US actor Danny Glover, who plans an epic next year on Haitian independence hero Toussaint-Louverture, said he slaved to raise funds for the movie because financiers complained there were no white heroes. "Producers said 'It's a nice project, a great project... where are the white heroes?'" he told AFP during a stay in Paris this month for a seminar on film.
"I couldn't get the money here, I couldn't get the money in Britain. I went to everybody. You wouldn't believe the number of producers based in Europe, and in the States, that I went to," he said. "The first question you get, is 'Is it a black film?' All of them agree, it's not going to do good in Europe, it's not going to do good in Japan.
"Somebody has to prove that to be a lie!", he said. "Maybe I'll have the chance to prove it."
"Toussaint," Glover's first project as film director, is about Francois Dominique Toussaint Louverture (1743-1803), a former slave and one of the fathers of Haiti's independence from France in 1804, making it the first black nation to throw off imperial rule and become a republic. The uprising he led was bloodily put down in 1802 by 20,000 soldiers dispatched to the Caribbean by Napoleon Bonaparte, who then re-established slavery after its ban by the leaders of the French Revolution.
Due to be shot in Venezuela early next year, the film will star Don Cheadle, Mos Def, Wesley Snipes and Angela Bassett. "I wasn't the first one who had this idea," he said. "Sergey Eisenstein had the same idea, Anthony Quinn had this idea, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, and this goes on."
The "Lethal Weapon" co-star, just turned 62, finally raised 18 of the 30 million dollars needed from a Venezuelan cultural body set up in 2006 by his friend President Hugo Chavez to counter what he termed "the Hollywood film dictatorship".
Venezuelan filmmakers last year slammed the investment. "It is Mr Glover who should be bringing dollars to Venezuela," the National Association of Film Makers and the Venezuelan Chamber of Film Producers said in an open letter.
Glover, a longtime activist, has supported Chavez's political revolution since he was first elected in 1998. An admirer of the Senegalese writer-filmmaker known as the father of African cinema, Ousmane Sembene, Glover has helped produce African films, including the recently-acclaimed arthouse movie "Bamako" by Abderrahmane Sissako.
"The first African films that I saw were films that portrayed Africans as savages, ignorant and uncivilized, and I wanted to know something else," he said. "I was very fortunate, I had the chance to read writers like Mariama Ba, Aime Cesaire ... and Leopold Sedar Senghor. I read him when I was 20."
"When I saw Sidney Poitier on screen, I was probably 10 or 11," he added. "That was a different image, an image I had never seen before, on screen. The African-Americans I saw, they danced, they were buffoons, that was the image. So Sidney brought another image."
History, Glover said, had enabled him to play a wide range of roles because of the changes taking place in society. "I think cinema has played a great role in our re-imagining ourselves," he said. Hot on the heels of Clint Eastwood being attacked for not depicting blacks at Iwo Jima. Hollywood is obsessed with "rainbow diversity", not matter how nonsensical.
This movie will flop massively, since it will be a leftist polemic piece of shit.
Look at the red meat:
Due to be shot in Venezuela...
Sergey Eisenstein (communist supporter) Harry Belafonte (anti americal leftwing looney)
raised 18 of the 30 million dollars needed from a Venezuelan cultural body set up in 2006 by his friend President Hugo Chavez
I hope Danny is happy, because he will not get work again after throwing this much money down the crapper for whats bascially a left wing version of a Riefenstal pice.
Anyone else wonder why we need to get off foreign oil? SO Huge will not havemoeny to waste on leftist shit-heads like Glover.
#11
Hati's a basket case, and Glover's a lefty airhead, albiet one who is a pretty decent actor.
The story of Toussaint's uprising is an interesting bit of history that isn't well known. If the script sticks to reality, it could make for something worth watching.
Or, it could suck, for any of the reasons why movies suck--bad dirceting, bad acting, bad production values, a script that tries to filter events through Marx or postmodernism or the screenwriter's cocaine habit, or just isn't all that well written to start with. We won't know until we see it.
I do think it hilarious that our moral superiors in the compassionate Hollywood Left are refusing to finance the project because there aren't enough white people in it.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/25/2008 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I do think it hilarious that our moral superiors in the compassionate Hollywood Left are refusing to finance the project because there aren't enough white people in it.
Mike, actually, we only have Danny's word that the Hollywood elite rejected it because it didn't have enough white people in it. They could have rejected it because they thought it sucked like a bilge pump.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/25/2008 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Haiti and the U.S., the first two independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. One overwhelmingly black, the other predominantly white. Haiti is known for what? Voodoo? Papa Doc? Can't think of anything else they're known for except unwanted refugees. "Born under a bad sign" indeed.
Just another example of the fact that anyplace there is a black government there are tremendous problems with the governance of that political entity. See Detroit as a U.S. example.
#15
OS, I value your insight, but please feel free to clarify how Detroit, under its succession of black mayors, meets your assessment as a cause of failure. Be careful, though. If you claim that Kilpatrick sees all blacks as his "clan/tribe," you are not only being politically incorrect, the infighting going on there about his actions among blacks themselves brings the validity of your observation into question.
We won't even start on the idea of how a Bama presidency might lead to greater anti-white racism and discrimination.
