« If You Didn't Get Out Last Night... | Main | Talk Amongst Yourselves »
For weeks, political pundits have been saying that Hill's candle is burning dimmer by the day, and it's time for her to go away. Senator John Edwards seems to think the same thing, going public with his long-awaited Obama endorsement yesterday. In our early Clinton vs. Obama poll, our readers were pretty evenly divided. So tell us now:
The most recent delegate scorecard, after the jump:
He's got his Breck Boy, McGovern coalition and flag pin!!
Bring on the Fall!!!
He's show those working class whites who's boss!
If it does come down to a brokered convention, I think the fact that Obama visited so many more states than Hillary will really pay off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
prof, I'm stunned that you hold a position as a communications professor at a college. Do you ever get reviewed?
spot -- when you point out prof's errors, he'll just note the fact that you have used all lower case letters. let it go. the guy hates obama, which obviously has some kind of negative impact upon his ability to write. when obama wins he's probably going to be vewy vewy upset.
I use lower case letters when spelling his moniker because that's how he's chosen to represent himself. (Note his use of run-on text also) When addressing similar posters with non-capitalized display names, I do the same.
Spot,
Ugh!! The prof wrote "he's" not "he'll"-- the world will end.
For the record, I hate when folks choose to write incorrectly. Typos and mistakes happen to all.
Even the prof.
So while I do tend to point out those who have decided that capitalization and punctuation, I only point out little mistakes when I find it fun...
And why so stunned?
Because I don't like Obama?
An example is provided daily by jerseygurl.
She don't need know stinkin' rules of grammar!!!
She's jerseygurl!
(i guess it wld b easier 2 rite lik dis, u wld understand it, rite?)
Obama is a little 'green', but I believe that his ascendency to our nation's highest office will improve the image of the United States around the world.
I believe that he is the right man for the job.
He will have my vote in the fall.
I don't hate Obama.
I just don't agree with him on most issues. And I still don't know how he sat in that Church for 20 years....
And this idea of "improving our imagine" seems to be working what with the Hamas endorsement. But understand, when Bush leaves office the next President gets to say, "A new day has started..." And instantly, the imagine changes.
But I do find Obama's whole thang calculated.
But I am glad he's wearing the flag pin.
Perhaps he'll put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.
And I hope he continues wearing those jeans!!!
(Really, listen to the "journalists" on this video......)
I love the way the media has danced around the obvious truth that he has decidedly kicked her ass but for older white woman who are apparently reliving the ERA amendment era and wallowing in sexual politics most sane people abandoned about 20 years ago and white guys who admit when pressed that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black person as town dog catcher.
mets,
You're kidding, right?
Is this the new kinda politics Obama lovers spew?
Jeez, nothing like stereotypes to make you feel better.
Oh, well. I guess all the liberal white Obama supporters just want to see a brotha do well.
He is clean and articulate. And non-threatening!!!
Like a political Will Smith.
And everyone loves the Fresh Prince.
(Sounds dumb and a little offensive, huh?)
"Obama is a little 'green', but I believe that his ascendency to our nation's highest office will improve the image of the United States around the world."
Are you kidding?
We have terrorists who want to blow us up. We have rising taxes with no end in site. We have porous borders and a nation full of 15-20mil illegal aliens. We have $120/barrel oil because we cannot drill in our own country.
Yea - lets focus on making sure Europeans like us. What an important issue!
I could care less about our "image" to the rest of the world. We have real problems to solve and the least of which is how others perceive us.
I believe that many americans are very concerned about how this country is percieved by our friends and perhaps, our enemies.
Personally, I'll feel much safer with Obama in the White House. He's a prudent, thoughful, intelligent, imaginative, resourceful, energetic man and he is a wonderful communicator who I feel will help restore this country to a prosperous, safe, respected place.
jn024-
OK, it's time to turn off Foxnews and go out and play.
Too far?
In addressing mets' silliness?
Or the Will Smith comment?
And I know I'm alone here, but I've heard him many time and have not found him to be all that wonderful a communicator.
