|
10785. Wombat - 3/11/2013 1:48:15 AM Bhel,
The ideological spectacles you are viewing all of this through have been overtaken by events. At this point, very few significant political actors in the United States particularly care about what goes on in Latin America, as long as immigration remains somewhat under control, and the flow of drugs doesn't become too broad a stream.
The United States was happy to trade with Brazil under the Socialist Lula, and Venezuela under the buffoon-ish Chavez (they didn't have a problem with it either).
Lula's op-ed was a funeral oration: was he going to openly damn Chavez in Venezuela? The criticisms that made it into his op-ed are significant enough, however diplomatically stated.
Likewise the other piece. It's not really necessary to respond to the author's points (you did read the piece, didn't you?) He praises Chavez for effectively doing the same thing that his predecessors did, only with a different class of Venezuelans than before. Ok fine, but the author doesn't really describe a concrete benefit from this. Same with Latin American unity. It would probably be a good thing, but it has been an elusive goal for almost two centuries, and I can think of a few countries that would be unwilling to participate under the aegis of Chavez-inspired initiative. By contrast, the author's criticisms of Chavez are discouragingly concrete; Venezuela's problems, which he did little to address and more to exacerbate, will be there long after the histrionics and flowery tributes are forgotten.
Another thing that you don't seem to think much about is Cuba, and what will happen after Castro dies (assuming he gets around to it at some point). I doubt that the Miami wet-dream of a triumphant return of the exiles--and the white terror that will restore everything to the way it was before--will happen. I don't doubt that the regime--absent its "maximum lider"--will devolve into something less than the totalitarian system that it is today. At some point, it will emerge from credible sources that Cuba under Castro was far from the Socialist paradise that all Castro's South American fan-boys believed it to be (assuming they actually did, and weren't defending him out of a sense of solidarity in the face of Yanqui criticism). The Cubans themselves might discover that they have been in some peculiar 1960's time-warp and wonder why countries that were far less "progressive" than Cuba have comparatively vibrant economies and societies. They will not be happy about this, and the regime will have to figure out a way to deal with it. 10786. thoughtful - 3/11/2013 1:37:00 PM Cruz's mother was an American citizen, so I'm sure he'll be considered eligible, esp by the birthers!
You'd think they'd learn by now that when you point a finger at someone else, you've got 3 fingers pointed at yourself! 10787. Wombat - 3/11/2013 3:28:07 PM Kenya, Canada, much of a muchness. After all, they were both British colonies! 10788. judithathome - 3/11/2013 6:56:44 PM He is by birth a Canadian
Does that make him an iceback?
Yes, I know that was tacky but the birthers seem to have problems with people not born here. Unless, as Thoughtful says, they make allowances for those they like. 10789. thoughtful - 3/12/2013 1:35:01 PM IOKIYAR...it's OK if you're a republican 10790. alistairconnor - 3/14/2013 12:42:06 PM 
The Vatican owns apartments just upstairs from Italy's biggest gay sauna. When this news became public, the sauna announced that "this in no way constitutes an endorsement on our part of the Catholic lifestyle".
10791. thoughtful - 3/19/2013 12:12:07 AM This Ohio rape case is stunning...I haven't been following it at all, but since the verdict, it's come up on another forum....what the heck is the judge doing saying the lesson from this case is for parents to teach children about what to post on the internet and social media??? Wouldn't you rather have perps post their crimes? If they hadn't, this case would've never been prosecuted.
And what they did to that gal was disgusting. Include a comment by one guy, not yet prosecuted, saying that maybe she's dead as she didn't react at all when they violated her! She was unconscious for who knows how long and they didn't even know if she was dead and they did nothing!!!
If this isn't proof that it ain't all about guns and a lot about a society that has a need to teach empathy, compassion and how to deal with anger, I don't know what is... 10792. Wombat - 3/19/2013 1:18:11 AM The advent of the Internet and all its communication and social media sites has certainly increased the size of Darwin's waiting room! 10793. arkymalarky - 3/19/2013 1:32:05 AM The law takes practical steps To protect society and reduce risk. This case is an example of actual progress with prosecution And a shift in attitudes toward exploitation of women. That kind of behavior at one time would not have resulted in any action. When I was in high school and college It was called pulling a train. And no, I never had direct experience with it, But Heard of several instances after-the-fact. Whether or not there should be Limits on Gun ownership is a completely separate issue from whether we can mitigate the cruelties evident in human nature As we become more educated and civilized.
