Posted by: ed ||
09/14/2008 1:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hate is a pretty big word for a reporter. As much as I disagree with the left, hate has never entered my conversation. This person is just a bigot showing her true soul, filled with anger and racist hate.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/14/2008 5:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Lots of that sort of thing going around on the left these days 49. Methinks if it continues it might be a good thing for the country as the worst of them will seriously discredit themselves.
#7
Yes Pan, they hate. They hate with all the mindless bigotry they Freudianly project upon those they despise. The right looks upon the left as mistaken, misinformed, and lost, but the left thinks the right is just plain evil. It's one of the reasons they seem to fail so often. They do not understand their opponents.
#8
She doesn't so much hate white people as life itself.
Look at the picture she chose to put in the paper for how many people in Chicagoland to view every day. She looks just like the bitter teachers we'll be seeing soon at back to school night. Wizened faces once fresh and eager like the younger teachers.
But they've stayed at the grind stone of obnoxious children five years too long just to get the pension that won't be there in 15 years. And they know it. And they're bitter.
And Mary's that bitter. The Age of Aquarius isn't much different than the previous Age.
That is one of the things that is impressive about McCain. Talk about a guy with reason to be bitter. And he's been down in the primaries and in the general. But he sees the cup half full and keeps on truckin.
#9
note that Palin has been on the national scene for all of two weeks and this twit HATES her. Sez more about this mirthless racist drone Mitchell than Palin, I think. The fact the Sun-Times printed this dreck says a lot about them as well. Opinion piece? No, this is a hate-filled tantrum. Welcome to the Donk base
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2008 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
How old is she, anyway? This article reads like it was penned by a 15 year old annoyed that she has to spend the weekend with her uncool parents and her totally annoying little brother.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/14/2008 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Right you are AzCat. Media is downsizing, and as each reporter goes their individual way, all they will carry with them is their reputation. Let the future Randi Rhodes' self-select their isolation from mainstream life.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/14/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
I have a problem that is driving me crazy & I hope you can help. I married a wonderful woman named Representative Government a couple centuries ago. Our friends also call her Democracy. Anyway, along with her came her dog Media. At first Media seemed like a great addition to the family, protecting the house against thieves and fast talkers. Everyone in the neighborhood got a kick out of Media's daily info drops, the articles on local kid activities and the occasional thoughtful analysis. Everyone except old Joe Stickyfingers down at Town Hall, anyway, but he had it coming after that kickback scam he was running.
Here's my problem though. A while back Media's behavior began to change. She stopped coming in when we called. She started growling at the kids, stealing the Internet router and guarding it in her crate, stuff like that. This election season it's really gotten out of hand, with Media and her friends messing on the carpets and chewing the furniture every time Gov. Palin is on TV. I've tried to control her but she's actually threatened me!! -- and I think her rabies vaccination has expired ....
Some of my friends say the only option left is to put her down. But even if I could catch her without getting my throat ripped out Democracy has made it very plain she will divorce me, take the house and the kids and make sure I never work in this town again if I take Media on that last trip to the vet. Help! How can I housetrain Media and get her under control again? You're my only hope.
(signed) Angry despairing citizen who wants his floors to stay clean and the Media dog to act responsibly
Dear Citizen,
You've got a problem, all right. But don't despair - dogs like Media secretly want and need the discipline of the pack to be happy and non-destructive. It will take some work and determination, but you can retrain her to become a useful member of the household and to respect your leadership once again. In fact, you can take a few tips from Gov. Palin in this regard. But first let's review the basics of dog training.
Dogs learn by associating outcomes with behaviors. That's the basis of what we professionals call 'operant conditioning'. The dog operates on the environment and learns from the results. Behaviors that result in good things (rewards) get repeated. Rewards can be treats, praise, invitations to Sunday talk shows, subscription income, ad revenues, web page hits, links from other web sites. Anything that Media really wants is a potential reward.
Lots of people make the mistake of relying on punishment to change a dog's behavior -- you know, the rolled-up paper threat for peeing on the floor. However, punishment is tricky to get right and can even be counterproductive unless it's done correctly. There are actually four levers you have in training the Media dog or a killer whale or your annoying neighbors. They are:
a) Positive reinforcement -- giving the dog something she wants in response to a behavior you want
b) Negative reinforcement -- removing something she dislikes in response to a behavior you want
c) Positive punishment -- hitting, yelling etc. i.e. doing something she dislikes in response to a behavior you don't want
d) Negative punishment -- removing something she likes in response to a behavior you don't want
Of these four levers, positive reinforcement is by far the most effective in training a new behavior. (Stopping an unwanted behavior is a harder issue that we'll get to later in this column.) Giving a treat or praise whenever Media sits, comes when called, writes a fair and balanced news article -- this is the best way to train her to do something you want. Catch her doing it, even imperfectly, and treat her: she's bound to do it more often in hopes of getting rewarded again. When she does it really well, give her a particularly coveted treat: "extras for excellence".
Sometimes, though, the behavior we want is overshadowed by the dog's instincts or acquired habits. Then we move to negative reinforcement: opening the door only when the dog quiets down, continuing on a walk only when she stops pulling at the lead. That sort of thing. Negative punishment can be very effective as well. In my house, a dog that growls over a chew bone in my presence goes in a crate for a timeout. Quite often that's all it takes to change that unwanted behavior.
If a behavior is particularly dangerous, we might consider the carefully targeted use of positive punishment. My boy Charlie, now happily flushing birds in that great hunting field in the sky, had this down to a science when he was alpha dog of the pack here. When one of the other dogs disrupted the pack, taking away food or chewies from others for instance, Charlie stepped in. BOOM!!! Out of nowhere he would appear and in an instant the other dog was down on the ground with Charlie's fangs an inch from her neck. The look in Charlie's eyes said "Do it again and die." Not until the offender submitted did Charlie let her up.
