Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
From the article:
“Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.”
“Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government.”
What exactly is your problem with this guy, other than his political party? Seems like there’s not a very big tent in the gay rights crowd.
“[…]and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy.”
Goldy, thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of the militant gay rights crusaders. They did a similar thing to Mary Cheney during the ’04 election year…
seems you are into “outing”: yourself 2 days ago and now this. does it upset you that any gay would be republican?
zip @1,
Here is a man who has been instrumental in establishing the current Republican majority, by spending his career working to elect people like Jesse Helms… a Republican majority that is working to keep from homosexuals the same rights he is enjoying in the liberal enclave of Massachusetts. He isn’t stupid. He knew the consequences of his actions, and that they were contrary to interests of his fellow gays. He is a hypocrite.
Now I’m not saying the man can’t repent, by working to undo the harm helped create… but simply “distancing” oneself from the Dominionists is not enough.
Rush @3,
Outing myself? My comments regarding Hargrove et al were clearly satirical. Or are you one of those who believe that only a homosexual could passionately support gay rights?
straight from the Tukwilla Times, It seems our resident Idiot is the one that married Finkelstein. It must be correct, high level sources confirmed it. OOPS…maybe it is just like the neo’s and their shrugging of responsibility on the Shiavo memo and mr delay
wait a minute, stop the presses.
Senator Harry Reid, democrat, Nevada, Mormon, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage.
Goldy,
“[…}a Republican majority that is working to keep from homosexuals the same rights he is enjoying in the liberal enclave of Massachusetts.”
As I have stated on other threads, I am not averse towards granting legal rights to gay couples. Indeed, I do not know of any major corporation that excludes domestic partners from employee benefit packages. I do have a dislike for the term gay marriage, since it seems (from my standpoint) to be conferring the normative hetero-based reference of marriage to a situation that has not been considered normal throughout history. Civil Unions? Sure, why not. The legality would be the same.
A second issue was addressed by your exchange with Rush. How could a homosexual be a Republican? Your answer was you do not have to be gay to support gay rights, thus indirectly agreeing with Rush’s point. Finkelstein may believe in every other plank in the R platform (I can’t imagine anyone agreeing with every one of them, but who knows). The fact remains that the gay rights militants want conformity in a non-conforming world from anyone who is gay. An effective method is to “out” those who wish to remain in the closet, or at least those wishing to toil in relative obscurity. Is “outing” acceptable behavior to you? Hmm, I may know the answer to that already…
that still leaves the closets full in the White House and around the highest echelons of the GOP. These days, if a story is so bizarre that it bends credulity, but is about the machinations of the GOP party leadership, it just might be true. And as yet, Rove, McClellan, Mehlman, et al have not denied their involvement with that Goesh/Guckert/Gannon figure…
Golly gosh gee whiz and here I though you all CELEBRATED diversity and here you are being ugly instead.
Go figure.
jpgee@5–
Are you callin’ me a queer?
I remember when you used to go by the handle RUDY…an angry gay male.
Now you are a homophob?? Which is it jpgee..er Rudy??
Idiot, once again in your wet dreams about Rudy? You should seek professional help. Maybe your plan at BIAW will cover you, if not, just juggle the numbers like a good ole boy and you might recover.
jpgee @ 11
by telling Mr Cynical to seek prof help, are you admitting rudyish thoughts and/or behavior is clinical?
Goldy
“He knew the consequences of his actions, and that they were contrary to interests of his fellow gays.”
You must be joking. What about his fellow ________(Republicans, east coasters, Americans, frat brothers, you name it). Does gay-ness take number one precedence above all other attributes in your lefty world?
You made my point for me: what you are saying is “Gay people better toe the line and support the lefty agenda, or else…”
zip @ 13
or else they have to join the Log Cabin Republicans? Gee, I wonder what happens to a Republican when his fellow Repubs find out he’s gay?
According to Goldy, he becomes a hypocrite.
chardonnay @ 12 I really cannot answer your question. I have never read any of Rudy’s posts. I guess he was here and gone before I checked in. I have only posted with this nick….as Goldy could confirm.
Dubyasux@14. I think your new handle is on topic. :-)
Hypocrite? The man was HIRED to do a job and evidentally does it well and says his gay marriage is not a political statement. This is just Republican tolerance–who could object to that? Cetainly not a good Dem.
