Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
In its selection of Russian President Vladimir Putin as its 2007 Person of the Year, Time magazine is careful to make clear that "it is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world-for better or for worse. " Reassuring words.
It's also reassuring to know that Time's editors didn't get hoodwinked by Putin's steely blue gaze or hard-as-rock presidential pecs (which, by the way, are featured on several softporn-style politico websites). As stated clearly in its lead editorial, "Putin is not a boy scout." (Are there any world leaders who are boy scouts?)
More seriously, what Time's selection does acknowledge, with all the appropriate concerns and caveats about the rollback of democracy and a free press, is that Putin "has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power."
Time is not the only magazine keeping its eye on Putin. At The Nation, we've watched the Russian president from the early days of his presidency (Who Is Putin? and Putin's Choice) through the horrors of the 2003 incident in Beslan, Chechnya (Putin's War), to the ongoing process of de-democratization (From Russia, With Hypocrisy) and his continuing crackdown on news media (The Fight for Press Freedom in Putin's Russia.
At a charged time of conflicting narratives in Russia and the West about Putin's Russia, what interests me about Time's assessment is that most Russians would agree with it.
Some in the West have argued that Putin's popularity results from his control of television, or his suppression of opposition parties. If only it were that easy. In fact, most Russians value the economic stability Putin has brought to their lives and their country after the Yeltsin years of turmoil and corruption--and view his impact as essentially positive. Putin is also credited by Russians with bringing their country back as a powerful player in the world--at a time when the geopolitical power of oil is reshaping the map. Here too there are conflicting narratives with most US pundits and politicians attributing only malign motives to Russia's actions on the world stage.
Time's recognition of Putin's leadership, in all its facets, may signal that it is time to think anew about US relations with Russia. Will we engage Russia in intelligent ways--as Stephen Cohen has argued we should (in the Nation's pages)--or continue on a path to a new Cold War with Putin's Russia?
"A Tsar is Born" --as Time titles its cover profile--may signal that it is time to think anew about US relations with Russia. Will we engage Russia in intelligent ways -- as Stephen Cohen has argued we should (in the Nation's pages)--or continue on a path to a new Cold War with Putin's Russia?
Katrina
There's a multi-billion dollar question.
I think it's pretty clear that U.S. foreign policy in regards to the Russian bear --encircle and threaten-- has been detrimental to U.S. interests in a multitude of ways. One effect has almost undoubtedly been to increase the popularity of Putin with his people.
This is one area of concern that has not received nearly enough light in our media. Hopefully, we'll get a smart and assertive president on this next go-round who can bring some brilliance to the table.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 3:00pm
By the way, Katrina.
I'm looking forward to the new issue of The Nation :-)
Thanks again, for last night's post.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 3:06pm
One more thing......
The homepage of the NY Times today has a short video clip of John Edwards --"John Edwards's Iowa Closing Argument". There's some other good stuff in the Politics section including some interesting Edwards fight song choices --the Boss, the Stones etc.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 3:19pm
well,
for all his defects (and there are many),
at least the russian people
have kinda chosen someone
who is intelligent.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 3:49pm
Zero, Do you think that without the NIE Bush would have stopped the push to go to war with Iran? All Putin could have done was prevented it from being a UN approved mission. Russia and China both opposed the war in Iraq.
As for being popular with his own people, that is hard to tell given that he rigs elections and shuts down opposition voices. If he is popular with them I don't see how that speaks well of Putin. It seems like it speaks poorly of the Russian people.
I wonder about the question KVH asked. What does a 'new Cold War' could war amount to? Readiness to nuke each other? If so then how could any rational person support it? Opposing the growth of Russian power in Europe and Asia? That would be a good thing except for the fact that acheiving it would increase US power in Europe and Asia. I think the strategy of encircling Russia with US client states, the strategy of the Bush administration since 2002, is a bad idea. It will exacerbate domestic problems in Russia and create ill will towards the US among the people of the client states.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 6:35pm
And who cares?
Let's see Time managed to whittle down their top five choices to Vladimir Putin, Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jintao and David Petraus. Must be the criteria of who do we put on the cover to sell more magazines. Not a popularity contest? Who does Time think they're fooling?
And the people that Time considers matter? Judd Apatow, Eduardo Arias, Wesley Autry, Billiam the YouTube Snowman, Barry Bonds, Burmese Monks, David Chase, Hugo Chavez, Miley Cyrus, Elizabeth Edwards, Robert Gates, Alberto Gonzales, Conn and Hal Iggulden, Don Imus, The Jena 6, Bobby Jindal, Angela Merkel, Yue Minjun, Angelo Mozilo, Rupert Murdoch, Obama and Clinton, Ron Paul, Erik Prince, Radiohead, Nicolas Sarkozy, John Smeaton, Britney Spears Junying Yu, James Thomson and Shinya Yamanaka.
Maybe some of these people matter in the Andy Warhol sense of their fifteen minutes has come. But some don't even make that list. On what scale of "matters" does Don Imus come out worthy of a mention? I'll not even touch Billiam the YouTube Snowman.
Erik Prince? Oh, I agree he matters because his mercenary army of human rights violators is a sign that we might soon have additional evidence to support Edward Gibbon's thesis in the "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to quote Wikipedia:
"According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[3] They had become lazy and soft, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle."
In short, you hire bullies, eventually they are going to bully you - especially if you are fat and flabby from too much food and too many circuses.
Black shoe, black shoe, I'm in doubt / Why's your big fat gut hanging out? / Is it beer or is it wine? / Or is it lack of P.T. time. Hoo-yah...
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2007 @ 7:34pm
Well, remmber, Ms vanden Heuvel....
we CANNOT apply Western standards to Russia!
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2007 @ 8:21pm
SRJENKINS, good post. As for your last question, this "black shoe" says lack of P.T. time. Flying a desk can be time consuming. Heheheh.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/19/2007 @ 8:59pm
While most of the article I agree with, the statement that Putin's Russia is less corrupt than Yeltsin's one is a stretch. Putin's corruption is just as rampant with the only one apparent modification - it is less random. Today, Russians simply know who the boss is.
Posted by aposoukh at 12/19/2007 @ 9:00pm
As for being popular with his own people, that is hard to tell given that he rigs elections and shuts down opposition voices. If he is popular with them I don't see how that speaks well of Putin. It seems like it speaks poorly of the Russian people.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/19/2007 @ 6:35pm | ignore this person
Yeah, we seem to have that same problem here too.
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/19/2007 @ 9:00pm
fritzthecat--
Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/19/2007 @ 10:00pm
Dear Katrina, as usual a very incisive look at a man who acts like a Tsar of Old Russia, and is too big for his britches. Putin has brainwashed the population of Russia into believing that he IS the force for stability whereas he is actually creating havoc with his stifling of freedom of choice, speech or ability to criticize his iron-fisted Fascistic despotic rule. Putin believes what he is doing is for the good of Russia, what it is in REALITY is what is good for Putin. The sooner he is toppled and liquidated like Nicolae Ceausescu, the better off Russia and the Russian People will be, without a doubt.
Posted by raymundohpl at 12/19/2007 @ 10:03pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/19/2007 @ 9:00pm
FRITZ...again, we CANNOT apply Western standards to Russia.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by MASK 12/19/2007 @ 10:07pm
that's what drives me crazy about these neocon idiots.
because the west has the best technology, our system has to be the best, therefore all you brown people should do it our way because we're right.
i hope to see a day when democracy (however messed up it can get) will be universal, not by imposition, but because each society has demanded it.
the russians will get their democracy (one day) but no one but the russians can decide when.
after all, who are we to judge?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 10:47pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/19/2007 @ 10:41pm
more wisdom from mr wheel of fortune:
I don't know whether Fred Thompson will ultimately prevail as the Republican Party's nominee for President, but I find myself rooting for him, because, even if there were no other reason (and I think there are many), he drives the mainstream media crazy by paying absolutely no attention to them.
rio, i swear you are losing your mind
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 10:54pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/19/2007 @ 10:47pm
This sounds nice, but there's a huge problem in the real world when you try to judge whether the people actually want something or not. What often happens is that there are movements for democracy in a country that are suppressed by the government. The fact that you don't have an uprising in the country does not mean that people in the country don't want democracy. If anything, the claim that "well, THOSE people don't really want liberty/can't handle it" is the one that's patronizing.