Do I have to drink the Kool-Aid first?
Obama is a fine man I'm sure.
You don't have to watch fox news to feel the way jn024 does, you just need to be a bit pragmatic.
The liberal white guilt has turned me off completely, and now I am free of it.
As contentious a partnership as it could be, the winning ticket to defeat McCain should probably include both Hillary and Barack...
Obama to make some people feel good and Hillary to do the work...She is ceaseless in her stamina for difficult work.
I don't care a whit about the potential of a candidate to improve the "perception" of America by others. I really don't even much care what, say, France or Germany thinks of the United States. If we remain friendly with Britain (with which we already share so much) and Italy under Berlusconi (for the food, wine and fashions), and the survival of Israel is guaranteed, that should be more than enough. America needs a competent President, what any other country "needs" from the United States is beside the issue right now. If Europe wishes to continue on its effete, hapless way, so be it. The riots in the French banlieues and the bombs which keep going off in Spain thanks to those pesky (and IRA-trained) Basque terrorists are of no great concern here, will not be remedied by the accession of a President whose personal (until quite recently)preacher was prone to the grossest stupidities of Afro-centrism and so much else nonsense. Nor might in the first place the French and Germans, who so pride themselves on their "logic," be particularly taken by a Presidential candidate who sat through such crapola for something like 20 years of Sundays without ever questioning it until gored by the press over it.
No one remembers one of John Kerry's dopier remarks, that he'd heard from the leaders of several foreign countries that they'd be much more comfortable with him as President? Golly but that dolorous preppie fraud never got around to identifying said nations.
Prof,
You are definitely not alone here. Rather than beat up on Obama which I love to do. I will instead harp on a few of the many reasons John McCain will be a better President. As a graduate of the Naval Academy, Navy Pilot,Combat Veteran, and prisoner of war, I KNOW I can trust John McCain. I can rest assured he knows how to protect our country (and because he has sacraficed, he will always keep that in mind when he weighs his military options). Sometimes you get an opportunity to see into a persons soul for a brief moment to see what they are really made of. This was McCains moment in my opinion: After being shot down and becoming a POW in North Vietnam, McCain REFUSED early release (he was offered this because his dad was a Senator) because he didn't want to betray his fellow countrymen who were POW's. He stayed in the prison camp and was tortured for years after refusing that release. He was a POW for a total of 5 1/2 years! I don't know many people who could (or would)have done that. That is the best example of leadership I can think of in this Presidential race. Anyone can talk the talk, but McCain walks the walk and is BY FAR the most experienced and true LEADER in this crowd. He doesn't even need to ask, he has EARNED my vote. While my vote may not matter in the bluest of blue states, I am confident that John McCain will prevail in the national election.
And catseye, one might also wish for something more than lung capacity and overall stamina from Hillary. Success, say.
Handed the ball by her then-President spouse on health care, for example, she proceeded very promptly to drop it and shatter it into so many pieces.
One might also fairly question her tenure as Senator from New York. She is of course prominent as a Senator of New York City (and of the tony suburbs of Westchester, where she resides), but the issue of her value (let alone her occasional appearance in)to such upstate places as Utica, Herkimer and Tonawanda remains very much hazier. (Even a publicity-mad jerk like her colleague Schumer at least has, by contrast, both Manhattan and Brooklyn to his semi-credit.)
What she is famous for is running, and she definitely seems intent on doing that to the very end, but she seems to run so far to very little purpose and with very little intent. Save the idea that she should be President because, after all and by golly, her scurvily adulterous swine of a spouse already was.
The virtues I might then ascribe to Hillary which could be useful as President are her patience and uxorial fealty, given how long she's put up with Bill. But that has purely been expended on a risky bet indeed so far, the comparably husbandly affection and fidelity of Bill. Not, as far as I can tell, on anything truly worthwhile, in other words.
Stamina of the physical variety is not what I was speaking of.
Stamina of the policy side, of research, reading, weighing and measuring...
All the things Bush doesn't like to do.
Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama...let's just get this over with.