Why not rely on positive punishment alone? Unfortunately, for positive punishment to be effective it has to be immediate, consistent and credible. Charlie couldn't maintain order if he overlooked bad behavior sometimes or if he wasn't around to catch it. He couldn't come up to the offender an hour later and start whining about her behavior or nagging her to do better, either. And that look in his eye, the rumble deep in his throat and his bared teeth had to present a credible threat of real consequences. Only when all 3 conditions are met does positive punishment work.
Okay, so these are the tools you have to work with in training Media: positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment.
Now let's look at how to apply them in a comprehensive retraining program. Normally I would recommend that you "train a conflicting behavior". I.e. -- if she begs at the dinner table, train a "down" command and reward her for staying down while you eat.
It's not going to be all kibble and treats in your case, however, because Media has already discovered all sorts of strong rewards for doing things you don't like, like biased coverage of Republican candidates and slanted reporting of war activities. She gets access to political influence, invitations to swank insider parties, TV time and a chance to influence elections as a result of her behaviors. So it's not surprising that she isn't paying any attention to you when you call her to heel.
What gets rewarded gets repeated, so Media's behavior has gotten totally out of hand. She's messing on your political floor and using doctored photos from insurgents and the other party's sympathizers. Try to reprimand her and she threatens to tear out your throat, expose your divorce records or drag your kids through the mud with slimy rumors and innuendo.
In cases like this we move directly to punishment to end this dangerous behavior before we can retrain Media into better habits. Remember the 3 requirements for punishment: to be effective it must be immediate, consistent and credible.
Immediate: Any misbehavior on Media's part must generate an instantaneous response. Emails to the editor, columns on blogs, TV interviews exposing Media's actions -- be prepared to respond quickly and forcefully when she steps out of line.
Consistent: This will take help. You, your family and your friends need to watch Media constantly. Fact-check her articles. Demand full transcripts and raw video from interviews and examine them for bias. Do not let a single offense slip by unnoticed. This will require great dedication on your part. It means someone you love will have to sit through Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews daily. Just keep telling yourself that this won't go on forever -- you will retrain Media with some effort and persistence.
Credible: Above all, every egregious misbehavior by Media must trigger an immediate response that credibly threatens Media with consequences she really doesn't want. Such as: Try to swing this election and we will not only expose what you're doing, cancel subscriptions and write to advertisers, we will also organize a massive effort to elect the candidate you're trashing. In fact, we will organize a backlash that just might retake Congress too.
Some behaviors are so egregious, so dangerous, that they demand a truly existential threat in response. So what is the equivalent of "do it again and DIE" for Media? It's withholding interviews and demanding independent videotaping of them, with the raw footage to go online immediately. It's developing alternate sources of reporting and analysis like Pajamas Media and weblogs. It's aggressive threats of libel lawsuits where appropriate.
And above all it's having reformer politicians who are not going to Washington to seek Media's good favor, but who are going there to serve the people of this country. Media has bared her teeth at you and me. The first step in retraining her is to show no fear. The second step is to make it clear to her that we will be respected.If that works, Media can begin to get treats again for good behavior.
And if not, well .... Sadly, there are dogs that just can't be rehabilitated and need to be put down.
PS: Don't be surprised if Media's misbehavior gets worse and worse as you begin this training program. It's quite common for your dog to try harder and harder to assert the behavior she's used to being rewarded for. Animal behaviorists call this an "extinction burst" and note that it is worst just before they finally quit trying. Parents of toddlers know this as the "I'm not TIRED !!!!" tantrum that immediately preceeds falling fast asleep. Just stick to the program and Media will eventually give up.
But remember: immediate, consistent and credible punishment for every misbehavior from here on out until she does.
What if it's remembered that whining got you to open the door and let her out at night _once_ back in 1994, and by gum she's not going to stop trying now for hours at a time, reward or not...
(And no, I'm not joking. Remember that partial reinforcement is a more powerful behavior control mechanism than anything else, especially for humans. The fact that people can make money by owning slot machines should be warning enough to us.)
Also, we're not paying attention enough to how the propaganda machines worked in other countries.
_Everyone_ knew the press was lying to them there. And everyone rejected 70% of what the press was saying. And thought they were clever, while they accepted the 30% or so 'payload' the government wanted them to. It was within the design parameters of the propaganda program.
#2
Operant conditioning works on cats too AS. The trick is to figure out what rewards them. I've used broiled salmon with cats who don't get their dinner until after our training session. ;-)
Yes, partial reinforcement is incredibly powerful. That's why it's so important that any punishment regime be really consistent and immediate and credible. Anything less will simply reinforce them to keep doing what they're used to doing.
The key, I think, is to keep the focus on the media. Educate the audience if you can, but keep that rolled up newspaper close to hand, keep a careful watch on what they do and be ready to put them down HARD when they pull crap.
Do it again and DIE. A motto to embrace this election season wrt the media IMO. It's not going to be easy, it will require the commitment of a lot of people. But I'm beginning to sense that many of us have reached that same line in the sand with the treatment of Sarah Palin and her kids.
#3
When I was a kid, my dog Harry (bless his soul) used to love TCBY yogurt. Say the letters and he would go bonkers. He would run to the door and jump and yelp and otherwise carry on. Knowing this, we only said it when we were going to pick some up and bring it home - giving him his own cup of strawberry flavored.
On one of these occasions, I put him in the car, then for some reason I don't remember any longer, we had to cancel that trip. When I tried ot get him out of the car, he would not come when called, so I reached in to take him out of the car and he bit me. The little bastard actually got blood through my jean jacket. At which point I did what any red blooded young male would do to re-establish dominance. I grabbed him by the color and in one move, yanked him out of the car and flung his misbedavin' ass across the driveway. He never bit me again.
