KCRW's Left Right & Center 8/1/08 Summary
*8.6.08 Updated posts below: Tony and Bob's weekly columns...
**Post updated--SEE BELOW Today we talk about the terrorist enemy within...with the breaking news about Bruce Ivins--the bio-weapons researcher alleged to be the sender of anthrax letters that killed five after 9/11--who committed suicide on Tuesday as the FBI was closing in on him. Then the big political clamor of the week over whether McCain or Obama are the ones playing the race card. An interesting conversation about the Doha Round of global trade talks and the US economy follows (check out what Tony says about agriculture, it's quite interesting), and finally a wrap-up on whether or not Obama is an internationalist, what that means and whether or why it matters. Photo on left above is from the Associated Press. Image on top right comes from MJMGroup.com/bullypulpitnews. Look for the "Links" post to view Obama's speech and McCain's ad...scroll down further for our volunteer bloggers' transcripts of what was said today, and even further for links to Bob's and Tony's weekly syndicated columns, both related to today's show in a big way.
Happy listening and SIGN UP for the RSS feed...we'll try to supply more content throughout the week! -- and don't forget, you can EMBED OUR MEDIA PLAYER ON YOUR BLOG! Just click the "embed" tab, copy the code, and insert!!
***UPDATE: Take a sneak peak at Matt Miller's new book, due out in January The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. By the way, during our pledge drive (Aug 8 and Aug 15 for LRC), we'll be offering signed copies of Bob Scheer's The Pornography of Power and Arianna Huffington's Right is Wrong....as premiums when you pledge. Even tho' the podcasts are free, it costs us to produce, post and stream this show...please join us as a subscriber!
He Is Who He Is
Tony Blankley Wednesday, August 06, 2008
It's getting tricky to know how to refer to he who presumes to be the next president. It was made clear several months ago that mentioning his middle name is a forbidden act. (Pass out more eggshells.) Then, having nothing honorable to say, Obama warned his followers last week that Sen. McCain would try to scare voters by pointing to Obama's "funny name" and the fact that "he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills."Now, putting aside for the moment the racial component of His warning, what are we to make of the "funny name" reference? Many people have "funny" names. Some people think my last name -- being very close in spelling to the adverbial form for the absence of content -- is funny. Certainly, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's name is funny. Many on the left have had great fun with President Bush's last name. But we all have found our names perfectly serviceable and would expect people to call us by the names by which we identify ourselves.
But He has made it clear that the mere use of His name would be freighted with coded innuendoes of something too horrible to say straightforwardly. One has to go back to Exodus 3:13-14 to find such strict instructions concerning the use of a name. Moses explained: "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I Am has sent me to you.'"
So perhaps we can call Him, for short, Sen. I Am (full code name: I Am who you have been waiting for).
Another aspect of the now-infamous dollar-bill incident that has gone unmentioned is Sen. I Am's choice of the dollar-bill reference itself. He could have just said He doesn't look like other presidents. Even that is a little too cute for the nasty little point He slyly was trying to make, but at least He would be identifying Himself merely with the universe of American presidents. But His overweening pride found such company too base and demeaning for Him. So He needed to include Himself in the grander company of George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jefferson and perhaps Andy Jackson. (I doubt He had in mind Woodrow Wilson on the $100,000 bill or Grover Cleveland on the $1,000.)
Perhaps I shouldn't dwell on these matters, but the more I watch this man the more stunned I am at His overconfidence and towering pride. I have known a number of great and powerful men (and read biographies of many more), and they surely don't lack confidence or ego. But who among the great would have answered the question posed to the junior senator from Illinois a few weeks ago as He did? Asked whether He had any doubts, He said "never." Is He so foolish as to think He has the world figured out to the last detail, or is He so proud of His intelligence that He cannot confess to ever having any doubt? Either explanation renders His judgment of dubious presidential caliber.
Here is a man who talked almost contemptuously of Gen. Petraeus. Explaining His differences with the general, He said that His "job is to think about the national security interest as a whole; (the generals') job is just to get their job done (in Iraq)." Of course, right at the moment, the junior senator from Illinois doesn't yet have "His" job, while Gen. Petraeus, as confirmed Centcom commander, has direct responsibility for both Afghanistan and Iraq and everything in between and around them. But in the mind of Sen. I Am, He already is, while He thinks the man who is perhaps our greatest general in two generations is just another flunky carrying out routine orders. It is repulsive to see such a mentality in a man who would be president.
