogan
We're not racist, but the Chinese won't lend money to a black man. posted 05/17/2008 at 13:28:57
Obama Responds To Bush, McCain Appeasement Attack
Yes, but will it matter? posted 05/17/2008 at 11:35:15
Obama Memo: 17 Pledged Delegates Away From Winning Primaries
You forgot Haile Selasie, Khomeini, Mobuto, Hitler and Ghenghis Khan. Sigh. posted 05/16/2008 at 19:10:39
Electing Sweetie
Summary of this article: vote for Hillary because she's not nice. Did I get that correctly? What a compliment, coming from a supporter and all.
Expanded summary: Obama is like Bush because he's nice, so that means he'll start a new war, nice people always do. Hillary is not nice and so not at all like Bush, despite having voted for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, and despite having bankrupted her campaign in much the same way Bush bankrupted the nation - by throwing millions at incompetent cronies.
Still correct? Or am I just dumb? posted 05/16/2008 at 19:00:35
Expanded summary: Obama is like Bush because he's nice, so that means he'll start a new war, nice people always do. Hillary is not nice and so not at all like Bush, despite having voted for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, and despite having bankrupted her campaign in much the same way Bush bankrupted the nation - by throwing millions at incompetent cronies.
Still correct? Or am I just dumb? posted 05/16/2008 at 19:00:35
Obama Superdelegates: Waxman And Berman
She did stop. So softnsweet may be right. posted 05/15/2008 at 16:38:04
Absolutely. Bashing Hillary is soooo yesterday. posted 05/15/2008 at 16:36:42
Edwards Delegates Switches To Obama
Street money is not bribery, it's salary. Consultants get millions, door-to-door activists get pennies. That doesn't make the former honest and the latter corrupt. posted 05/15/2008 at 16:24:10
Olbermann To Bush: "This War Is Not About You...Shut The Hell Up!"
You can't be all things to all people all of the time... He started expressing anger at a time when everyone else still thought anger was impolite. Someone had to do it! posted 05/15/2008 at 05:06:40
Obama Hamas Smear: Clinton Says It Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously
"Israel WOULD cease all attacks..."
If only that were true. In reality, the Palestinians have been punished every time they kept quiet through stepped-up settlement activity. Conversely, during the intifadas settlement activity decreased. Right now there are no settlements in the Gaza strip from which rockets and terrorist attacks are launched, while a huge land grab is taking place in the West Bank from where no violence against Jews is being launched.
The problem is that Israel doesn't use the carrot and the stick, just the stick, and it hits hardest with the stick when the Palestinians do as they are being asked to do. posted 05/15/2008 at 03:55:18
If only that were true. In reality, the Palestinians have been punished every time they kept quiet through stepped-up settlement activity. Conversely, during the intifadas settlement activity decreased. Right now there are no settlements in the Gaza strip from which rockets and terrorist attacks are launched, while a huge land grab is taking place in the West Bank from where no violence against Jews is being launched.
The problem is that Israel doesn't use the carrot and the stick, just the stick, and it hits hardest with the stick when the Palestinians do as they are being asked to do. posted 05/15/2008 at 03:55:18
John Edwards Endorses Obama... GOP Prospects "Worst Since Watergate"
I am impressed. I always thought that Edwards was waiting this out, hoping to use his position to heal the bruises of the nomination process. Now he (my guess) apparently thinks it's going on too long and the time to heal is now.
And he chose his moment well, when Hillary just posted a big win (so his endorsement of her rival wouldn't look like kicking down on her) and when the supers are silent.
This is Hillary's chance to leave the stage with her head held high. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:48:59
And he chose his moment well, when Hillary just posted a big win (so his endorsement of her rival wouldn't look like kicking down on her) and when the supers are silent.