Either he is so selfish and cynical that he believes the gay-bashing to Republicans is a vote garnering and devisive scam, or he’s a hypocrite. I’ll go for hypocrite though it’s a toss up. Regardless of the position of libertarians, in his worklife, Finkelstein was supporting and furthering a Republican majority movement that ostensibly demands an end to gay rights. In his private life he maintained a relationship and lifestyle his employers vilified with his help on a nearly daily basis while it garners them votes.
regarding A finget in your ear…which in your case would be a good idea if you pushed hard enough…
Trying to twist this news by calling it Republican tolerance is a lie plain and simple in the Huxley style of doublespeak. I wish those of you on the extreme right would stop abusing public discourse with deceipt, doublespeak, and character assassination. Of course it is the style your leadership uses, so for people who see things in black and white, it must be easier to imitate than create. If you can’t make your point honestly, please stay off the airwaves. If you must win at any cost, you will make everything worthless.
right is wrong
It’s a real eye opener to see another attempt at justification for calling this guy a hypocrite. So a gay person is not supposed to work for the political party of his own choice, or what? Would you be happier if he went to work for the Green Party even though he obviously believes none of the positions they stand for?
Next thing you know every gay Wal-Mart employee will be labelled as a hypocrite or worse by the “tolerant Progressives” around here. Or every non-union worker. Or every gay person who also believes that abortion should not be federally funded. You could go on and on. Why stop there, why not ostracize every gay person who supports any Republican candidate for any elected office in every state, wth special emphasis on the red states. You guys never cease to amaze me with your “tolerance”.
You guys banging the drum against this gay man should be ashamed of yourselves. Look in the mirror, “tolerant Progressive” hypocrites.
RDC,
I will look for an answer to the question: How can one be hopeful and bloodthirsty at the same time?
That would require more time than I have available, and more bandwidth than Goldy would want to allocate. A “quick” answer would involve those who hold faith in a religion corrupted by charismatic and/or powerful leaders. You mentioned neo-Jonestownites, but al-Qaida, the history of the misguided Crusades, and Torquemada all come to mind (plenty more besides those). I have a feeling that radical religion will kill religion faster than advances in science or discovery of intelligent life beyond this planet would…
If you believe this, why doesn’t it also apply to Rich’s attack on Fox News?
I said the point was well taken, meaning there is justification vis-à-vis Gibson’s movie. I question what motivates Rich’s focus. As to Fox, I was only pointing out that Rich does not need to attack them. The fact that he does, much like his penchant for kicking Christians (IMO), seems to indicate his base readership has an appetite for it. I do not think of Rich as the right kind of person who can sway hearts and minds that are already being molded in the direction he harangues against. As you say The problem is, as a society we have failed to do two things…develop leaders who have enough character not to try to delude anyone, So we do agree, we just arrive at the agreement by different paths….
and a populace savvy enough not to be deluded. Delusion is in the mind of the beholder, I suppose. I was perfectly happy to have Reagan as President. Was I deluded from your standpoint? Absolutely. I must be an extreme mental case for positing that his terms in office were great successes. I can understand that. Is there something you can think of right this moment that can be done to ensure such “mass delusion” does not happen again? Not likely without the implosion I only somewhat half-heartedly predicted in my first paragraph, and yes we will end up dealing with more personality cults.
All of that leads me to this question: How can the United Nations be a functional world-leading entity with some 200 disparate nations, and lacking a charismatic leader?
Is there something you can think of right this moment[…]
I meant to say something that will have the immediate effect of keeping this from happening again. Education and reasoning development take years, and probably decades to reach a large majority of people.
I apologize for the hopeful/bloodthirsty question; I was trying to be cute, I guess. I should have labelled it a riddle. The answer is, …by being sanquine. I plead fatigue.
Religion is doomed only in the sense that we are, as mentioned a while back. In the meantime, nothing will kill it…not extremists, not science, not extraterrestial intelligence. Particular religious beliefs will fade, but there will always be some sizable number of people who need religion. You can likely answer the why question as well as I can.
There is a difference between being deluded and being mistaken. Being deluded is being deceived; being mistaken is coming to an erroneous conclusion based on information that may be entirely truthful. We were all deluded by Reagan at times, as we were all deluded by Clinton, and that we are being deluded by GWB all day s in all ways. I am in no position to know if you are delusional in some aspects of your thinking, but take it from an old hand, you are not delusional in your opinion about Reagan. You are just mistaken.
