In the same way we wondered if Bush was evil or just stupid, now we are confronted with the almost same question in an only slightly new guise: is Obama just bland or is he cynical?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
I know sometimes I can be a bit of a blowhard. As liberal as I am at heart, I still bleed red, white and blue. And so I just gotta say, thank God they finally got Osama. But I also want to say: Pakistan has been shitting on us and taking our money for 10 years and it’s gotta stop. There is no way we ought to continue to put up with that.
In today’s New York Times, the Pakistan government, probably as a cover for the extreme embarrassment or, worse, complicity in having the world’s most wanted criminal living in luxury a few miles from their capital and #1 military training center, said that our incursion into their country was a crime, that they would retaliate, and blah blah blah.
Here are the facts: Whether or not a crowd of thugs chanting USA! USA! after somebody gets killed makes you quesy (it makes me quesy), there is simply no doubt that Osama bin Laden was a really messed up, bad guy, who has the blood of thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of human lives on his hands. Not only did he admit (brag) about it, there is, as they say, a preponderance of evidence that he was really and truly behind some very heinous acts of terrorism. Try this link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3559086/Life-and-crimes-of-Osama-bin-Laden.html.
The other interesting fact is that the USA carried out an extra-judicial killing and made it totally public. This is a new MO for us, and obviously I am all for it. I applaud the transparency, and willingness of our President to send real people in to kill him, vs. the bombing the bunker approach most of his aides favored.
But now that Osama dead, where from here?
We’re giving Pakistan $1.5 billion per year. That’s $15 billion dollars since 9-11. What if Obama said in the coming days, “I’ve reviewed the budget, with an eye to fiscal responsibility, and it occurs to me that Pakistan is actually not our friend at all, and in fact is completely playing us for fools.” And then cut that line item? And then gave that money to the American people? We would all get a check for $1,500! Take that Mr. “it’s your money” George Bush!
The whole nature of this “aid” we give their corrupt, lying and inept government is that they are using us as a chess piece in their game against India. All they want is 1) our money, 2) for the current state of chaos to continue forever in a condition where they manage the source of the disruptions as the sponsors, sub rosa, of the Taliban, particularly of the radical, or Al Quada, part of the Taliban.
Bush, who was behind starting this “special relationship,” realized how lame our position was toward the end, and Obama knew it from the beginning, but hasn’t had any cover to get out of it, perhaps, and hopefully, until now. Nor has he had any cover to bail on Afghanistan, again, hopefully, until now.
Karzai is an international criminal, another true bad guy, and not our friend in any way. We need to stop playing nice with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and probably a bunch of other “Stans” as well. Why? Because it’s only going to get worse, so we might as well take our medicine now. We cannot be the world’s policeman, and in that sense I am with Ron Paul.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? Please! Yes, I know there is quite a bit on his plate, and he's clearly not afraid to bite into everything. But something is missing, and it’s come to the point that everybody kinda knows. What's missing is an overarching expression of what all these bites add up to. Ironically, he came into office promising radical change, but we're less clear from him than almost anybody of: What does a world that works look like so we can all do our part? We crave, and need to hear, from his perspective, what's broken and how it might get fixed. Without an articulated vision of where we are all going, the sum of these parts will remain elusive.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
President Obama brings me to what? (2009-11-24 13:02:46)
Event Playback: http://news.jschina.com.cn/focus/200911/t243541.shtml
Sina today, the staff of the teachers through the school made contact with me the hope that I can look through the blog to express their feelings.
Obama attended the dialogue meeting with China's youth day, students came I quarters, said: "You are online red!" And helped me found a "behind Obama's black" At that time there have been some news that I learned this, the forum also have different opinions, the comments of some very elegant I am very angry, so would like to reply excuse can be very busy as usual, did not enter some mainstream forums, when I delivered a message to be displayed when I have to login, there is no account should apply for. Misunderstanding to see the news has been with the hour increments, I think that by virtue of the strength of a person simply can not shake the network transmission speed, even if the excuse is it's pale and weak, so I have adopted an evasive attitude, recently inquired about the matter SMS and phone has been constantly, I have every right to ask friends who are warning: "Do not to disclose any information, I do not go to points, relevant news, and so everyone's enthusiasm over two days, and posts will sink of the. "contingent things not my expectation, my silence instead give rise to more speculation. To communicate with the staff after Sina, I think, through this platform with you sincerely to say something is a good solution.