The media has long ago stopped challenging the people for alpha status and assumed it.
Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, this dog has bitten us. It's time to grab it's collar and fling it's misbehavin' ass in the direction of that tree over there.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/14/2008 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Once long ago I owned a horse, he kicked me once, I hauled off and kicked him as hard as I could in the belly.
He never even tried to kick me again, several times I saw him cock his hind leg, think it over and set the leg down.
Whe He came to live with us he wouldn't come when called, the lady I got him from said he never obeyed, so I put some small apples in my pocket and called, he didn't come so I ate the apple, he saw that.
Next time he came when called and got his apple I never had another time he didn't come when called If he got an apple or not.
(He got a plenty)
I don't know if that would be called posiitive, or negative, but it worked.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/14/2008 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
A really good teaching moment is when repeatedly disobedient members of the media are dragged kicking and screaming to the Vet Stock Market for euthanasia. Make sure the others see, and learn (as much as their little brains are capable)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2008 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I don't think we will need to put the media down as rabies is a fatal disease. The only problem is that it will infect so many people before it goes..
Besides, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Best to rely on your new dog Internet to help alert you whenever the rabid one draws near. I would say don't feed it, but that doesn't seem to help as it is as crazy as an angry meth junkie on a rampage. It seems to keep on going even though most people quit feeding it some time a ago.
#9
Why the heck should we 'retrain' the media? Its been lying to us for over 40 years (see Tet Offensive and Walter Chronkite).
In my opinion the existing media needs to die off (if not be killed off) right down to the 'schools of journalism' to the top of the New York Times and CNN. Its unreliable, biased, and simply cannot ever be trusted again.
In its place we need a 'new media' and new type of journalism which operating much the way the old stype 'reporters' worked - giving hard news and not opinion.
#12
You might point out to the breeders [the advertisers] that their product isn't selling anymore because of all the inbreeding and that they'd better be looking into a new stock to restart their business model.
The Big 'What If'
The hopes of black America ride on his shoulders. But the outcome's way up in the air.
By Randall Kennedy
I am a black man born in 1954, the year of Brown v. Board of Education. Fleeing the abuses of Jim Crow, my parents moved from South Carolina to Washington, D.C., later that decade. Tales of racial oppression and racial resistance were staples of conversation in our household. My father often spoke of watching Thurgood Marshall argue the case ( Rice v. Elmore) that invalidated the rule permitting only whites to vote in South Carolina's Democratic primary. Memories of that story played a large part in producing the tears I shed on the evening Barack Obama won this year's primary in the Palmetto State.
Related memories -- the most haunting being our visit to a D.C. funeral home to pay last respects to Medgar Evers, the courageous head of the Mississipppi branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People who was murdered by a segregationist -- helped reduce me to tears, again, on the night the senator from Illinois accepted his party's nomination as its candidate for president.
Never before have my emotions been so exercised by a political campaign. For one thing, never before has a candidate so fully challenged the many inhibitions that have prevented people of all races, including African Americans, from seriously envisioning presidential power in the hands of someone other than a white American. With intelligence, verve and elegance, Obama has opened the public mind to the idea of a black president and made that idea broadly attractive.
The senator's progressive politics, cosmopolitan ethos and pragmatic style have turned me into an enthusiastic supporter, and I savor the prospect of his triumph. But I'm watching this election very closely as I teach a course about it this semester. And I know that the conclusion to this electoral drama is far from determined. Yes, political gravity would seem to favor the Democratic candidate after two terms of Republican control of the White House. Yet the possibility is very real: Barack Obama could lose.
If that happens, then what? How will I feel? How will other black Americans feel? How should people like me feel?
Much depends on what might underlie any potential defeat. In September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, needing to allay anxieties about his religion in his quest to become the nation's first Roman Catholic president, addressed a Protestant ministerial association in Texas. At the end of his speech, he declared that if he lost the election "on the real issues," he would return to his seat in the Senate satisfied that he had been "judged fairly." He also said, however, that if the outcome was determined by a religious bias that deprived 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were baptized, "then it is the whole nation that will be the loser . . . in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people."
Whether black onlookers believe that this election was decided "on the real issues" and that Obama was "judged fairly" will be shaped in part by future developments, including the nature of the campaign in its closing weeks (will race-baiting intensify?) and the demographics of the final voting tally (will people who have traditionally voted Democrat vote differently this time around?).
I anticipate that most black Americans will believe that an Obama defeat will have stemmed in substantial part from a prejudice that robbed 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were born black. They will of course understand that race wasn't the only significant variable -- that party affiliation, ideological proclivities, strategic choices and dumb luck also mattered. But deep in their bones, they will believe -- and probably rightly -- that race was a key element, that had the racial shoe been on the other foot -- had John McCain been black and Obama white -- the result would have been different.
This conclusion will be accompanied by bitter disappointment, and in some quarters, stark rage. In the early stages of the Obama campaign, his rival, Hillary Clinton, outpolled him among blacks in part because many didn't believe that he stood a chance of prevailing. Then came Iowa. And the near-victory in New Hampshire. When blacks realized that Obama's candidacy represented a serious drive for electoral power with an appreciable chance of success, they gravitated overwhelmingly to the Illinois senator.
After he was nominated in the week marking the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, Obama became the focus of millennial aspirations. "Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime black candidate," wrote a black student in a memo for my course, "our one shot, probably the only real contender that my parents and grandparents will ever see, and maybe the only contender my generation will see. All my hopes ride with him." Imagine the pain of such hopes dashed. Nah. Palin can p[ick J.C. Watts or Michael Steele as Veep. But they're not a 'real' black guys, are they?
