Today's Blogs

Intellectual Superiority?

frankjohnson022 — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:50:10 GMT

I’d take these discussions of Jewish “intellectual superiority” more seriously if Jewish contributions to world culture weren’t such cock-ups: communism, Freudian analysis, the bomb, and, more recently, the Project for a New American Century and Credit Default Swaps. When will the Jews harness all this intellectual firepower and give us something cool, like Rock and Roll, or gummi bears?

Bush

gypsysong — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:55:34 GMT

How quickly we forget how our President stood strong for us after 9/11

Aspirations for Change

davidhillstrom — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:39:03 GMT

Aspirations for Change

A Perspective from Europe

American exceptionalism is one of the most debated concepts in modern political history. Personally I have always argued that there is nothing so unique about the United States that would justify exceptional status for the US within the community of nations or confer any ‘right’ to moral leadership. And yet following the election of Obama it is hard to deny that there is something extraordinary about the way politics is done in the US. The election of an African American, an individual of mixed heritage, the son of a student immigrant from Kenya is unquestionably an exceptional event. However, the aspirations of the vast majority of those watching the US from abroad would challenge the new US President to bring about dramatic change.

The most fundamental change the world is hoping for is a dramatic shift in foreign policy. Our utmost aspiration is that the US will abandon the unilateralism of the policies of George W. Bush. But in fact many of us living abroad are hoping for much more. We are hoping that the new President will abandon the principle of US exceptionalism. This is a tall order. George W. Bush may have popularized the idea of pre-emption and thus rationalized the war in Iraq, but such actions are not really new to US history. Liberals frequently call for direct US intervention in world affairs in the name humanitarian crises. Even Obama as a candidate spoke about unilateral US action inside Pakistan to attack Osama Bin Ladin. My hope is that all such talk be abandoned for good. The US should aspire to be a good international citizen and work exclusively within the UN to achieve any and all worthy goals in international diplomacy. The US should also abandon its other recent policies which entail exceptional status. No nation can maintain a detention center beyond international law, such as Guantanamo, and at the same time suggest that its soldiers should not be held accountable under international law. No nation that is leading the world in carbon emissions has the right, whatever reasons may be put forward, to opt out of international efforts to avert climate change, as the US has done in the case of the Kyoto agreement. No country that is sitting on the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and that is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons can claim the right to refuse any other nation access to nuclear technology. Threatening nations such as Iran with a military strike, once again unilateral, cannot be defended without raising a double standard.

President elect Obama, of course, won the election largely as a result of the economic crisis. On this issue too the perspective from abroad is hopeful that substantive change can come about quickly. The financial meltdown in the US has caused severe contagion across the world. The concern of informed observers though is that progress on the economy will come rather slowly. And in Europe we recognize that there are structural issues that need to be dealt with. Of course the new administration will have to take measures to stimulate the economy over and above the bank bailout package. But if action is limited to the immediately pressing needs, then we are likely to see a repeat of today’s crisis in a few years. Action to stimulate the economy must be accompanied by efforts to address structural dislocations such as the lack of savings and the continuing trade imbalance. Unfortunately the need to address these structural deficiencies in the US economy may curtail the economic recovery. However, without such medium term measures the stimulus packages of today may well translate into inflation tomorrow together with a further worsening of the trade deficit. On this issue it is appropriate for the US to aspire to reciprocal measures from the world’s other major economies. The global economic model that depended upon US consumption serving as the steam engine for world growth is no longer viable. While the US takes action to raise its savings, Japan and China must attempt to lower their own savings rates, stimulate domestic consumption and open their borders for foreign imports. A global economic summit is essential to initiate dialogue on these issues and to agree on concrete and pragmatic steps forward. Anything less will result in a continuation of current imbalances and eventually a recurrence in the global crisis.