#1
It doesn't take a very astute observer to notice that the libs, greens and "progressives" have undergone a marked radicalization over the last 10 years. They are becoming Americas fascists legions that will have to be disassembled at a great cost to us all.
#2
Everything old is new again. The American left circa 2008 bears a striking resemblance to the political ruling class in a certain European nation circa the mid-1930s.
#3
We weirdly and mysteriously, but of course only legally technically tangentially coincidentally correctly, missed His Divine Visitations to the Temple known as PENN STATE AGAIN, those Cyclon Yarns/Tears, DIDN'T WE???
The big story is the Obama speech. We were told that this was not a political speech, not a campaign speech. Mm-hmm . . . To repeat what I said elsewhere (which I note only because Im recycling material, and that somehow requires disclosure, even though its the blog equivalent of as I was telling your screener) I first read the speech on Drudge, which made me think hed conclude his address with the words developing . . . Not rhetoric that stirs the soul, but enigmatic in a stay-tuned sort of way. It would also be interesting if John Edwards starting making appearances with that red-and-blue flashing light on his head.
Upon reading the whole thing, its like watching a striptease from the Invisible Man revealing, but empty. You cant really expect anything but high-flown remarks in a situation like this; unless theres a particular reason for such a speech, and there wasnt one here, youre going to get noble wind. Or, as Drudge might say, breaking noble wind. Developing! But there were some interesting reveals.
The remark that will get passed around on the right with no small glee is the citizen of the world phrase: "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
Hm. Well. The world is a large and diverse place; its like saying an amoeba is a citizen of the Milky Way. Accurate in a sense but not terribly enlightening. We are occupants of the world, residents of the world, but citizens? That implies membership in a political entity that does not exist. Membership in a common species is not the equivalent of citizenship; that term carries a specific meaning, with rights and duties and the rest. And of course thats how its used here, but mostly in the duty sense.
Not that anyone enforces those duties at the moment. Novel sentiments aside, World citizen is used as a badge of empathy that carries no responsibilities. The more its used, though, the more it dilutes actual national citizenship, which naturally takes second place to World Citizenship. As it did in Obamas speech - he said he was a citizen of America and a citizen of the world, not the other way around. To say youre a citizen of the world and a citizen of America places the latter in the primary slot, no? Its like saying I am a married man, and I am also a lover of women. People would assume youre sneaking around.
If we are all citizens of the world, then rules about national citizenship sound like archaic encumbrances. If you do not consider yourself a citizen of the world, then you must not care about anyone else but your fellow national citizens, or at least you care less, and thats not a sentiment you express in polite company. To say that you care more about a bomb in New York than you care about a bomb in Malaysia almost sounds chauvinistic, what with the death of one man anywhere diminishing us all, and so on. Its a perfectly reasonable sentiment for someone to hold in private, but it is difficult for an American president to say that he cares as much about displaced workers in a Chinese province as he cares about Ohio factory workers. If its true, then he hasnt really grasped the nature of his job. If its false, its just more windy BS.
Ah, but the leader of America is different, and in a sense has to care about everyone, so much power does he wield. With great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman taught us. So true. You try to strike arrangements that are mutually beneficial, with give and take. Go your own way, and you get Smoot-Hawley. But pragmatic, rational, national self-interest has to undergird a presidents decisions. Harsh and chauvinistic as it may sound, there are times when you have to tell the world to get stuffed. Otherwise, what does it profit a man to gain the world, but throw his presidency under the bus? To coin an ungainly phrase.
For some reason Obama felt compelled to describe the victims of the 9/11 attack thus, as an example of global interconnectedness:
The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
Well, most werent from all over the world. Most were Americans. Which makes sense, since the attack was explicitly aimed at America, not The Globe. American soil was not chosen as the stage because the other venues were booked through 2003. I dont know why some feel compelled to deemphasize the nationality of the victims; I have no problem empathizing with Brits or Spaniards when they suffer a terror attack. Its not as if I learn that one percent of the tube-bombing victims were Portugese and Polish, and think Oh Those Bastards, now theyve really done it. Those were citizens of the world. The people who died in the Twin Towers were overwhelmingly Americans. From here, from there, but Americans. Whats the problem with proclaiming that fact? Would this example of Islamist god-bothering murder frenzy been less horrible if both towers had collapsed, but killed only Nebraskans? Would an audience in Berlin rolled their eyes if 9/11 was presented in anything less than internationalist terms?
The speech did mention some of the challenges that face the citizens of the world:
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Here are the current drought conditions in Kansas. Such a thing is not unknown in the Plains. Obama may have heard of the Dust Bowl, which ravaged the plains before the wise hand of FDR doth stilleth the wind. It seems a bit much to assert with utter confidence that this drought is the result of cars in Boston. But nevermind: if this is the case, then we are obligated, in our interconnectedness, to do our part. To do something about those cars in Boston, and use our shining example to compel China to do something about their coal plants. Of course they wont, but thats no excuse for not imposing carbon rations on the Beaners.
