Political Lunacy . . .
. . . is not a monopoly of the Left. Still, they are the masters.
THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!
. . . there is a deep psychological disturbance in our mainstream media, a kind of willed need to ignore the world around them. . . .
They have no real interest, financial or otherwise, in the truth - or in the future of humanity, really.
There was another reason, though, why hundreds of thousands of liberals around the country found themselves addictively checking and rechecking Daily Kos as the 2004 election approached. It made them think Democrats were going to win. Moulitsas wasn't just posting any polls, he was selecting those that suggested Democrats—from John Kerry to congressional candidates—were heading for victory, while downplaying less encouraging signs. It left liberals trapped in a bubble of reassurance. Heading into the election, it would have been reasonable to assume from the evidence presented on Daily Kos that Kerry was the clear favorite to beat Bush, and that Democrats were likely to pick up seats in both houses of Congress. . . .
In November 2002, the Democrats lost seats in the midterm elections. Moulitsas had confidently predicted a big win . . .
"They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all," Moulitsas told me, "I'm just all about winning."
. . . fighting off the White House's Social-Security privatization plan, closing down the Senate to force an investigation into pre-war intelligence, and defeating an attempt by the White House to suspend labor laws in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.
Vigil remembers 122 homeless who died
2005 toll is highest in 20 years; mayor again pledges help
By Hector Gutierrez,
Rocky Mountain News
December 22, 2005
With only 10 days left to go, 2005 already may prove to be the deadliest year for the metro area's homeless.
Representatives for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless read the names of 122 men and women - those who died on the streets or eventually died after living on the streets this year
. . . . reiterated his pledge to try to end homelessness in Denver within 10 years. Hickenlooper, who formed the Commission on Homelessness to come up with solutions to ending the city's social ill, said "people living on the streets is not acceptable.
"Tonight, we remember," said Farrell, a family practitioner. "We remember all of the Wills and Roberts, Cynthias and Willards, Tammys and Christines, and all the homeless people in the nation who have died this past year, a litany of people that most of our nation seems to have forgotten."
Actually, what you call a lie, in referring to the ACLU doesn't make sense. Calling such things lies is a category mistake. Your interpretation of the constitution is wrong and I don't think you are lying.
. . . as a vicious partisan, I think the NY Times, in combination with the Moore-Streisand wing of the party, is pushing the Dems off a cliff.
What is the Dem message here? "Oh my gosh, that evil Bush is spying on Al Qaeda and anyone who talks to them - as Democrats, we will never do that!"
Good luck. Let us know how that works out in '06.
By the way, many of the FBI agents actually working the case speculated or concluded that Iraq was involved. Were they all wrong?
They also believed the Serbs were involved, and they were all wrong.
He ended in Iraq, where he was granted a house, stipend, and asylum till at least 2002. He remains at large.
This has not been verified, only Dick Cheney cited this intelligence, and given his track record i will wait for more evidence to be shown. It is quite probable that Yasin was put under wraps when he got back to Iraq so the reigme would not be blamed for his attacks. He is most likely dead now, a minor player nothing more.
It's amazing that even though Iraqi intelligence did not have the capability to engage in long-term planning or ops, even though they could not assassinate former President Bush, couldn't recurit a simple suicide bomber to take out Radio Free Europe, their capacities so severely limited by the first Gulf War . . .
. . . yet somehow could create a 'legend' that could attack the US at will.
This 'legend' was so disciplined that he didn't need orders or directions from Iraq, nor any contact with them at all.
Not only that but he remained so loyal to Saddam that even when his 'sponsor' has been defeated, and he sits in jail for 240 years he still will not confess his 'true intentions'.
We have KSM, al-Ani, Ramzi, Saddam all in custody and have even tortured some of them. If Saddam had links to the 1993 WTC attack certainly there would be more evidence in the IIS documents the US has unearthed, or the tortured AQ terrorists would have confessed.
Ramzai Yousef is Abdul Karim--the difference in height could have been from an older document (when Karim was younger).
That he is a Pakistani Blauchi is concidental. If he was a Lebanese Shiite does that mean Iran used him?
Is "King Kong" racist?
Lots of people say it is.
And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new "Kong" is a huge hit?
Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism. That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson. (In addition, a "Kong" wannabe, "Mighty Joe Young," has been made twice.)
Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in Slate.com, notes the "implicit racism of 'King Kong' - the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes." Indeed, a Google search using the words "King Kong racism" yielded 490,000 hits.
Comparing the new film with the original, The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter observed, "It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid."
And by more vivid, Hunter might be referring to the natives of mythical Skull Island, where Kong is discovered. Director Jackson took people of Melanesian stock - the dark-skinned peoples who are indigenous to much of the South Pacific, including Jackson's own country of New Zealand - and made them up to look and act like monsters, more zombie-ish than human. Indeed, one is moved to compare these human devils to the ogre-ish Orcs from Jackson's mega-Oscar "Lord of the Rings" films. The bad guys are dark, hideous and undifferentiatedly evil.
One might note that the original source material for both films dates from the same period: "Kong" in '33, J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" four years later. Both works are ultimately meditations on the West and Western uniqueness. Which is to say, what's the role for white Europe - and for its ethnic offshoot, North America - in a world that is mostly non-white?
Some would label such sentiments as racist, but others would note that every ethnicity naturally feels a special affection for its own kind. Yet, in the West, outright invocations of white nationalism, such as the 1915 film "Birth of a Nation," were politically unacceptable, even in the '30s, and so the same race-conscious sentiments were encrypted into allegory - in print or on celluloid.