Moreover, I want to briefly address the absurd comparison of Russia and the US. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure none of the people on this site have been harassed or detained by US governing authorities. Nor has criticism of Bush, the war, or anything about his administration been limited. In short...the comparison (as I think KVH may have alluded to, even though there's virtually no text in her post) is manifestly absurd.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2007 @ 10:58pm
Posted by THRAWN 12/19/2007 @ 10:58pm
fair enough,
but who is not so hypocritical that they could actually export democracy?
the swedes? sure, and they try.
but not the u.s. -- too many dictators supported for too many years. and many of the movements for democracy have been suppressed by the u.s. government -- iran, 1953; guatemala, 1954; chile, 1971; etc.,
of course everybody is capable of handling liberty, and i would be the last one to suggest the opposite.
and yes, the situation is russia is obviously worse than is the u.s.. but doesn't it trouble you that the u.s. can even be compared to russia?
as for being harassed, i'll give you a report after my next visit to the u.s.. we'll see who's listening to whom (i really doubt anybody cares what fz has to say, but you never know).
perhaps you should read about an american hero, toledo's zak reed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 11:29pm
Madlib--no one is PRAISING Putin. Assessing, evaluating, taking measure of his impact on Russia and the world. That's what is worth doing. otherwise we kid ourselves. Also, as to those who say ..well, who can trust poll numbers...as I write, you can't take Putin's 70% plus at face value, BUT even independent polling operations in Moscow, and there are some, show that his policies do have majority support. Kasparov, I regret to add, while a brilliant chess champion, may not be the best politician....and what the US press often failed to report is that most popular member of his opposition coalition, Other Russia, was the quirky, edgy National Bolshevik Party leader...eddie Limonov..and, in fact, what few in US get is that the only real opposition party in Russia today is the KPRF --the Russian Communist Party! It has real networks in the provinces and had a party structure...some real problems with it....but it has become more social democratic, more populist, and has attracted younger members....anyway, this ain't about who's for or against Putin; it's taking the mesaure of a leader of a country that has reentered the world stage, with real power, after being down and out for a decade or more. Katrina vH
Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/20/2007 @ 12:10am
Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/20/2007 @ 12:10am
hey there,
perhaps the nation could do a little exposι on the plight of mr reed (see Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/19/2007 @ 11:29pm) and others like him.
otherwise, merry christmas! (or should i say more politically correctly, "happy holidayday!")
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 12:22am
RIO BRAVO
a howling lunatic.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 01:19am
what makes Putin noteworthy is that he is a leader who has achieved his objectives, which is not something that can be said for Bush, for instance.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 01:27am
Why it is that *our* leaders are expected to be wimpy, blue-blooded, and unmasculine is beyond me. Good for Vlad! Hopefully he'll be buried able to bench-press his own weight.
Posted by ZERO 12/19/2007 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person
you are one sick puppy. women can be so cruel, can't they.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 01:53am
I think this piece by Mike Whitney is entirely germane to the topic. I would have liked to post it earlier, but I haven't been near a computer.
Putin Agonistes: Missile Defense will not be Deployed
excerpt:
"Putin is an elusive character; neither boastful nor arrogant. It's clear now that western pundits mistook his reserved, quiet manner as a sign of superficiality or lack of resolve. They were wrong. They underestimated the former-KGB Colonel. Putin is bright and tenacious and he has a vision for his country. He sees Russia as a key player in the new century; an energy powerhouse that can control its own destiny. He doesn't plan to get bogged down in avoidable conflicts if possible. He's focused on development not war; plowshares not swords. He's also fiercely nationalistic; a Russian who puts Russia first.
But Putin is a realist and he knows that the US will not leave Eurasia without a fight. He's read the US National Security Strategy and he understands the ideological foundation for America's "unipolar" world model. The NSS is an unambiguous declaration of war against any nation that claims the right to to control its own resources or defend its own sovereignty against US interests. The NSS implies that nations' are required to open their markets to western multinationals and follow directives from Washington or accept a place on Bush's "enemies list". There's no middle ground. You are with us or with the terrorists......
To great extent, the American people have no idea of the reckless policy that is being carried out in their name. The gravity of the proposed Missile Defense system has been virtually ignored by the media and Russia's protests have been dismissed as trivial. But hostilities are steadily growing, military forces and weaponry are being put into place, and the stage is set for a major conflagration. This is every bit as serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time Russia cannot afford to stand down.
Putin will not allow the system to be deployed even if he has to remove it through force of arms. It is a direct threat to Russia's national security. We would expect no different from our own leaders."
Whatever one's opinion of Mike Whitney's take, there can be little question that this is one massive mastodon in the room that we aren't supposed to be paying any attention to.
A giant spotlight ought to be trained on this matter ASAP.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/20/2007 @ 02:06am
One more for the road.
Excerpt from the referenced Stephen Cohen piece:
Given different principles and determined leadership, it is still not too late for a new US policy toward post-Soviet Russia. Its components would include full cooperation in securing Moscow's materials of mass destruction; radically reducing nuclear weapons on both sides while banning the development of new ones and taking all warheads off hair-trigger alert; dissuading other states from acquiring those weapons; countering terrorist activities and drug-trafficking near Russia; and augmenting energy supplies to the West.
None of those programs are possible without abandoning the warped priorities and fallacies that have shaped US policy since 1991.
The problem here has such deep roots in the murky bowels of DC that a solution will, at a bare minimum, require some extraordinary cojones I suspect.
It's yet another major issue that can hardly be approached without first addressing the underlying intransigence of bureaucratic Washington --including the Council on Foreign Relations. I would love to see an expose on the topic ala the fascinating Jason Vest investigation of the JINSA and CSP organizations.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/20/2007 @ 03:52am
at least the russian people
have kinda chosen someone
who is intelligent.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/19/2007 @ 3:49pm
If only we had a guy like that in charge versus idiot boy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:07am
Well, at least he's not Bush. (snicker snicker.)
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/19/2007 @ 6:18pm
MBB,
You're right, he's not Bush. He has a brain. If Bush were running Russia, he would have sold all of the nations assets off to the highest bidder from another country and the Russians would soon be learning a new language. Bush would have privatized everything from the Kremlin down to the natural gas and oil reseerves that Russia has. The Russian people wouldn't have a thing.....kind of the way the U.S. is heading right now.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:11am
Moreover, I want to briefly address the absurd comparison of Russia and the US. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure none of the people on this site have been harassed or detained by US governing authorities. Nor has criticism of Bush, the war, or anything about his administration been limited. In short...the comparison (as I think KVH may have alluded to, even though there's virtually no text in her post) is manifestly absurd.
Posted by THRAWN 12/19/2007 @ 10:58pm
Wanna make a bet? Just try to oppose anyone from Bushco at a public forum. The security guards will arrest you in a heart beat. People just wearing a shirt saying they opposed Bush have been thrown out of events and even arrested on site.