I can’t think of any way to prevent mass delusion. You are likely growing weary of hearing about my anti-religion sentiments, but I think there is much fodder for thought in Thomas Paine’s remark (which I can’t quote precisely) that people will continue to commit atrocities as long as they believe in absurdities. Something in our nature drives us to believe in something outside ourself, and to belong to something bigger than ourself. That is why religion is such a dangerous thing. In the control of the right leaders, that need to believe and to belong could do great things. We’ve been witness many times over the centuries to what can happen when control is in the hands of the wrong leaders. This is why I cling to the notion that the answer is an enlightened public, a concept that seems to be under attack at present.
The UN does need revamping, but historically the nation-state idea has a long way to go before its run is ended. The EU is a promising development in the right direction, but absent an attack from aliens, we’re not likely to see much surrendering of power by nations to the UN. A charismatic leader would help, but when any one of five people can veto anything of importance the UN may propose doing, there’s not much hope that great things will come out of that nice building in Manhattan.
I was disappointed that the WA state Senate defeated the stem-cell research bill. There was a good basic explanation in one of today’s Seattle papers (op-ed) of how the research is done. It was co-authored by a couple of physicians and I think was in the PI.
Every columnist writes for an audience. As I said, I haven’t noticed Rich’s Christian-bashing, but Fox News is fair game. What denotes an intellectual more than one who has the power to sway opinions, or to arm those who are intellectual kin with information to perhaps sway others, or to counteract propaganda. Preaching to the choir is done every Sunday in America…does it do no good, from the preacher or the choir’s perspective?
A random fluctuation has just occured. The last paragraph in the preceding comment was the second paragraph I typed. How it manuevered itself to the bottom has me mystified.
the answer is in an enlightened public…on second thought, let me amend that. The answer is in enlightened leaders. We’ve not done badly over our history (the US) but something went very wrong when GWB came to office. I was thinking of a line from Yeats earlier this evening, and how prophetic it seem to be of our own time…”The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The poem is The Second Coming.
To Marks –
You say you were pleased with Reagan as president. What about trading arms to Iran (after he unequivically said we do not trade with terrorists) to get money for rightwing butchers to kill children at schools in Nicaragua? All in defiance of the constitution and Congress. Or what about supporting death squads in Honduras?
I can’t agree with RDC either. GWB is merely an extension of what this country has always been about. I’ll grant you this president and everyone he surrounds himself with are so unconcerned with most of us as to appear to be psychopathic. They are particularly ruthless.
But what was Viet Nam if not a trumped up war? It was the US fighting for markets with the Soviets. The Vietnamese supported joining Ho Chi Men. And Kennedy got us started down that road. By that I mean to point out abusing American power overseas is American as apple pie and both parties have done it. The Republicans are usually more inhumane and ruthless, but the Demos are hypocritical, saying one thing at home and doing another abroad. Ooops, did I say the h word?
What happened in Chili in the 70’s? Coca Cola and Anaconda. American Corporations (and hence wealthy Americans)have been using up young Americans and our tax dollars for well over a century. How many times have we invaded Nicaragua?
Now the corporations are trying to ensure access to oil as we enter the later days of fossil fuels. And the vast majority of Americans are only to happy to open their pocket books. It’s patriotic. It’s good for America. No it’s bad for the world and killing is killing no matter how you dress it up.
As for a solution, I’d say look for another Amendment to the Constitution. Many of them have come about in response to social movements. It’s time for another one: limitations on Corporations. No political contributions whatsoever. No personhood. Limited lifespans. No protections for corporate officers who break the law. Jefferson wanted all these protections and he worried about until the day he died. No one then saw the danger.
r is w
I doubt if either apple or cherry pie is distinctly American. Both fruits originated elsewhere, and were brought to the New World by colonizers. Otherwise, other than faulting you for focusing only on the dark side of American foreign policy, there isn’t much in your remarks to argue with. Your assessment of why we got involved in Vietnam is way too narrowly drawn; not incorrect, as far as it goes, but rather very much incomplete.
We are not now and never have been the great nation we could be. To the extent that your analysis is correct, I think it is correct in that you point out the great flaw in our national character, avarice.
But this is off-subject. Marks and I were debating some points we had begun on another thread, and picked this one as likely to be dormant.
right is wrong:
I appreciate your 2 cents on the matter. What you may not be aware of is the long discussion between RDC and I. For that reason, your first paragraph has the appearance of leftover food that should have been placed in the refrigerator days ago. RDC has covered this ground in good detail.