All of us have our shortcomings, of course. But there is none so dangerous both to a man and to those for whom he has responsibility than the sin of pride. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great recognized that pride breeds all the other sins and is therefore the most serious offense. St. Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed that pride is rebellion against the very authority of God.
Let me quote a private e-mail correspondent, who states the case better than I could: "Pride indeed is the cardinal vice -- it swings open the door to most of the other theological vices, and undermines the classical virtues of prudence, courage and justice. It thrives, not on what one has, but on what others do not have. And even when one has diligently practiced the most admirable virtues, there always lurks the danger that at some moment one will look in the mirror and say: 'Oh my! What a wonderful person I am!' Thus does the vice lunge from its hiding-place."
For a man, his personality is his destiny. If he becomes president, his flaws become the nation's dangers. The voters must judge carefully both the personalities and the ideas of those who would be president.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terror From the Inside
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080805_terror_from_the_inside/
Posted on Aug 5, 2008
By Robert Scheer
The terrorists find all sorts of reasons to hate us. On Tuesday came word that the deadliest biological assault on the United States may be linked to the rejection of the terror suspect by a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sister decades ago. That is offered as an explanation of why the accused U.S. Army bio-warfare scientist allegedly drove seven hours from his home to mail anthrax-laced letters from a mailbox near the sorority’s Princeton University office, according to the Associated Press.
What we learned last week, after the suicide of Bruce E. Ivins, was disquieting enough without the twisted love angle. If you can believe the recent leaks from the FBI on its most important unsolved crime—which killed five and sickened 17, immobilized the federal government and traumatized the nation—it was a clean-shaven, white, God-fearing Catholic guy who done it. Despite a government anxious to find yet another example of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11, it quickly became clear to experts that the anthrax used in the only WMD attack on our nation was a sophisticated product traceable to our own biological weapons labs. This is not surprising, because the United States has long been a leader in this field.
Our ostensible reason for developing the world’s most sophisticated arsenal of deadly biological weapons is that the United States needs to learn how to prevent such attacks from deranged outsiders. Now we have yet another reminder that the enemy may be us, and that at least some of the folks who develop weapons like to find occasions to use them. In this case, the terrorist the FBI was about to charge with homicide was a nut case who nonetheless received the highest security clearance to work on the most dangerous of weapons deep within our own military-industrial complex.
This is yet another disappointment for those writing the basic Bush administration narrative in which the terrorist is always some Islamo-fascist guy. That’s the assigned role that Saddam Hussein failed at so miserably. Remember when New York Times reporter Judith Miller was breathlessly reporting every sighting of a rusting Iraqi RV as one of Hussein’s biological weapons labs to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Gosh, how the military-industrial complex must miss the Soviet Union, which could be trusted to match us in the high-tech game of dispensing mass death.
Of course, our government, which has never disowned the right to build and use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, has long insisted that we alone are to be trusted with the creation of those devilish devices. Others are judged either too irrational, evil or merely incompetent to be allowed WMD, whereas we alone, with the unique experience of having killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pose no threat. That others might not see it our way, particularly after recent incidents, such as the missing nukes that crossed the United States on that errant B-52 flight, or the anthrax attack allegedly conducted by one of our top bio-weapons scientists, is understandable.
The larger problem is that we no longer take the threat of WMD as seriously as we should. We focused on the nonexistent WMD in Iraq while ignoring the spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea, Iran and Libya under the guidance of A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan’s popularly revered “Islamic bomb.” As former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his memoir, the Bush administration seized upon the WMD issue in Iraq only because it was convenient: “The United States did not go to war in Iraq solely because of WMD. In my view, I doubt it was even the principal cause. Yet it was the public face that was put on it.”
The public face of terrorism was a bearded Muslim armed with WMD. No wonder we were caught off guard when the only person to ever attack us with WMD turns out to be, apparently, an active congregant at St. John the Evangelist Church in Frederick, Md., and a highly trusted employee of the U.S. military.