Waiting for this GREEN revolution to begin...!
profwilliams sez: "She don't need know stinkin' rules of grammar!!!"
I rest my case.
(Thanks Cheese. I will now just link to your well reasoned post when Obama fans get on their 3rd Bush term stuff!!)
Although I will not stop beating up on Obambi. It's too much fun and drives some folks crazy!
I too was speaking of Hillary's overall stamina, catseye. Along with her great verbal ability to say much but to accomplish...well, pretty much nothing so far.
If America had ever really and truly needed a policy wonk as President, it would have, for example, selected General McClellan over Lincoln to then promptly seek peace with the South over the War Between the States. Or Willkie over Roosevelt, and Eugene V. Debs over quite a few Presidents. The closest we've ever come to such a President, the execrable Jimmy Carter (who combined with a devotion to detail with the weirdest sort of God complex), was thankfully tossed out of office after only one term.
cats,
Gore had 8 years to start the revolution... What makes you think Pres. Obama (!) will be better? Oh, right. He said, he'd be better...
All without nukes or drilling? Get your wind mills ready as we "transition to" the Green Economy.
Seriously though, the thought of another President who has to ask everyone and the janitor their opinion before making a decision does not sound like fun.
So while I certainly disagree with Bush on many things (many things), I do admire a leader who does what they believe (even when I disagree with them), rather than one with no core beliefs who goes with the crowd.
What then, cats?
"Clean" coal?
Reading Obama's Energy plan says nothing about Nuclear other than it must be safe.
He takes $$ from the Nuclear industry, however that does not make him pro-nuclear.
Please direct me to where he speaks in any detail about when he'd get more nuclear plants in the US.
williams, He spoke of it several times in the debates, point blank.
Saying yes is pro.
He says yes to the "notion" and "idea" of Nuclear power which is "Obama speak" for I won't take a real position so everyone sees/hears what they want.
Again, can you please direct me to where he speaks in any detail about when he'd get more nuclear plants in the US.
Prof,
You are definitely not alone here. Rather than beat up on Obama which I love to do. I will instead harp on a few of the many reasons John McCain will be a better President. As a graduate of the Naval Academy, Navy Pilot,Combat Veteran, and prisoner of war, I KNOW I can trust John McCain. I can rest assured he knows how to protect our country (and because he has sacraficed, he will always keep that in mind when he weighs his military options). Sometimes you get an opportunity to see into a persons soul for a brief moment to see what they are really made of.
Where have we heard that before? "Return integrity to the White House" was the rallying cry for the Republicans last time. All that led to the most incompetent adminstration in modern times.
I'm not saying Obama's great, terrible or somewhere in between. I haven't even decided if I'm voting for him. But the facts are the facts. Look at the democratic primaries. Remove white rural less educated men -- largely Appalachian mountain areas and then subtract out women over 50, and run the numbers. I'm not saying he would have won every state. But she would have been gone a long time ago. And when she starts talking about how he has basically no white middle class support she is (a) knowingly lying through her teeth and (b) engaging in dsspicable politics. When I hear people in West Virgina candidly admitting in interviews to reporters that they could never vote for a black man -- particularly a Muslim who refuses to wear an American flag pin -- I'm pretty comfortable leaving them out of whatever group I'm in.
Do your own research please.
And if you did, you would find that unfortunately a lot of previously 'green' minds have started to say yes to nuclear as a supposed lesser evil.
Nor might in the first place the French and Germans, who so pride themselves on their "logic," be particularly taken by a Presidential candidate who sat through such crapola for something like 20 years of Sundays without ever questioning it until gored by the press over it.
Sure, and if we elect McCain, they'll just forget all about the war his fellow Republican started in Iraq. Not that I care either what they think of us, but in an increasingly interconnected world, we don't really have a choice.
Mike,
While I grant you that raising the integrity bar following Bill Clinton was hardly a lofty challenge, President Bush has proven (in my opinion as I am sure you disagree)to be an honest and forthright President. While that may drive you insane, I would be glad to banter back and forth if you wish.
cats. Thanks. You "state" your feelings as facts. But when asked for support, you scream: "do your own research."