The theme of global climate peril was large in the speech in the list of things which we must do now, since THIS IS THE MOMENT, terrorism was first, just to get that off the table, and global warming was last. When you write a speech you build to your strongest points, and I suppose for a European audience thats the barn-burner. Or rather the burning-barn extinguisher. End with a ringing denunciation of Islamists in the bosom of Europe, using her money and tolerance to spread ideas antithetical to the Enlightenment, and everyone looks at their shoes. The West is a divisive concept anyway, steeped in blood and sin the non-sin sort, that is; imperialism and militarism and Catholicism and the rest of the ash-heap notions. If Obama had declared himself a Citizen of the West, he would have struck a hammer blow for a certain set of virtues and values, but we cant have that. As a Frenchman will tell you, all cultures are equal. Equal in being inferior to France, but otherwise equal.
He also called for an end to nuclear weapons. (This was also Reagans dream, but he had a different way of going about it.) Of course, this isnt going to happen, but it sounds nice. Who wouldnt want a world in which everyone decommissions the nukes, and Iran says wait, what? We thought these were cool. Well, then, well give them up. Geez, next thing youll tell us, Izod shirts with popped collars are out. We will never poke the Genie back in the bottle, and Obama knows this. But the words loft well on the breath of the assembled. The problem, however, is that he didn't just set forth ideas humanity would be wise to make manifest - he made them moral imperatives that must be done now, because the THIS IS THE MOMENT, and NOW IS THE MOMENT THAT THIS IS, and the moment to come in a few moments is also the moment, but its a few moments past the previous moment, which was also now. THIS IS THE MOMENT to do something about Darfur. Fine. What? THIS IS THE MOMENT to do something about Burmese dissidents. Fine. What?
Nothing will be done about either; they are, unfortunately, matters inconsequential to the general order of things. This is not to say that they are not obscene, or horrific, or more evidence of human perfidy both general and specific, but just as the world summed the strength to turn away from Rwanda and Cambodia, it will manage to struggle with the daunting task of doing nothing about Darfur or Burma. The drone of a jet engine outside your window, bearing you to another international conference, does an admirable job of masking the sound of a machete striking bone down below.
Get a diplomat drunk and off the record, and hell tell you that Russia gets to play yob tvoiu mat with Chechnya, China gets to make money in Sudan and oppress Tibet, no one cares what France does in Africa, and America has Iraq. The last one matters as a focal point for international outrage because it extends a popular narrative. People feel better about themselves for criticizing America; its what smart people do. Leave a little juice left over for frowning at China, and make nervous Bear jokes about Russia and tell a few ha-ha jokes about the old KGB days, really, what else can you expect from those people? Hopeless since Ivan and probably before. Serfs, the lot of them. Meanwhile, everyone looks forward to the day when theres a stable democratic Iraq, not run by that gangster good source of profits, but a boor and the Iraqi government votes against the US in the UN. Thatll be rich. Comeuppance and all that. Pass the champagne.
In the end, THIS IS THE MOMENT, but the moment will pass; its a list of things we can expect not to be fixed, which makes it little different from other speeches in the genre by politicians of either stripe. It is interesting to note that the poll bounce seems small so far, and that Gallup reports Obama has a slim lead over his opponent.
Slim?
He has an opponent?
There was something else in the speech, too the constant mention of Europe, as opposed to the nations that make up Europe. From here it sounds as if every particular country and culture has been gently drowned in the warm bath of the Great Continental Arrangement. It is the dream of some, after all; imagine theres no nations. Its easy if you try. Its easier if you use the diplomatic community to craft treaties that subsume local identities to the iron rules of anal-retentive Belgian bureaucrats anxious to rule on the exact strength of Scottish malt, but even Lennon couldnt make that line work as a lyric.
I can understand why Europe is still gun-shy about nationalism, what with all the guns deployed on the concepts behalf, but the mandatory self-abasement mixed with smoldering resentment you detect wafting off constituent elements of the continent suggests that not everyone is happy casting off his tongue and dress for the shapeless smock of the EU.
As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I would love to live in an age when the globe was united in peace and prosperity, but I am unwilling to endure the paradigm-wrecking nation-shattering nuclear war and eugenic-master-race tyranny required to get to that point. Absent those factors, the idea that post-national / trans-national ideas represent a glimmering ideal within our grasp seems naïve at best and alarming at worst, a gilded facade erected by those who wish to pursue self-interest behind a new arrangement that defines traditional concepts of culture and national identity as regressive impediments. I can understand the appeal for some - if I'd spent 100 years worrying about Germany, it would be nice if Germany, as a discrete actor, ceased to exist, or was tied down like Gulliver in rules and regs. If this is the way Europe wants to go, fine; I have a Sharpie, and I can cross off the names of the countries on the map and write EUROPE over everything. But until that day, I'd be inclined to treat Europe like Chicago. At least give a shout-out for the differences between the North side and the South. Hell, I wouldnt be happy if someone who wanted to be President of the EU came over here and addresses us as North Americans. But I am not a young Berliner.
Let us close with the key phrases of the speechs conclusion: Our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. Also, let us once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world. For a fellow with a golden tongue, these are dollar-store clichés. I want justice and peace as well. I want justice and peace for the people of the Sudan and Burma, and I wonder if theyre asking: fine. Wheres our airlift? Will we get that in January? Sooner would be better, but January will be fine too. Keep in touch. You have our number.