The change that we in Europe aspire to in international affairs amounts to the demilitarization of US foreign policy. Admittedly this aspiration may appear soft and foolhardy to Americans who have September 11 fresh in their memory. But it is now obvious that terrorism cannot be defeated my military force alone and certainly not by conventional means. In any case, given the state of the US economy, continuing the present levels of military expenditure are simply not viable. The only reasonable way forward, both for the US and the world, is to abandon the unilateral policies of the Bush doctrine and to embrace a multilateral dialogue to address terrorist threats, local conflicts and humanitarian crises. The global economic malaise requires a similar approach. The US simply cannot continue to go it alone in the role of the world’s sole super power.

David Hillstrom, author of The Bridge

www.davidhillstrom.com

REPUBLICAN MOB SCENE

Patricia DeAnda — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:43:48 GMT

There is not one American who is not afraid of the methods terrorist use, that includes not respecting human life. Most Americans believe the Koran is the devils instrument and the mantra JIHAD! incites Muslims to kill. So someone explain to me what the difference is in the angry words Republicans are using in insisting that McCain " Take it to him" and references to scum and thieves when describing Democrats? The claim that they are the Evangelical moralistic right is in direct contrast to the bible they read.What happened to,"Whatsoever you do to the least of mine, you do unto me"? The reactions of this party are no less inciteful than the terrorist they detest, and if a Republican does not stand up and voice their disdain for this kind of rehtoric than shame on you and I don't have a reason not to believe that all Republicans are the same!

Pal with Terrorist Charge

davidhillstrom — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:53:57 GMT

I find it difficult to comprehend the audacity of this charge. Bill Ayer was apparently one of the Weathermen and was sought by the FBI at that time. Subsequently I understand the charges were dropped and he has been working as a professor and living a normal law-abiding life in Chicago. The charge then against Obama (and with respect to Bill Ayer as well) amounts to slander, pure and simple. How can we accept political candidates who behave this way?

On the other hand I for one would like to examine McCain's military record. Democrats are always eager to say they respect McCain's service to his country in deference to his suffering as a prisoner of war. We can all agree that he suffered and that his captors were neither humane nor acting in accordance with international law. But McCain became a prisoner because he was one of the pilots who were indiscriminately bombing Vietnamese villages in one of the most horrendous and offensive wars the US had engaged in (until Iraq when the US also abandoned international law regarding the treatment of prisoners). As a draft dodger myself, I confess that I cannot in good conscience applaud McCain's war record.

David Hillstrom, author of 'The Bridge' and 'The Story of Our People.'

Banned by the Right

Adrasteia — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:22:29 GMT

I was just banned from the Tennessee Guerilla Women web site because I dared question their hypocrisy in saying they are progressive feminists who will vote for McCain.

I did even use profanity but I sure got an earful from them!

TGW has been overtaken by rightwingnuts. So much for being able to agree to disagree.

My first time being banned!

Georgia and Ossetia

davidhillstrom — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:42:10 GMT

Perspectives on South Ossetia

While history is immensely complex, there are times when it seems almost too easy to predict future conflict. The current crisis in South Ossetia is no exception. Yet aside from the evidence of forewarning and the unfolding human tragedy, there are three strands of analysis that should command our attention and ought to provide lessons for the future.

The first issue relates to the question of local autonomy and the right of self determination. We are undoubtedly living in a period of resurgent nationalism. Conflicts over borders and minorities rights in enclaves within the borders of other states serve as ever present reminders that international borders have been established by a messy progression of history and not by an orderly process (certainly not democratically). In the case of Georgia it was not a nation itself until the break-up of the Soviet Union. Even prior to the Soviet Union Georgia was part of the Tsarist Russian Empire. So for Georgia to argue that South Ossetia is part of its inviolable national territory is a tenuous enterprise, especially since there have been break away tendencies in Ossetia from the very beginning.