For the rest of your post, I am unsure just what it had to do with the discussion at hand, but I will paraphrase Daniel P. Moynahan that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Vietnam was not a trumped up war. The idea of combating the spread of communism was a tangible ideal. If you really want to focus blame, look at the history there. You would then find the need to mention France and their failed empire as, at a minimum, a tertiary reason for our Vietnam experience. I know many Vietnamese living in the US who would take issue with your blanket statement The Vietnamese supported joining Ho Chi Men.
How many times have we invaded Nicaragua?
I am at a loss to come up with any invasion of Nicaragua by the US, so could you point me to that history? The closest was the Grenada operation, and our overt, until Congress specifically forbade it, support to the Contras. Naturally, Adm Poindexter and Oliver North were able to circumvent the prohibition. You will get no argument from me that war sucks and killing a person is an unnatural way to die.
The idea that amending the US Constitution will stop global corporations from holding sway is similar to the proverbial band aid used to stop arterial bleeding. After the stellar failure of McCain-Feingold, I am not sure how we should proceed, but I lean toward (gasp!) government funded elections. That does not stop the revolving door between Gov’t officials and lobbyists, but I will need extra time to think about that issue.
RDC, in no particular order:
Sanguinity. I suppose I could claim that I should have realized, but my mind’s acuity is closer to that of a rock. I was wondering what such an obtuse question like that was doing there. I ended up going with the previous topic.
Preaching to the choir is done every Sunday in America…does it do no good, from the preacher or the choir’s perspective?
Touche. I remember after attending church feeling closer to God, so I guess you are correct. I will attribute the random fluctuation your post suffered to Divine will…
Yeats. How true. Maybe I will make that the centerpiece of my “none-of-the-above” campaign.
Your State Senate defeated the stem cell bill. Mine has rejected (by parlimentary procedure) a measure to offer juries the choice of life without parole or death. Currently, the choice is 40 years-to-life or the death penalty. A poll conducted recently shows 78% of Texans favoring the proposed law. I understand there is still a chance it will pass in this session, but not likely.
but when any one of five people can veto anything of importance
I agree, but while these nations hold to their self-interests (which I understand completely) nothing will continue to be the by-product of this entity. Little wonder that it holds as much sway as a post-collegiate debating society.
Marks…more later….just wanted to let you know that we have invaded Nicaraqua a couple of times, if sending troops into a foreign land to enforce our will is what defines invasion. We have done some good in the world, but our history in Latin America can be described at best as lamentable.
Pre-Somoza? I always assumed we were “invited” in by the prevailing party. You are correct to point out that we generally blew it anytime we “dealt” with the Americans south of the US.
An aside: You read the NYT regularly. Is Tom Friedman really this bad, or did I just catch him on an off-day?
Way pre-Somoza. This is my memory speaking, but sometime around the Civil War or just after, we were mucking around there, and again early in the last century, I’d guess in the Taft administration, we sent in the marines. We developed a very bad habit of sending the marines into Latin American countries, for any number of stated reasons, but always to protect American business interests. Marquez touches on this in his great (but hard to read) novel One Hundred Years of Solitude.
If Americans were taught more history and less self-serving, flag-waving, feel-good propaganda, we would better understand why we are not loved or respected in many parts of the world. There is some truth in the Marxist view that America is an imperialist country, and its imperialism is driven by narow business interests. But it won’t happen. If we have a hard time getting evolution past the know-nothing censors, how will we ever get factual history?
Sanguine…had our roles been reversed, I would have responded as you did, or with ?????????? If I had labelled it a word riddle, and you had responded as you did, you would indeed have the acuity of a rock. But I didn’t, and so this is no proof that you do.
I will attribute the random fluctuation your post suffered to Divine Will …it would more reasonably be attributed to the lack of Divine Will; i.e., entropy.
Regarding the Yeats quote, which political party at the moment lacks all conviction, and which is full of passionate intensity?
The answer could correctly be either party for either attribute.
According to the newspaper, the defeat of the stem cell bill in the Senate resulted when a couple of Rs who had said they were going to vote for it, did the opposite. It is not hard to imagine the tenor of the late night calls they received, and from whence they came. Possibly the same people were busy calling your legislators. The country is strong; we have an abundance of resources (except oil), many hard-working and consciencious people, and good infrastructure, but I’m beginning to feel uneasy about whither we are tending. If the 2006 elections solidify the power of the likes of Delay and his brethren, my head is going into the sand.