Not that our sleuths weren’t forewarned. As Ivins’ therapist, social worker Jean Duley, reported to the Maryland District Court last month in a hearing to obtain a restraining order: “As far back as the year 2000, the respondent has actually attempted to murder several other people ... he is a revenge killer when he feels that he’s been slighted ...especially towards women. ... He has been forensically diagnosed by several top psychiatrists as a sociopathic, homicidal killer.”
In any case, he was one of us.
Robert Scheer is author of a new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”
AP photo / Kenneth Lambert
Members of a Marine Corps chemical-biological incident team demonstrate anthrax cleanup techniques in Washington, D.C., in October 2001.
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
My Groups
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 2 days ago
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
An open letter to KCRW and the Left, Right
An open letter to KCRW and the Left, Right & Center staff.
Dear LRC:
Matt Miller said the following in his closing remark on Aug. 1st, 2008:
"Just to plant a final seed on this sovereignty question that's going to become so big not just in this campaign but in the years ahead. There is a real divergence of interests now between a company's interests and a country's interests. And U.S. policy has always assumed that U.S. multi-nationals would always have the same interests as the United States. No longer true."
Offering this type comment out there at the end of the show, with little hope that it will be discussed in a future episode, is incredibly frustrating and indicative of the manner in which LRC has degraded in quality in the last eight years.
It used to be that LRC could be trusted to cover policy and process issues as much as the weeks politics with a little smattering of gossip. It sad to say that with the protracted primary season, LRC has been consumed with every tit-for-tat of campaign gossip, polls and other hogwash. Sure it impacts the elections in an echo chamber sense, but its irrelevant to the daily lives of listeners—those citizens we all hope are informed when they go to the polls.
I'm a faithful weekly listener of LRC and several other KCRW programs. It makes me both sad and spitting mad to watch the co-hosts of LRC, week in and week out, rehash the tripe of the mainstream media. Gone are the days that Mr. Miller contributed ideas like those in his book "The Radical Center" and gone are the days that LRC discussed issues within the states with any frequency.
And then there are the huge issues that fall within the national political conversation that LRC has barely or never discussed. For example, the contempt of Congress verdict by Judge Bates, a Bush appointee, related to Miers, Bolton and Rove. Or the "not-an-impeachment" impeachment hearing.
Then there is the failure of the Speaker of the House to improve the approval rating of Congress by yielding to the conservative positions of Blue Dog Democrats, striving to win elections and build a majority for 2012 when she plans on getting some real work done. Citizens are demanding more progressive policy reform and we have a Do-Nothing Congress to deal with.
How about the launch of the bi-partisan movement called Change Congress seeking to mobilize a number of other movements to cooperatively reform the improper dependence of Congress.
I hope that there is some room between the polling figures, attack ads and pimping books and websites to talk about something beyond candidates. Its great that you mention the average working American who is suffering in this economy, but you rarely pursue the issues that effect them instead focusing on the personalities and gossip that side-step them to do campaign fundraising.
So sure, Mr. Miller, the divergence of corporate and policy interests is increasing. I would love to hear you give it more than 15-seconds.
I wish someone, in the overheated discussion of McCain’s “celebrity” ad, would mention in passing that while Paris Hilton may be merely famous for being famous, Britney Spears earned her fame. I was never a fan, but I saw the clip of her on “Star Search”; this girl worked her tush off since her age was in single digits, and for a long time after put on a very high-energy, physically-demanding show in front of her fans. Like many another before her, she seems to have crumbled under all that attention and the incredible pressure to go on providing her public with something new and better. Let’s give a little credit where it’s due.
Second: about our balance of payments. If the falling dollar and the money we export purely for oil are taken out of the equation, our BoP doesn’t look bad at all by any standards; we are still the biggest exporting country in the world.
Arianna, the government didn’t SAVE Bear Stearns. The wrongdoers at BS lost a lot of money. Who was protected, to some extent, were the people who owned BS stock, many of whom were BS employees who had taken all their bonuses in stock. It’s complicated, I know, but this should have at least be mentioned.
Lastly, and I know this is going to sound like I’ve been reading too many political thrillers (actually, I never read them), but I hope someone will suggest an investigation into The Anthrax Man’s SUPPOSED suicide. There is just too much likelihood that he might know things the Bush administration wouldn’t want coming out in a trial. There, I said it, call me paranoid.