The real tragedy is that there is no policy or process via the UN to deal with such cases. The conflicts in former Yugoslavia demonstrate the failure as does the ongoing tragedy in Darfur. It should have been clear when the West insisted upon independence for Kosovo that the move could provoke ethnic claims elsewhere. Certainly the Spanish understood the implication with regard to the Basque region. But the US and Europe insisted upon independence in Kosovo and now deplore the conflict which will most assuredly lead to independence for South Ossetia and probably Abkhazia as well. What we need is for the UN to step up to the challenge and to debate and adopt a fair process for dealing with such cases in order to avert a casus belli before it ignites. The most realistic goal would be to permit self determination wherever there is evidence of broad domestic support in a given region, while insisting upon continued freedom of exchange of goods, ideas and travel across the new borders. Unfortunately the UN has not addressed the issue and powerlessly looks on as major powers define the right of local autonomy with no principle other than their own ‘super’ national interests.

The prior observation regarding the international reach of the major powers national interests brings us to the second strand for analysis. When the Soviet Union collapsed there was a tremendous opportunity to lessen international tensions following five decades of Cold War. Jonathan Schell points this out excellently in his recent book, The Seventh Decade, which examines the history of nuclear weapons and attempts to restrict their use and proliferation. Clearly we should call into question the wisdom of US policy in the years after the collapse of the Soviet block. Instead of opening an honest dialogue to dismantle the remnants of the Cold War, including the NATO alliance, Washington has kept the alliance intact and initiated a march eastward to include former Soviet allies, thus tightening and expanding the previous policy of containment. That policy was bound eventually to provoke a reaction from Russia. And the European Union has been guilty of complicity. Recently Germany finally vetoed the extension of the policy by postponing membership in NATO for the Ukraine and Georgia as proposed by the US. But as long as NATO remains as an active alliance marching eastward and installing new missiles, we are destined to watch the beginning of a new Cold War.

Finally we need to examine more deeply the appropriate role for the UN. Yesterday the Security Council convened and, of course, solved nothing. As the Russian representative correctly stated the Security Council was engaged in nothing more than propaganda and positioning to influence world opinion. Yes, one may argue that the Russian response to violence in Ossetia is disproportionate, but of course so was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the Israeli attack of Lebanon and the Security Council did nothing then either. The US has been undermining the UN rather consistently in recent years. Perhaps now sentiment may grow to revoke the Russian right of veto in the Security Council. Threats have already been made by Senator McCain to drop Russia from the G8. However, the road to world peace can only be through an empowered and revitalized UN. And the way to achieve that should be a broadening of the Security Council together with the revocation of all veto rights. Unfortunately the direction in world affairs is by no means leading toward global peace.

David Hillstrom is the author of The Bridge, a book of political philosophy dealing with issues of human conflict from a deep historical and rational perspective.

Melinda Doolittle update

Louise7 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:17:40 GMT

Melinda Doolittle album Melinda Doolittle album This past week Melinda finally finished the vocals on her CD! All of that happens quickly then we will see her CD on shelves this Fall! Also, keep your eye out for her first official single that should be hitting airwaves in the coming weeks. Melinda is going to be throwing a lot of music at us in the coming months so get ready!
New website to support Melinda Career. www.mdstreetteam.com come join us and get to the forum to read what Melinda have to say. She is a amazing singer.

Lazy writers

Americafirst — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:11:22 GMT

This article has been up for about 6 months. Are the writers just too lazy to write anything else?

Yeah, Yeah Take Bill Richardson

smpcompdude — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:59:26 GMT

Please! Get him the hell out of New Mexico. Take a few other Democrats with you as well. Before they run this state in the ground.

Move on already

Americafirst — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:39:22 GMT

This is about the third or fourth month this article has been up. What, can't you find anything new to write about?

Vice President Hillary

gonogo20 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:42:56 GMT

Never gonna happen, not with Bill hanging around and trying to tell Obama what to do and always putting in his 2 cents,

Goodbye Clintons,

dont let the door hit you in the butt.

