I'm sympathetic to Ron Paul and his libertarian principles.
I appreciate Romney's phenomenal record as a manager and his proven willingness to cross the aisle.
I stand with McCain regarding Iraq, possibly on immigration (don't know enough), global warming.
No one else worth commenting on. That includes the Dems, I just don't care yet.
Paul can't get elected, indeed he mustn't. But his popularity is a welcome message that fewer and fewer people will tolerate business as usual. I'm hoping he'll take all that money and make a 3rd Party bid, though of what party I don't know. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if he took a last-minute party-loyal stance and stood down at some point.
Romney would be all right except he remains as ambivalent as most of the rest on the waterboarding thing. Torture is torture and we shouldn't use it, end of story.
Which is how McCain feels.
So I'm hoping McCain lasts long enough for me to vote for him. Maybe the Governator will endorse him. That would be great.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
No Blood for No Nukes!
It's tempting to see the latest intelligence that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 as bad news for Darth Cheney and his evil oil-swallowing empire. Oh no! he growls, they'll never let me bomb Iran now, wheeze wheeze.
But it is good news, and I think you have to be pretty shortsighted not to draw connections between their halting that program in 2003, and the United States' deadly if unpredictable willingness to use force against regimes that flout UN directives also as demonstrated in 2003.
Of course, Little George keeps up the tough rhetoric. He is of the Admit No Wrong school, which has worked for many historical figures (though by no means all), so that's no surprise. But it is also no great cause for criticism that he, and us, kept up the pressure meanwhile. It would have been irresponsible not to. No one can deny Iran is currently run by very dangerous people. It was right for us to be the blue meanies so long as we weren't certain that their military nuclear program had truly been abandoned.
No doubt there's much more under the surface. Maybe we've known for years but have plausibly denied it so that we can keep that stick aloft over Iran's head. Maybe we are finally copping to the truth as part of a deal with Iran that will secure greater cooperation, or at least less interference, with our attempts to stabilize Iraq. That is of course how the game has always been played. And it's all to the good, if it means a) stability and eventual prosperity for the Iraqis and b) stability in the global oil markets. Stability is after all what businesspeople like. Not to get away with theft and all the trouble that ultimately brings, but simply the chance to increase their holdings of something reliable.
But I expect this creates a problem for certain critics of the entire enterprise. I wonder if perhaps it would be less disingenuous or at least more accurate for the old cry of No Blood For Oil to be amended as above.
But it is good news, and I think you have to be pretty shortsighted not to draw connections between their halting that program in 2003, and the United States' deadly if unpredictable willingness to use force against regimes that flout UN directives also as demonstrated in 2003.
Of course, Little George keeps up the tough rhetoric. He is of the Admit No Wrong school, which has worked for many historical figures (though by no means all), so that's no surprise. But it is also no great cause for criticism that he, and us, kept up the pressure meanwhile. It would have been irresponsible not to. No one can deny Iran is currently run by very dangerous people. It was right for us to be the blue meanies so long as we weren't certain that their military nuclear program had truly been abandoned.
No doubt there's much more under the surface. Maybe we've known for years but have plausibly denied it so that we can keep that stick aloft over Iran's head. Maybe we are finally copping to the truth as part of a deal with Iran that will secure greater cooperation, or at least less interference, with our attempts to stabilize Iraq. That is of course how the game has always been played. And it's all to the good, if it means a) stability and eventual prosperity for the Iraqis and b) stability in the global oil markets. Stability is after all what businesspeople like. Not to get away with theft and all the trouble that ultimately brings, but simply the chance to increase their holdings of something reliable.
But I expect this creates a problem for certain critics of the entire enterprise. I wonder if perhaps it would be less disingenuous or at least more accurate for the old cry of No Blood For Oil to be amended as above.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
What Does This Mean?
From the VOH:
The 103rd edition of Major League Baseball's World Series gets underway Wednesday in Boston as the Red Sox host the Colorado Rockies in Game One at Fenway Park Tuesday evening.Huh?