One last thing: Obama said "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand." But of course they must, and will, if national sovereignity has any meaning. If he defines the "wall" as the existence of factual reasons why some countries succeed and others do not, it is unclear how these facts will be overcome. There's not a wall around Zimbabwe that creates a special magical inflation zone. There is, in spots, a wall between the US and Mexico; are we to expect he will make a campaign stop at the border crossing, and ask Mr. Bush to Tear Down This Wall? In a sense that would make him the heir to Reagan - in the same sense Paris Hilton is heir to Conrad.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/25/2008 06:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A fine rant and on-the-money analysis of the incredible emptyness of The Speech. Dollar store cliches, indeed.
Rather surprising, though, to see "Russia gets to play yob tvoiu mat with Chechnya" given that the italicized bit is a crude but multi-purpose Russian expression meaning, uh, your mother and I are close personal friends and have shared many an intimate moment.
My country learned a bitter lesson in this century: The scourge of tyranny cannot be stopped with words alone. So, we have embarked on an effort to renew our strength that had fallen dangerously low. We refuse to become weaker while potential adversaries remain committed to their imperialist adventures.
#5
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Boston? Bullshit. Now it's personal Barry.
Ask the folks in Iowa about this year's "drought", dipshit.
#6
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
I did some doughnuts in the parking lot at work as my 'contribution'...
What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, the climate crisis), and then to propose impossible policy responses? Its like hes inventing the Internet all over again!
OK, its pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if you dont do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say, as Gore recently did: The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk; and: The future of human civilization is at stake thats a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded political junkie.
Heres how Gore works. Hell cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Heres a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.
Gore: Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.
Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!
Gore: Our weather sure is getting strange, isnt it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .
Fact: The reason there seems to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.
Gore: . . . longer droughts . . .
Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. Theres not a shred of evidence for longer droughts in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before global warming became the climate crisis.
Gore: . . . bigger downpours and record floods . . .
Its true, U.S. annual rainfall has increased about 10 percent (three inches) in the last 100 years. But its equally true that this is a net benefit. Temperatures havent warmed nearly enough to increase the annual surface evaporation by the same amount, so what has resulted is a wetter country during the growing season. Farmers love this, because most of the nation runs a moisture deficit during the hot summer growing season. Increasing rain cuts that deficit.
Gore: The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.
This is likely James Hansen of NASA, Gores climate guru. He has written and given sworn testimony that six feet of sea-level rise, caused by the rapid shedding of Greenlands ice, could happen by 2100. Why didnt Gore defer instead to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization with at least a few hundred bona fide climate scientists? Its 2007 compendium estimates that the contribution of Greenlands ice to sea level during this century will be around two inches. Gore also forgot the embarrassing truth that there has been no net change in the planetary surface temperature, as measured both by thermometers and satellites, for the last ten years.
It would be easy to go on, particularly about the preposterousness of Gores solution, which is to produce all of our electricity from solar, wind and geothermal sources within ten years. Ill leave that for the energy economists to tear apart.
#1
I didn't know that rainfall had increase by 3" in the USA. Although I suspect I know the reason and why temperatures have been increasing at many locations. It's a massive increase in irrigation over the last 100 years. And all of that water ends up in the atmosphere as water vapour, the most potent greenhouse gas.
#3
The eco-nuts don't want nuclear, they don't want natural gas, they don't want us to drill our own oil. They essentially want to halt the progress of mankind. Save China and Russia from this because they are the anti-hegemons. It's time we squash these filthy plotters of ruin.
#1
"The first mistake". ROFL! The arrogance is staggering. But you do have to give them credit for their sheer and unadulterated willingness to prostrate themselves for Obama, no matter how much he degrades them.
the first mistake. Hahahahah. I guess they gotta spin it somehow.
#3
Oh, my! Even the New York Times is starting to waver...
By DAVID BROOKS
But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.
When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didnt dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities: There are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. Reagan didnt call for a kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements the deployment of U.S. missiles in response to the Soviet SS-20s but still worked.
In Berlin, Obama made exactly one point with which it was possible to disagree. In the best paragraph of the speech, Obama called on Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan. The argument will probably fall on deaf ears. The vast majority of Germans oppose that policy. But at least Obama made an argument.
Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians wont develop nukes. Or as Obama put it: The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didnt matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.
Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obamas lofty peroration.
The odd thing is that Obama doesnt really think this way. When he gets down to specific cases, he can be hard-headed. Last year, he spoke about his affinity for Reinhold Niebuhr, and their shared awareness that history is tragic and ironic and every political choice is tainted in some way.
But he has grown accustomed to putting on this sort of saccharine show for the rock concert masses, and in Berlin his act jumped the shark. His words drift far from reality, and not only when talking about the Senate Banking Committee. His Berlin Victory Column treacle would have made Niebuhr sick to his stomach.
Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isnt eloquence. Its just Disney.
#4
David Brooks is hardly the New York Times. But the Washington Post does seem to be picking up on the Obamessiah at least at the editorial page. The Times is so far in the tank for him, that the WaPo may recognize that the best move, economically as well as editorially, is to detach itself from the lock step with the NYT and become the national middle of the road paper with the MYT to the left and the WSJ to the right.
Isn't it enormously ironic that Barack Obama now finds himself the unintended beneficiary of the Iraq surge that he so vocally -- and wrongly -- opposed?