Black America, of course, is diverse. Some black conservatives -- columnist Thomas Sowell or Ken Blackwell, former secretary of state of Ohio -- will undoubtedly be delighted by an Obama defeat; he is, after all, their ideological foe. But there are also black leftists who oppose him. Writing in the Progressive magazine, Prof. Adolph Reed of the University of Pennsylvania urges voters to reject Obama (as well as McCain) because he is a "vacuous opportunist" who, like Bill Clinton, conservatizes the leftward end of the American political spectrum. A close variant is the camp of blacks who will be relieved by an Obama defeat because they fear that his victory would misleadingly suggest that America is no longer in need of large-scale racial reform. Still others, who believe that Obama has hurt himself by seeking the political center and declining to be more forceful in voicing a progressive alternative to the Republican ticket, would feel somber vindication.
There are blacks who'll be indifferent to an Obama defeat because they don't think that the outcome of the presidential race will have any real effect on their miserable fates. Others, protecting themselves against the pain of disappointment, have systematically repressed expectations. My mother will be sorry if Obama loses, but she won't feel disillusioned, because she hasn't allowed herself to get her hopes up. She has insisted throughout that "the white folks are going to refuse one way or another to permit Obama to become president." That she says this is remarkable, given the success of her three children, all of whom attended Princeton and became attorneys (one is a federal judge). Still, even though she has seen many racial barriers fall, she's simply unwilling to make herself vulnerable to dejection by investing herself fully in the Obama phenomenon.
If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I'll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I'll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.
If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn't win, and because in my view, the Obama ticket is obviously superior to McCain's.
But I hope that soon thereafter I'll find solace and encouragement in contemplating this unprecedented development: A major political party nominated a black man for the highest office in the land, and that man waged an intelligent, brave campaign in which many millions of Americans of all races enthusiastically supported an African American standard-bearer.
I hope that I'll take to heart the wisdom offered by two of my students. "Obama losing," one wrote, "would be hurtful, but it still spells substantial progress. . . . Change WILL come -- the wheels have been set in motion." Declared the second: "Sometimes you have to believe in the change before it comes (and in the face of its apparent defeat) for the change to be possible."
Even if Barack Obama loses in November, he will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it.
Randall Kennedy is a professor of law at Harvard University and the author, most recently, of "Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal."
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/14/2008 11:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
so this is the level of thought that Harvard produces these days. Gotta vote for my man just cause he is black.
The irony is that the only one who fits the JFK mold is Sarah Palin. She has to convice the populace to vote for her on the issues and not to vote against her because of her faith.
#3
I don't object at all to what Prof. Kennedy has written here. Yes, Sen. Obama could well lose. If that happens (and regulars here know my opinion on that), then every person who voted for and supported the good Senator needs to accept that, recognize the progress, and support the new administration as the loyal opposition.
That same admonition applies to conservatives if Senator Obama wins.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/14/2008 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What happens to black american if the One fails? Don't know? I'm pretty sure some will take it on to whitey. If obama fails, and I sure hope he will, even from across the pond, then more than a few people will be hurt, because of their wrong skin color.
#5
A guy at work is a hardcore Democrat. He liked the idea of Obama but supported Hillary because Obama is an empty suit. Now, of course, he is supporting Obama but he told me that the reason was because if Obama loses he fears there will be massive race riots in almost every major city.
Posted by: Scott R ||
09/14/2008 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yes, that's already been threatened in a Philadelphia newspaper article. If we give in to such threats we deserve what we get.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/14/2008 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Now, of course, he is supporting Obama but he told me that the reason was because if Obama loses he fears there will be massive race riots in almost every major city."
The other day somebody said: "oh, no we don't have a race war, it's just a black on black crime, i.e. common criminality." Isn't the above fears are good indication of what's really going on in the society???
#9
close variant is the camp of blacks who will be relieved by an Obama defeat because they fear that his victory would misleadingly suggest that America is no longer in need of large-scale racial reform.
-----------
when on is only approx. 15% of the population, and hispanics are 20% - just may be kind of hard to get that major racial reform you're looking for.
He didn't listen to The One - he didn't suggest that his readers learn Spanish.
#10
"Now, of course, he is supporting Obama but he told me that the reason was because if Obama loses he fears there will be massive race riots in almost every major city."
Btw, this race riots if the wrong candidate (IE sarko in this case) threat/possibility was raised by the socialists during the last presidential elections here in France; didn't materialize, though, despite a few incidents (a couple voting places being ransacked, but could have been leftists just as well, sarko really was painted as a right wing, muslim hater, Reagan-rethread, which is pretty funny in itself).
I was thinking more in the lines of individuals reacting alone or in small groups, just as say it was a very bad idea to be a lone blond guy in the streets of large german cities the night the german soccer team beat the turkish one in the Euro 2008.
#12
Just what do they think obambi is going to do, outlaw white people? Take our houses and give them to the blacks? I guess they'll be no better off or worse off no matter who wins. Dumbasses, they wonder why people are sick of their bullshit, we're all living here together.
#13
His empty rhetoric to justify race riots if Obama loses is a more subtle attempt to bully that the Philly Inquirer columnist so clumsily used last week. Whether threats of white guilt or race riots, they can bite me, cuz I'm voting against the man, his theology, his ideology, his friends, his empty rhetoric, his allies, and his wife
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2008 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Ditto, although not necessarily in that same order.
My final and at the moment strongest reason for voting against Obama is the need to slap down the far left and their media allies.
I would like to see us deliver such a stinging defeat that for the next generation even the thought of a reporter or editor or political consultant waging the politics of personal destruction on a candidate and her kids triggers an immediate immune response within the media and the electorate, both.
This stuff has gotten so deep and so vile that IMO it truly threatens the basic social contract that underlies our electoral process. It's time to tell them Do That Again and Die. (Not a threat of physical violence - follow the link for my somewhat lame attempt to argue for the necessity of slapping the media down hard in this election season.)