Obama and Dobson

Victor Vazquez — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:06:43 GMT

Dobson is on the mark; Obama is not. Obama has been has been thoroughly seasoned by 20 years of liberation theology and not the theology of traditional orthodox Christianity. His political invective regarding this subject and Dobson is just that. His approach is in no way tempered by the grace of the Scriptures nor the Holy Spirit; it is politically motivated. Politicians have to engage in the religious "right of passage" whereby they feign religiousity in order to cater to the "Christian" electorate. Obama will parrot this long held tradition whether his wooing is directed towards Jews, Muslims or Christians. In order to be the foremost Democrat, Obama must syncretize the religious tenets of all these groups while at the same time manage the elements of his own party's religious but humanistic underpinnings. It is for all intents and purposes what his campaign is all about - unity. However, this is a unity that neither Dobson nor any Christian should or can espouse, for its result is the reducing of the Scriptures to an object of a literary relativism of convenience whereby it is no longer the Word of God. Obama can make his points in order to support his agenda, but he should steer clear of applying the Holy Scriptures for his own dubious purposes.

Another day in African politics...

The Imperfect Australian — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:21:33 GMT

Another day in African politics...

Robert Mugabe wins a - despite low voter turn out - decisive victory in the Zimbabwe polls. The lackey of the British imperialists, Morgan Tsvangirai, has been well and truly crushed. Mugabe magnanimously agrees to speak to Tsvangirai about the balance of power in Zimbabwe, a topic he's also sure to raise with African leaders who are due to meet in Cairo for the African Union summit next week, already defiantly pointing out: "I would like some African leaders who are making these statements [of political corruption and a blatant abuse of power] to point at me and we would see if those fingers would be cleaner than mine." African politics at it's best? No, not really.. It's more of the same from a continent where the words democracy and politician are incompatible in the same sentence. The continent that gave us little and big dictators - in the sense of a person who is a "tyrant: a leader who rules a country with absolute power, usually by force" - such as; Idi Amin, Joseph Mobutu and his successor Laurent Kabila, Dr. Hastings Banda, Muammar Gadafi, Hosny Mubarak, Arab Moi and the spineless Thabo Mbeki, successor of - Africa's only non morally corrupt leader - Nelson Mandela.

Robert Mugabe's unsurprising victory warranted the usual response from the totally ineffective UN. The UN Security Council said that: "conditions for free and fair elections did not exist and it was a matter of deep regret that the elections went ahead in these circumstances". The Security Council of United Nations indeed. Powerful stuff, once again, with the same show of iron will when dealing with dictators, resolve which will no doubt put Mugabe in his place, like it did Saddam Hussein. Western leaders on the whole deal with African dictators pretty badly, often playing in their hands by giving them reasons to suppress their unfortunate citizens. The democratic west managed to inspire Mugabe to claim his electoral victory as "100% empowerment and independence from British Imperialism" as unfortunately did Nelson Mandela who is in Britain, guest of his imperial hosts, celebrating his 90th birthday.

Noble spokesman Mandela may well be but, at his age, he's clearly not thinking straight. Denouncing Mugabe's dictatorship is all good and well but don't do it from Britain as this is exactly, according to Mugabe, the sort of rhetoric of failed leaders, like Tsvangirai, who are lackeys of the imperialist Brits and Yanks. The inherent symbolism Mugabe will be able to use, like all dictators he knows that a populace without myths is impossible to govern and his anti colonial stance has served him, as it has other African dictators, extremely well since he over threw Ian Smith. Too bad for Mandela there were no African leaders to share the podium with, and that his high-powered audience included former President Clinton, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and actor Robert DeNiro, as similarly this didn't win him any respect from the African dictator of the moment.

Mandela's predecessor Mbeki is not to be heard of except to support Mugabe whilst the South African embassy in Hararee boots out Zimbabwean opposition supporters who take refuge there. Why do democratic western politicians put up with this situation? I'm sure the world would be much more likely to understand why Mugabe's removal is necessary. He might not have weapons of mass destruction and Zimbabwe might not be resource rich but the man has obviously stepped over the same line leaped over by previous over-eager dictators. The British response defies belief; Queen Elizabeth II's withdrawal of Mugabe's knighthood. The ultimate colonial tit for tat. What do they hope to achieve? Instead, why not disregard Mugabe's ranting as the carrying-ons of a morally bankrupt dictator and install a democratic government? Any sort of African style democracy is preferable to the current situations.