I think the real difference I hear on the show is that Matt seems to parrot whatever the media line of the day is ( like "Is Obama arrogant?" whatever..."); Tony still seems to be a political operative and repeats republican attacks like they're facts ("Well Obama is arrogant..."); and Bob is the only one who seems to want to bring up facts and historical context... and he seems to be the only one in the media who does (and that makes him seem weird).
Arianna? Love her, but she's barely on anymore... and I wish the Huffington Post wasn't so much gossip and non-news.
Ariana Huffington and others freely linked very different things in supporting a pernicious and destructive notion that people with mental illness are the stuff of terrorism. Using 'crazies' in the first place to refer to people like Ivins who suffer with depression is offensive enough. But to use 'crazies' interchangeably with 'terrorists' is downright irresponsible. I'm not sure which of the commentators began to ring this association bell but I heard it sounded over and over again.
People with depression or ongoing symptoms of mental illnesses are stigmatized, excluded and shamed in our society already-- associated with more or less every evil in the world, despite the fact that more than 20% of the population is afflicted with mental illness at some time in their lives. To draw a line though between mental illness and terrorism is the worst combination of inaccurate and dangerous.
Some terrorists have had mental illnesses, just as some presidents and inventors and authors have, and just as have some of your friends and family. To link these two together in one breath supports stigma that destroys people's lives and sense of self, including leads people to die by suicide.
(As a side note this tactic of linking two distinct ideas that have no proven relationship was one employed by our administration to the ends of a specific agenda-- when Iraq and Al Qaeda were used in the same breath in the build-up to the Iraq invasion, despite the fact that intelligence at that time could find no evidence whatsoever of a functional connection.)
As a person who has had symptoms of mental illness over many years, and been diagnosed with one type, and who still leads a normal productive life, I am especially sensitive to these issues. I do not practice thought policing or piecemeal censorship on the issue, however, on anything like a ongoing basis and rarely comment on the media.
But social injustice in the form of unmitigated bias is something we should not tolerate in our public media. Prejudice is prejudice and people with mental illnesses are no exception to our social condemnation of it. For some reason , though, there remains the idea that we do not merit respect in civic discourse and can be called 'crazies' in the same way African-Americans were freely called "N-" words I cannot even put in print today.
Public commentators on public radio, regardless of their personal attitudes, need to be more responsible than joe-on-the-street. What they say is heard by many and has the power to create or strengthen offensive and inaccurate concepts that can only serve destruction in the personal lives of people and their families. I hope that KCRW and NPR will encourage their speakers to speak thoughtfully about individuals and avoid using any group of people as scapegoats, regardless of how convenient it may be.
I think all the hosts completly missed the real point of the Bruce Ivins suicide.
The Left, Right and Center Drinking Game by Jason Bahr
Drink (beer, etc.):
If Arianna says ‘Clean-ton’
When Matt says ‘Up ahead…’
When Matt says ‘We have reached that time…’
When Matt says ‘That’s all the ___ we have time for’
If Bob reminds people of the cost of the Iraq war
If anyone mentions WMD
If Matt cuts off Bob by saying ‘Bob…Bob…Bob…’
If Matt mentions his time in the ‘Clean-ton’ White House, or otherwise defends the Clintons
If Matt uses his rant to advocate for Hillary ‘Clean-ton’ campaign/policies
Shot:
If Arianna Huffington is Away
If Tony Blankly says ‘yeear(s)’ or ‘ithue(s)’
If Bob reminds the others that he was the only one against the Iraq war from the beginning
If Bob takes a joke by Matt and gets angry about it
If Bob and Tony agree on anything
If any host mentions their own book/blog/website
If ‘rant’ time is 15 seconds or less
Most interesting thing in the Aug 1 Anthrax...Globalization program was a comment Matt made about our failure in the US to provide health security and pension security not tied to your job.
If health care (and/or pension security) is to be universal, it cannot be tied to one's job; because not everybody has a job. Seems pretty simple, but you don't hear it said much if at all in the media. Kudos to Matt for raising that concern.