#15
"but he told me that the reason was because if Obama loses he fears there will be massive race riots in almost every major city."
Shades of 1968 - sounds like deja phooey to me.
I was in college in 1968, and well remember the riots following MLK's assassination - I was in DC during that time.*
Know where the riots and burnings were? In the black neighborhoods. That Palm Sunday, the sky was blue and the sun warm and you'd never even know anything had happened if you weren't in the black neighborhoods (except at night,when the whole city was under martial law and people of any color needed written permission to be on the streets).
I suspect it wouldn't be much different this time either, if it even happened.
BTW, Scott, you might want to point out to your buddy that his attitude is awfully racist. Apparently he doesn't think black people are capable of acting like responsible adults. Does he expect white people and/or women to riot if McCain/Palin lose? Ask his racist ass that.
*As an aside, that's where I first looked down the business end of a gun. They look damned big from the wrong end.... :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/14/2008 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Now, of course, he is supporting Obama but he told me that the reason was because if Obama loses he fears there will be massive race riots in almost every major city.
Tell him that if Palin loses, his wife will make him sleep on the couch for the next four years.
I'm sure they will get a high black turnout for this election. And that will certainly help Obama. But I suspect that Mac and Palin are going to pull the hispanics in this race. Why do I think so? Because I haven't heard BOO about them recently. It wasn't too long ago that our beloved press was going on endlessly about the hispanic vote. Today... Nada.
#19
Has Obama every really 'challenged' something? By Challenge I mean like MLK who literally risked his life challenging the Democratic Party establishment for the Civil Rights Act? Like all those before MLK who challenged the Jim Crow laws (established by the Democratic Party) of the old south?
Its easy to 'challenge' when you aren't risking anything and you know you won't be thrown in prison, tortured or raped (like under Saddam - or if you are a christian living in an Islamic state) - entirely different when you actually have real risk.
#20
I hate to break ti to him, but the reason Obama is losing is that peopel are judging him by the content of his character, as opposed to black voters who are merely votign for him due to skin color.
#21
I'm sure they will get a high black turnout for this election. And that will certainly help Obama.
476 million black voters if ACORN gets its way!
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
09/14/2008 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Let me help your waste of a Harvard education sort this out. It's really pretty simple. If you are anything-American get the Hell out of my country. Because at that point you are being divisive along lines OTHER than ideology. If you have a different idea, stand up and vote or run for office. If your idea is a good one you'll get positively noticed.
But don't ask me to vote for you because you are white/black/green, male/female, Protestant/Catholic/Jewish, or "something-" in front of American.
#23
Barbara, I picked up on the racist aspect of his comment right away but chose not to call him on it. I don't initiate political conversations at work and mostly listen when they do arise. What I've noticed is that the conservative can agree to disagree with the Dems and move on after the arguement is over. However, Dems that disagree with conservative hold grudges that effect working relationships for weeks and months at a time.
Posted by: Scott R ||
09/14/2008 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#24
This maneuver is known as the "pre-emptive white liberal guilt trip". So in response, all together now: "Boo Hoo!"
BTW, this is the same dickweed who wrote the book, "The Debt" which advocates blacks receiving reparations for slavery. I guess its not enough that his mother could send all of her kids to ivy-league colleges (Princeton, no less) and one is a federal judge. Now he also wants all black folks to become trust-fund recipients to boot.
Hey Randall, ya wanna see race riots? Just pass slavery reparations through congress.
#27
If Obama loses Blacks will continue to be convinced the US is racist. If Obama wins Blacks will continue to be convinced the US is racist.
If the bulk of your life you were told to see things through a racial lense you're gonna see things as racist even when they are no such thing. Part of me hopes that if Obama's elected we can end the race-baiting and false claims of racism and help the African American community fix itself and join the rest of the US. But that part of me doesn't think that'll really happen. Obama's policies will make the poor more dependent on government and W will get the blame twenty years down the road.
#28
"I'll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice"
Unless, of course, more blacks vote for Obama because of his skin color than whites vote against him for it -- in which case racial prejudice worked in his favor.
If there are riots, the irony is that few of the rioters will have voted.
#29
"Even if Barack Obama loses in November, he will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it."
It scares the hell out of me to think that Gore and Kerry each reached the edge of the pinnacle.
#30
Did anyone hear the Oprah taking a day or so ago on The View with McCain and asking him if she had to worry about being returned to slavery?
My computer doesn't have a sound board in it so I couldn't see the video and I haven't seen a transcript yet, but what in the world makes people like Oprah think that that's what will happen if a Republican is elected? As a white man in America I wouldn't stand for such a thing and neither would anyone else I know.
What is it that makes some elitists think we're all so damned evil just because we're Republicans or we love our country?
Statements like that are an affront to everything I stand for and everything my country stands for.
McCain was talking about Court Justices that are Constitutional originalists and she, being a dummy, thought that meant returning to the original constitution before the amendments and everything.
McCain made it worse by saying it was a good question instead of mocking her. "The Constitution has built in ways to change things, that is how Slavery was ended and that is how whatever your pet issue should be resolved rather than changing things randomly from the bench as many justices are want to do these days." That is how he should have put it.
#32
What will happen to Black America? I hope it dies. Dies along with the myth of victimizeation. I hope it just becomes America and fulfills Dr. King's dream.
#8
Remember also that Lynda Carter is a chronic alcoholic, and that her husband Robert Altman, not the director, was tried for banking and securities fraud, though acquitted.
#11
I don't mean to be "mean" but when I was in college everyone called her "Wonder Jugs".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/14/2008 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#12
note the new McCain poster at Ace of Spades, building off The Atlantic's (home of Andi Heartache Sullivan) attempt to photograph him as evil for their cover. (NSFW)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2008 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
After what they have done to Palin and her family, it's time to tell the media Do That Again and Die.