Well, as I wrote above, I did.
And found your assertion to be false.
Wanna make up another one?
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
p-man sez:
"( Spot. Humor. Lost. On. You.)"
If someone doesn't think you're funny, it only means, wait for it, that you're not funny. You also have a very difficult time putting clear and cogent thoughts together. Most importantly, the frequency of your postings only serves to highlight 1) your obsessive mania and 2) your inability to direct your attention to the classes that you teach. Man, you are posting constantly. Do your superiors know that?
Mets,
You can't really be serious with that "take out" this group and see what you have.
(And your "largely Appalachian mountain areas" comment is priceless for its pained condescension.)
So take out Black folks (who vote for Obama at 90%) or "educated" whites, and Hillary kills him.
See how that doesn't really work.
Exams. Done. Summer. Begins.
But if all you got is "you post too much" then in the words of Liz (or was it Debbie?) don't read my posts.
Ignore me, friend.
Many have and do.
(And don't act like you just lurk around here...)
As for superiors, I guess you don't know how academia words.
(Actually, I'm watching the Mets game. Keith and Gary are announcing from the upper deck instead of the booth. Very cool.)
williams, you did research?
You listened to every debate?
That is how, as I have stated, how I know Obama's opinion on the matter.
Also, please know that in no way am I ever trying to get your (or cathar's) attention and interact with you. The very opposite is true.
While I grant you that raising the integrity bar following Bill Clinton was hardly a lofty challenge, President Bush has proven (in my opinion as I am sure you disagree)to be an honest and forthright President. While that may drive you insane, I would be glad to banter back and forth if you wish.
My point was that integrity and honesty, while obviously very important, shouldn't be the only reason to vote for a candidate (as you did).
"As for superiors, I guess you don't know how academia words."
I take it you're inference is related to American standard higher education. Again, your modus operandi points up what's substandard in what passes for college education in this country.
Mike91,
I certainly agree that integrity and honesty aren't the only reason to vote for a candidate, but if I can't get both of those the rest really doesn't matter does it?
There's not that much that I like about Bush as a President but I agree with Cheese on this one. Also, Bush never lowered himself to the level of some of his detractors. I never heard him speak ill of anyone, evern those who lashed into him with the most viriolic invective.
So Spot, I'll stand on a street corner and lecture.
Will that make you happy?
But, ah, remember, our substandard "college education" is still the best.
(And I love how easy it is to (maybe) create a legend via an anonymous post on an anonymous blog. Actually, I'm a stay at home mom... Or retired... Or rich... Or poor... I'm like Obama- I am what you want to see....)
"Sometimes you get an opportunity to see into a persons soul for a brief moment to see what they are really made of."
Isn't that what Bush said of Putin? Is this a special gift of those on the right? Just wondering...
Mike91, we do have a choice. Really. And since you seem to agree with me that it matters very little what the froggies and the umlaut-ers think of us, allow me to remind that for 20+ some years, France under DeGaulle's leadership conducted its own foreign policy without any regard whatsoever for world opinion or impact elsewhere than France. That this resulted in both the ridiculous over-arming of several former French possessions quickly transformed into petty dictatorships and a long skein of A-tests in the peaceful Tahitian islands were but two charming examples of the stupidity of French foreign policy during this period. (France still intervenes militarily in most of these countries according to its Presidential whim, interestingly, yet cannot bring real peace even to Corsica.) I honestly believe that President McCain would do much, MUCH better.
At the same time, however, as a kind of semi-satrapy of the US, West Germany became an economic "miracle" of sorts. And a beacon of freedom against the repression then prevalent in East Germany. (I actually recall the stalwart defenses of Ulbricht's Soviet puppet state from so many on the left during the 60's and 70's, even after The Wall went up there.) Especially once the US was able to get all those captive German factory workers in France, a somewhat inevitable result of the post-WWII peace process, released and safely back in their homeland.