This is Hillary's chance to leave the stage with her head held high. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:48:59
But how does Barney feel about it? posted 05/14/2008 at 17:40:20
Hillary and the Unfeminine Mystique
He wasn't. Even when Clinton was prez it was well-known that his wife was more hawkish than he was. posted 05/13/2008 at 18:07:43
The moral for now is quite the opposite: without a head start given by her husband, a woman can't make it to the political top tier. Hillary president of the USA would have been like Benazir Bhutto prime minister of Pakistan, Mrs Bandaranaike PM of Sri Lanka, etc. When you need a male family member's coattails to go far in politics, your country is not emancipated. Why wasn't the female presidential candidate called Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius or Barbara Boxer? Because they didn't have a head start provided by a husband.
Great article by the way. I live in France where, during the last presidential elections, the socialist candidate was a woman. She ran her campaign quite differently from Hillary, stressing her feminine side and contrasting it with Sarkozy's style. Almost made it, too. (Unfortunately she proved to be a terrible debater, and she didn't get her own party quite on board either - partly for misogynic reasons.) posted 05/13/2008 at 18:01:50
Great article by the way. I live in France where, during the last presidential elections, the socialist candidate was a woman. She ran her campaign quite differently from Hillary, stressing her feminine side and contrasting it with Sarkozy's style. Almost made it, too. (Unfortunately she proved to be a terrible debater, and she didn't get her own party quite on board either - partly for misogynic reasons.) posted 05/13/2008 at 18:01:50
Bush In Israel: Standing With One Side
Ever met a Palestinian? Apparently not. I've met plenty and none of them ever said anything like that. posted 05/13/2008 at 09:14:43
Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption
Or the other way around: al-Maliki studied and emulated Bush administration corruption. And learned well. In any case you're right in saying the two go hand in hand. posted 05/13/2008 at 12:02:17
Young Evangelicals Abandoning GOP Over Iraq, Economy
Hinnis, I'm seeing you copy these quotes from James Cone all over the place. Please, you yourself link (elsewhere, where I first saw you write these comments) to Rev. Wright's website, read it. It directly contradicts Cone in accepting whites - as does Rev Wright in his church - and making clear that it does NOT consider blacks superior. It is true that Wright refers to Cone, but he doesn't say his church subscribes to Cone's writings, but that they start from there, which is something different.
What you are saying is that Obama should be held responsible for the writings of a person contradicted by a preacher he has distanced himself from. That's worse than guilt by association, it is guilt by non-association by non-association. It's like saying, Obama is black so he must hate whites because he disagrees with blacks who hated whites. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense. posted 05/13/2008 at 09:36:35
What you are saying is that Obama should be held responsible for the writings of a person contradicted by a preacher he has distanced himself from. That's worse than guilt by association, it is guilt by non-association by non-association. It's like saying, Obama is black so he must hate whites because he disagrees with blacks who hated whites. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense. posted 05/13/2008 at 09:36:35
"Saturday Night Live's" Message From Hillary Clinton: "I Have No Ethical Standards" (VIDEO)
I think it is rather obviously Clinton who is making the point that half of the Democratic Party is racist and won't vote for a black, and Obama who is denying it. If he believed that many Dem voters were racist, he wouldn't believe in his candidacy, would he. posted 05/11/2008 at 17:23:25
Michelle Vetoes Hillary As Veep Pick
How's this for an insight in the Novak world: "Strickland would bring... moderation (rated "A" by the National Rifle Association)."
I have nothing either for or against Strickland, but Novak... posted 05/11/2008 at 08:42:09
I have nothing either for or against Strickland, but Novak... posted 05/11/2008 at 08:42:09
Obama's Vice President: Who Will It Be? (POLL)
Thank you for the link. Charismatic yet ordinary guy... sounds good and very trustworthy. Except for the first part, where he talks about staying in the Middle East for a hundred years or so... posted 05/13/2008 at 03:48:24
Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?
I wonder about two contentions in this article.
(1) Would a foreign policy expert really highlight Obama's inexperience? When Clinton chose Gore, that didn't highlight Clinton's shortcomings but reassured people. Same could be true for Richardson.