It seems that Obama's untimely calls for a withdrawal timetable have lingered long enough to have some merit in the eyes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, a German magazine, that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Assuming al-Maliki said it, and there has been some dispute, it doesn't make Obama right -- even now. But it's hard to imagine al-Maliki would be saying anything helpful to Obama's campaign today if the United States had followed Obama's disgraceful surrender policy instead of implementing the surge in 2007 -- over his strenuous objections.
Obama Democrats have been adamantly opposed to our intervention in Iraq from the beginning, including when they voted for it for political expediency and then later claimed they were duped into it.
Even purple-stained Iraqi fingers, symbolizing the advent of democracy in Iraq, didn't stir an ounce of empathy, much less sympathy from these capital-D Democrats, who persisted, undeterred, in their demands for retreat, regardless of the consequences.
It seems in this life, anyway, there never will be accountability for those Democrats who opposed this operation every step of the way (following their initial fraudulent support) and continue to do so, no matter the state of the "facts on the ground."
Their mentality is always the same, and we see it rearing its head again on Iran, which by all accounts is dangerously close to producing a nuclear weapon. They believe it's always better to negotiate and that the enemy with whom we are to negotiate must always be given the benefit of the doubt -- especially against the sinister United States.
Iran, they believe, has legitimate grievances, just like the 9/11 terrorists, who may not have attacked us had we addressed those concerns. So we must always begin with a presumption of the enemy's good will, then sweet-talk, then cave -- anything to avoid violence and at any cost.
Think I'm exaggerating? Then explain Obama's statements shortly after the 9/11 attacks, reported in the Hyde Park Herald Sept. 19, 2001: "We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine or connect with the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy most often grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
If Obama's own words aren't enough to convince you of his reckless appeasement mentality, let's look at the position of one of his senior advisors, Richard Danzig. According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, Danzig told the Center for a New American Security, "Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security."
Danzig believes we can draw lessons from the story to help us reframe our foreign policy toward the Arab world. "Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it." Danzig's other favorite source on terrorism is "Among the Thugs," a book about soccer violence in Britain.
Meanwhile, while the U.S. has reached out in sacred diplomacy to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the dictator has thumbed his nose at us, defiantly refusing to discontinue his uranium enrichment program. I suppose we need more empathy for him, too.
As we speak, Obama struts around Iraq with his signature arrogance and bereft of the shame he's earned for his insistence we withdraw in defeat there, pretending that history's repudiation of his surrender policy is a vindication of his prescience and wisdom. And they tell us President George W. Bush will never admit his mistakes!
How strangely paradoxical it would be if Barack Obama were to sail into the presidency on the strength of his own failures. Crazier things have happened.
#1
watching the video it becomes clear that it is true what they say...if he's not reading from a script, he just sounds as dumb as a box of rocks. If he does win (God help us) then it will be fun to watch the GW haters have to suck up the fact that Obama's speaking ability is about 1,000,000,0000,000 times worse than Bush's on his absolute worst day.
Unlike Obama, I would not speak to anyone as a fellow citizen of the world, but only as an ordinary American who wishes to do his best for the world, but with a much-appreciated American identity, and rather less with a commonality indistinguishable from those poor souls trapped in the Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. Take away all particular national identity and we are empty shells mouthing mere platitudes, who believe in little and commit to even less. In this regard, postmodern, post-national Europe is not quite the ideal, but a warning of how good intentions can run amuck. Ask the dead of Srebrenica, or the ostracized Danish cartoonists, or the archbishop of Canterbury with his supposed concern for transcendent universal human rights.
With all due respect, I also don't believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don't think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not the carbon we send into atmosphere, causes terrible storms, just as it has and will for millennia. . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/25/2008 12:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
empty shells mouthing mere platitudes, who believe in little and commit to even less
#2
it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin
Just for the record, the RAF flew 541,000 tons of supplies into Berlin during the Airlift. An outstanding effort that included the loss of British aircraft and crews.
A total of 101 fatalities were recorded as a result of the operation, including 39 Britons and 31 Americans, mostly due to crashes. Seventeen American and eight British aircraft crashed during the operation.
#3
We should never take anything away from the Brits' efforts in the late unpleasantness(es).
However, the Berlin Airlift could not have gone forward without the US' big stick. Germany was a mess, the Brits had exhausted their stock of young men and their equipment was getting worn out.
France....
We not only did a huge amount of hauling, we covered the operation by making sure the Sovs didn't just stop it. IOW, we risked war.
VDH is right in the larger sense, and may or may not have been talking about the hauling particularly. If he was, he was remiss.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
07/25/2008 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Concur for the most part, RA, except that without the 25% carrying capacity the Brits contributed to the Airlift, the mission would have failed.
What triggered my first post was the use of the word "only".
#5
VDH has never had a problem with integrating Islamic culture with Western Civilization. He is villian 1 in nation building lunacy. If we had tossed nukes instead of dollars after 9-11, where would we be?
#7
Pappy, Right on the money. It is not, despite what some would say, to viciously and maliciously squander the lives of civilians even those of our enemies. Yes, some will continue to point to Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Iraq, and they will all still continue to be wrong in their assessments.
In each case, the actions ostensibly targeting civilian populations was done to reduce the military capacity of that civilian population to continue to support their military's activities then and in the future. The actions were not taken without protest in many quarters of our own military establishments and were not taken without approval, and much handwringing, by the President and the Joint Chiefs.