I didn’t mean to be disparaging of the UN. With all its faults, I love it still. What else do we have? The right wing overlooks the accomplishments of its relief efforts, its peacekeeping efforts, and its value as a forum. It needs reform, but reforming it is better than scraping it, and having nothing.
I think you underestimate the sway it has. Why would GWB send Powell there to use that great stage to persuade the American people that Saddam had WMDs?
If you mention government funded elections once more you’ll be booted out of the R party. Business has a near stranglehold on government, largely through buying influence with contributions. This seems to be a comfortable situation for most of those involved. We’ll need a Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt to get things changed, and I don’t see any on the horizon. You may recall my mentioning Jackson’s two tyrannies…well, we are living now under the tyranny of the rich.
Sorry I missed your Friedman question. When you have to come up with two columns week in, week out, some are bound to be regretable. I view Friedman as being right of center, so disagree with him often. But he is worth reading, if you take into account his allegiance to Israel and realize that he is not a liberal. To be fair, I should say that his allegiance to Israel does not prevent him from making some very pointed criticisms of the government there.
RDC and Marks –
Thanks for letting me play through gentlemen, however clumbsily. Just a few concluding remarks…
RDC got it more right than I would have from memory. I looked it up…the US did invade Nicaragua (three times) in the latter half of the 19th century. Then in 1912, the Marines invaded Nicaragua and we occupied off and on but nearly continuously, until 1933 when we allowed Somoza to take over.
RDC – I’m truly interested in whatever bright spots of US foreign policy you know of. I am not sure what good things our foreign policy has accomplished we didn’t exact an enormous debt from. I used to think differently, but the more I learn the more I have to un-learn.
When I examine our course through history, I see where we aided and developed leadership in other lands who would “play ball” with our interests, i.e., allow us access to their resources and/or cheap labor in exchange for helping these leading citizens remain in power at the expense of the needs of their people.
“The idea of combating the spread of communism was a tangible ideal.” – Yes, some people really believed the rhetoric about communism and dominos. And some young bucks were ready to face death for their country for that rhetoric. Right now, some young men and women are doing it again because they were told we’re dealing with terrorists. Despite the fact that we’re actaully make more of ’em.
I agree there were many Vietnamese who didn’t want anything to do with Ho Chi Men. It’s my understanding those folks, many of whom settled here, weren’t the majority. Anti-communism in America has been a smoke screen allowing politicians and business leaders to motivate the citizenry with fear and hatred. I’m not trying to say communism is the answer. I just think there’s something wrong with blind cultural truisms.
And with those few rambling thoughts, adieu.
r is w….your 4th paragraph is a generally good summary of American foreign policy over the decades. One negative you omitted is that our policy has also been at the expense of our own people for the benefit of a few. But it is not black and white. Sometimes what benefits the few also benefits the many. On balance, I think our policy towards the losing powers after WWII was enlightened, esp. Japan. Carter’s return of the Canal Zone to Panamania control was also the right thing to do, as was Eisenhower’s handling of the Suez situation in the 1950s. We have also exported by example the notion of national parks and other environmental positives.
Marks…David Brooks has a column on the UN in today’s NYT. Also, in I think the April 7 or April 8 issue of WP, they run their annual list of neologism contest winners. If you can’t find it readily, let me know and I’ll pass it along. It’s well worth reading.
right is wrong,
Anti-communism in America has been a smoke screen allowing politicians and business leaders to motivate the citizenry with fear and hatred.
I think you are wrong. Can I convince you that I am correct? I doubt it, as your moniker tells me I would be rolling that stone uphill in both directions.
RDC,
Understand, I said “lean,” which is predicated on reform actually taking place. There is a long way to go in determining a fair system. I am still uncertain how being allowed to spend money on ads containing specious claims constitutes “free speech” but such will need to be addressed in said reform.
I did not find the article on neologism, but I may have looked in the wrong section.
Were this not the topic du jour, I would almost say Brooks has been reading our mail. There was only one phrase that he should have included at the end: Never say never.
Here is an interesting book review containing a number of interesting observations about secular Europe. Most interesting to me was the word count of the EU’s constitutional treaty. I believe ours is currently around 7,000, w/amendments. Makes me wonder how soon their tax code word count will surpass ours, if it does not already?
Speaking of which, I think Ahnuld will be waiting quite some time for his coronation in this country.
r is w does bring up an excellent point, one that I have had some difficulty forming a coherent position on; and looking at the last two administrations, I am obviously not alone. With the fall of communism, the focus of US foreign policy for five decades, it seems the US had been adrift until 9/11. Now it seems adrift with a focus on terrorism (and, yes it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I think I made that point in a previous thread).