Our media is becoming more and more the propaganda machine the Russians have. Don't kid yourself. The day may come when people like us are questioned for questioning Bush. The patriot act has made it possible similar to the Macarthy era communism paranoia.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:20am
For all the Gog and Magog of "Revelations" fan members out there Putin has done a great job of positioning Russia to again be a potent force at the battle of Armaegedeon after we thought they were down and out when the 80s were over!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/20/2007 @ 12:25am
Yes, the Russian's ultimate goal is to bring the world to an end. That's been Putin's policy from day one. Bring the Russian's standard of living up. What a villain.
Just because our leaders wish to freeze our economy to make overseas profits doesn't make Putin a bad guy, it makes our leaders bad guys for screwing us. Putin is looking out for Russia. Who the hell is W looking out for? It sure as hell ain't us in the U.S.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:27am
A giant spotlight ought to be trained on this matter ASAP.
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/20/2007 @ 02:06am
Good post B_KOOL. Thanks
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:31am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 08:53am
MBB,
I believe you are the one with the severe disability here. You're cognitive resources seem to fail you at every turn. You prove it time and time again.
Your reasoning is that if you say something a bunch of times, it means it's true, but, it just means you keep saying the same lies over and over again. There are those who would define that is insanity.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 08:57am
"Isn't technology the single most important thing in improving the human condition? "
no it isn't. technology has always been a double edged sword. the atomic bomb did nothing to improve the human condition.
the folks who put their bodies on the line in the civil rights struggles in the 60s, they improved the human condition.
"I think you can make the case the the nation with the best technology has the best system if that system produced the technology"
let's see now, Nazi Germany which invented the jet airplane, rocketry, and many many other things, was by no means the best system.
Mary, you are an immature boy who cannot follow a thought to its logical conclusion. take off the ideological blinders and get some facts before you post.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 09:00am
I remember one of the Dem's guests at a SOTU had to cover up an anti-Bush t-shirt. You're right, there's no difference betwene an incredibly minor inconvenience and being thrown into the Gulag without due process.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 08:56am
Hey, Mr Freedom loving dipshit. Why did this person have to inconvenience themself by covering up this oh so offesive T shirt? See, you guys want freedom only for your point of view. Someone differs with you, they need to shut up.
That ain't freedom pal, that's towing the party line.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 09:00am
fritzthecat--
Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/19/2007 @ 10:00pm | ignore this person
Katrina?
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/20/2007 @ 09:13am
Posted by THRAWN 12/19/2007 @ 10:58pm
I'm pretty sure none of the people on this site have been harassed or detained by US governing authorities. Nor has criticism of Bush, the war, or anything about his administration been limited.
By this comment, I'm pretty sure you have white skin, don't live in a city, and have never participated in protesting an event with "free speech zones". Ever walk down blocks and blocks of police armed with clubs, ostensibly for your "protection" during an anti-war march? Of course not, otherwise you wouldn't make such a comment.
Your comment may also reveal the fact that The Nation itself, and the people that blog here are so preoccupied with electoral politics that they don't actually DO anything that raises to the level where our government starts to harrass and detain them. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen - nor does it mean that there isn't a signficant difference in the U.S.'s and Russia's levels. Let's just not pretend that everything is lily white here in the U.S. shall we?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 09:24am
If only we had a guy like that in charge versus idiot boy.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/20/2007 @ 08:07am
careful what you wish for.
imagine someone with the attitude of bush fused with the mind of cheney.
oh wait, nevermind..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 08:57am
I think it's time to stop automatically believing that people who have different values than you must be stupid.
I think it's time to stop automatically believing that people who win elections must be smart - particularly when their values are win at any cost.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 08:47am
So, yeah, I think you can make the case the the nation with the best technology has the best system if that system produced the technology.
Oh, I see you are a Japanophile. Or did you mean to say military technology?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 09:44am
it's taking the mesaure of a leader of a country that has reentered the world stage, with real power, after being down and out for a decade or more. Katrina vH----Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/20/2007 @ 12:10am
What are we "mesauring" it against, Ms vanden Heuvel?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 09:47am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/20/2007 @ 02:06am
"Given (Russia's) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia -- composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic -- would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization." (Zbigniew Brzezinski,"A Geostrategy for Eurasia")
i wonder if mr. brjzzenenrnrski would like a South-east Bloc, a New England Republic, Californialand, and the Middleparts Confederation
U.S. covert support to the two main Chechen rebel groups (through Pakistan's ISI) was known to the Russian government and military.
oh fuck. more terrorist support. my god.
Russian Navy Admiral Vladimir Masorin also announced this week that Russia will move part of its fleet to Syrian ports where "it will maintain a permanent presence in the Mediterranean. Israeli leaders are in a panic over the announcement claiming that the move will disrupt their "electronic surveillance and air defense centers" thus threatening their national security. Putin intends to go ahead with the plan regardless. Dredging has already begun in the port of Tartus and a dock is being built in the Syrian port of Latakia.
why does my son have to go through the same crap i did
Bush's Missile Defense system has restarted the nuclear arms race. Welcome to the new Cold War.
well at least mr. martin got one thing right when he said, "no thanks".
bkool, i don't know if i should thank you or cry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 09:50am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 09:27am
It does not state that all opposing view points shall be given equal time on The President's dime.
Can you explain to me how it's the President's dime? And why does this comment bring to mind this exchange:
Jeff Spicoli: I've been thinking about this, Mr. Hand. If I'm here and you're here doesn't that make it our time?
Or dime in this case, since many people other than Bush pay for the SOTU address, i.e., taxpayers. Perhaps we need to compel him to share the pizza a la Mr. Hand.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 09:53am
So, yeah, I think you can make the case the the nation with the best technology has the best system if that system produced the technology.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/20/2007 @ 08:47am
i guess you believe this because material possessions and the power they "give" you is the source of your happiness.
you know, the spanish had better guns, etc.,
they crushed the mayans. yet the mayans knew way more about math and astronomy.
We'll meet again,
Don't know where,
Don't know when,
But I know
We'll meet again
Some sunny day.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 09:56am
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/20/2007 @ 09:13am
maybe she's telling you to be more minimalist.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/20/2007 @ 10:00am
You've convinced me JOMAMMA. Perhaps that just what America needs too, emerging strong again by selling military technology abroad, CIA at the helm, and corporate oligopolies planning the national economy. Smell that, ummm, smells like a winner to me.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 10:13am
at least since Nixon we have had presidents who were either big criminals, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, or small criminals, Clinton. the former in Watergate, Iran contra, Irancontra, Iraq. the latter, a perjury to cover a sexual indiscretion. I wonder which harmed the country more?
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 10:19am
maybe she's telling you to be more minimalist.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/20/2007 @ 09:58am | ignore this person
Less is more.
:)
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/20/2007 @ 10:29am
Let's face it. Putin and Bush are one in the same. They both deceive, they both wage wars of aggression and they're both state sponsored terrorism. Regardless of who is popular or who is more intelligent or who looks more handsome, they're two leaders the world could live without. Stop focusing on the small stuff and start looking at the bigger picture.
Posted by fay1827 at 12/20/2007 @ 10:30am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/20/2007 @ 09:56am
And, the Mayans held out longer against the Spanish than the Aztecs or Incans!
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 10:32am
Posted by FAY1827 12/20/2007 @ 10:30am
thank you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 10:37am
As far as Putin and Russia...
We can't fall into a conceit that "nothing short of democratization qualifies as 'meaningful' change in (Russia)."...."We may wish for democracy for (Russia), but to deny that lesser improvements are meaningful is a profound failure of analysis and compassion".
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 10:40am
Posted by MASK
not untrue, but incomplete.
