Details are still coming in.
A fire at a large motel.
Sorry Charlie, but we want good history, not history that feels good,
That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).
As far as I know the Korean War isn’t over, and peace with honor was an ass kicking. Pretty much like Iraq and Afghanistan, America cannot fight and win wars built on hoaxes, and cannot fight and win wars without a total national effort, which four of the wars I mentioned lacked. No war was ever won by pundits in the Village, many were started and prolonged, but none have been won.
Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself — and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness.
The fact that the Soviet Union and Communist China were realities, and terror is an abstraction seems to be escaping you here. The reality of Russia and most favored nation Communist China still possess nuclear weapons, and Russia could conceivable pose an existential threat to the United States are realities, muggings I supposed you missed out on celebrating the Reagan revolution. Terrorist can and will continue to strike, kill and maim Americans, sometimes here at home. It’s a matter of when, not if. Is it worth undermining the Constitution to prevent? I don’t think so. Isn’t that what the DoJ investigations of the AP and James Rosen are ultimately about, Constitutional freedoms? The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Conservatives are pretty selective about which amendment should be enforced and which ones shouldn’t be, but that really isn’t an intellectual debate, it’s a political bludgeon, welded by witches that melt every time they are exposed to the waters of truth.
He admits that the AUMF establishes the basis both in domestic and international law to conduct crucial defensive operations, such as drone strikes. Why, then, abolish the authority to do what we sometimes need to do? Because that will make the war go away? Persuade our enemies to retire to their caves?
Because it consolidates war powers in the executive and absolves Congress of any responsibility for the conduct of wars, which they are Constitutionally charged with declaring. The President always will have the authority to launch drone strikes under one pretext or another anyway. Clinton was launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan before 2001, and for better or worse parts, if not all of those missiles ended up in most favored nation Communist China. For conservatives, lovers of individual liberty and small governments, this seems like an unwarranted intrusion on individuals rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, the last being what many conservatives fear most about gun control legislation were they to bother thinking these things through.
This is John Lennon, bumper-sticker foreign policy — Imagine World Peace. Obama pretends that the tide of war is receding. But it’s demonstrably not. It’s metastasizing to Mali, to the Algerian desert, to the North African states falling under the Muslim Brotherhood, to Yemen, to the savage civil war in Syria, now spilling over into Lebanon and destabilizing Jordan. Even Sinai, tranquil for 35 years, is descending into chaos.
Well doctor perhaps you would offer some constructive advice on addressing the disease, instead of pointing out the symptoms of America’s post World War Two empire and Pax Americana. How much of what you decry is related to the Israeli-Palestinain issue? How much is related to oil? Lebanon has been destabilized for decades, long before America armed the Islamic fundamentalists that would become Al-Qaeda, launched an attack on New york and Washington because the United States maintained an Air Force base in Saudi Arabia because of their fears of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps conservatives are as selective in memory as they are in amendments to the Constitution.
But the ultimate expression of Obama’s Dorothy Doctrine is Guantanamo. It must close. Must, mind you. OK. Let’s accept the dubious proposition that the Yemeni prisoners could be sent home without coming back to fight us. And that others could be convicted in court and put in U.S. prisons.
Now the rub. Obama openly admits that “even after we take these steps, one issue will remain — just how to deal with those Gitmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted.”
Well, yes. That’s always been the problem with Gitmo. It’s not a question of geography. The issue is indefinite detention — whether at Gitmo, a Colorado supermax or St. Helena.
And as you well know, as soon as those individuals are on US soil proper they receive certain guarantees under the Constitution, and that is what bothers conservatives. And that is the rub. The idea that a free people could treat the most resolute enemies of the United States with the same human dignity that we afford any and all under the Constitution just sticks in your craws. It’s emotionalism, not enlightened reason that drives your position.
In fact Obama’s greatest sin, to conservatives, is being a thinking conservative.
Why should anyone believe that those who cannot recognize their own kindred should be trusted to identify our common enemy, when those arguments are all based on gut feelings and not rational thoughts? Sorry Charlie, we’ve seen behind that curtain all too often.
My job description as an English teacher is to “instruct students in such subjects as theater, literature, dramatics, journalism, business English, English usage, grammar, and composition.” However, my tenure as a teacher has been defined by an additional job description — making my students believe in themselves. Getting my students to believe in themselves, first and foremost, is my mission as an educator.
If Erick and Dobbs are really that concerned about society and the family, maybe that could advocate doing something positive about it, like advancing universal college education, which as science has shown leads to both financial and domestic stability.
It’s called an investment, sirs.
I’m so old I can remember telling Stealth Badger back in 2005 that dropping the F-bomb in a blog post was not the best way to go about persuading most people to your point of veiw. If you’re trying to offend someone, like those cocksuckers in the Village, then by all means go gonzo on their asses, ala Hunter Thompson.
But it should be pointed out that this isn’t the post I would direct my wife to, much less my mom, and so whatever else I write here, no matter how insightful or witty it may be, the odds of a link are even more miniscule than normal, which is to say zero from nearly zero.