Dear LR
My 8 year old can't remember anything he did when he was 3 and at 71ish, I doubt someone would have much memory of their fist 3-4 years.
I CALL BS ON MR. SHEER!
I believe that Mr. Sheer's example of "Boy Scouts" as an example of who authorities should watch if they are interested in finding terrorists was unnecessary. He constructed a "two fer" at the expense of two brands which exemplify American ideals. One, a youth organization which honors reverence to God and love of country. Second, the American law enforcement community, the best in the world. I revealed to me what is beneath that whining facade, hate toward any participating American, without limit to age or innocence.
While I generally consider myself to lean toward the liberal side of moderate, I have been increasingly annoyed with Mr. Scheer these past several weeks. Part of it is that he seems incapable of staying on topic--e.g. turning a response to a question about high energy prices into yet another diatribe about the war in Iraq--but mostly I find myself disagreeing with him more often than not. There are two issues in particular on which I find his position particularly vexing (I also disagree with Mr. Scheer on free trade, but on that issue I do understand the opposing arguments).
So, Mr. Scheer,
Why aren't you for higher energy prices? Higher prices, particularly on gasline, are the best way to reduce consumption and pollution, encourage public transit, re-energize cities and small towns at the expense of exurban sprawl, bring back local industry and farming, etc. Aren't those all goals on the liberal agenda? Then why are you going out of your way to condemn high gas prices?
Also, are home foreclosures really as bad as you insist? Are the victims really losing their life savings? Other than the down-payment, which some borrowers avoided altogether, are mortgage payments that different from rent? It's the lenders who are losing their shirts on this (and then the taxpayers who are cleaning up after them), not the borrowers. Besides, when the housing bubble has finished deflating, the working class may once again be able to afford to own their own homes without resorting to risky mortgages.
First of all thanks so much for opening up the blog.
The campaign against Obama has been a continuing series of information episodes about race, reminding whites that Obama is of African descent and is therefor unaceptably black, black, black. First Jeremiah Wright, then his wife Michelle, then Jesse Jackson, then the New Yorker cover, now accusing him of playing the "race card" that only he can play because he is black, black, black. We can expect this Chinese water torture of blackness reminders to remain near the top of campaign consciousness for the rest of campaign,
Perhaps LRC can insted ask the questions that are left hanging in the program. Are we going to make health care and pension security available to all and unconnected to a job? Is what is good for corporations that may be managed by Americans, employ some Americans, or advertise to Americans or sell to Americans necessarily good for America? (General Motors anyone?)
And to P Sullivan, why should working Americans have to lose their homes in droves so that maybe working class Americans can afford to start buying them again? And how much of their home equity was converted into fees by mortgage lenders, brokers and Wall Street securitizers?
--Sarah, producer
Folks at LRC, Thanks so much for putting on a informative, free, and very worthwhile show. II have been listening to almost all of them for over 4 years.
'm guessing you envisioned this blog not to be so much of a location for critique about the show as a service to the public so that they and you could discuss further things like the issues raised in the show? Hopefully your not regretting your decisions now ;-)
Anycase, I applaud and thank all of you that take part in the show for continuing to do something which more likely than not does not return in kind in notariety or pay for the time it takes. Personally, I appreciate many things about each of the participants perspectives. I tend to agree more often than not with Robert and see media time as a precious resource that would ideally best be used talking about the most significant issues of the day that affect peoples lives. This being said, there is something to learn from most of the things discussed and it is never (for me or I woudl guess most americans) a waste of time by any means to listen to the show. As an example, by going into the gossip... it perhaps illustrates the level on which politicians work which is something that would be instructive for many Americans to learn about. For a thinking person as opposed to an information consumer, there is something important to learn on every show. I wish the show was an hour actually so that it would be possible to more fully cover significant issues.
I would love to hear more about one of the proposed topics which is how big business and national interest align or dont.
On the one hand I see the benefit of protecting the american worker by giving big business some assistance in, and out of the US. At the same time I agree with many of the types of things people like Chomsky talk about such as the "nanny state" idea that rarely seems to get discussed on mainstream media. A more generic version of it which gets discussed occasionally on this show is how big businesses and fat cats consistently walk away from ripping off the tax payers, expect bailouts for bad management, or flat out defraud the shareholders, all the while pretty much never getting any fines or jail, or at worst, getting a minor incarcaration which would be considered victory in the courtroom for a small time crook.