(2) Is geographical (or for that matter any other kind of) balance really necessary? Again, Clinton would never have chosen fellow baby-boomer, south-eastern Democrat Gore if balance was everything. (By contrast, we all know how disastrous Gore's decision to "balance" the ticket by taking Lieberman was.) So Sebelius is not geographically "out" in my eyes.
In any case a hard choice! The Dem Party is so full of quality nowadays... compare that to McCain's trouble with finding a veep with an IQ over 100, not too many scandals, at least a teensy weensy little bit of knowledge of the world, and so on... posted 05/13/2008 at 04:01:44
(1) Would a foreign policy expert really highlight Obama's inexperience? When Clinton chose Gore, that didn't highlight Clinton's shortcomings but reassured people. Same could be true for Richardson.
(2) Is geographical (or for that matter any other kind of) balance really necessary? Again, Clinton would never have chosen fellow baby-boomer, south-eastern Democrat Gore if balance was everything. (By contrast, we all know how disastrous Gore's decision to "balance" the ticket by taking Lieberman was.) So Sebelius is not geographically "out" in my eyes.
In any case a hard choice! The Dem Party is so full of quality nowadays... compare that to McCain's trouble with finding a veep with an IQ over 100, not too many scandals, at least a teensy weensy little bit of knowledge of the world, and so on... posted 05/13/2008 at 04:01:44
Obama Hits Hamas "Smear": McCain Is "Losing His Bearings"
Good questions. Hamas is a big organization, known in the US only for its terrorist activities but which does much more - like Hezbollah in Lebanon. It gained popularity not with terrorism but with social services. It won the Palestinian elections not with terrorism but by being free of corruption, as opposed to the groups and people the US continues to sponsor. The Hamas member who "endorsed" Obama is Ahmed Yousef, political advisor to (elected) prime minister Haniyeh. He is apparently not considered a terrorist, otherwise the Washington Post - hardly known for its pro-Palestinian views - wouldn't have run an opinion article written by him. If you're interested, here's the link (I believe subscription is required but it's free): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901736.html
As for putting pressure on Israel, I doubt there's a Palestinian alive who thinks the US is ever going to do that again. The last US president to put pressure on Israel was George Bush Senior. It worked, too: settlement activity was halted. But that does seem long ago doesn't it. posted 05/09/2008 at 07:21:36
As for putting pressure on Israel, I doubt there's a Palestinian alive who thinks the US is ever going to do that again. The last US president to put pressure on Israel was George Bush Senior. It worked, too: settlement activity was halted. But that does seem long ago doesn't it. posted 05/09/2008 at 07:21:36
Hillary Will Drop Out by June 15
Hear, hear! Wonderful analysis. posted 05/07/2008 at 15:29:53
Thomas Frank On Obama: Not That Controversial
I think the reference is to this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24106234#24109989
Some groaning when she brings it up and stony silence when she spends minutes talking about it. Union audience. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:33:45
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24106234#24109989
Some groaning when she brings it up and stony silence when she spends minutes talking about it. Union audience. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:33:45
He didn't say you were bitter, did he? Just because an apple is red, doesn't mean everything that's red is an apple. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:16:54
US Economy Changes Spending Patterns For Majority, But Not For The Super Rich
"60% of Americans won't buy a home in the next 2 years."
What kind of title is that? Does it mean an astonishing 40% of Americans are going to buy a home in just two years?
How about: "60% of Americans won't fly in an airplane tomorrow."
Or: "60% of Americans have less than a billion dollars in their bank accounts."
At least, at the words "at least", as in "At least 60%...". Then the title will still be meaningless, but at least a safe bet. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:13:47
What kind of title is that? Does it mean an astonishing 40% of Americans are going to buy a home in just two years?
How about: "60% of Americans won't fly in an airplane tomorrow."
Or: "60% of Americans have less than a billion dollars in their bank accounts."