Relevant media calm demeanor and self-confidence through the eyes of a student I can not be inferred, however, I hereby declare that I was a National Chiao Tung University students in reading. There is no innate confidence, and only continued to develop confidence. I have to admit that my quality of this aspect of my childhood with his family culture and well-separated from the scene, I am six years old the first time the violin and performed, and filmed even after thedrama, did host, image ambassador, have received a lot of interviews (by virtue of which is my personal efforts and natural gift of how many lucky in no way rely on any outside force to take. We can not because of dissatisfaction with the real world events, they negate everything), so for the camera I is no stranger to the front of the camera will not be nervous, but it may be placed for the evaluation of film I find it very odd, I think I said, you also clearly do not we see how the U.S. president to go through strict security checks, in addition to other journalists who are not can take the camera into the venue, and our students have even mobile phones are not allowed in, how to self-hype? Moreover, I also thought about things and therefore red, thoughtful people are clear, entertainment news like tea, the first talk like washing tea, no use, too little attention to the person. Perhaps the second and third will overflow aroma, but in the end the more goods, the more light. After several rounds, who would remember me? I can do for you is left behind? Before I shoot a film performances are just out of interest and personal favorite, but also out of touch of the existing rebellion psychological point of view, because of the general people for high-educated women have a misconception, I hope that through me into some problems that are inherent in the view. However, we must never thought to enter the entertainment circle, so in the face of television media, signed letters of appointment and culture I have rejected the book, I am by no means it is not other-worldly air did not hesitate and hesitant, but I think that economic management should be part of My longer-term one way, so I have to study hard and was admitted to the University entrance examination is normal rather than art into a class identity.
Second, why do I sit in that position?
Participate in the meeting of the students from Shanghai's nine colleges and universities, each school is allocated a fixed seat, I am sitting at a table is the National Chiao Tung University, one share of seats, without special debugging. But also there are some people's point of view on the mirror is much better than me, why they are not speculative purposes? As for the sitting of the correct, we know that this meeting will be broadcast live worldwide via the Internet, I represent not only my own image, the image of our school, but also represent our country's image, how do I relax?
Third, why do I want to publicly take off jacket?
Because it is an important meeting, needs to wear a dress to show respect. I chose to highlight their fear of simple black shirt, but in Shanghai a few days ago the weather or the weather we should have a country feel. Clearly remember the day when Shanghai was also raining in the morning only a few degrees above zero, I wear a jacket should also be reasonable that bar. We entered the hall waiting to enter the venue I'll coat off, and then Obama did not appear, I know where there will be a press photo at this time. Because Obama is wearing a suit, so the actual temperature of the venue is not particularly high, I wish I could have been wearing, but if I'm really wearing a red jacket appears in the lens, in accordance with User's comments I was not more of the want to be famous like crazy?
4, for comment on the attitude of
Although the individual comments from netizens wounding, but you can understand, maybe just through me to certain phenomena of social criticism, but in this I became an innocent victim. But for some of the influential person on the network, not after an investigation on the big comment, actually claimed that it had female officials in the self-hype, in the dialogue meeting between China's youth actually appear on the female officials? Did you even read the title failed to make improper comments, and wants to know that you are the leader in public opinion, such an irresponsible move in the end is to hurt someone else or in violation of its own credibility?
Destruction of people as long as the word, to cultivate a person have to 1000 words, mouth Xia Liuqing Bar ~
Mystery has been lifted, we no longer have to bother guessing, the most recent study life plagued by a certain hope that will quickly restore calm, I like small animals, because they are so cute and simple. Hope that after this I can continue to do simply self. Presented a small kangaroo photo, I wish you happy, all the best ~
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
This Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible set of headlines is really one of the sickest flailings yet to emerge from the McCain side of the 2008 Presidential campaign.
In a nutshell, James Dobson, a right wing evangelist who has a huge following and a radio show called Focus on the Family, has said of Obama: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson went on to say: "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
So what did Obama do? He simply raised the very important question about how to interpret the Bible, asking what do we want to take literally and what don’t we. Obama preached tolerance and acceptance of our emerging diversity. He said, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"
Obama pointed to passages such as the Sermon on the Mount, and sections of Leviticus that refer to Jewish dietary law and asked questions such as whether we accept the slave-owning laws along with the more relevant laws. It was this attempt by Obama to refer to these different sections that most offended Dobson. Dobson essentially said how dare Obama equate these Old and New Testament portions -- hence his “gutter” comment.