The Maya collapse Main article: Maya collapse For reasons that are still debated, the Maya centers of the southern lowlands went into decline during the 8th and 9th centuries and were abandoned shortly thereafter. This decline was coupled with a cessation of monumental inscriptions and large-scale architectural construction.[8] Although there is no universally accepted theory to explain this "collapse," current theories fall into two categories: non-ecological and ecological. Non-ecological theories of Maya decline are divided into several subcategories, such as overpopulation, foreign invasion, peasant revolt, and the collapse of key trade routes. Ecological hypotheses include environmental disaster, epidemic disease, and climate change. There is evidence that the Mayan population exceeded carrying capacity of the environment including exhaustion of agricultural potential and overhunting of megafauna.[9] Some scholars have recently theorized that an intense 200 year drought led to the collapse of Mayan civilization.[10] The drought theory originated from research performed by physical scientists studying lake beds, ancient pollen, and other data, not from the archaeological community.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 10:40am
...Amazing who the hard left here finds the threat to the world...
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/20/2007 @ 10:00am
And you don't think that the renegade W has been a threat to the world??? The U.S. is the one placing missiles over there, not vice versa.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 10:47am
Posted by ZORAN 12/20/2007 @ 10:40am
Well, the Mayans had declined before Spanish contact, but my point was simply on their response to the conquistadores and their resistance to subjegation...which, due to the DECENTRALIZED civilization (hint,hint!) allowed them to hold out until 1697, where as the centralized Aztecs and Incans fell much sooner.
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by ZORAN 12/20/2007 @ 10:19am
Clinton put more U.S. citizens in prison than Reagan and Bush I combined.
You also left out Carter - and his Carter doctrine, which combined with Clinton's signing on to a policy of regime change in Iraq in 1998 and an interventionist U.S. policy since WWII (particularly Ron's first war of terror), set the ground work for George W. Bush.
You want to fault the people that push ideas to their logical conclusion as criminals. It's like arresting the reapers and not the sowers.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 10:53am
Rio-I see that you are a sign seeker.According to Jesus only an evil generation seeks sings,but this generation of right wing Christians is very much a sign seeking bunch especially since the attack on Iraq.The thing I can't figure out is what your view of Jesus is that you believe that he is coming back to rapture up the very people he said were evil.Why would he rapture up people he said were evil?
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/20/2007 @ 10:58am
You also left out Carter - and his Carter doctrine....---Posted by SRJENKINS 12/20/2007 @ 10:53am
Wow, SRJ....Jimmy too?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 11:16am
Posted by MASK
still incomplete. the Mayans had none of the commodities the spanish wanted, gold, silver etc.so it was not worth the spanish effort to subdue and exploit them.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 11:20am
US continuing down the path to a New Cold War, eh, Katrina? Hmmm Just yesterday I saw a report of Old Russian Bear Bombers flying up around near Alaska testing our reaction time. THAT sounds familiar.
You people seem to take some perverse pleasure in always blaming your own country for the worlds problems, always leaning torwards the other guy. I used to do that, when I was in college. Makes you feel "enlightened", you know, above it all, sort of. Then I grew up...
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/20/2007 @ 11:23am
the Mayans had none of the commodities the spanish wanted, gold, silver etc.so it was not worth the spanish effort to subdue and exploit them.
Posted by ZORAN 12/20/2007 @ 11:20am
the one commodity they had, knowledge, was of no interest to the spanish.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 11:24am
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 11:23am
i guess the problem is the flea ridden bed you dogs continue to want to sleep in.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 11:25am
ChipThornton-It's best to clean up the garbage in your own backyard before you start pointing out the garbage in someone else's backyard.Something you would know if you had really grown up.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/20/2007 @ 11:25am
Posted by ZORAN 12/20/2007 @ 11:20am
Both were factors.
BTW, you're not from Texas, are you?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2007 @ 11:31am
I doubt people take pleasure in blaming their country Chip. I think you have it confused. People in your country and people from around the world are not wrong when they say that "the greatest threat to world security is America" because it seems that America has its hands in every world affair conceivable and to believe otherwise is naοve. I think it's more enlightening to be involved and aware of the ills of your country rather than being blind to it.
Posted by fay1827 at 12/20/2007 @ 11:33am
Chip is a slavery apologist, thass all you need to know.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 11:34am
The whole place is run by ex KGB who are now oil billionaires. Its like if the CIA teamed up with the Mafia to run the US. The Russians have always been a mess regardless of whether they have a Czar, Lenin, Stalin or whoever.
Posted by GUPDOG 12/20/2007 @ 10:53am
Sounds kind of like the White House being run by ex oilmen.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 1:02pm
IM NOBODY, If you refer to the doins of the current Bush Administration, He's not my President and it's not my garbage, although its existance doesn't mean I shouldn't recognize other garbage
ZORAN, your starting to sound like Johannesrolf, a great one for labeling any historical objectivity as racist, apologetic, sexist etc, etc ad nauseum, if said history deviated from his conception of it.
FROSTY OLD BOY, I have no idea what you are talking about (I do use FRONTLINE on my Lab/Rottweiler, though, and he is not allowed on the bed).
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/20/2007 @ 1:42pm
FAY,
I am well aware of my countries' mistakes. I simply refuse to use those mistakes to continually bash the country that has offered more in the way of economic, political and social freedom in the history of the world, including the much celebrated Swiss Confederation or Ancient Greece. Being a threat is in the eye of the beholder, and I for one have never been in favor of ramming our systems down others throats.
And I think there are people who get off on bashing their own, just as there are people who wrap up in the flag and bait intellectuals. I call the former "wallowers", Eeyore types, people who, if they woke up one morning and didn't have something to bitch about, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
You don't have to be an "America Love it or Leave it" type to understand our flaws & STILL come out knowing we are the best shake the worlds ever had.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/20/2007 @ 1:51pm
You don't have to be an "America Love it or Leave it" type to understand our flaws & STILL come out knowing we are the best shake the worlds ever had.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 1:51pm
True enough, but there is definitely room for improvement, and always will be. What does it say, ...the pursuit of happiness, and we could add the pursuit of perfection. We'll never get there, but we should always try because we are far from perfect.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 2:02pm
FROSTY OLD BOY, I have no idea what you are talking about (I do use FRONTLINE on my Lab/Rottweiler, though, and he is not allowed on the bed).
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 1:42pm
the old adage "sleep with dogs, and you shall awaken with fleas".
the u.s. has put itself in bed with many dirty dogs around the world.
saddam, pinochet, noriega, ...................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 2:29pm
Chip,
It's not bashing but the democratic obligations of citizens to verbally object the path this administration has taken on the world stage. Demonstrating against the Iraq war is not bashing, bringing to light gross violations of human rights (i.e. torture of detainees) as well as violations of domestic and international laws is not bashing. These are real meaningful issues and to refer to people who disagree with the choices this administration has made, past or present, as bashers is wrong.
Posted by fay1827 at 12/20/2007 @ 2:29pm
FROSTY-UNDERSTOOD-Sometimes you do what you feel you have to-Don't know that some of those "friends" would have been mine, though. WOLFGANG-AGREED Improvement is always desirable in everthing.
FAY-I was thinking more of the , shall we say, less objective studies of US History in past years, notable in the '90's. If you want to discuss Bush, yes, he lost me for good when he legitimized torture, set up secret camps, lied in a manner disproportionate to almost anyone since Nixon. But its BECAUSE I think we have a great history that I wish for his demise, I hope his entire rotten infrastructure comes crashing down around him. Perspectively, I've mentioned before that I think my favorite President, Theodore Roosevelt, who Bush likes to emulate, would have had him shot for incompetence by now. He has totally destroyed our reputation, a situation that even an ultimate victory in the Terror war won't correct for years.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/20/2007 @ 3:09pm
rape, assault. murder. that was the fate of slaves. the documentation is there for all to see.
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 4:17pm
of course I'm from Texas, isn't everybody?