At least, at the words "at least", as in "At least 60%...". Then the title will still be meaningless, but at least a safe bet. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:13:47
Clinton Becomes A Gun Lover
You won't have a viable third party, because a third party can't win in a winner-take-all environment.
Note that in France, where third parties do exist (in parliament), they also participate in presidential elections without (usually) causing any harm. But that's because there's a run-off vote. If that had existed in the US in 2000, presumably enough Nader voters would have chosen Gore in the run-off election to deny Bush and his cronies the presidency. And a start would have been made to combat global warming, and there would have been no Iraq war, and inequality wouldn't have been nearly as bad, and so on.
In the US context a third party can only take off by starting at a local level (as with the socialist party senator from Vermont). But on a national level, taking votes from Obama and giving the victory to McCain is the equivalent of following Nader in 2000 and getting Bush.
It's not the "same old BS". It's important. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:06:44
Note that in France, where third parties do exist (in parliament), they also participate in presidential elections without (usually) causing any harm. But that's because there's a run-off vote. If that had existed in the US in 2000, presumably enough Nader voters would have chosen Gore in the run-off election to deny Bush and his cronies the presidency. And a start would have been made to combat global warming, and there would have been no Iraq war, and inequality wouldn't have been nearly as bad, and so on.
In the US context a third party can only take off by starting at a local level (as with the socialist party senator from Vermont). But on a national level, taking votes from Obama and giving the victory to McCain is the equivalent of following Nader in 2000 and getting Bush.
It's not the "same old BS". It's important. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:06:44
This is news? Jeez. First Obama gets slammed for badly phrasing his viewpoint on rust belt towns being ignored by politicians. Now Hillary gets ridiculed because she smalltalks about hunting when she happens to be in a hunting district (what was she supposed to talk about, the latest Broadway production?). And Bush talks about having approved torture talks in the White House, but that's on the "seldom viewed" page.
The lesson: Dems should shut up because anything, literally anything, they say will be used against them. Repubs can speak up because nothing, literally nothing, they say shocks anyone any more. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:11:32
The lesson: Dems should shut up because anything, literally anything, they say will be used against them. Repubs can speak up because nothing, literally nothing, they say shocks anyone any more. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:11:32
Here We Go Again
Good article. The "scandal" about Obama's remarks is ridiculous. Calling him "out of touch" is worse than that. It reminds me of my days in advertising, when my employer impressed upon me - and forced me to obey - the golden rule of communications: the public should be treated as a ten-year-old child. That was one of the reasons I changed my profession. But I see these same techniques used now, by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns. Obama uses long sentences, analyzes situations, talks to the public as though they were adults? "Out of touch". Someone who is in touch knows how communications work. No more than six words in a sentence. No complicated thoughts. Endless repetition of clichés. That's "in touch". Ask any communications expert.
What Obama should have done, when asked why Rust Belt electors vote for the very people who destroy their local economy, was say, "Well, I certainly hope they will vote for me. Because you know, it's Morning in America again. And these people are so courageous. And I admire them so. So that's my analysis." And the chattering classes would have applauded, because that is how they think a politician should talk. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:56:12
What Obama should have done, when asked why Rust Belt electors vote for the very people who destroy their local economy, was say, "Well, I certainly hope they will vote for me. Because you know, it's Morning in America again. And these people are so courageous. And I admire them so. So that's my analysis." And the chattering classes would have applauded, because that is how they think a politician should talk. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:56:12
Obama 'Small Town' Comments Draw Fire, Support
A lot of ado about nothing. Jeez. Next they'll slam Obama for using a sentence that's longer than six words. "Elitist!" Or for putting a comma somewhere in a sentence. "Hesitant!" Or for having the number six somewhere in his license plate. "Satan!"
This is absolutely ridiculous. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:14:33
This is absolutely ridiculous. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:14:33
Erica Jong Rolls Out Every Liberal Cliche in Existence
I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous post. Erica Jong said none of the things you put in her mouth.