Not a threat of personal violence, but (as the link suggests) a serious threat to:
- challenge them at every step of the way, exposing their bias and distortions to every one we know
- longer term, build up alternatives like Pajamas Media and Michael Yon and in the meanwhile use youtube and weblogs to get out the facts
- here and now, work to slap them down HARD by electing McCain/Palin and maybe even take back Congress for a term.
#15
Fascinating comments by Linda Carter because she harps on and on about how Palin tells people how to live their lives when Palin did no such thing and in fact had a very light touch while in office. I think Ms Carter has failed to read the retractions and debunking that go along with the main stream media.
#17
I can hear the sound of a back fire, and another, another,... The venom is bound to produce self-inflicted injury. Let irt come, let it come.e
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/14/2008 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#18
It might hurt Obama but it won't hurt Linda Carter's chance of work in Hollywood (if she's seeking such) as many in Hollywood would welcome her comments and would fail to see how they might have added to the ongoing damage to their man Obama.
LEIGH SALES: You're not a fan of the US giving too many concessions to its enemies in negotiations, but is it inevitable that the US and its allies are going to have to eventually negotiate with the Taliban to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan?
JOHN BOLTON: Absolutely not. Not any more than we negotiated the surrender of Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbour, the only negotiations was on the deck of the Missouri when they signed the surrender and if there's anything comparable for the Taliban, they'd be lucky to get that.
"on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all officers and men to be made in duplicate, one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly [exchanged], and each company or regimental commander to sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and public property to be parked, and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by the United States authorities so long as they observe their paroles, and the laws in force where they may reside. "
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/14/2008 0:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm getting tired of this. I'm at the point where the self-righteous fervor of the left isn't even making me angry or annoyed. I just expect it now. I expect them to act unfair and they always do, becoming more and more shrill with each passing day.
I have no idea what it is that they are hoping to accomplish by laughing at Randi Rhodes when she suggests that Palin sleeps with teenage boys or when ABD edits Palin's words to fit their own narrative.
The left has become like a crazy person who yells at people walking by. No one really listens or cares what the crazy person is saying, they just want to get past with as little contact as possible to get on their way.
When my cell phone rang on vacation, I eyed the phone number wearily. It was my employer, Vogue, calling. My four-year-old, just out of the ocean and covered in sand, was whining for a shower. My three-year-old was thirsty. My hedge-fund husband was upstairs on his BlackBerry making plans to buy Dubai. I picked up the phone.
If life is simply a reprise of high school, Palin was the jock who attended church faithfully, ran the soup kitchen, and organised the bake sale. If her paper on the Lincoln-Douglas debate wasn't the most nuanced, so be it.
It was the publicist from the magazine calling to say that CNN wanted to interview me about Sarah Palin. My initial response was cool. "What do they want to talk about?"
"You're one of the few people who has interviewed her for a national publication," the publicist answered, referring to an article I had written earlier this year profiling the governor of Alaska for the magazine.
"Is she dead?" I asked worriedly. Alaska is notorious for small plane crashes - that's how the politician father of the writer and journalist Cokie Roberts died - and I knew Palin owned a float plane. It never really occurred to me that she might be the vice-presidential candidate. With so little time in office, even Alaskans hadn't yet made up their mind about Sarah Palin's job as governor of the state.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Care about a woman's right to choose her own biological destiny?
I thought the majority of abortions was being done by women in their 20s and 30s, so - after having all that experience - I still can't understand why they can't control their bodies?
#3
Once upon a time, I also would have been contemptuous of Palin's incurable optimism but, having been knocked around by life a bit, I now understand what a gift chronically happy people are given.
-------------
Isn't there a new psych course for patients which lasts about 13 weeks and teaches people how to quit obsessing and move on w/one's life and those people are happier? So they don't need the psychiatrists like they thought?
I think Pakistain may be in the process of making the decision to actually go to war with the United States. The jihadi bloc within the officially jihadi state was actually being held in check by Perv -- even as he tried to accomodate them. Balochistan outside the border marches and Sind outside of Karachi don't much count. The balance of power's shifted to the Punjabis and the Pashtuns the Punjabis think they're using as tools.
Entering a state of war with the U.S. will have one immediate effect: it will cut our supply lines to Afghanistan. Recall that country's surrounded by states that are either hostile to us -- Iran -- or whom we haven't been cultivating as we should have for the past seven years: Turkmenistan (post-Turkmenbashi), Uzbekistan (we're so fastidious about Karimov's authoritarian tendencies), and Tadjikistan (we have to get through the other two or the Soviet Union Russia to get there). Without Pakistain as an "ally" we'll have to either fight our way through or negotiate a new Central Asian deal in 24 hours or less.
Short-term, the prospects are grim for us, especially since Pakistain in probably the nation most likely to use nuclear weapons on the face of the earth, to include North Korea.
Longer-term, the prospects are horrible for Pakistain as a nation. Use of nukes will make their current pariah state seem benign. The Mighty Pak Army has never won a war, as I keep reminding anyone who'll listen. If they manage to restrain themselves from using nukes they may be allowed to remain as a state -- known as a perfidious would-be great power, useful only as a pawn from short-term tactical advantage on the international state but never to be trusted. If they do use nuclear weapons the only way they'll stay in business is if India or (post-ayataollah) Iran don't want the remnants of what we'll shatter in the course of a couple weeks.
What of Pashtunistan, Graveyard of Armies? Pashtun jihad thrives from hideouts. Without the hideouts the jihad will die as beturbanned savages waving small arms and rolling their eyes are targeted by modern weaponry. With nowhere to run, they must stand and die. It doesn't matter if they fight or not. The only way to save their miserable, ignorant lives will be to cease being beturbanned savages, to throw away the guns and willingly join the civilized world.