To whom it may concern
Why does it take 3 lefties to debate one conservative.Robert Scheer is a certified Bolshevick,so much so that even
This is an NPR program so they play to their demographic which tends to be more liberal. My view is this:
Scheer: Way out to the left where the buses don't run much. He tends to hurl insults and must say something about "military industrial complex" every show. He's one of those "screaming talking heads" we came here to avoid. He's the type of liberal who rather than thinking the conservitives are wrong, thinks they are bad. I don't think he ever misses a show.
Miller: He worked for Clinton and tends to be moderate left but I give him credit for being fair. If LRC wanted to show some real balance they would have somone from the moderate Right host when Miller is away rather than getting Larry O'Donnell.
Huffington: It seems she used to be more to the right but 10 years ago she defected to the left and pretty much is down the line liberal most of the time but nowhere near as out there as Scheer. She is out a lot and never has a replacement which is another missed oportunity. LRC should have somone from the "Independent Conservitave Blogosphere" sit in for her when she is out to give another perspective.
Blankley: Solid Reagon Conservitive and very witty. It's too bad he is outnumbered 3-1 on most issues. When he is out they have some interesting replacements with the most memorable being Amity Shlaes.
LRC is a great show even with the 3-1 left vs. Right odds. As mentioned above, the thing I would suggest to improve the show would be to let more conservitives on when Miller or Huffington where away.
My point is that since many of the foreclosed-upon borrowers never actually owned much equity in their homes, the situation is less akin to losing their homes and more akin having to move out because they can't afford to pay the rent. It is still painful, yes, but that house did not represent their life-savings; rather, it represented a hefty fraction of their life-debt.
Besides, uninflated housing prices are a good thing. (On that note, why is the press persisting in calling high gas and food prices paired with lower housing prices a triple threat? Don't lower housing costs offset some of the higher costs of other essentials, namely food and energy?)
The bankers and securitizers making bank off of hokey mortgages does get my dander up, but I am generally disappointed with the fraction of the population that makes money off the buying and selling of others anyway. Unless someone can figure out how to take back their Christmas bonuses, what's done is done. Congress should use this opportunity to get some regulation around these financial schemes--make it less profitable going forward.
THANK you!!!
Sarah, producer
I wanted to comment briefly on Tony's comment regarding Obama's 'internationalism' and indicating that it could have a potentially negative impact if Obama were to place
I wanted to comment briefly on Tony's comment regarding Obama's 'internationalism' and indicating that it could have a potentially negative impact if Obama were to place international interests ahead of American interests. Tony's comment shrewdly notes that the primary duty of an American President (or any American elected or appointed official) is to serve the interests of their country, and the secondary interests should be addressing the rest of the world's interests.
On it's surface, this a purely rational and defensible argument. Without question, I believe that a president's primary responsibility is to serve the interests of his constituency. Since the whole world does not have franchise in helping choose the next American president, then the president represents first and foremost, the American people.
However, the argument is complicated in an increasingly globalized world, where events abroad may have direct or indirect effects in the United States. Economies are too intertwined; environment's are too intertwined; resources are too intertined to allow any future American leader not to think internationally regarding the immediate and potential impacts of domestic and foreign policy decisions. Consequently, we need an internationalist that is willing to acknowledge these facts about the 21st century. The original argument becomes muddied when one realizes that we must account for both short term and long term impact, both direct and indirect impact, and short term national interests may sometimes have to give way to long term international ones.
This may be too convoluted an argument to use effectively during a political campaign. I understand that from the perspective of a campaign manager it would be prudent to stick with a more nationalist rhetoric, but awareness of the internationalist relationship we all share should not be discarded so easily. Sorry Tony, no hard feeling I'm sure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPARec32KMI
This put Tony's complaints in a very different light, and makes the McCain campaign into total hypocrites.
It's interesting how you have been playing down the depth of this economic mess for the past year and a half. It's not necessarily wrong, but very consistent. It'll be interesting to see if you'll ever change your mind on that. Yet again, I should commend your forward-looking attitude.