Good polemics can be fun to read. Your first reaction to her first post was all right. But this second post is awful. You're not engaging in polemics, but distorting what the other says and then responding to that distortion. Anyone can win an argument that way. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:34:49
Good polemics can be fun to read. Your first reaction to her first post was all right. But this second post is awful. You're not engaging in polemics, but distorting what the other says and then responding to that distortion. Anyone can win an argument that way. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:34:49
Richardson: Almost Backed Clinton, But Campaign "Really Ticked Me Off"
Edwards and Gore are probably waiting for the moment when the Democratic Party will need some healing. If they endorse either candidate, they won't be able to do it. Edwards knows he won't get the veep spot and Gore doesn't want it. They're staying out of it, with good reason.
Richardson by contrast would have been a good veep choice for Hillary (not for Obama). He is certainly not a nobody. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:33:23
Richardson by contrast would have been a good veep choice for Hillary (not for Obama). He is certainly not a nobody. posted 04/11/2008 at 20:33:23
Do you think politicians should appoint and endorse other politicians because of friendship, or because of capability?
Here's guessing that Clinton didn't appoint Richardson out of friendship, but because he was the best candidate for the job. (This is one thing that has to be said about Clinton: unlike Bush who bases his choices on cronyism, he hired talent.) And Richardson endorses the candidate he thinks is best for the job. You may disagree with that choice but there's nothing disloyal about it. As a politician Richardson owes loyalty to the people, not to a colleague. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:01:58
Here's guessing that Clinton didn't appoint Richardson out of friendship, but because he was the best candidate for the job. (This is one thing that has to be said about Clinton: unlike Bush who bases his choices on cronyism, he hired talent.) And Richardson endorses the candidate he thinks is best for the job. You may disagree with that choice but there's nothing disloyal about it. As a politician Richardson owes loyalty to the people, not to a colleague. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:01:58
No he isn't hoping for a post. He himself says he doesn't want a cabinet position because he's already been there. As for veep, if he had wanted that real bad he would have stuck with Clinton who might have given it to him. Obama can't afford an ethnic minority running mate.
All this bile against Richardson makes me sick. So maybe people disagree with his choice. That's okay. What's not okay is treating the guy like dirt just because he has a different opinion. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:52:40
All this bile against Richardson makes me sick. So maybe people disagree with his choice. That's okay. What's not okay is treating the guy like dirt just because he has a different opinion. posted 04/11/2008 at 18:52:40
The Swill from Bill
Thanks for a sensible post amid the screeching about Obama did this and Hillary did that. Whew! I tend to agree with your analysis. Maybe there's another factor as well: these past seven years have shown that you can tell lie after lie, even on matters of war, and get away with it. The idea that you can say anything and that people will just shrug if they learn it's untrue, is a pervasive one.
Except that it only works for Republicans. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:24:14
Except that it only works for Republicans. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:24:14
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus: US Forces Can Start Withdrawing
Thank you so much for the link. I read the testimony breathlessly. It is so detailed and clear about what is happening. posted 04/11/2008 at 06:35:13
John McCain Repeats Al-Qaida Shiite Confusion
Joe Biden is nowhere close to having his finger on the nuclear button. posted 04/08/2008 at 17:00:45
Who Can Beat McCain?
Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court, now THAT is what I call a brilliant idea. Sincerely. posted 04/13/2008 at 14:42:45
McCain Gets Facts Wrong On Iraq Again
The government didn't demand a ceasefire, but a laying down of weapons, and they didn't get it.
Al-Sadr asked for an end to arbitrary arrests of his people, and apparently got it, and also for his followers to be covered by the February amnesty law passed by parliament, and my betting is, he'll get it (or has got it, maybe) at least for some of them, even if the govt will stay quiet about it so as not to lose even more face.
Al-Sadr is the clear winner. And that is good news, because even if the Mahdi Army includes some criminals, so does the Iraqi Army (read Badr Brigade). Al-Sadr has the advantage of being a nationalist and being interested in putting humpty dumpty together again. Which distinguishes him from al-Maliki.