Posted by zoran at 12/20/2007 @ 4:17pm
a situation that even an ultimate victory in the Terror war
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 3:09pm
how's THAT going to happen?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 4:35pm
saddam, pinochet, noriega, ...................
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/20/2007 @ 2:29pm
You can add Osama Bin Laden to that list.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/20/2007 @ 4:47pm
You can add Osama Bin Laden to that list.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/20/2007 @ 4:47pm
and musharraf...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/20/2007 @ 4:50pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/20/2007 @ 4:47pm
There is no evidence to suggest that the U.S. supported Osama Bin Laden. See Ghost Wars by Steve Coll and look up Bin Laden in the index. In fact, it is likely that Bin Laden wouldn't accept such support, and I believe he has stated that he never took any from the U.S. I suppose it might look bad if he did, but Coll didn't find any evidence either.
Suharto would be a good name to add to the list, among many others. But Bin Laden, no.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 5:50pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 3:09pm
Curious, what would ultimate victory in the war on terror look like? Christians, Communists, Hindus, animists, Muslims, Free Market fundamentalists, anarchists, and on and on. All gathered together to sing some Raga version of We are the World?
Or is ultimate victory like those we achieved over the Native American populations, a program of genocide, followed by marginalization, and then a program of embrace and extend - integration, forced or otherwise?
It would be better if you guys started painting the picture of what ultimate victory looks like and do a rough estimated body count - that way at least you can't just advocate the program without looking at the moral price you pay full in the face.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 5:57pm
Another thought for "The Nation" how about taking Time's gimmick and picking a "Progressive Person of the Year". I, for one, would love to see more discussion of people other than politicians or academics, you know people doing the "nation-building" you are advocating. Might give people like me some ideas, and get us off our asses and actually doing something, rather than wasting our time posting B.S. to your blog.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2007 @ 6:00pm
Stalin got the award TWICE from Time ... Putin's award is valid for a couple of reasons:
1. It might shock a few folks who think the world revolves around NYC and DC that leaders outside the US also have a big global impact
2. Considering the history of Russia, Putin has made more positive strides than negative ones - he's done well considering the historically dysfunctional (and huge) country he leads.
Posted by EnviroVarmint at 12/20/2007 @ 6:16pm
man of the year
Year Choice Lifetime Notes 1927 Charles Lindbergh 1902 1974 First and youngest person chosen 1928 Walter Chrysler 1875 1940 1929 Owen D. Young 1874 1962 1930 Mahatma Gandhi 1869 1948 First non-American person chosen 1931 Pierre Laval 1883 1945 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 First president-elect chosen 1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson 1882 1942 1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 2nd time chosen 1935 Haile Selassie I 1892 1975 First monarch chosen; First black person chosen 1936 / Wallis Simpson 1896 1986 First female chosen 1937 Chiang Kai-shek & Soong May-ling 1887 1975 & 1897 - 2003 First couple chosen 1938 Adolf Hitler 1889 1945 The only issue where chosen individual was not pictured on cover 1939 Joseph Stalin 1878 1953 1940 Winston Churchill 1874 1965 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 3rd time chosen 1942 Joseph Stalin 1878 1953 2nd time chosen 1943 George Marshall 1880 1959 1944 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1890 1969 1945 Harry S. Truman 1884 1972 1946 James F. Byrnes 1879 1972 1947 George Marshall 1880 1959 2nd time chosen 1948 Harry S. Truman 1884 1972 2nd time chosen 1949 Winston Churchill 1874 1965 "Man of the Half-Century"; 2nd time chosen 1950 The American Fighting-Man Representing Korean War troops; first abstract chosen 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh 1882 1967 1952 Elizabeth II b. 1926 1953 Konrad Adenauer 1876 1967 1954 John Foster Dulles 1888 1959 1955 Harlow Curtice 1893 1962 1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter Abstract choice 1957 Nikita Khrushchev 1894 1971 1958 Charles de Gaulle 1890 1970 1959 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1890 1969 2nd time chosen 1960 U.S. Scientists Represented by Linus Pauling, Isidor Rabi, Edward Teller, Joshua Lederberg, Donald A. Glaser, Willard Libby, Robert Woodward, Charles Draper, William Shockley, Emilio Segrθ, John Enders, Charles Townes, George Beadle, James Van Allen and Edward Purcell 1961 John F. Kennedy 1917 1963 1962 Pope John XXIII 1881 1963 First Pope chosen 1963 Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929 1968 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 1908 1973 1965 William Westmoreland 1914 2005 1966 The Generation Twenty-Five and Under Abstract choice 1967 Lyndon B. Johnson 1908 1973 2nd time chosen 1968 The Apollo 8 astronauts Represented by Frank Borman, Jim Lovell & William Anders 1969 The Middle Americans Abstract choice 1970 Willy Brandt 1913 1992 1971 Richard Nixon 1913 1994 1972 Richard Nixon 1913 1994 2nd time chosen Henry Kissinger b. 1923 1973 John Sirica 1904 1992 1974 King Faisal 1906 1975 1975 American women 1776 1974 Represented by Betty Ford, Carla Hills, Ella Grasso, Barbara Jordan, Susie Sharp, Jill Conway, Billie Jean King, Susan Brownmiller, Addie Wyatt, Kathleen Byerly, Carol Sutton and Alison Cheek 1976 Jimmy Carter b. 1924 1977 Anwar Sadat 1918 1981 1978 Deng Xiaoping 1904 1997 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini 1902 1989 Leader of the Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran. 1980 Ronald Reagan 1911 2004 1981 Lech Wałęsa b. 1943 Leader of the "Solidarity" movement in Poland. 1982 The Computer "Machine of the Year"; first non-human abstract chosen 1983 Ronald Reagan 1911 2004 2nd time chosen Yuri Andropov 1914 1984 1984 Peter Ueberroth b. 1937 1985 Deng Xiaoping 1904 1997 2nd time chosen 1986 Corazon Aquino b. 1933 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev b. 1931 1988 Endangered Earth "Planet of the Year"; abstract choice 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev b. 1931 "Man of the Decade"; 2nd time chosen; 1990 George H. W. Bush b. 1924 Bush was referred to as "The Two George Bushes" -- this is not a reference to George W. Bush but to how George H.W. Bush was complimented for international affairs and criticized for domestic affairs (including for his quote "Read my lips: no new taxes.")[7] 1991 Ted Turner b. 1938 1992 Bill Clinton b. 1946 1993 The Peacemakers Represented by Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin 1994 Pope John Paul II 1920 2005 2nd Pope chosen 1995 Newt Gingrich b. 1943 1996 / David Ho b. 1952 1997 Andy Grove b. 1936 1998 Bill Clinton b. 1946 2nd time chosen Kenneth Starr b. 1946 1999 Jeffrey P. Bezos b. 1964 2000 George W. Bush b. 1946 First relative of a former winner chosen 2001 Rudolph Giuliani b. 1944 2002 The Whistleblowers Represented by Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Sherron Watkins of Enron, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI 2003 The American Soldier 2nd time chosen; abstract choice 2004 George W. Bush b. 1946 2nd time chosen 2005 The Good Samaritans Represented by Bono and Bill & Melinda Gates 2006 You "You" control the Information Age 2007 Vladimir Putin[8] b. 1952 [edit]
Posted by el dorado at 12/20/2007 @ 6:36pm
Year Choice Lifetime Notes 1927 Charles Lindbergh 1902 1974 First and youngest person chosen
1928 Walter Chrysler 1875 1940
1929 Owen D. Young 1874 1962
1930 Mahatma Gandhi 1869 1948 First non-American person chosen
1931 Pierre Laval 1883 1945