And I generally also believe that integrity and honesty are fine reasons for which to vote for any candidate, let alone President. Without it, we might well have had such later-proven rotters as McClellan, William Jennings Bryan and even Henry Wallace as our Chief Executive.
Oh, I'm outed. I'm sure "everyone" knew who I was.
And while I want to call you a simple jerkoff.
I'd rather respond with this link to you.
But if you feel so good outing folks, how about you?
Still rather play behind the curtain? It's much easier to sling anonymously...
Profwilliam
I am shocked that we actually have a republican leaving in Montclair. I think you can get a grant under the endangered species act
And prof is in education to boot which makes him double endangered!
martta,
I think you just might qualify as insane:
you say about BUSH:
"I never heard him speak ill of anyone, evern those who lashed into him with the most viriolic invective."
Your angel is a war-profiteering murderous devil...You are blinded by the ease of your living.
Mike91, we do have a choice. Really. And since you seem to agree with me that it matters very little what the froggies and the umlaut-ers think of us,
That's not what I said.
And I generally also believe that integrity and honesty are fine reasons for which to vote for any candidate, let alone President. Without it, we might well have had such later-proven rotters
And with it as the only criteria, we got where we are now.
Also, Bush never lowered himself to the level of some of his detractors. I never heard him speak ill of anyone, evern those who lashed into him with the most viriolic invective.
And I admire the model of automobile Barack Obama drives. That's at least as valid a reason as yours to choose our chief executive and leader of the free world.
Who's a repub?
Perhaps we should ask our google master Spot to search some more ("fry some more" -- any Alton Brown fans?), I'm an independent.
I just don't like Obama. I voted for Hillary.
And will probably go with McCain.
Probably.
(And if you google more, you'd understand why I appreciate a good argument on either side....)
spot the looney...Thanks for providing that link to Nov 24th 2006 where profwilliams outs himself. Reading all those old posts made me miss the good old days when you could sign your name whatever you wanted. Half the fun back then was coming up with a new fake name each time that played off your post.
Spot, it's somewhere between bad form and really creepy to out people -- even if it simply takes a google search.
I wasn't thanking spot for outing the guy (but if you want to split hairs, it was actually profwilliams who had outed himself on this very website not that long ago). I was merely thanking spot for prompting me to read some old posts. Though if my memory serves me right, the reason the policy about being able to sign your name any which way changed when people started posting using the same names as other regular posters (which was almost as confusing as the recent rash of soccermoms).
Creepy or not, I'm in Spot's corner on the incessant posting issue. If it were witty or incisive it wouldn't be so annoying but...I can't wait for fall classes to start.
Cheese-with-your-Wine, Bush is far more popular in Israel and Estonia than he is here.
Then again, Olmert has a lower approval rating in his country than Yeehaw Bush has over here.
"Sure, and if we elect McCain, they'll just forget all about the war his fellow Republican started in Iraq. Not that I care either what they think of us, but in an increasingly interconnected world, we don't really have a choice."
The above is what you posted, Mikle91, and jiminy crickets but it sounds as if you're positing that we lately do have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us, specifically because of the situation in Iraq, but still...
Whereas I note steadily better news from Iraq on almost a daily basis lately (even if the New York Times has to strain the words through editorial pancreas to admit it, and via clenched teeth at that). There is something to be said for sailing one's ship of state alone, that is my basic point. One I naively thought you agreed with.
Waiting until one's course is approved by some failed nation like Holland or France (whose greatest "hero" converted briefly to Islam himself for a few days when it seemed politically useful even though he was offically an atheist, did you know that?) is both unnecessary and self-defeating. That the rest of the world is dismayed we've taken on jihadists on basically their own ground, as opposed to the Parisian suburbs and downtown Madrid and the grotty provincial cities of the Netherlands and Sweden, I almost think other countries should admire us for that.