The US should stop playing the sectarian card and start supporting or at least negotiating with the nationalists. Even if that means that the Iraqis get to control their oil. posted 04/06/2008 at 17:43:49
Al-Sadr asked for an end to arbitrary arrests of his people, and apparently got it, and also for his followers to be covered by the February amnesty law passed by parliament, and my betting is, he'll get it (or has got it, maybe) at least for some of them, even if the govt will stay quiet about it so as not to lose even more face.
Al-Sadr is the clear winner. And that is good news, because even if the Mahdi Army includes some criminals, so does the Iraqi Army (read Badr Brigade). Al-Sadr has the advantage of being a nationalist and being interested in putting humpty dumpty together again. Which distinguishes him from al-Maliki.
The US should stop playing the sectarian card and start supporting or at least negotiating with the nationalists. Even if that means that the Iraqis get to control their oil. posted 04/06/2008 at 17:43:49
Letter From A Soldier: Answers You Won't Want To Hear
'cept that the Iraqis themselves (except the Kurds) are opposed to this idea. posted 04/02/2008 at 05:06:42
Feingold Calls Out Intel Chief For Saying Dems Want To Imprison Bush
McConnell giving credit where credit was not due. A lot of listeners must have thought, "Hey the Dems aren't that bad after all, I'll vote for them." posted 04/01/2008 at 14:08:25
Pennsylvania Voters Dismiss Obama's Momentum
"Our national avoirdupois"? Grammar, please. If you have one pea, it is "avoir UN pois". If you have several or many peas, it is "avoir DES pois". But "avoir DU pois", never, not even if pea consumption defines the US. Such a sans-poids statement. posted 04/01/2008 at 18:26:00
Truth is the First Casualty. Logic is the Second. The Democratic Party is the Third.
Agreed. It's going too far and it's becoming dangerous. The world can't afford Bush/Cheney/McCain III. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:43:45
Very, very interesting. Thank you. If you ever think of changing your profession, maybe you should consider journalism. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:39:50
I've heard that theory often and, after thinking about it, I believe it doesn't make sense. If she harms the Democratic Party too bad, she won't be an acceptable candidate in 2012.
My theory: she's creating so much bad blood that the only solution for Obama will be to offer her the veep slot. If she had been behaving like a good loser he'd say, "that's nice", and move on to choose a running mate he's comfortable with. But she's not, and so if she slams the door too many Dems stay at home on Election Day or even vote McCain.
Obama will swallow hard, and go along with an Obama-Clinton ticket. Could be worse. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:35:07
My theory: she's creating so much bad blood that the only solution for Obama will be to offer her the veep slot. If she had been behaving like a good loser he'd say, "that's nice", and move on to choose a running mate he's comfortable with. But she's not, and so if she slams the door too many Dems stay at home on Election Day or even vote McCain.
Obama will swallow hard, and go along with an Obama-Clinton ticket. Could be worse. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:35:07
Little Girl From Bosnia Scandal Shocked, "Surprised" By Clinton's Lie
I don't know. Seeing your photograph on page one of all the major newspapers is pretty good too! If she was clever, she could've gotten good money for the interview. In any case I don't trust the New York Post, even if this particular article showed both sides (Bosnians who were angry and Bosnians who shrugged). Gossip newspaper. posted 03/31/2008 at 19:03:43
The Fear Factor
This is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as it would be to say that people were afraid not to support Clinton out of fear of being called sexist. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:53:08
Tibet, Beijing and Olympic Sponsors: To Boycott or Not
I've never been to China but I have lived in Asia for a few decades, and I agree with the gist of this article. But unlike the author of this article I do think that the Games can be used for political leverage, if it is done in a timely manner and if the trade-off is an acceptable one for the Chinese.
For example, years ago environmental organizations threatened to give bad publicity to the Olympics if China went ahead with its plan to destroy all of Borneo's rainforests.