Nuking Afghanistan would have had repercussions in Pakistan (already dangerous and in possession of nukes of its own), Russian, and India, not to mention Iran and a few other 'stans to the north. Russia has nukes capable of reaching this country. Afghanistan's civilian population was repressed and oppressed by the Taliban. Nuking hundreds of thousands of people and irradiating tens of millions of others simply to take out a handful of terrorists is simply unconscionable to moral people and could constitute one of the few actions under which a serviceman or woman can legally refuse the orders of a superior when other options are available and have been shown to have worked.
There are people out there, like Mad Eye, who simply cannot believe that there are moral people in America and in our military organizations. Mad Eye may believe that we're all gun-totin' cowboys just chomping at the bit to loose our nukes against everyone in sight. He might actually enjoy it should that ever happen as he'd be able to sit back and laugh and say "Look, I told you so!" until the fallout reaches his part of the world.
#12
Our Canadian neighbors have, for the most part, given us a lot of help in the WoT notwithstanding the occasional drivel that comes from the mouths of their government and media. I've heard nothing but good reports regarding the performance of the Canadian armed forces.
#13
ION RIAN/TOPIX > RUSSIA COULD BASE LR STRATEGIC BOMBERS IN LATIN AMERICA, NORTH AFRICA IN RESPONSE TO US MISSLE SHIELD. Cuba, Venezuela, + Algeria; + KOMMERSANT > Russ also plans to start construc of new FOURTH GENERATION MISSLE SUBS [Project 955 YURI's]???
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh won a vote of confidence this week, allowing his ruling party to keep in play a proposed nuclear partnership with the United States.
A loss also would have doomed a nuclear deal, announced in 2006 and signed by U.S. President George Bush and Singh a year ago, that would expand U.S.-Indian cooperation in energy and satellite technology.
The deal would give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and technology for civilian nuclear power plants -- even though New Delhi, which tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998, declined to join international nonproliferation agreements.
The leaders of India's two Communist parties have accused Singh of surrendering India's sovereignty to the United States with the deal.
CNN spoke to world affairs analyst and author Fareed Zakaria about this week's developments.
CNN: What does the confidence vote in India mean?
Zakaria: On the surface, nothing, because the government stays in power. But it's potentially a huge shift. The Congress Party now rules without the support of the Communist Party. The Communists have been a huge obstacle both on economic issues and the nuclear deal.
CNN: What does it mean for the nuclear deal?
Zakaria: India will now go forward with the deal negotiated with the United States. If all goes as expected, it will mean that India will become a "recognized nuclear power," in return for which its programs will be subject to some international scrutiny.
Some nonproliferation hardliners are opposed to the deal, but they don't seem to realize that these were the only terms under which India would have been willing to come inside the nonproliferation tent.
CNN: But India has nukes already, how does this make things different?
Zakaria: In economic terms it means that India will now have access to nuclear technology from around the world. In geopolitical terms it is a huge shift.
It marks the beginning of a new Asian balance of power, with India moving closer to the United States to keep a check on the growing power of China.
CNN: What will an Indian government without Communist Party support mean?
Zakaria: The government has the opportunity to jump-start economic reforms. Despite the sterling reputation of the current economic team, the Indian government has actually done almost nothing in terms of economic reforms.
Its term so far has been a huge wasted opportunity. Now it has a second chance. It could put in places economic reforms, spur growth and investment, and move India to a higher growth trajectory.
CNN: Will this make the U.S. and India get closer?
Zakaria: I think that's already happening. India and the U.S. have been getting closer. Getting rid of the Communists will make the government-to-government relationship stronger.
But there is also a society-to-society relationship that is becoming very deep.
Every week, some delegation of Indians visits America and vice-versa. These two countries seem to understand each other. They're large, messy, chaotic, multicultural democracies.
The wonder is it took them so long to find each other.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/25/2008 16:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Ziauddin Sardar
The Taliban have given an ultimatum to Pakistan: leave Peshawar within five days or face the consequences. That a band of terrorists can tell a democratically elected government to quit its own territory says a great deal about the power of the Taliban. Far from being beaten and on the run, as we are constantly being told, the Taliban are stronger than ever.
The ultimatum was issued this past week by Baitullah Mehsud, a prominent leader of the Taliban. Mehsud's men are already in Peshawar, the largest city of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and birthplace of al-Qaeda. Peshawar is also the administrative centre for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) of Pakistan. The Taliban have been in total control of Fata for almost a decade. Peshawar will be the jewel in their crown. And if Peshawar goes, the rest of Pakistan would not be far away.
The NWFP government rejected the "five-day ultimatum" and is now bracing itself for the consequences. The city, my friends tell me, looks like a garrison town. Armoured vehicles belonging to the Pakistan Frontier Corps occupy key positions. Paramilitary forces and anti-terror units patrol the streets. Nevertheless, Taliban warlords freely roam the city in pick-up trucks. Abductions and hit-and-run raids have become routine facts of life.
I fear for Pakistan. Commentators in Islamabad are talking openly about losing Peshawar. Many believe the Talibanisation of Pakistan is well under way and impossible to reverse.