One telephone call seven years ago was enough for Islamabad to accommodate Washington's entire wish list. But United States pressure tactics will not work now. Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, is leading a military and a nation that is determined to resist Washington's plan to bring to Pakistan Iraq and Afghanistan. the ethno-civil wars of Pakistani military's brisk response is not just a reaction to the deliberately humiliating and outrageous unilateral American decisions to include Pakistan in the Iraq/Afghanistan war theater.
There is a bigger problem here. Pakistani policy analysts are convinced that United States has been a duplicitous ally during the past seven years, using the sincere Pakistani cooperation on Afghanistan to gradually turn that country into a military base to launch a sophisticated psychological, intelligence and military campaign to destabilize Pakistan itself.
The objective is to weaken the control of the Pakistani military over geographical Pakistan and ignite an ethnic and sectarian civil war leading to changing the status of Balochistan and NWFP, possibly even facilitate the break up of both provinces from the Pakistani federation.
The defeatist stance of Pakistan's elected government in the face of U.S. belligerence is discussed later in this paper. But it is worth noting that President Zardari has refused to publicly back the military's warning to U.S. He also delayed his China visit to go to London to hunker down with Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani, in a statement that deprives Pakistan of strategic advantage and dampens the psychological effect of army chief's warning, has said that 'Pakistan can't wage war with U.S.' In comparison, the governor of NWFP, Mr. Owais Ghani, has become the only government official to publicly state the truth.
On Sept. 12, the governor's office issued the following statement: "Foreign forces based in Afghanistan and militants [inside Pakistan] are working on the same anti-Pakistan agenda and both are following the same strategy to weaken the country [...] while the coalition troops were threatening to extend their war to Pakistan, the militants are also attacking the country and creating a war-like situation. It appeared that both the forces were working on the same agenda to weaken Pakistan."
In one sign of the grand double game, despite the poor relations with Iran, Washington has encouraged Karzai and the Indians to complete the construction of a road that links Afghanistan to an Indian-built Iranian seaport. The purpose is to end the dependence of both U.S. army and the Karzai regime on Pakistan for access to sea. U.S. military officials have also been seeking permission to use Russian air space for military cargo to replace Pakistani facilities.
These American actions show a degree of long term planning and are not connected to the recent American grievances against Pakistan and its intelligence agencies.
A segment of the U.S. policy establishment had decided to take the war to Pakistan from the outset in 2001. Washington first used Islamabad to occupy Afghanistan and then used the Afghan soil to start series of insurgencies inside Pakistan. The strategy was an alternative to a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed country. A weak Pakistani state with a neutered military was envisaged as an ideal situation to protect U.S. interests with regards to China, Russia and India.
It is not clear how much the rest of the departments of the U.S. government knew about the destabilization plans for Pakistan. If the entire U.S. political and military strategy on Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001 was based on consensus, then Pakistanis have been massively deceived by their American allies.
The anti-Pakistan lobby in Washington found willing allies in the Indians and the Northern AllianceKabul. component of the Karzai regime in
The idea to destabilize Pakistan appears to have started with simple and clear thoughts. The U.S.- and India-backed Kabul regime proposed reviving Pashtun nationalism and the secession of Pashtun regions from Pakistan. The Indians offered their decades-old experience in penetrating Pakistani territories for espionage. The Indians offered something else too: The revival of the so-called Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The Soviets and Indians together created this terrorist organization in the 1970s and used Afghan soil to foment an ethnic-based civil war inside Pakistan. The idea died out naturally, until the Indians offered the Americans to revive it after 9/11 as a punishment for Pakistan.
Pakistan's tribal belt, Balochistan and Swat were peaceful until early 2005. Since then, series of insurgencies have erupted led by shady ethno-religious characters. One of them, a tribal thug who stayed in American and Karzai custody for several years, was released only to enter Pakistan and begin targeting Chinese citizens in the country. Another thug in Balochistan was convinced by handlers in Afghanistan that he would be made the head of an independent Balochistan with U.S. help if he agreed to launch an insurgency and help recruit young Pakistanis to get training to fight their own country.
Between 2005 and now, the entire western Pakistan from the Arabian Sea to the border with China has turned into a cocktail of ethnic and religious insurgencies focused on fighting the Pakistani state and the Pakistani military.
On July 12, 2008, when U.S. Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and CIA Deputy Director Stephen R. Kappes were in Rawalpindi on a secret visit, Gen. Kayani, former President Musharraf and Pakistani intelligence officials confronted the American duo with conclusive evidence that showed U.S. complicity in feeding and sustaining a terrorist movement in Balochistan, where China is building a strategic seaport.
Pakistanis now also have damning evidence that shows that Karzai's security apparatus, which is heavily infested with Indian security and intelligence advisers, has been directly supplying weapons and money to clusters of thugs masquerading as 'Pakistani Taliban'.
The main assignment for these fake 'Taliban' is to target and kill Pakistanis -- military and civilians -- and kidnap Chinese citizens in Pakistan. Which is surprising because the Afghan Taliban, the real Taliban, are focused on targeting U.S. occupation forces in Afghanistan and not on spreading fear and chaos among Pakistanis. This is more like someone is trying to punish Pakistan through a planned effort.
In the latest incidents, over 25 worshippers perished when unknown terrorists lobbed hand grenades inside a mosque in northern Pakistan. The real Taliban would never indulge in such senseless violence targeting Pakistani citizens. Moreover, two Chinese engineers have been kidnapped. It is strange that the Chinese are the only foreigners being targeted in Pakistan, while citizens of United States and other NATO member countries are spared.
Even if U.S. officials deny that parts of the U.S. government are privy to this destabilization effort, there is no question that the U.S. military is inexplicably ignoring the Karzai-Indian export of terrorism into Pakistan.