In any case, even as the jihadist is long ago out of the bag worldwide, so to speak, the judgment of history as to whether US involvement in Iraq was "right" or "wrong" really remains way down the line. It's definitely not to be arrived at in the space of a one-year's subscription to "The Nation." It also even took more than 40 years before the first revisionist looks at the D-Day landings of 1944, at the time universally acclaimed as a complete success, began appearing in print. (John Keegan and Max Hastings are clearly at least as much the real inspiration behind the opening half-hour or so of "Saving Private Ryan" as Spielberg and Hanks' fertile imaginations.)
I won't go to that back post or whatever it is to learn who prof williams "really" is. I even think that'd be somewhat dishonorable.
But I've also made clear my own scoffing at his possible academic background. I certainly wouldn't want to have to take a class with him, if classes he teaches.
Regardless, however, he is OUR prof williams and I cherish his general good spirits, and willingness to post, and I'd probably much more happily buy him a beer than most of the windy liberals here whose own posts are just predictably futile attempts at scolding. (Then too, there are the crazedly dense likes of lasermikey for real comic relief in this vein....)
Speaking of Saving Private Ryan, has anyone had the pleasure of watching Saving Ryan's Privates? I'm not sure how much this particular film was inspired by Keegan or Hastings, but the performances are inspired nonetheless.
(cathar, despite my limited academic background, thanks for the kind words.)
neighbor,
Guess what? I can post all I like and you MUST READ THEM.
You MUST.
I command you!!
Oh, wait. You do anyway. Sorry.
(But rather than you and Spottie playing hall monitors and working to limit posts, why don't you get our new Mayor to tax us for each post?)
Off to play the wii!!
By the way, this very site like countless others on the infoamation suprahighway, offers a service, a Google tool, if you will, to search same said site for certain keywords. Ahem. It's on the main page of this here Baristanet. And appletony, how dare you say that using that tool is in bad form. For shame.
The above is what you posted, Mikle91, and jiminy crickets but it sounds as if you're positing that we lately do have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us, specifically because of the situation in Iraq, but still...
I said I personally don't care. But I also said that in today's interconnected economy, we have to.
Whereas I note steadily better news from Iraq on almost a daily basis lately (even if the New York Times has to strain the words through editorial pancreas to admit it, and via clenched teeth at that).
Is this post from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007? We've turned so many corners in Iraq now, we've come full circle at least once or twice.
That the rest of the world is dismayed we've taken on jihadists on basically their own ground, as opposed to the Parisian suburbs and downtown Madrid and the grotty provincial cities of the Netherlands and Sweden, I almost think other countries should admire us for that.
Sounds great. Of course, there were no jihadists in Iraq before we attacked them, but I guess that's beside the point.
It's definitely not to be arrived at in the space of a one-year's subscription to "The Nation."
How about we just look at it then, from the standpoint of money wasted? Or maybe we can look at it from the standpoint of who its benefited? (Here's a clue: Iran, a real supporter of terrorism, and China, our most dangerous economic competitor.)
There were jihadists, Islamo-fascists, violence-loving Muslim fundamentalists, whatever you wish to term them, in the world long before US involvement in Iraq, Mike91. They seem to have made their first appearance in the modern era (after their successful dispersal by the Brits during the Sudanese War of the 1880's) during the 1930's, clustered around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who turned out to be such a pal of the Fuehrer. (And was the uncle, at least in an adoptive, mentoring sense, of none other than Yasir Arafat.)
Iraq has just provided these creeps with a location in which to conveniently cluster (and wreak further miseries on their own co-religionists, it should never be forgotten). But they really are "everywhere" in some sense. Detroit, Dayton, Toledo, Brooklyn and Paterson come right to mind in this country, for instance,
Again, too, to speak of "money wasted" may just be to rush to judgment. History does not necessarily call for, or even easily accomodate, snap judgments. The media-driven (in so many ways) short attention spans of American critics of US involvement in Iraq sometimes make me think that, were the 4 weeks-or-so Battle of the Bulge with its heavy Allied casualty figures being waged today, there'd similarly be calls for unilateral withdrawal from France, Luxembourg and Belgium.