The problem is that Islamabad has no coherent policy towards the Taliban. It has tried to appease them, to buy their loyalty, has bombed their villages and schools and, when required, used them as its proxy. Even peace treaties, such as the one made in September 2006, have been half-hearted. During the election campaign, both the People's Party and the Muslim League emphasised the Taliban problem required a political rather than a military solution. After the elections, politics was abandoned in favour of military operations.
The newly elected government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani seems too preoccupied with internal political feuding to realise that it has a full-blown rebellion on its hands.
The newly elected government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani seems too preoccupied with internal political feuding to realise that it has a full-blown rebellion on its hands.
Pakistan's predicament is that of the war on terror. The only secure solution must deal with the totality of the social conditions underpinning the problem. There is no military solution that does not exacerbate social problems, thus fuelling the instability in which the Taliban can thrive. The war on terror has merely extended the agony it was meant to obliterate.
The Taliban may look invincible, but they are nothing more than a marauding band of zealous puritans. A typical "Taliban commander" is a warlord with fewer than a hundred armed men. He pays them with money earned from drugs or extortion. He takes over an area, ruthlessly imposes taxes, administers summary and brutal justice, and declares himself the ruler. He murders his opponents and kidnaps others for ransom. Any Pakistani soldiers captured are slaughtered in the most barbaric way.
There are roughly 500 Taliban commanders, every one of whom is known to the Pakistani authorities. The reason that they have not been captured is simple: Islamabad believes it can use them for its own purposes.
There are roughly 500 Taliban commanders, every one of whom is known to the Pakistani authorities. The reason that they have not been captured is simple: Islamabad believes it can use them for its own purposes. This illusion has now become dangerously obsolete.
It is not sufficient, however, merely to defeat the Taliban. Candidates to replace them will not be hard to find in territory that has never been equitably incorporated into the nation state. And as a nation, Pakistan, having diverted so much aid and development to the military Establishment, has little to offer the Fata territories. This is the underlying conundrum that makes not only crushing the Taliban, but also sustaining Pakistan so difficult.
The Taliban are a Pakistani problem, created and nourished by Pakistan itself. To defeat the Taliban and defeat them truly, Pakistan must find a way to cure itself.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/25/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
But, but, but Taliban is the essence of Pakistan. It's like asking Paleos to cure themselves of Hamas.
#2
The Taliban are a Pakistani problem,
They certainly are.
created and nourished by Pakistan itself.
Not so. Pakistan spent so much money on its military that it had nothing left over for education. Saudi Arabia stepped into the vacuum left, with its toxic form of Wahhabism, which created the Taliban. The Taliban is amply being nourished by the Saudis due to the generous prices the West is paying for its oil.
In January 2007, America's adventure in Iraq seemed like a chaotic failure. The country was riven with sectarian violence, and al-Qaeda in Iraq had gained a foothold in western Anbar province. Attacks on U.S. troops were running well over 1,000 a week, and Iraqi civilians were dying at a rate of more than 3,000 a month.
In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he planned to "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many critics, including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure.
A year and a half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed out of reach.
The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by Shiite militias and the switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by Gen. David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In doing so, it also contributed to the other developments.
Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?
In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn't have supported the idea.
That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error and it was the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence, his dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."
The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible than when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in Afghanistan.
As for the surge not producing sufficient political reconciliation in Iraq, it's true that efforts to integrate Sunnis into a Shiite-dominated political culture are only inching forward. But reconciliation takes many forms, and Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's military attacks against rogue Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City were a hugely important signal to Sunnis.
Perhaps it's too much to ask that Obama risk being taunted by headlines such as "Obama says Bush was right." But for the nation to move forward on its single most vexing debate, it would help if the next president could admit the obvious whether that's Republican John McCain conceding that it was a terrible blunder to invade Iraq in the first place, or Obama acknowledging that the surge has worked better than he expected.
Americans don't expect their president to be right all the time. They do expect him to change course when he's proved wrong.
#1
One thing Obama's visit did, was to focus the media on the fact, that the surge worked.
Interesting, how many in the MSM are attempting to get the O to admit he was wrong, that the surge is working. Do they know, in doing so, they are announcing to the world, that yes, indeed, The Surge did work?
#2
Be careful. The decline in violent incidents in Iraq began when the Awakening movement of Anbar Province, began to work with local US commanders. That was several months before the Surge commenced. It is true that Sunnis took the Surge as a commitment of US troops to stand between them and aggressive Shiites, but it was really Sunni-Shiite politics that led to the rough peace that we see today. The Status of Forces Agreement ends on July 31; McCain needs to avoid setting himself up for an over optimistic assessment of what could amount to a transient peace. The fact that the Shiite Parliamentary majority expressed considerable support for the Iran President, during Ahmadinejad's June visit, manifests perverse manipulation. The Dems will jump on any over-statement. Just the facts, please.
#3
Compare wid MARKET ORACLE [Stratfor] > IRAN IS VITUALLY IMPREGNABLE FROM A SUCCESSFUL US INVASION/THE GEOPOLITICS OF IRAN - HOLDING THE CENTER OF A [pan-]MOUNTAIN FORTRESS.