The new "Kong" drills home its race consciousness by making repeated references to Joseph Conrad's 1899 novel, "Heart of Darkness," which denigrates both the colonizing whites and colonized blacks. In the novel's climax, the once-idealistic character Kurtz writes of Africans, "Exterminate all the brutes!" Conrad presents Kurtz as crazy, but Africa is presented as a crazy-making place.
The new Kong is, as always, a noble beast with a tender side. But, at the same time, his killing is presented as a cruel necessity. And at the end of the film, the white people - love interests Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody - are brought closer together, thanks to their brush with the big ape.
But if the movie is so loaded with race-charged imagery, why isn't it being protested? Why aren't we seeing pickets and boycotts? Perhaps it's because today, as people look around the world, they see that most political strife is, in fact, ethnic strife. Folks like to say that "diversity is our strength," and they resolve to fight racism, but every day's news reminds us that ethnic conflict lurks in the human heart.
That's a gloomy reality that "Kong" captures, in its crypto fashion, and so there's no point in getting worked up over it. Indeed, since the film is entertaining - like the similarly themed, much honored and extremely popular "Rings" movies of a few years back - one might as well go see this one, too.
The reason I thought that the National Security States in Latin America were relevant is because we installed them in the first place and because they ran secret prisons where thousands of people disappeared. We weren't fighting Marxists in the cases of Brazil and Argentina, we were opposing governments that sought "independent development outside of the U.S. economic system," or so the liberal Kennedy administration documents say.
I simply don't understand expressions of such callousness, by you and many of the people who consider themselves conservatives, and I am not sure where it comes from. Such expressions are not conservative but sound to my ears bloodthirsty and, frankly, willfully blind. I beg of you to think outside of the stock phrases and labels and try to understand what is actually happening in the world.
Allende was the elected president of Chili. He won the election. Chili was a democracy for more than a hundred years and there was no question that the election was as free and fair as any U.S. election. His program was to institute a Swedish style welfare state. Our government opposed those reforms because Allende had promised to nationalize the coal mines, the energy companies, and the utilities. He promised compensation but U.S. businesses were opposed to Allende's program. He himself was a Socialist, a member of a Socialist Party no different than the Labor Party in Britain at that time.
Pinochet and the other generals only agreed to act when they had irrefutable proof that communists were moving to take over Chile. Allende had welcomed about 14,000 left-wing foreign agitators and organizers into the country with the purpose of undermining any opposition to his Marxist agenda. **(Footnote text: The Left has made much of those foreigners who were killed during the Chilean coup but make no mention of how many were actively engaged in trying to destroy Chilean democracy and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship.)They included hardline Spanish and Portuguese communists, Soviet and Czech experts in subversion and North Korean specialists in weapons training and terrorism. Then there were the Cuban DGI agents who Allende invited to organize the nation's security along the lines of Castro's secret police. [This was written, by the way, seven years ago, before Mitrokhin's book of this year confirmed KGB support of Allende. To me, at least, it suggests the author has some good sources, and should be listened to with respect. — St. O.] The situation became so bad that shortly before the coup Chile's Supreme Court and Parliament ruled that the Allende's Government was repeatedly violating the constitution. . . . Regis Debray, well-known French Marxist and a mate of Castro's had a conversation with Allende in early August 1973, part of which he related in the French left-wing Nouvel Observateur:"We [Allende] all knew that it was merely a tactical matter of winning time to organize, to arrange, and to coordinate the military formations of the parties that made up the Popular Unity Government. It was a race against the clock." . . .
The generals had no illusions about what was in store for them and their country if Allende succeeded. They struck first, Allende was killed along with any possibility of installing Marxist -Leninist dictatorship on Chile. This was literally a life-or-death struggle and Allende's totalitarian intentions created it. In short it, was self-defence. That there were excesses and thousands killed is to be deplored. On the other hand, communist dictatorships killed over a 100 million of their citizens. Given the murderous history of communist states . . . what else where the generals to do?. . .
Allende trampled on Chile's democratic traditions, attacked its constitution and wrecked its economy. Now it's democratic traditions have been restored and its constitution is respected, making it a model for other Latin American states, except totalitarian Cuba. The Australian pompously opined that the price was too high. What was the alternative?
And so what? If we don't like the government that gives us the right to overthrow them? More than 50,000 people were murdered by the Pinochet government and in the first years they did so with our assistance. Some of my friends from college moved back to Chili and were themselves caught up in the terror. (Not much different from the kind of terror you read in history books from Robespierre or Hitler in his first few years. This is what you support?) One of my friends was first raped repeatedly, tortured, and then thrown from an airplane over the Atlantic ocean by an Argentine military plane (made in U.S.A.) doing a favor for the Pinochet government. (This is what you support?) The Pinochet government was a terrorist state that the U.S. government, the Nixon-Kissinger gang, helped into power. This was massive terrorism on a grand scale that our tax dollars supported.
I do not support any government or group that deliberately targets civilians.
What they're attacking is the MSM's Progressive-era ethos of public-minded disinterestedness. By embracing the idea of objectivity, newspapers took a radical turn from the raw partisanship that guided them in the nineteenth century. "Without fear or favor" was Times owner Adolph Ochs's famous phrase. That "objective" style worked well for many years, because, in the postwar period, political elites shared broad assumptions about policy with one another--and the media. But the Bush administration has violently rejected that consensus.
usual sub-par, unsatisfactory, wholly misinformed, shitty job; . . lazy stenographer[s] ... posing as journalist[s who] will gladly cut and paste this Republican propaganda . . . Beltway media really makes no effort to do anything other than parrot totally out-of-touch conventional wisdom--no matter how inane, stupid and ridiculous it is.
You would expect this kind of populism from the right . . .