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 First president-elect chosen
1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson 1882 1942
1934 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 2nd time chosen
1935 Haile Selassie I 1892 1975 First monarch chosen; First black person chosen
1936 / Wallis Simpson 1896 1986 First female chosen
1937 Chiang Kai-shek & Soong May-ling 1887 1975 & 1897 - 2003 First couple chosen
1938 Adolf Hitler 1889 1945 The only issue where chosen individual was not pictured on cover
1939 Joseph Stalin 1878 1953
1940 Winston Churchill 1874 1965
1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt 1882 1945 3rd time chosen
1942 Joseph Stalin 1878 1953 2nd time chosen
1943 George Marshall 1880 1959
1944 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1890 1969
1945 Harry S. Truman 1884 1972
1946 James F. Byrnes 1879 1972
1947 George Marshall 1880 1959 2nd time chosen
1948 Harry S. Truman 1884 1972 2nd time chosen
1949 Winston Churchill 1874 1965 "Man of the Half-Century"; 2nd time chosen
1950 The American Fighting-Man Representing Korean War troops; first abstract chosen
1951 Mohammed Mossadegh 1882 1967
1952 Elizabeth II b. 1926
1953 Konrad Adenauer 1876 1967
1954 John Foster Dulles 1888 1959
1955 Harlow Curtice 1893 1962
1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter Abstract choice
1957 Nikita Khrushchev 1894 1971
1958 Charles de Gaulle 1890 1970
1959 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1890 1969 2nd time chosen
1960 U.S. Scientists Represented by Linus Pauling, Isidor Rabi, Edward Teller, Joshua Lederberg, Donald A. Glaser, Willard Libby, Robert Woodward, Charles Draper, William Shockley, Emilio Segrθ, John Enders, Charles Townes, George Beadle, James Van Allen and Edward Purcell
1961 John F. Kennedy 1917 1963
1962 Pope John XXIII 1881 1963 First Pope chosen
1963 Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929 1968
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 1908 1973
1965 William Westmoreland 1914 2005
1966 The Generation Twenty-Five and Under Abstract choice
1967 Lyndon B. Johnson 1908 1973 2nd time chosen
1968 The Apollo 8 astronauts Represented by Frank Borman, Jim Lovell & William Anders
1969 The Middle Americans Abstract choice
1970 Willy Brandt 1913 1992
1971 Richard Nixon 1913 1994
1972 Richard Nixon 1913 1994 2nd time chosen
Henry Kissinger b. 1923
1973 John Sirica 1904 1992
1974 King Faisal 1906 1975 1975 American women 1776 1974 Represented by Betty Ford, Carla Hills, Ella Grasso,
Barbara Jordan, Susie Sharp, Jill Conway, Billie Jean King, Susan Brownmiller, Addie Wyatt, Kathleen Byerly, Carol Sutton and Alison Cheek
1976 Jimmy Carter b. 1924
1977 Anwar Sadat 1918 1981
1978 Deng Xiaoping 1904 1997
1979 Ayatollah Khomeini 1902 1989 Leader of the Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran
. 1980 Ronald Reagan 1911 2004
1981 Lech Wałęsa b. 1943 Leader of the "Solidarity" movement in Poland.
1982 The Computer "Machine of the Year"; first non-human abstract chosen
1983 Ronald Reagan 1911 2004 2nd time chosen
Yuri Andropov 1914 1984
1984 Peter Ueberroth b. 1937
1985 Deng Xiaoping 1904 1997 2nd time chosen
1986 Corazon Aquino b. 1933
1987 Mikhail Gorbachev b. 1931
1988 Endangered Earth "Planet of the Year"; abstract choice
1989 Mikhail Gorbachev b. 1931 "Man of the Decade"; 2nd time chosen;
1990 George H. W. Bush b. 1924 Bush was referred to as "The Two George Bushes" -- this is not a reference to George W. Bush but to how George H.W. Bush was complimented for international affairs and criticized for domestic affairs (including for his quote "Read my lips: no new taxes.")[7]
1991 Ted Turner b. 1938
1992 Bill Clinton b. 1946
1993 The Peacemakers Represented by Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin
1994 Pope John Paul II 1920 2005 2nd Pope chosen
1995 Newt Gingrich b. 1943
1996 / David Ho b. 1952
1997 Andy Grove b. 1936
1998 Bill Clinton b. 1946 2nd time chosen
Kenneth Starr b. 1946
1999 Jeffrey P. Bezos b. 1964
2000 George W. Bush b. 1946 First relative of a former winner chosen
2001 Rudolph Giuliani b. 1944
2002 The Whistleblowers Represented by Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Sherron Watkins of Enron, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI
2003 The American Soldier 2nd time chosen; abstract choice
2004 George W. Bush b. 1946 2nd time chosen
2005 The Good Samaritans Represented by Bono and Bill & Melinda Gates
2006 You "You" control the Information Age
2007 Vladimir Putin[8] b. 1952 [edit]
Posted by el dorado at 12/20/2007 @ 6:47pm
The lists are fascinating capsule glimpses of History.
Strong leaders all, I prefer those who are/were more or less free of imperialistic motivations.
Happy Holidays, Friends!
Posted by lewwelge at 12/20/2007 @ 10:52pm
Posted by LEWWELGE
know who they all are?
Posted by Big Jake at 12/20/2007 @ 11:00pm
Happy Holidays, Friends!
Posted by LEWWELGE 12/20/2007 @ 10:52pm
Good grief! It's Merry Christmas....just can't say it, huh?
Posted by Happy at 12/20/2007 @ 11:15pm
while I do not object to Merry Christmas, it is not as inclusive as Happy Holidays. why should you object to that? the holiday we are celebrating is far older than christianity, even older than Judaism, perhaps as old as mankind itself. what we are celebrating in all holidays is the brotherhood of man, which is penetratingly articulated by Schiller and Beethoven, among many other.
happy holidays to all, and may mankind find peace at last after its long bloody travail.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/20/2007 @ 11:56pm
Good grief! It's Merry Christmas....just can't say it, huh?
Posted by HAPPY 12/20/2007 @ 11:15pm
i prefer ‘happy holidayday!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 12:36am
Suharto would be a good name to add to the list, among many others. But Bin Laden, no.
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/20/2007 @ 5:50pm
So, when Bin Laden was fighting against the Russians, you don't think the U.S. was helping him? Give me a break.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/21/2007 @ 06:32am
My "friends," or those without "imperialistic motivations" Big J?
Presuming the latter...well, certainly Gandhi, maybe even Eisenhower given his famous farewell address. Who would you add?
Posted by lewwelge at 12/21/2007 @ 07:18am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/20/2007 @ 1:51pm
Interesting comment. I've often wondered if the Left in general is composed of self-hating pessimists. Happy in name and disposition, as well as I can read him, typifies most conservatives that I know. Confident that God's in his heaven and all is well (although I did notice your president did an inventory of the silverware after he had the "press" for dinner...but then that may not have been so much general pessimism about human nature but more a realistic assessment of American journos).
It would be interesting to do a survey on rates of depression and personality traits on both groups to see if one's political persuasion is not genetically predetermined.
What you have picked up stands out like a sore thumb. It is not only an American Left propensity but is replicated in my country and certainly in the UK and though the sample is small, (numerically, of course, as we don't want to make false assumptions about little man's disease... at least not without more info 8-)), in Canada also.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/21/2007 @ 07:43am
Good Morning LRJONES.
What is your country-Canada?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 07:57am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/21/2007 @ 06:32am
There is no evidence to support that claim. I told you where you could look. Shoot, I'll go even further. Go to Amazon, search for Ghost Wars, do a search inside the book for Bin Laden and then select page 87:
The CIA became aware of bin Laden's work with Afghan rebels in Pakistan and Afghanistan later in the 1980s but did not meet with him even then, according to these record searches and interviews. If the CIA did have contact with bin Laden during the 1980s and subsequently covered it up, it has so far done an excellent job.