Islamist-Radical IRAN is a poor State but has SUPER-DEFENSIBLE BORDERS + INTERNAL ENCLAVES, AND HAS UNDERTAKEN AND COMPLETED MOST OF THE VITAL STEPS NEEDED TO EFFEC ENDURE AND PREVAIL AGZ ANY MAJOR US ATTACK AND INVASION???
#4
It is true that Sunnis took the Surge as a commitment of US troops to stand between them and aggressive Shiites,
But that is 90% of victory in a guerrilla war. If people begin to think you are going home then they will help the guerrilla in order to not be killed once you have witrhdrawn and the more brutal the guerrilla the more they will help it.
In Algeria teh French Army (more exactly its paratroopers) had the FLN on the ropes and there were more nataives fighting the FLN that for it. Then De Gaulle began to make noises about leaving. Instant result: anatives rallied massively the FLN.
#5
Obama may really be a narcissist, I think by the way he's talking lately that he really believes this Obamassiah shit. He may really be slipping into total neurosis.
#1
there is no possibility of negotiation on the issue of Iran's enrichment of uranium
They have said this from day one.
They have never deviated from this position.
Why are we still negotiating with them if they have no intention of cooperation?
Time to remind the world why you don't screw with the U.S.
#2
Duh! The Bush administration has set an agenda for direct talks with Iran. Bush - like Carter - has a fanatic belief in religious based pseudo peace in the Middle East. Next year, he will be nothing but a bad memory (with Board status with every company dealing with Saudi Arabia).
#4
ION WAFF.com > XINHUANET - RUSSIA BEGINS CONSTRUCTION OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Construx signals new Russ effort to modernize Navy + improve Russ National-Geopol credibility - desires 5-6 Carriers ["Mine" CV = ASW?, + STOBAR] for Pacific + Northern Fleets.
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/25/2008 15:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth?"
The question answers itself. It's obvious to Hollywood that common sense belongs in a comic book.
#2
"The Dark Knight" is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune.
Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror have bombed.
Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth?
The left wingers know that they are the accepted conventional wisdom. So they know they can come right out and hit you between the eyes with their sermon.
But the right is anti-establishment. It cannot make its statement explicitly. So it has to use art to make the audience think.
That is why the best movies were made under the Hayes code. There are few moments in film as erotic as Rita Hayworth brushing her hair in Gilda. But that's all she's doing, brushing her hair. When you can get a rise out of somebody brushing their hair you've gone a long way.
And because the audience has to think, they are part of the creative process. There is little doubt in my mind of what Carl Foreman would think of the war in Iraq. Because his script was an attack on the McCarthy hearings, sanctioned by the establishment, he had to be indirect in the same way as today's conservatives. But when today's audience watches Will Kane walk down the street they see W, a result Foreman would no doubt abhor, but a result of allowing the audience to think and help create the entire experience.
Leading me to conclude that censorship may be bad for artists, but it's good for art.
Americans should be outraged at the latest sweetheart deal in Washington. Congress will put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's a tribute to what these two institutions which most Americans have never heard of have bought with more than $170-million worth of lobbyists in the past decade.
With combined obligations of roughly $5-trillion, the rapid failure of Fannie and Freddie would be a threat to mortgage markets and financial markets as a whole. Because of that threat, I support taking the unfortunate but necessary steps needed to keep the financial troubles at these two companies from further squeezing American families. But let us not forget that the threat that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to financial markets is a tribute to crony capitalism that reflects the power of the Washington establishment.
What should be done? We are stuck with the reality that they have grown so large that we must support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the current rough spell. But if a dime of taxpayer money ends up being directly invested, the management and the board should immediately be replaced, multimillion dollar salaries should be cut, and bonuses and other compensation should be eliminated. They should cease all lobbying activities and drop all payments to outside lobbyists. And taxpayers should be first in line for any repayments.
Even with those terms, sticking Main Street Americans with Wall Street's bill is a shame on Washington. If elected, I'll continue my crusade for the right reform of the institutions: making them go away. I will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.
It's time to get America on the right track by creating the jobs that will build a strong foundation under our housing markets. We need to address the high cost of gasoline and other energy sources, and transform health care to be cheaper, higher quality and built around the needs of patients. But most of all, we need to reform Washington and wrest control from the special interests that have created this problem.
#2
This is good election campaign fodder but it's not really correct. We as a nation decided that we wanted people to own homes rather than rent. I think that has been good for us, too, as it has helped us be a more conservative nation.
Fannie and Freddie have generally been willing to lend to slightly more questionable purchasers than completely private companies because they have operated with an implied U.S. Government promise of financial backing. They were implementing the overall consensus about homeownership as a beneficial thing, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Where it went wrong was that they followed the commercial lenders down the path of business expansion through making loans to unqualified customers. Fannie and Freddie were never as bad as some were, most of whom have gone bankrupt, but they were worse than they should have been. They'll be punished for it.
However, the loans on their books that will not eventually be made good in one way or another are a very small number. It is much less than the 2% that are claimed to be in trouble. The likelihood of the taxpayer eating the $25 billion that one reputable source said might be the worst-case scenario cost is very slim.
The situation needs some attention, granted, but it's not the major crisis it's being portrayed as. See Thomas Sowell's two articles on "Bankrupt Exploiters" that were published this week.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, the climate crisis), and then to propose impossible policy responses? Its like hes inventing the Internet all over again!
Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?