I’m used to that, Blogistan demands credentials of its top tier, sort of like those Villagers, who happen to demand residence and gravitas and all that horse manure they shovel out at the world, which they alone beleive.
The fact remains that writing and verbalizing are two different forms of communication and if you speak and write like you’re at a church social you’re less likely to offend your readers and listeners. No one is ever offended by what you don’t say.
I’m not as interested in being popular or well liked, especially by college educated people, as I am in driving home my point through their thick skulls. I may just be the rarest of all Americans, someone that can see Americans with an outside point of veiw.
I use language like you use deeds, foul with flowers.
(Apparently the lad is having trouble with contractions this AM)
Update link I would imagine Mr. Walt is tired of my linking to him. Oh well.
Opponents of race-based affirmative action in college admissions urge that colleges use a different tool to encourage diversity: giving a leg up to poor students. But many educators see real limits to how eager colleges are to enroll more poor students, no matter how qualified — and the reason is money.
“It’s expensive,” said Donald E. Heller, dean of the College of Education at Michigan State University. “You have to go out and identify them, recruit them and get them to apply, and then it’s really expensive once they enroll because they need more financial aid.”
Yeah mediocrity ought to be cheap. God forbid that American mathematicians should know Babylonian algebra, and such. Maybe pi isn’t irrational, but you’ll never know will you?
Brand managers who’ve worked in China say their executives tend to see business deals in transactional, not in relationship terms. As you’d expect in a country that has recently emerged from poverty, where competition is fierce, where margins are thin, where corruption is prevalent and trust is low, the executives there are more likely to take a short-term view of their exchanges.
Maybe someday he’ll go to America and explain the difference to us.
WASHINGTON — A man who was killed in Orlando, Fla., last week while being questioned by an F.B.I. agent about his relationship with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, had knocked the agent to the ground with a table and ran at him with a metal pole before being shot, according to a senior law enforcement official briefed on the matter.
Or has that one been erased already?
On the eve of Obama’s address, there were 103 prisoners on hunger strike, with 31 being force-fed by military authorities and one in hospital. Since then, not a single prisoner has stopped their strike, and now 36 of the detainees are being force-fed to keep them alive, with five of them being hospitalised.
In telephones calls and letters to their legal representatives, detainees have also described a regime of intimidating body searches and other restrictions they say are designed to prevent them from talking to their lawyers and also to break their resolve.
I bet they’re starting to hate us for our freedoms now. You Villagers are some sorry motherfuckers.
James Comey is far from the worst choice to lead the FBI. I doubt it will change much of anything one way or the other, and there are undoubtedly worse people within the senior ranks of the Democratic Party who would be the likely alternatives. But it’s still a potent symbol of how little has changed in the right direction and how much it has changed in the wrong direction. If you had told progressives in 2008 that the Bush lawyer who approved the NSA program would be named by Obama as the FBI Director, they would scoff in disbelief. Now they’ll cheer. That is what has changed.
Yeah, I’m practically horse. Also2 gld I dn’t twt.
Hell, Obama could have appointed John Ashcroft to be FBI director and would receive zero Republican support and no resistance from senior Democratic officials. Greenwald know this, and so does anyone else that has been doing heroin the last five years.
What shouldn’t be overlooked I would think is that what Congress made legal removes the basis of the challenge that the NSA spying was illegal. Our representative democracy has sanctioned the behavior and like any other law we can choose to follow it or not, just as those in power can pick and choose to enforce them.
This brings us to the political crisis we do not wish to confront, namely liberals and progressives do not have a political party, even though they are the Democratic party’s base. In short the Rockefeller Republicans are the blue dog Democrats of today, and they are the machine. If you don’t like it you can leave the party or take over and become the machine. Until then you work with the clay you have.
This article is very similar to yesterdays on the press, and I am guilty of forgetting the same facts, that individual journalist have very little say so in the editorial direction of the corporations they work for, and they can either leave and become independents or remain and do the best they can with what they’ve got. Perfect worlds have perfect solutions, ours, not so much.
Politics is the art of obscuring facts and the truth from the public, and journalism is the art of uncovering facts and truths, while publishing is the art of persuading readers with some facts while omitting others to achieve an objective. Selling ads.
It’s a complex world, and not everyone that disagrees with me is a bad person failing to comprehend the obvious injustice that I choose to see. Whatever laws one Congress passes the next can undo. Seems to me that that is something even Erick son of Erick understands, and he isn’t, I don’t believe, a Constitutional lawyer.
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
While I concede that the Pew Research Center poll may be a scientific poll, that doesn’t necessarily mean that those polled have a scientific basis for their veiws, which is reflected by the report itself according to the Washington Post when it says
But at the same time, the report notes that other polls have found that nearly 80 percent of Americans don’t think mothers should return to a traditional 1950s middle-class housewife role.