I think it’s critical at this juncture that the Obama camp hit back hard at what is clearly the most obvious vulnerability of Dobson’s attack. Namely, Lou Dobson is being anti-Semetic by refusing to include Old testament theology in what he deems are valid biblical sources.
As most of the Muslim world knows, I, Uncle Sam, am somewhat Jewish (that's part of why I get called the "American Satan"), and so I can assure Mr. Dobson that Jewish dietary laws are neither trivial nor archaic. Whether from that book we call the Tree of Life, also known as the Five Books of Moses, what most would acknowledge is the foundation of the religion we call Christianity, it is absolutely valid to use as examples the Sermon on the Mount and the Hebrew laws of the Kashrut. There is nothing distorted about using not just these two, but any two (or more) biblical passages to learn about what teachings to truly take away from the Bible. Indeed, ancient Talmudic scholars would often debate by sticking a pin through the Bible, and then the Rabbis would discuss all the ways a divine thread links all the verses touched by the pin.
As Jews, we find God himself alive in these simple dietary laws Dobson derides. Indeed, we find Him most alive and exhalted when we carry these laws out. By living God’s law in our daily acts we create heaven on earth.
Mr. Dobson, you can keep telling your followers the lie that all they need to do is believe to be saved. The rest of us will continue our focus on the day-to-day things we can do to make a Godly world a reality here on earth. And I think we’re in increasing agreement that one of those things is to come together to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.
Monday, April 21, 2008
If anything makes me vote against Hillary (besides her war vote), it’s the vibe I get of the kind of operation she runs. It’s apparently a really gross club of egomaniacs, old school nasties and rat-f*#%ers (that's actually a political term from the Nixon days), infant terribles and power-hungry politico-freaks that I do not want assuming the core leadership positions of my country. Doesn’t it count for something that Obama has maintained amazing espirit de corps and discipline of the troops in a decidedly non-Republican way? Or that the management style of Obama’s campaign would obviously to some extent translate to the White House? I won’t print it all here, but read this amazing diatribe on what it’s like inside Team Hillary and tell me why it will be that different were she to be Prez, or for that matter, that it’s that different from what Bill’s romp was?
And now, with one day to go before Pennsylvania votes, Chris Durang wrote a great, if somewhat rambling, piece for the Huffington Post today. He really pulls some key facts out of the whole melange to make the case against Hilary and for Obama, so I’ll just let him take it away:
Obama, not at the time in the Senate, gave a speech against the war that was smart and saw many of the problems that we ended up having with this wrong invasion. (Here's the speech.)
But consider two other things about Hillary's vote:
There was a substantial number of Democrats, unlike Hillary, who indeed voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war (if and when he felt like it).
21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. That's 42% of Democratic Senators who Hillary did not join in voting against the authorization.
Those 21 Democrats were: Senators Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
Also voting against it was 1 Republican, Sen. Chafee (R-RI), and one independent, Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).
All those Senators, some of whom took the time to read the N.I.E. which included some of the intelligence opinion that did NOT favor invasion, voted against the resolution. Senator Durbin in particular urged people to read the N.I.E. and said it influenced his decision to vote against authorization. But the pressure to go to war was high, and most Senators did not read it. (I think Hillary did not; I came across articles where it seems she refused to answer if she had. Then I gave up looking.)
However, there was something else Hillary did not vote for. She did not vote for the Levin amendment, offered at the same time, that would have caused the president to return to Congress one more time before deciding to invade Iraq.
I came across an op-ed piece written by Senator Chafee (the one Republican who was against the authorization). It describes the amendment well.
And Hillary's not voting for this is a further example of bad judgment by her (and many other Senators). Because it's about war, and many have died (Americans and Iraqis) and five years later it's still not done. So this was a serious lapse in judgment.
I hope you'll read the whole Chafee piece but here are some quotes from it:
A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.
Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.
...To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine.
Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq -- whether by force or diplomacy -- would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.
We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region -- Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."
Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23.
Hillary was one of the 29 Democrats who joined the Republicans to make 77 votes authorizing this war that has turned out to be a disaster and an enormous economic drain.
There were 21 Democrats who knew better. As did Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and many Democratic Congress people).