No truly serious military historian, too, doubts that by 1972 a US-trained and supported Army of the Republic of Vietnam (the South) was finally able by that time to give a good military account of itself. By that time, too, however, the decision was made to consciously abandon these forces even as they'd at last established their tactical and strategic value. Hence the boat people, the "re-education camps," etc.
Sometimes, it really does pay to wait a bit. That may be hard for some to stomach or to understand. I'd like to think that with McCain as President there would at the least be a pause for necessary reflection and consultation, not the headlong rush to retreat urged by groups like Code Pink, MoveOn, etc.
cathar,
You must of had a lot of time on your hands, it is obvious that you were channel surfing between Fox News and the History Channel and got confused
"Your angel is a war-profiteering murderous devil...You are blinded by the ease of your living."
Ha! Nice try. My living could hardly be called easy. I go to work just like every other schmuck or schmuckess, pay a mortgage, will soon have a hungry Labrador to feed. So no, I don't live the life of Paris Hilton.
I was merely making an observation.
"Your angel is a war-profiteering murderous devil...You are blinded by the ease of your living."
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Bush run for a third term. In fact, if we could only just repeal the 22nd Amendment--and the 12th, while we're at it, we could have another Bush vs. Clinton election. Or better yet, Bush/Bush vs. Clinton/Clinton. A son/father duo vs. a wife/husband? It could happen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0613/p09s02-coop.html
Actually, GaryMontclair, it's simply that I'm probably just a lot smarter than you and actually know something about history.
You don't even seem remotely philosophical, however. May I suggest that you at least soon read some George Santayana to understand what he really meant by his famous phrase, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it?"
You have ease of living...
You have ease of living compared to the vast majority of humans on this planet.
Millions would die to have a job and mortgage you bemoan, and a dog you are able to afford.
You are frazzled compared to Paris Hilton, but you are rich compared to everyone else...
You didn't get that? It shows where your mind is at.
Well, I consider myself rich because I still have my health, a wonderful fiance and great friends, but my financial portfolio hardly puts me in the "rich" category, sorry. But I would rather have the aforementioned 3 than all the money in the world.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Is Iraq Hitler's Germany in the 1930s or Vietnam? While we will need to wait for the final judgement of history, it seems a lot closer to the latter than the former.
In the USA, the 1930's featured economic weakness coupled with a strong strain of isolationism.
The present USA dilemma features economic weakness coupled with an aggressive go-it-alone foreign policy.
No, I get it. You're saying I have an easy life because I happen to have the good fortune to have been born in America. Well, what about you? Are you willing to give up your cushy-tushy life in America and defect to North Korea, Bosnia or the Sudan? Be my guest.
Miss Martta,
I hear ya sista. I hear ya. I think you "get it" better than most here.
And Perlstein, just saying "go-it-alone" does not make it so. Did you feel the same when we fought in Kosovo without "permission" from the UN? (Did you have your "unjust war" poster flying for that one?)
I guess you would also object to "going it alone" in Darfur? Remember, this cowboy foreign policy has the US not the UN, calling it a genocide.
So while we can argue with whether or not Iraq was correct, you cannot suggest that we must wait for the UN or anyone else to give us permission to pursue what we feel is in our interest (which can be humanitarian or economic).
Thanks Professor.
That explains why the GOP and McCain are avoiding W like the plague.
prof, while I agree that the United States must reserve to itself the right to act in its interests even if that action does not meet with approval from the UN, you are not correct in your characteriztion of Kosovo as a US "go it alone" action. This was a NATO action, and certainly met with far greater approval and participation from other countries than the Iraq adventure did.
cro,
You make the point here. As we know, the UN and most European countries were unwilling to do anything. The cowboy US worked with our Allies (many of those same Europeans) in NATO.
The point is working with coalitions to achieve a goal. So while many may (somewhat rightly) point at the coalition of the "willing" as a joke- the point is that we must work with those willing to work with us to achieve OUR goals.
Funny how Perlstein stays quiet on my Darfur question.... I guess for that, he'd be cool if the US went at it alone.
Or would he scream about how we cannot act unilaterally?
