6 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

590 weeks ago @ Antiwar Newswire - Gates says too few in ... · 0 replies · +13 points

Okay, so let me get this straight. Gates goes around the world with his army starting aggressive wars of choice, again and again refusing peace as an alternative. He is responsible for the killing and the inflicting of suffering upon hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who never did anything at all to him or the US. Now he has the unmitigated gall to complain that we aren't enthusiastic enough about it, due to some lack of so-called "patriotism."
I don't know whether to snort in disgust or just laugh right out loud. Talk about a disconnect from reality! I guess the thought of dialing back just a bit on the worldwide mayhem doesn't even register as a possibility. He's so corrupted he can't even see the complete moral bankruptcy of what he's saying. Damn straight I'm not gonna help "bear the burden" of his bloodlust. Neither are my kids.

643 weeks ago @ Original A... - How to Trap a Presiden... · 0 replies · 0 points

Tom - your question: "Why is it that a Democratic candidate needs a war or threat of war to trash-talk about in order to prove his "strength," when doing so is obviously a sign of weakness?" The answer is simple. First, it ain't just Dems. (Since Viet Nam we have this entirely inaccurate fantasy of Dems being "antiwar." It just ain't so.) Point is: Can you name one single US president who is considered by historians as "great" and was a peacemaker? As in, avoided war? Waged peace? Ain't none. Amerika loves war. Amerika defines "greatness" as war; by the shedding of other people's children's blood they prove their "strength." War = strength. The more bloody and brutal the war, the greater the president. No doubt the same demented logic will be applied to the previous fool in the White House, as it most likely it will be to the current fool, regardless of the scale of disaster he creates. Would that it were different, but fact is, it ain't.

644 weeks ago @ Blog - Civility, 2007-Style: ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Umm, actually - Obama is using forged documents to foment a war of aggression against Iran right now. That's the source of all the scare reports hitting the propaganda -- er, I mean news outlets this week. As to torture? Surely you jest. Do you really think we'd know who is being tortured to death so long as the kidnappings and black sites still exist? He's altered the army field interrogation manual to permit torture, then he claims he goes by the book. As for crimes - last I knew it's still illegal to cover up war crimes, making Predator O-bomb-ya a criminal accessory after the fact, at the very least. And that's just US law, never mind international treaties. Overall the comparison is hardly stupid, although it is inconvenient and perhaps a bit fuzzy. Folks have been writing nasty things about whichever president my whole life, so I don't really see the shock value of it for either of the criminals under discussion here. Never have, actually. The outrage over the name calling, etc. does make me think perhaps "the lady protesteth too much," to quote a way better writer than me.

651 weeks ago @ Blog - Doing 55 in a 54 · 0 replies · +1 points

Thanks Brad - I've a feeling these pragmatic tips will become increasingly valuable in the future.

653 weeks ago @ Original A... - 2084 · 0 replies · 0 points

2084? Hah! I'll consider myself lucky if I escape this in my own lifetime; how the heck do I prepare my young children for such a world? Don't see any reason lately to think it's gonna be significantly different.

654 weeks ago @ Original A... - China's Porcelain Empire · 1 reply · +1 points


thanks so much for spending the time to write such interesting and informative commentary. I find it invaluable. I do need to point out in the spirit of fairness though, that Justin didn't talk about forced migration of the Han. Quite the opposite, actually. ".. [T]here is a strong current of resentment against the entrepreneurial Han, who have come into China’s western regions in increasing numbers" sounds to me more like a description of people looking for opportunities than people being forced; which is just as you said, actually.
What I can't quite figure though, is how this violence erupting squares with what you called China's win-win approach. If most people there felt like the situation really was that way, how would foreign interests be able to foment so much unrest first in one place and then have it spread wider?
Thanks again for your post. I hope to see many more of your insightful revelations about China.