Assuming we are successful in Iraq, or at least that we successfully disengage from there, what should US foreign policy focus on? Repair of image? Nation-building (doubt we will have the stomach for that)? Humanitarianism (genocide intervention)? Buchanan-esque isolationism (doubt we will be able to do that)?
Sisyphus (aka Marks) More later, but for the neologisms, google Washington Post neologisms and click on the Arts and something site…my mistake, I thought this was recently published, but it came out in January. BTW, this space still has some life left in it, but if we should get cut off, take a liberal drink.
Damn me!
BTW, I read the book review. Maybe more on this later, but I thought the review, and likely the book, if the reviewer got it right, to be almost entirely tripe, which is what I’ve come to expect out of anyone on the WSJ editorial staff.
Would that be rock tripe?
No, there is not enough nourishment in anything the WSJ editorial staff puts out to qualify as rock tripe.
I’ll expound my sentiments later…we’re off to a concert…Mendelsohn (or however he spelled his name).
We have several open cans of soup sitting on the shelf. I noted these; you can add to the list:
Role of the UN; communism as a smokescreen; election reform; secular Europe and WSJ tripe; US foreign policy direction post Soviet Union. Following is my 5 cents worth (inflation, you know) on a couple:
It is very cynical of David Brooks and other right-leaning pundits to criticize the UN for being unworkable and undemocratic when their’s are the very voices which would scream bloody murder against any efforts to make in either. The problem the Republicans have is that by and large the American people are supportive of the UN, and the organization has overwhelming support in the rest of the world.
I agree with R is W’s statement about communism being a smokescreen. The problem with his statement, as with much of his posts, is that he overstates the matter. On the other hand, a full explanation would require pages. I’ll try a shorthand explanation. Communism was never the enemy of or a threat to Mr. and Mrs. America. Communism was a threat to Wall Street. The Soviet Union was a threat to Mr. and Mrs. America. The distinction is important. Monied interests, supported by organized religion, began whipping up “the red scare” at a time in our history when our economic system could potentially be successfully challenged. Once the notion that communism was a great evil became dogma with the American public, that dogma was used by the same vested interests to crush opposition to similarly situated interests around the world. Think almost any Latin American country. All a politician had to do was to say that awful word and the American public would fall lockstep into a line supporting terrible assaults on social justice. Cuba looks like an exception but isn’t. The way Castro manuevered us away from overtly assisting Batista was by avoiding any association with communism until after his revolution was successful. Much of the foreign medling the US did during the cold war was shameful. We certainly had to confront the Soviet Union, but would a socialist or communist government in Vietnam have been a great blow to Mr. and Mrs. America? Was a communist strongman in Yugoslavia a threat to the same couple? But I’m getting too wordy. I know you are unlikely to be convinced, but if I can just get you to see that there may be some truth in W is R’s point of view, I’ll consider the effort to have been of benefit to us both.
I’m with you on campaign reform…I have never understood the notion that money is speech. It’s self-evident that means that the wealthy have more freedom of speech than the poor. Other countries seem to do a decent job of keeping election campaigns limited in time and expenditures. Maybe reinstating the equal time rule for broadcasters would help, with the time given to major party candidates, well, given. I’m all for public financing for elections, but that still leaves the question of what, if anything, to do about advocacy groups. Perhaps the truth in advertising laws should apply to their offerings.
Got to run…I will reread the WSJ book review and comment on it in good time.
Well, I posted a response, but it must be in the filter for some reason.
Sorry, I have obligations tonight, so short post. I read Freidman’s article in the NYT today. It was much better than his last, but left me wondering what his solution entails.
I do not doubt the UN has plenty of good it accomplishes, through UNICEF and other agencies. One large problem neo-cons have with the UN is the GA. In a vote regarding Israel, it is typically 194-2, with the world opposing the US and Israel.
On a subject from a previous thread, I stumbled across this Lebanese-centric publication, The Daily Star. There are some fascinating articles in Opinion and the Arts & Culture sections.
Probably see you at the watering hole soon…
Marks,
I should have made it, Anti-communism in America has largely been a smoke screen allowing politicians and business leaders to motivate the citizenry with fear and hatred.
I would welcome your views since I’m hard pressed to imagine what they are. I also doubt you know enough about the sorted history of anti-communism in America to shed much light.
r is w – Your answer is in another thread (see #40 above)