“The public is really of two minds,” said Kim Parker, one of the report’s authors. Traditional gender roles “are a deeply ingrained set of beliefs. It will take a while for those views to catch up with the reality of the way people are living today.”
Nor am I convinced that appealing to the higher authority of the Washibngton Post is a basis for drawing sweeping generalizations about how kids ought to be reared and marriages saved from the ravages of hormones.
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
In many many animal species this is also not true, as those of us who have read books can tell you. I have no idea what beta-male producers have to do with your conclusion. Would that be female or male producers? And if they are lazy how do you know?
In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.
Sure we are, but if you take an assertion, that women are the primary bread earners in 40% of families then shouldn’t the conversation stick to the subject? I mean I think men can and should be able to da anything a woman can do, besides bear children. I don’t think it matters who washes the laundry or does the shopping, but I would imagine you would get your panties in a wad washing and folding your wife’s panties because there is a physchological leap that requires courage to take in doing so, and that isn’t a definition of courage I have ever seen attributed to conservatives. Conservatives tend to like traditional stuff. But let’s be fair about this, I don’t think most liberal men are able to take that leap either, at least not by choice, and so I would surmise that many conservative males also haven’t had a choice, given that the unemployment rate doesn’t make that distinction as to whether blue collar males are liberal or conservative. That doesn’t bother me in the least either.
As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine in the liberal fantasy world.
Well Erick that sounds like the very definition of individual liberty espoused by conservatives. The basic recognition of two parent families has nothing to do with which parent is pulling in the big bucks. I would imagine a female professional married to a laid off male professional is also making more money than her spouse, and that that has nothing to do with the conclusions you are drawing, either from the report or your own post. A classical Red Herring. I have no idea where you draw your scientific conclusion on two parent gay couples, seems rather early to me to even take a sample, so perhaps you will link that up for the edification of the world.
None of us can have it all. Women as primary breadwinners does make raising children harder, increasing the likelihood of harm in the development of children. While it is a reality in this world and sometimes even necessary, that does not mean we should not ignore the consequences of the increase in moms, instead of dads, as primary breadwinners.
If you wish to define, ‘have it all,’ and tell us where that reference comes from then we can discuss that. Otherwise I must presume that is an assumption on your part, which I disagree with. In fact what you have presented are assumptions and Red Herrings based on a report discussing peoples opinions of the information that 40% of households have women as the primary bread winner. There is no discussion as to why that might be, such as economic policy that fails to stimulate an economy into producing jobs because that conflicts with conservatives veiw of what the governments role in the economy should be, followed by decrying the outcome of those policies on family incomes and primary breadwinners.
I can only conclude that you should not excercise your second amendment right by carry a pistol in your back pocket, as any acceidental discharge may lead to further brain damage. YMMV
After Pew released a report yesterday that found mothers to be the sole breadwinners in 40% of American households with children, Fox Business aired the study Wednesday evening, and several Fox contributors, all men, expressed their dismay at the findings.
Host Lou Dobbs called the Pew report further proof of “society dissolving around us,” and Juan Williams blamed more breadwinning mothers for “the disintegration of marriage.”
Yeah! We men should be allowed to strangle our children if we want to, like the ancient Romans, before Julius Ceasar was the husband of every female and the wife of every male in Rome! Now that was a manly man’s manly man. He only wept at a statue of Alexander the Great,( erected by his boyfriend, the writer slyly entendred,) when men were men and women too.
Now as for Erick son of Erick son of many Ericks sons of the Wods and Woods, what can I say? He being a lawyer and a deacon it should be germaine and lofty,
There too, though, he’s more like a lothario who sits on the sofa doing nothing all day while his woman (women) make the dough, take care of the children, clean the house, etc. While his worthless ass complains that she’s keeping him down by not making sure he has enough beer money and gambles (her money) at night.
Ooops! Wrong blockquote,
“Complimentary role,” like with Emperor Penguins, right. Where the work is shared almost evenly … yeah the males get to walk in a circle in the cold keeping the egg warm, until it hatches and the female (full of fish) hopefully returns to take care of the chick. Then the male leaves.
And gawd knows in black/brown and grizzly bears the male has the “dominant roll.” He’s another one that like the male elephant, impregnates then leaves. She, the FEMALE, takes on all care, feeding and responsibility for the cub(s). He’s off feeding his fat ass.
OOops! Obviously an angry feminazi.
Well anyway Erick, I guess I’ll have to settle for the tried but true, ‘Read a fucking book.’
If I were an innocent bystander I would probably notice that the EU and US delivering weapons to the Syrian rebels was pretty much on par with Russia delivering weapons to the Syrian government. Unfortunately, if I continued that faulty line of reasoning I would wonder how air defense systems are a threat to other nations national security, defense being, you know, defense.
Since I am not, however, an innocent bystander, then I would have to conclude that no one is trying to blow smoke up my ass, and the Russians are bad, very bad. Otherwise I might have to ask myself if some people even think about what they are saying, and if they do, do they even listen to what they are saying. That would be un-patriotic, unfreeance and also too, unpeance.