Now, you might argue that he was indirectly financed through Pakistan, but even that position is dubious given his wealth, his other backing and his anti-Western stance.
Here's the Pepsi challenge. I'm open to you pointing out what facts you have that either establish this claim or provide support for it. Tell me where you found it and I'll look into it again. If you are simply going from the gut and don't know much about the topic, then how about you give me a break and stop engaging in half assed guess work and make an effort to learn - particularly when someone makes the effort to point out your error to you.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 08:01am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 07:57am
I believe he is from Australia - if memory serves.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 08:02am
These are pictures of house church members in Henan province being tortured by People's Armed Police and Public security squad
http://www.geocities.com/mstkg/tort.htm
but hey, the millionaires are spared this, so who gives a shit, right John Maasch? Why don;t you excuse this behavior by bringing up Castro, or Venezuela?
note the use of "simulated drowning". It's really no big deal.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:08am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2007 @ 07:43am
Perhaps it is because yellow bellied skinks like Happy close their eyes to the way their business partners treat their citizens. I would be a little happier if I could be an unconcerned parasite.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:10am
I look at these pictures, then I read the words of the Chinese Apologists and I am sickened to my core.
"It is not up to me to tell the Chinese how to run their country."
What lame, sorry excuses for human beings, especially those that claim to know God on a personal level. Did God put those dollar shaped blinders on you people?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:16am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2007 @ 07:43am
Self-hating pessimists is a right-wing canard. It's just an excuse for people to play amateur psychologist, and I could just as easily make some silly statement about IQ points being a genetic determinate of political position. Doesn't sound much different - and it is about as plausible.
I'd also be interested to see how Chip defines "best shake the world's ever had." If you look at it from the perspective of arms development, arms sales and body count, I think Chip might be hard pressed to point out a historical equivalent that comes anywhere close to the U.S. - particularly if we focus on totals rather than percentages (although I think we can hold our own their too).
You don't have to be a self-hating pessimist to objectively assess the United States and say these claims about "best shake", "American dream" and all the other fantasy world notions about the U.S. come out on the truthiness sniff test smelling of a rank fart.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 08:16am
SRJENKINS, talk to these soulless moneygrubbers, speak to them in their language. Quote scripture that might reach them, if possible.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:18am
http://www.geocities.com/mstkg/tort.htm
Make it your homepage if you love Chinese imports.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:20am
Yes, I am ranting.
Because you apologists make me sick to my fucking stomach. It must be my self loathing, not the result of viewing "simulated drowning".
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2007 @ 08:21am
SR JENKINS: I would define it, somewhat like this:
Some time ago, a man in England was thrown in jail for publicly denying the Holocaust. Here, such a person would be quickly dismissed as the crackpot he is, and there is no provision for charging him with a crime. But in England, the country we took our basic infrastructure from, through the guy in jail. Go around the world, and it goes down from that point. Thats the civil rights best shake.
The possibility that you or anyone will achieve at least some measure of prosperity through opportunity is greater here than anywhere else in the world. Its not a guarantee that you'll have SOMETHING, as claimed in some "progressive" countries, but a greater chance to achieve a many things. Thats the economic better shake.
We only have to deal with ineptness at the top for 4 years before we can choose to rid ourselves of it, and have non-violent provisions embedded in our system to get rid of leaders if they break the laws of the land. Thats the political best shake.
We can worship whenever and wherever we chose. We make a mistake like allowing slavery to proliferate here, and then fight a devastating war to get rid of it, because we know its wrong. Those are the spiritual and moral best shakes.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 08:53am
SR JENKINS:
Oh, and as to Body Count? Try Attilla, Chinggis Khan, Tamerlane, Vlad Tepes, the Turks, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin. I think they got us there.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 08:59am
Chill Crabby. However one copes/manages with the "chronic anxiety" of life, especially at this time of year, I believe it worthwhile to consider the probability that your attention is a powerful reinforcer. Therefore, taking heed of the aphorism which should be an ukase/edict this time of year, "better to light one candle than to curse the darkness," take heart in knowing you best serve the "greater good" when you, yourself, remain calm, even serene.
Happy December "mirror day," to wit: 12/21
Posted by lewwelge at 12/21/2007 @ 09:44am
LRJones-There is nothing genetic about political beliefs nor is there any connection between any form of mental illness and political belief except that people on the far left and far right are believed to be suffering from the same mental illness.You are very naive as your propaganda always shows.Either that or you just make things up in the hopes that a moron will read your nonsense and believe it.The self hating pessimists thing is something that an uneducated right wing propagandist made up about the left and is something that other ignorant right wingers repeat.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 10:01am
LRjones-Conservative business persons have a very high rate of alcoholism and conservatives are well represented at meetings of alcoholics anonymous.Get out of your fantasy world and into reality.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 10:08am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2007 @ 07:43am
you're right:
Life is bare
Gloom and misery everywhere
Stormy weather
Just can't get my poor old self together
I'm weary all the time
Every time
So weary all of the time
naw! just kidding. this is more like my outlook:
LVLIBERTY, DO NOT CLICK HERE*!!!!!
*kinda like the big red button from ren and stimpy.
speaking of which, i have irrefutable evidence that liberals (the fat one) and conservatives (the skinny one) can get along and even have fun together.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/21/2007 @ 10:21am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 08:59am | ignore this person
the US was built on genocide.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:22am
BIG JAKE,
Really? Who told you that, Howard Zinn?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 10:28am
ask the indians.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:35am
in case you hadn't heard.
Native American Genocide Still Haunts United States
By Leah Trabich Cold Spring Harbor High School New York, USA
In the past, the main thrust of the Holocaust/Genocide Project's magazine, An End To Intolerance, has been the genocides that occurred in history and outside of the United States. Still, what we mustn't forget is that mass killing of Native Americans occurred in our own country. As a result, bigotry and racial discrimination still exist.
"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" . . . and made the first contact with the "Indians." For Native Americans, the world after 1492 would never be the same. This date marked the beginning of the long road of persecution and genocide of Native Americans, our indigenous people. Genocide was an important cause of the decline for many tribes.
"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.
In 1493, when Columbus returned to the Hispaniola, he quickly implemented policies of slavery and mass extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years, five million were dead. Las Casas, the primary historian of the Columbian era, writes of many accounts of the horrors that the Spanish colonists inflicted upon the indigenous population: hanging them en mass, hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed, and other horrid cruelties. The works of Las Casas are often omitted from popular American history books and courses because Columbus is considered a hero by many, even today.
Mass killing did not cease, however, after Columbus departed. Expansion of the European colonies led to similar genocides. "Indian Removal" policy was put into action to clear the land for white settlers. Methods for the removal included slaughter of villages by the military and also biological warfare. High death rates resulted from forced marches to relocate the Indians.
The Removal Act of 1830 set into motion a series of events which led to the "Trail of Tears" in 1838, a forced march of the Cherokees, resulting in the destruction of most of the Cherokee population." The concentration of American Indians in small geographic areas, and the scattering of them from their homelands, caused increased death, primarily because of associated military actions, disease, starvation, extremely harsh conditions during the moves, and the resulting destruction of ways of life.
During American expansion into the western frontier, one primary effort to destroy the Indian way of life was the attempts of the U.S. government to make farmers and cattle ranchers of the Indians. In addition, one of the most substantial methods was the premeditated destructions of flora and fauna which the American Indians used for food and a variety of other purposes. We now also know that the Indians were intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. The discovery of gold in California, early in 1848, prompted American migration and expansion into the west. The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers. Indian education began with forts erected by Jesuits, in which indigenous youths were incarcerated, indoctrinated with non-indigenous Christian values, and forced into manual labor. These children were forcibly removed from their parents by soldiers and many times never saw their families until later in their adulthood. This was after their value systems and knowledge had been supplanted with colonial thinking. One of the foundations of the U.S. imperialist strategy was to replace traditional leadership of the various indigenous nations with indoctrinated "graduates" of white "schools," in order to expedite compliance with U.S. goals and expansion.