You seem to be awfully prone to be shocked At human behavior not to see Any need for regulations on access they have to Instruments that can do damage. 10794. thoughtful - 3/19/2013 1:57:37 AM I think it has a lot to do with gun control and the big assumption that gun control enthusiasts make that controlling guns will solve the problem. I don't believe guns can be controlled effectively and even if they were somehow, it would not stop violence against others. It isn't the gun, but the nut behind the gun that's a problem. If we could instead laud compassion and empathy instead of one's ability to kick a football or block a pass or "pull a train", then whether guns were available or not, violence against others would be reduced.
And speaking about guns and violence and video games, there's an update on sandy hook shooter and how he was so heavily involved in gaming that he wanted to try and get himself to the top of the list of mass murderers. This was not a case of a kid gone wild, but a sicko who was planning this event for years. He was trying to get to the next level and make sure no one else was going to get all of his "points". 10795. thoughtful - 3/19/2013 2:20:53 AM I don't know about you, Arky, but I find it especially shocking to gang rape a girl who is so unconscious that they don't know if she's dead or not....I find it especially callous that they even think she might be dead and for no one present to check and make sure. I find it especially cold to lie to your own victim and say that instead of accusing him, she should've been thanking him for "taking care of her" while she was passed out. 10796. thoughtful - 3/19/2013 3:35:27 AM Re the Ohio rape case, this really says something about fox news:
Up to this point, Fox News has not named the convicted minors, yet it allowed the victim's name to air. 10797. arkymalarky - 3/19/2013 4:37:29 AM No one has suggested any gun control legislation "solves" any problem any more than any other law does, and the segue from the Ohio case is a non sequitur. If you want to regulate video games, all the same arguments can be made against that as against gun control. Working to make people better people is an important goal, but it's a continual and unlegislatable process. And we are moving forward. I've seen that directly, despite how shocking some people find modern entertainment. Kids are more compassionate and tolerant than they used to be. A lot more. News makers are by definition the exception. I couldn't have made a fantastic career as a teacher otherwise.
The Ohio case is appalling and I would have been fine to see them tried as adults. But 30 years ago, partly due to the differences in communication technology, but also due to improved moral perspective of society, the same incident would likely have had the one result of ruining the victim's life.
And Fox is, as usual, despicable. 10798. alistairconnor - 3/19/2013 9:59:01 AM "I think it has a lot to do with gun control "
Earth to Thoughtful :
When a case like this comes up in Europe (and they do), nobody thinks it's about gun control.
Think about that, thoughtfully. 10799. alistairconnor - 3/19/2013 10:03:33 AM Hey folks, did you catch this?
Not exactly current events, but there's no history thread. And some things never change anyway.
BBCAt a July meeting in Nixon's New York apartment, the South Vietnamese ambassador was told Chennault represented Nixon and spoke for the campaign. If any message needed to be passed to the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, it would come via Chennault. In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared. Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out. He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election". 10800. Wombat - 3/19/2013 5:31:46 PM This has been floating around for a while. Ironic, ultimately, in that Nixon totally shafted the South Vietnamese. 10801. alistairconnor - 3/20/2013 6:19:39 PM You may have seen...
 10802. anomie - 3/27/2013 6:21:28 PM The marriage question seems simple if we think of it as what it really is - a religious sacrament. As such, the government has no business teling people how to practice religion. For all practical purposes (especially since divorce is so common and accessable), the government treats marriage as a contract, sometimes with children as an interested third party. But these are secular concerns and should be enforced without regard to gender. So the government shouldget out of the "marriage" business altogether. Marriage is something people do within their religious context. If the government has an interest in protecting contracts between couples, then it's obvious they should do so equitably without regard to gender, etc.
Gotta believe someone on the court is thinking this way. I can even imagine Scalia agreeing that a rose by any other name is still a "contract" and should be enforced equally. I mean, if the equal protection clause can give us Bush in 2000, it ought to give us this.
10803. judithathome - 3/27/2013 6:39:41 PM i The marriage question seems simple if we think of it as what it really is - a religious sacrament.
I have never once thought of my marriage as a religious sacrament. And millions of others don't think that way, either.
If it were simply a "religious" union, we wouldn't need to register it with the government. 10804. judithathome - 3/27/2013 6:40:27 PM Sorry, the quote should be italicized....I keep forgetting shortcuts don't work here.
|