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
We’ve heard it bleated to death: Barack Obama’s claim that the reason people resist supporting him is because they’re bitter about the economy, and so hold on to the values they know, their religion and their guns, and become single issue voters. The point he made is so obviously true it’s amazing he was even challenged on it. But in a low blow in a campaign of low blows, Hillary Clinton decided this was her best shot, and she took it. Playing to the mob, and indeed the lowest common denominator in the mob, she pounced with all her Battle of the Bulge remaining resources, and yelled to the crowd, “He’s saying you’re stupid! He’s talking about you, you idiots!” If there ever was a cynical ploy, this was it.
The saddest and most ironic thing about it is that at the end of a pretty impressive liberal career, fighting Watergate, fighting for Health Care, fighting for women’s issues, Hillary has been so bludgeoned by the “right wing conspiracy” that she has actually become more than its victim, she’s become it’s puppet. After Ken Starr and the humiliation of the whole scandal-plagued presidency of her husband, which she really did seem to have stuck with to have her own shot at the title, she’s so scarred by the “republican playbook” that she can’t help but, in her death thoes, emulate it. It’s like Stockholm Syndrome, the documented strange human quality where you begin to identify with your tormentors. Hillary’s demagoguery defines her finally as those she’s fought to expose. Who but she knows better the truth in Obama’s explanation. The “bitter” ploy was base and baseless.
Since this website is rapidly turning into “What Obama Should Say Now,” let’s just conjure with that theme a little further and offer our best thoughts on his response. Tonight is the debate, and I think he should say, “Sorry if the truth hurts, but this is a big country, and that’s the way some people are. If you’re not used to this kind of straight talk, get used to it. Because if I’m President you’re going to hear a lot more of it. Until we’re honest about who we are, we’re not going to change how we are.” The other thing he could say, or point out, or somebody other than him could point out, is that he was being nice. He was essentially being asked why people might be prejudiced against voting for him, and rather than say “Because they’re racist,” he said, “Because they’re hurt.” That’s the mark of who he is, and that’s emblematic of the new politics he’s been talking about. He should, and we should, be proud of that.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Protests in the city streets tonight. Olympic torch ironically headed for China due in San Francisco tomorrow. Hopefully tomorrow San Francisco will take the torch hostage. It could happen. See it with me: A guy dressed as Spock gives the torch runner a Vulcan nerve pinch because he’s really a martial arts master and knows how to knock the guy out with the least amount of effort. Our eco-performance artist terroir-ist grabs the fallen torch, and he tosses it to his buddy who evades security by driving through the pylons in a Smart Car, whereupon a bike messenger whizzes by and snags it. The torch ends up at Land’s End broadcast by live video feed: “China! We have your torch! You will not see it again until you stop torturing innocents and free Tibet!” So we send it out, a live broadcast on the Internet. It would work even if we don’t capture it. Who would know? “We have your torch. We have taken it hostage. “
Cut to live video from our eco-cave, with a parallel feed on Mapquest, showing the suspected site of the sequestered torch. As authorities rush to the spot, the live video shows our heroes chucking it out to sea, via catapult, where the Greenpeace Warrior is waiting offshore. As it’s thrown the eco-hero yells: “China, come and get it!” The Warrior, populated by among others a few Burners Without Borders with long telescoping nets, reaches out and grabs the catapulted torch. Now the torch is 500 yards off shore on a boat with state of the art broadcasting. A call to arms goes out, as people from all over the Bay Area swarm the old Battery, the Presidio, and Lands End, massing on the cliffs, waiting for an attack by China. The city is actually at peace, but as performance art it's war, and anyway if it’s live on the Web and TV it's really happening. All over the world the story rings out: “San Francisco took the torch hostage!” Mayor Newsom is briefed, and he’s into the drama. He holds a news conference during the crisis, laughing, saying, “Well, looks like the torch has been taken hostage. It is crazy San Francisco. I hear some guy has the torch in a cave somewhere in the Presidio.”
I'm just saying it's: “Come and get me China!” time. I'm just having a vision. I see all of America coming to our shores to defend this country. Not against an attack by sea, but against an attack we don't see. We begin to say it together: “Free Tibet, China.” Uncle Sam sez: Let’s have the guts Reagan did when he stood up to the Berlin Wall. Let's make sure the message is not lost: Free these people, China.