If the west doesn't want to get involved for political reasons - there are, of course, Russian and Chinese feelings to be considered as well - then it should, at least, engage more actively and mercenary from their morally superior stance. A pleasant position for the west who, in this instance, do not have to be hypocritical - oil companies wouldn't back a coup in Zimbabwe as they backed Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher in Equatorial Guinea or the Kabilas in the ultra Democratic Republic of Congo - and could do all sort of favours for the Zimbaweans who've had their heads stomped on for far too long. One could quite confidently say that the removal of Robert Mugabe would be a world wide crowd pleaser requiring very little spin nor lies.

Government abuse

nondescriptuser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:54:14 GMT

It's the three year anniversary for the infamous court case, Kelo v. New London, in which the court ruled that the government was justified in taking away land from a private land-owner, Susette Kelo, when it was predicted that a private developer could get better use of the land -- that is, have bigger facilities that would generate more tax revenue for the town.

This went way beyond the court's prior holdings that eminent domain could only be enforced when land was taken for a public use -- not a private one.

Not to mention, since the court decided in Kelo that the promise of private use was enough to guarantee a private developer the right to use eminent domain, they did not ensure that the private developer would have effective timetables for development, which is why they have since Kelo failed to build anything on that land, which has, in fact, weakened the economy of the town. This shows then that not only did the court's decision enable the town to steal from individuals to give to a corporation, it has also frustrated the town's efforts to effectively boost the economy of the town.

Eminent domain is by no means a good thing, yet there have been over 10,000 cases of eminent domain abuse in the past five years. If you are interested in curtailing this legalized atrocity, visit http://www.ij.org/keloday for more information.

Spread the word!

Revolution

Firemedic — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:07:05 GMT

Gas prices are out of control. People are loosing their homes. Polticians can't be trusted.

When does the revolution begin?

Reply to both

Americafirst — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:10:20 GMT

I say let's martyr every muslim on the planet.

Hillary would break a lot of small businesses if she didn't pay her bills? Wouldn't that make the commie bitch happy? Or could it be she used small businesses who shared her leftist beliefs? In that case, they deserve it.

Happy to oblige . . .

ladykrystyna — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:30:22 GMT

I'll be happy to volunteer to do it with my husband's Mr. McNasty (I'll let everyone debate what that means). Just one bullet and less than 30 seconds and he'll be a matyr, as requested.

No problem, KSM; no problem.

Cheers.

Who is Barack Obama?

TheStorm1963 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:32:07 GMT

Who is this Barack Obama? And what is he really going to do for this country?

1. He is a ROOKIE senetor from Illinios that was elected to the US senate in 2006. What are his credentials? He speaks of change. What change is he speaking of? Turning the U.S. into a socialist country?

2. What exprience does he have? NONE!!!!

Who is John McCain? And what is he really going to do for this country?

1. He is an accomplished senator from Arizona that at one time he was democrat and now he is republican.

2. What is he going to do for you and I? NOTHING!!!!

This is again another election of who is the lesser evil. We have not had a candidate since Reagan that has had a true mandate of the people. The congress and federal goverment have lost touch with what the average American goes through everyday. They don't here us screaming at the pumps at 4 dollar a gallon gas. They don't here us screaming in to grocery store paying 76% more for food then this time last year. They don't hear us screaming that we need to get rid of our dependence on OPEC and drill in our own country where we have ample supplies in Alaska, North Dakota, Off shore in the gulf. Instead they put the Polar bear on the threaten list, even though there are 5 times as many of them as there was twenty five years ago. CHINA is Drilling 50 miles south of Key West and slant drilling towards us. Yet we can't drill in a 2000 sq acre area in alaska that would yeild 1.3 TRILLION cubic tons of natural gas, plus the oil reserve that is there. There is an abundant amount of Shale oil that we are not allowed to go after. Plus there is the coal to oil technology that we aren't allowed to persue.