See how messy hard and fast rules are...
Does anyone here remember ROC? You know how he's gone now? I think he morphed into the "professor." (I use quotations because I do not believe the man can actually hold a post at ANY institution of higher learning.)
This is just an observation/guess about how to reconcile profwilliams's discussions of his teaching and comments like this one by other posters:
"(I use quotations because I do not believe the man can actually hold a post at ANY institution of higher learning.)."
It's possible profwilliams is adjunct faculty, and this would explain how he/she teaches at a college or university yet has so much free time to post. I don't say this to be critical of him (or her), but there is often very little supervision of adjunct faculty. So whatever his/her strengths and weakness, they would go largely unnoticed. Further, depending on the department, it is possible that he is deemed qualified to teach more because of his professional experience than his academic credentials. So if he teaches a journalism course, for example, he could do that with a master's degree or, depending on when he was hired, with equivalent experience.
Again, this is not meant as an observation and not a criticism.
last sentence should read: Again, this is meant as an observation and not a criticism
Cathar
That is the problem when you read the cliff notes version of dead poets, cause in the same chapter your pal Georgie
says: Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim
So which fanatics want us to stay in Iraq?
cathar,
one more thing
You do know that George Santayana moved from the US to Italy during WW2 because he was a supporter of the Nazis and was a regular visitor with Mussolini
What next, a quote from Mein Kampf to should how smart you are?
prof, I'm still trying to determine what you could possibly mean when you state that I "make the point". Yes, I do. I make my own.
You first speak of how "most" Europeans opposed the Kosovo intervention, then speak of how the "Allies" did support it. Which one is it? NATO encompasses virtually every European state with a crediable military, and several who do not have one. So sure, those lousy Andorrans and craven Maltese begged off, but the British, French, Dutch, Germans, Greeks, Spanish, Norwegians, Poles, etc. WERE involved.
cro,
The history is pretty clear on this one, so I'll let you have the final word after this: before the US worked to get the Europeans through NATO to do something, what did they do? That was your point, eh?
No matter, I've said my bit about going it alone.
(Enjoy the nice AM weather everyone!)
(Just noticed 2 forensic posters....)
As for "neighbor" and "fyi" why spend so much time trying to figure out the background of a made-up name on an anonymous blog?
Should I work to figure out if "neighbor" in fact lives next to me? Or if "fyi" is an acronym or initials?
So, how about this: rather than spend so much time trying to figure me out- argue a point.
It makes this place much more fun.
(See I disagree here with some, but I read and respect what they post because it's- usually- on point. And sometimes, I learn something from them. Whereas dumb "you can't really be a prof..." post are just plain silly.)
prof, the history IS very clear. It is also very clear that you don't know it.
Like many Americans, you apparently believe that Europe will do nothing until America leads them kicking and screaming to the table to do their homework. While events sometimes lend substance to this argument, more often than not there is a difference of approach that both camps misunderstand.
Read up a bit on the events of this time, prof. You are woefully misinformed.
(As I wait for my ipod to refill......)
I didn't realize Europe was about to do something before the US "lead them kicking and screaming."
I remember asking, as many did- perhaps uninformed- what the European response would be to a potential genocide on their soil.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps they were about to intervene before we got involved.
If so, I apologize to you, Europe and anyone else who may have found my words offensive.
And still dear friend, enjoy the nice weather.
No apologies needed, prof. Unless it is for reneging on your "last word" promise.
Genocides have taken place on European soil, as you know. It has also happened here as well, as perhaps you don't know -- or don't want to acknowledge.
Europe would likely have fashioned a European solution to Kosovo -- one that might very well have been insufficient to prevent huge loss of life. But to suggest that nothing would have been done points to a singular political unsophistication that is not surprising, in this case. And of course, we know how "popular" the American involvement in Kosovo was, don't we.
Now you really CAN have the last word.
Ok, H is down to a King, a Kight and 3 pawns. Obama still has his Queen.
Bye, bye Hillary!
Go Bama Go!! Forget the baseline, shoot your three from the top of the key.