No Thoughts, Just Facts
Or is it no facts, just thoughts? No links, anyway.
ONE Today's news includes the fact that billions of dollars -- billions -- are lost and unaccounted for somewhere in the vast desert between State and its various "security contractors" operating in Iraq. I just want to say this should come as no surprise. Iraq is not a board game where you shuffle pieces around and simply try your best to focus firepower. It is a country, a rather large one, full of people who like people everywhere base their alliances on expediency. No doubt these security contractors have understood from Day One that the best thing to do with this situation was to bribe as many sheiks as possible in order to keep the levels of violence down, and off of this untraceable hoard skim a few millions for one's own extreme-risk-taking self. What's the point of being a mercenary if you don't become filthy rich?
TWO NPR has become as bad as every other news hack organization. Journalists are expected to report the facts, not deliver interpretations of the facts. This morning the report was on the wildfires currently raging down south. The Governator was reported to have said we had learned how to address disasters from previous mistakes -- "an apparent reference to Katrina and New Orleans." An apparent reference. Do journalists not yet understand that when they call something an apparent reference, it becomes a reference, and that the listening audience comes away believing that Schwartzy was referring to Katrina as the mistake "we" had learned from? Later, from the more local newscast, I heard Arnold speak directly. He was not referring to Katrina. He was referring to the wildfires of 2003. (If I was a paranoid right-winger I'd see deliberate partisanship in the journalist's redirection of Schwarzenegger's intent but of course I am not.)
ONE Today's news includes the fact that billions of dollars -- billions -- are lost and unaccounted for somewhere in the vast desert between State and its various "security contractors" operating in Iraq. I just want to say this should come as no surprise. Iraq is not a board game where you shuffle pieces around and simply try your best to focus firepower. It is a country, a rather large one, full of people who like people everywhere base their alliances on expediency. No doubt these security contractors have understood from Day One that the best thing to do with this situation was to bribe as many sheiks as possible in order to keep the levels of violence down, and off of this untraceable hoard skim a few millions for one's own extreme-risk-taking self. What's the point of being a mercenary if you don't become filthy rich?
TWO NPR has become as bad as every other news hack organization. Journalists are expected to report the facts, not deliver interpretations of the facts. This morning the report was on the wildfires currently raging down south. The Governator was reported to have said we had learned how to address disasters from previous mistakes -- "an apparent reference to Katrina and New Orleans." An apparent reference. Do journalists not yet understand that when they call something an apparent reference, it becomes a reference, and that the listening audience comes away believing that Schwartzy was referring to Katrina as the mistake "we" had learned from? Later, from the more local newscast, I heard Arnold speak directly. He was not referring to Katrina. He was referring to the wildfires of 2003. (If I was a paranoid right-winger I'd see deliberate partisanship in the journalist's redirection of Schwarzenegger's intent but of course I am not.)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Sheikdown
The death of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha is no surprise. When I saw the picture of him shaking hands with GWB my first thought was that he looked like he'd just been talked into swallowing a live rat, immediately followed by an expectation that someone would get him for it. And so they did.
What have I got to say about it? Nothing. I'd like everyone over there to recognize that it is in their interests to try and get along, but that ain't gonna happen. Conflict, blood-feuds and war are endemic to that part of the world. It seems to spring out of the very ground. We didn't start it and we ain't gonna end it.
What have I got to say about it? Nothing. I'd like everyone over there to recognize that it is in their interests to try and get along, but that ain't gonna happen. Conflict, blood-feuds and war are endemic to that part of the world. It seems to spring out of the very ground. We didn't start it and we ain't gonna end it.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Evil Jew
Well, I only know of one. But that's a hell of a headline, isn't it?
Netanyahu, crowned in recent polls as the front-runner for Israel's top job, faced off against far-right West Bank settler Moshe Feiglin, who would bar Arabs from Israel's parliament and favors their emigration. (AP - Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:57:33 -0400 (EDT))That's some evil shit right there. I'm just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