Venezula is self suffient in it's fuel and guess what they pay for gas per gallon.....12 cents.

I am for altenative energy sources and I believe we should be running more nuclear power plants. But until they are developed we need to get rid of our dependency to OPEC. ANd By the way CAP and Trade is not the answer.

Force feed him a BLT

gonogo20 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:53:21 GMT

Next case.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed - Tell me it isn't true.

mark14 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:52:48 GMT

Our constitution doesn't permit same sex marriage. You blew up the World Trade Center over a simple misunderstanding. What a pity. Give our regards to your friend Jerry Falweell when you see him in the afterlife.

End of Today's Blogs= I will read Slate less

Nevdon — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:59:53 GMT

Sorry that Blogs is going. I realize that reading and selecting many blogs was an impossible task but isn't that journalism? You don't have to interview everyone that has an opinion on Obama to write an article on opinions on Obama.

Lazy Slate, with the end of Blogs I will read you much less.

Adieu

The Frist Bi Racial Nominee

bobbysmom — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:47:42 GMT

His first lie..being the first black nominee...he is not black...he is bi racial..why does he misrepresent himself??

What else is he hiding??

And yet the media and his supporters jump right on the band wagon...thre media is the only reason he is claiming to be the nominee...because of the rotten attitude of his supporters he had better hope he has Hillary on his ticket or you can count on 4 years of McBush!! Thank to his supporters you have fractured the Democratic party....so you better celebrate now because in November you when get the votes you so desparately will need...they won't be there! and remember the media, again, will pick the next president!!

Hillary for Vice Pres???????

jgsal2000 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:35:07 GMT

Sorry, I am tired of looking at her for 17 months. And you know what you can do with her 18 million votes. If it were not for Bubba, who knows if she would have gotten all those votes. People still like the Clintons, why I do not know. He was campaigning in each state way ahead of her while Barak did it on his own. An african american came out of NO-where and won the NOMINATION!!!!!! He had no help. He's the winner through it all. She was already known, he had to keep on introducing himself. Hillary Clinton is selfish and self-serving just like her husband. Her speech tonight proves that. It is all about her. She never talks about unifying the country like Barak does. It is always about her 30 years of service. Well, I am 67 years old, and I can't name one really great thing she personally has done. If Barak brings her in for V.P. his problems are greater than ever. All her past baggage will be aired again. I do not want her as V.P. I do not trust Hillary, and just for the fact that she will not concede is proof that she is expecting something to happen and may cause something to happen for her to jump back in. We must pray for Barak Obama to not choose her. We need young blood in our countlry now. END THE STATUS QUO AND SEND HILLARY BACK TO THE SENATE OR A TRIP TO EUROPE FOR EIGHT YEARS.

Janet/New Jersey

Obama rightfully won the nomination.

jn2008 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:18:45 GMT

I think it's time for Clinton to bow out, as gracefully as she can, although I think three weeks ago would have been more appropriate. She has hatched onto a past election misery (2000) and "rallied" behind the notion that she deserved all of our votes, even though she did not win all of them. She has continuously bended and asked for a re-calculation of votes in Michigan and Florida, even though those states violated rules in the first place, as well as the declaration that she won the popular vote based on her own brand of math. I don't understand her fight anymore, as do many other friends and colleagues of mine. Instead of uniting the Democratic party in a time when we desperately, passionately, and anxiously need a strong candidate, she has divided and angered many. I hope with all of my heart, that she supports Barack Obama and democrats, so that we can win this election. I initially thought Clinton would be a great candidate (this was over a year ago), but honestly, I do not trust or respect her intentions anymore. I hope we can unite as democrats and build what little credibility we currently have in the world's eyes, to something larger and more truthful. As Obama said in this speech tonight, "we cannot afford four more years of the same politics."