More recently there has been pressure for China to rein in the Sudanese government.
In both cases some results were obtained, because to the Chinese the success of the Games was worth the concession, and because there was no public loss of face. And so these actions were clever and useful. But China will never give up Tibet just to ensure the success of the Olympics. Nor will it be willing to lose face by giving in to a boycot threat. A boycot will do nothing for the Tibetans and only create hard feelings all around - in fact it will make life more difficult for the Tibetan people who will be blamed for the failure of the Games.
So we should cool it and see how we can work out an agreement which does not cause loss of face to anyone. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:40:49
For example, years ago environmental organizations threatened to give bad publicity to the Olympics if China went ahead with its plan to destroy all of Borneo's rainforests.
More recently there has been pressure for China to rein in the Sudanese government.
In both cases some results were obtained, because to the Chinese the success of the Games was worth the concession, and because there was no public loss of face. And so these actions were clever and useful. But China will never give up Tibet just to ensure the success of the Olympics. Nor will it be willing to lose face by giving in to a boycot threat. A boycot will do nothing for the Tibetans and only create hard feelings all around - in fact it will make life more difficult for the Tibetan people who will be blamed for the failure of the Games.
So we should cool it and see how we can work out an agreement which does not cause loss of face to anyone. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:40:49
Obama-Clinton: A Murder-Suicide in Progress, and How to Stop It
I liked the beginning, but when I saw point 3), I figured you might as well skip points 1) and 2):
"3) Should Obama face a situation that makes him completely unelectable before the convention, that should be self-evident, and he will end his campaign."
That's the situation now, isn't it: the Clintons trying to make him completely unelectable. So I don't quite see how your proposal will solve the problem. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:10:12
"3) Should Obama face a situation that makes him completely unelectable before the convention, that should be self-evident, and he will end his campaign."
That's the situation now, isn't it: the Clintons trying to make him completely unelectable. So I don't quite see how your proposal will solve the problem. posted 03/28/2008 at 21:10:12
US Forces Launch Airstrikes in Iraq
"Many of those groups are believed to receive weapons, money and training from nearby Iran."
Bullsh*. That's propaganda. Iran supports the Badr militia which is fighting alongside the Iraqi army against the Sadrists. The latter call for less Iranian influence in Iraq and are hardly going to get weapons, money and training for that.
First it was Iran supports Sunni insurgents, now it's that they support another nationalist group. If an accusation doesn't stick, try try again. It worked for Saddam, didn't it. In fact it's a matter of record that Iran opposes Iraqi nationalists and supports exactly the same Shiite sectarians that the US does: al-Maliki and his gang, and SCIRI. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:56:42
Bullsh*. That's propaganda. Iran supports the Badr militia which is fighting alongside the Iraqi army against the Sadrists. The latter call for less Iranian influence in Iraq and are hardly going to get weapons, money and training for that.
First it was Iran supports Sunni insurgents, now it's that they support another nationalist group. If an accusation doesn't stick, try try again. It worked for Saddam, didn't it. In fact it's a matter of record that Iran opposes Iraqi nationalists and supports exactly the same Shiite sectarians that the US does: al-Maliki and his gang, and SCIRI. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:56:42
Why the Administration Won't Define Success in Iraq
Great article. But the part about the Mahdi Army is incorrect, I believe. The Sadrists are nationalists, that is what opposes them to the Badr group and the al-Maliki government, who want Iraq to become a loose federation. Decentralization - or even disintegration - is also what the oil companies want, as well as the Bush administration. The US administration has consistently been on the side of sectarianism and against nationalism in Iraq.
By that measure, the present violence is indeed "success": the Iraqi army, aided by the Badr militia, is fighting the Shia nationalists rallying around Sadr. Bloody noses all around with little risk that Sadr will win, since the US can at all times simply lay its enormous finger on the scales.