Probably one of the most ruinous acts to the Indians was the disappearance of the buffalo. For the Indians who lived on the Plains, life depended on the buffalo. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were an estimated forty million buffalo, but between 1830 and 1888 there was a rapid, systematic extermination culminating in the sudden slaughter of the only two remaining Plain herds. By around 1895, the formerly vast buffalo populations were practically extinct. The slaughter occurred because of the economic value of buffalo hides to Americans and because the animals were in the way of the rapidly westward expanding population. The end result was widescale starvation and the social and cultural disintegration of many Plains tribes.
Genocide entered international law for the first time in 1948; the international community took notice when Europeans (Jews, Poles, and other victims of Nazi Germany) faced cultural extinction. The "Holocaust" of World War II came to be the model of genocide. We, as the human race, must realize, however, that other genocides have occurred. Genocide against many particular groups is still widely happening today. The discrimination of the Native American population is only one example of this ruthless destruction.
Credits: Sharon Johnston, The Genocide of Native Americans: A Sociological View, 1996.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:42am
The ones Custer killed at the Washita River, or the ones who slaughtered all the white women and children in Minnesota in 1869?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 10:44am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 10:44am | ignore this person
you are an idiot. get lost.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 10:57am
osted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 10:44am | ignore this person
you are a holocaust denier, and while there is no law against that here, it is despicable.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 11:01am
Typical Liberal response. And before you get too lost in the Indians victimhood, you might look up one of the "Kenniwick" Man sites, the Caucasoid fought in Oregon some years ago. There has been some speculation that since the skeleton found was killed, not just deceased, he and his people may have had the same thing down to them by Indians that the latter had done to them. So much for victimhood. Also bear in mind that had the roles been reversed, the Indians would have done the same to us. Its the way of the world old boy. Get real
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 11:03am
By the way, Sharons a Boob
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 11:04am
And no, I am not a holocaust denier, where did you get that?
Wait... Johannesrolf? Is that you? Come on, come clean! No one else could make such ridiculous statements or refer to such innocuous sources. Ots you isn't it? Reborn as BIG JAKE!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 11:06am
sorry to disappoint you. I cited one summary. this is widely known and accepted. you are a waste of time.
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 11:12am
Typical Liberal response. And before you get too lost in the Indians victimhood, you might look up one of the "Kenniwick" Man sites, the Caucasoid fought in Oregon some years ago. There has been some speculation that since the skeleton found was killed, not just deceased, he and his people may have had the same thing down to them by Indians that the latter had done to them. So much for victimhood. Also bear in mind that had the roles been reversed, the Indians would have done the same to us. Its the way of the world old boy. Get real
Posted by CHIP THORNTON
How Christian of you.
Posted by mtspence05 at 12/21/2007 @ 11:22am
I guess it was a good thing that Hitler killed six million jews, before they could do it to the Germans. that's why everyone the world over called the jews "the Hun".
Posted by Big Jake at 12/21/2007 @ 11:45am
MT! How the hell are you man. Listen, Merry Christmas, old boy!
And Jake..The same to you.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 12:11pm
Merry X-mas? You rationalize genocide while celebrating the birth of your "savior"?
Posted by mtspence05 at 12/21/2007 @ 12:28pm
MT, I rationalize nothing, nor do I apologize for my beliefs. If you reject my greeting, that is your perogative.
And MADLIB. No, Its Merry Christmas for me. And I must say you certainly live up to your screen name.
As I mentioned early on in this thread, there are those who just can't go the day without being angry about something. Too Bad.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 12:45pm
ChipThornston-Few humans go through an entire day with becoming angry about something.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 12:48pm
ChipThornton-Correction-Few humans go through an entire day without becoming angry about something.Anger is a normal day to day emotion that all humans have.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/21/2007 @ 12:51pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 08:53am
Perhaps you would like to ask Andrew Meyer about all the free speech rights he has in this country. I'm sure he'd love to discuss it. He might even say, "Don't taz me bro!" - if you ask him.
"The possibility that you or anyone will achieve at least some measure of prosperity through opportunity is greater here than anywhere else in the world."
Besides the American mythology, what else do you base this statement upon? Care to qualify it at all, or is this true throughout the history of the United States? How do you measure this opportunity and for whom?
On the political dimension. Bush is a fairly strong counter-example. Clearly breaking laws and is not held accountable. But we can move more general too. Which president was impeached again? That's right, zero. Suggests to me that either the accountability of which you speak isn't really there or we have just as exceptional leaders as we do an exceptional country.
You are aware the civil war didn't start because of slavery - but the expansion of slavery, right? Important and significant different there.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 08:59am
You are counting our arm's sales right?
"The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers. [2] U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999."
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/worldfms.html
If you want to claim it is old news, try this report. Not much prettier.
http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/110th/RL34187.pdf
The fact that it is done through surrogates doesn't make our hands any cleaner.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 11:03am
The old might makes right. I know as a fact the Hopi would not have done the same thing to us, and the fact that you lump all "indians" together demonstrates a profound ignorance.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/21/2007 @ 12:51pm
True...and some spend their WHOLE LIVES with the switch flipped to "on".
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2007 @ 2:13pm
SR JENKINS:
Can't do all of this, although allow me to zero in on your distinction regarding slavery. No, I do not see that the Civil War started only because of the expansion of slavery. Thats a subtle way of saying slavery would have continued had it remained static, which I think is incorrect. 1990's propaganda. There was opposition to it even before the Revolution in the North, especially in New England. Abigal Adams, for example wrote to her husband after the loss of New York contemplating that the defeat was punishment from God for the sin of slavery. It was an issue at the Convention. Its true that, in the interest of getting the country started, many hoped it would just "go away". But there was enough opposition to it to maintain resistance in the face of its "keeping its head down"have ignored it. Best you could say is that it would have survived a little longer.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 2:43pm
SR JENKINS, regarding your "lumping together" comment, its no different than you guys lumping together all Conservatives as Bushies, or all Christians as "right wing fanatics" We all have our predjudices, I guess
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 2:47pm
MADLIB,
Thats "Christians". When you get finished your WESTERN CIV HATRED 101 class, find a spelling book. And have a GREAT Holiday
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/21/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 2:43pm
I understand. My reason for making that distinction is that it wasn't a moral play at all but about naked plays for political power. Let's not revise the history in hindsight - speaking of propaganda.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 2:47pm
I know it wasn't necessarily fair. It's really no different than talking about Hispanics, liberals, or what have you. The reason I put it in such strong terms was because you were using it in support of a really bad argument.
Really, we just had to attack Iraq because we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. We just had to lynch them, they would have done it to us if there had been more of them around. We just had to kill those Indians, they're all savages.
The argument you offered was not much different from this line of thinking. While I hear quite a few tempests in a teapot in places like this site, I've yet to see anyone argue in the United States that killing conservatives or Christians is a good idea because they'd kill us. And if I were to say in general, in is much more frequent for people that claim the conservative label to talk about liberalism as a disease or psychological disorder than vice versa. Dehumanizing people is frequently the first step toward violence to them.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 3:03pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 2:47pm
Oh, btw, I'm Christian, and I would claim to be left wing. So, I would never claim all Christians are right wingers - obviously false because I'm a counter-example.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2007 @ 3:05pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/21/2007 @ 2:43pm | ignor