Even so I'm betting that the Sadrists will remain strong and ultimately ally themselves with the (also nationalist) ex-Baathists to try to reconstitute Iraq as a centralized state. Which would be bad news for the Kurds.
What a mess. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:39:12
By that measure, the present violence is indeed "success": the Iraqi army, aided by the Badr militia, is fighting the Shia nationalists rallying around Sadr. Bloody noses all around with little risk that Sadr will win, since the US can at all times simply lay its enormous finger on the scales.
Even so I'm betting that the Sadrists will remain strong and ultimately ally themselves with the (also nationalist) ex-Baathists to try to reconstitute Iraq as a centralized state. Which would be bad news for the Kurds.
What a mess. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:39:12
U.S. Digital Deficiency Jeopardizes 'Super Power' Status
Because the US has put all its investment eggs in the military basket. Why, I don't know. It seems a funny choice for a country that doesn't have a single adversary on its continent. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:12:57
Militiamen Holding Out in Basra Fighting
And that's what will happen. These guys have so little imagination, you can write their script for them. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:11:18
Bin Laden has nothing to do with it. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:10:23
How Will Hillary's Bosnia "Whopper" Play in the Media?
WaPo definitely gives more space to conservatives like Krauthammer than to liberals. They definitely bought into the Iraq war and practically all of Bush's misinformation policy. They definitely are a million times more critical of Obama than of McCain (as opposed to the rest of the press, which is only ten thousand times more critical of Obama). They definitely and consistently opposed any action to combat global warming.
Conservatives always complain of liberal media bias not because it's true but as a matter of strategy. That way, the "liberal" media, in their eternal effort to be balanced, keeps giving them more and more columns, until you need a microscope to find anything vaguely progressive in their pages. posted 03/22/2008 at 19:10:42
Conservatives always complain of liberal media bias not because it's true but as a matter of strategy. That way, the "liberal" media, in their eternal effort to be balanced, keeps giving them more and more columns, until you need a microscope to find anything vaguely progressive in their pages. posted 03/22/2008 at 19:10:42
So you think Obama is the one who keeps hitting the race button? Unbelievable. And he - specifically, the very person who keeps saying that we should be talking about other issues - is the one who never talks about anything else? Your post is so full of falsehoods, I don't know where to start. posted 03/22/2008 at 19:03:29
A very mature point of view, I wish more people shared it. posted 03/22/2008 at 18:59:01
If you're right, the Republicans must be furious. After all, their strategy seems to be to dump as many problems as possible in the lap of the next president... so imagine if that's one of their own.
As Woody Allen said, no matter how cynical you are, it's hard to keep up. posted 03/22/2008 at 18:55:18
As Woody Allen said, no matter how cynical you are, it's hard to keep up. posted 03/22/2008 at 18:55:18
I don't think anyone's supporters are blindly behind anyone. Sure, there's an impassioned, tiny minority, but the majority seems to be open to evidence. A lot of people walked away from Obama because of the Wright affair, which doesn't mean they can't walk back. And a lot of people are abandoning Clinton because of her burn-the-bridges attitude, but maybe she can win them back too, by becoming more decent. posted 03/22/2008 at 18:45:14
The 100 Years War
Exactly! posted 03/21/2008 at 18:25:54
Joe Klein 'Stingray' Comment Shocks, Embarrasses CNN Colleagues
Same here. Sounds like an innocent if bad joke. Let's keep the outrage for when it's deserved and not go into fits for little things like this.
By the way Klein's columns are very, very nice to Obama at the moment. It doesn't hurt to have the MSM highlight his speech on race. posted 03/21/2008 at 06:55:13
By the way Klein's columns are very, very nice to Obama at the moment. It doesn't hurt to have the MSM highlight his speech on race. posted 03/21/2008 at 06:55:13
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The AP reports on Obama's swift and forceful response to Bush and McCain's criticism of...
The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few months ago,...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
Sixteen tips for getting good sleep. There's a lot of advice out there about getting good...