The U.S. role is certainly suspicious. Starting in early 2007, the U.S. media unleashed an organized demonization campaign against Pakistan that was unprecedented in the history of Pak-U.S. relations. U.S.Pakistan and spread 'anti-Pakistanism' globally. media made a concerted effort to create world hostility against
Besides India, the United States is the only other country in the world busy in this deliberate creation of hostility against Pakistan. Take the example of this quote from an article that appeared in the conservative, pro-Bush magazine, The Weekly Standard, in Nov. 2007:
"A large number of ISI agents ... should be thrown in jail or killed. What I think we should do in Pakistan is a parallel version of what Iran has run against us in Iraq: giving money [and] empowering [anti-state] actors. Some of this will involve working with some shady characters."
On Feb. 1, 2008, New York Times, published an op-ed piece that discussed in detail the division of PakistanNYT is the same paper that allowed itself to be used by Bush administration spin masters to promote fake stories about WMD and Iraq before U.S. invaded that country. Pakistan's ace diplomat, Mr. Munir Akram, who has recently been removed by the Zardari government from his job as Pakistan's envoy to the U.N., saw the NYT article and sent a letter to the paper's editor, although it was not his job to do so but the responsibility of the press attaché in the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. into three independent states. The article was an example of malicious fear-mongering but the real surprise was that a prestigious paper carried it.
Mr. Akram wrote: "will confirm the belief of many Pakistanis that there is an international conspiracy to destabilize and disintegrate Pakistan [...] The orchestrated campaign against President Pervez Musharraf, the denigration of the Pakistani Army, calls for the capture of Pakistan's nuclear assets, the string of suicide bombings and terrorism in Balochistan are all seen as aimed at this malevolent design."
This American media campaign against Pakistan continues unabated. Last month, Mr. Harlan Ullman, a Washington columnist with strong ties to U.S. military, visited Islamabad and returned to float this stunning idea: "Pakistan should create integrated and joint operations centers at ISI or Army GHQ with U.S. military, State Department, law enforcement and intelligence officers in residence."
This U.S. media campaign has been going hand in glove for the past eighteen months with a wave of terrorism inside Pakistan targeting Pakistani civilians and government. The blame for these acts was laid at the doors of something called 'Pakistani Taliban' which is, in major part, a creation of Indian and Karzai intelligence setups inside Afghanistan.
It is highly suspicious that U.S. military attacks inside Pakistan in recent weeks have targeted pro-Pakistan tribesmen. Somehow the U.S. drones and spy satellites are unable to target the shady rebel leaders who are exclusively fighting Pakistan and never attack U.S. soldiers across the border.
Also, the American war strategy neatly fits in with the secessionist campaign that seeks to turn Pakistani Pashtuns against their own country. With every U.S. attack that kills women and children, Pakistani Pashtun are becoming convinced that their country, Pakistan, is either unwilling or incapable of defending its citizens. The military operations conducted by Pakistani military to kill these shadowy terrorists are indirectly sending the message that Islamabad is also party to spilling Pashtun blood. All of this is strengthening the case of those who are promoting a secessionist propaganda that the NWFP and the Pashtun areas must secede from Pakistan.
This is the first time in decades that the idea of Pashtuns, the real liberators of Azad Kashmir, turning against Pakistan is appearing to be a possibility. There is no question that Pakistan' military waited for a cue from the country's elected leadership to respond to U.S. violations of Pakistani territory.
On Sept. 6, marked as Pakistan Defense Day in memory of a failed Indian invasion of Pakistan in 1965, the Pakistani air force chief tried to send a message to the elected government. He told reporters that the Pakistani air force was ready to respond if the government made a policy decision.
The Zardari-Gilani government chose to ignore U.S. attacks. In fact, the defense minister, Mr. Ahmed Mukhtar, made statements on multiple occasions that raised eyebrows. At one point he said U.S. drones flew too high for Pakistani military to respond. At another point he justified U.S. attacks inside Pakistan by saying 'there must be a reason' for Washington to violate the border.
Then came Hamid Karzai to plant a misleading story in the Pakistani media when President Zardari invited him to his oath-taking ceremony on Sept. 9. After his arrival, Karzai called some journalists and leaked to them that Arabs were killed in the Sept. 8 U.S. attack on the house of the veteran Afghan commander Jalaluddin Haqqani in Miramshah.
This was a perfect justification for the violation of Pakistani territory and it helped the Americans tell their reluctant European allies that attacking Pakistan was justified. Karzai leaked the information, complete with names and numbers of the dead Arabs.
The sinister part of this exercise was that 'sources close to the Haqqani family' were cited to confirm the report. Major Pakistani news organizations picked up the story and made it their lead for several hours. This was the height of cynicism. The Haqqani family was in mourning, with several members of the family, women and children dead while a disinformation campaign was using their name to confirm the existence of foreign fighters in their house.
The truth was that Haqqani's house was never a secret hideout. His family maintained a house in PakistanAfghanistan and the people in the house where his extended family relatives, ordinary people with no link to the war in Afghanistan. This is like Afghan resistance groups deciding to target Mr. Karzai's extended family members who have nothing to do with Karzai's activities just to get back at him. The Afghan resistance has never done it. But Karzai and his American allies have no problem in resorting to this method. since the 1980s. Haqqani lived and operated in
The devastated Haqqani family corrected the story later and questioned the source of the story since there were no Arabs or foreign or any fighters at all in the house. The U.S. attack was a deliberate act of terrorism to cause maximum pain to the Afghan commander.
Pakistani military quietly watched the Zardari-Gilani government take no position on the U.S. attacks. Then came the bombshell when, last week, Bush and his military chief, Adm. Mullen, said Pakistan was now part of the Iraq-Afghanistan 'war theater' and New York Times published a leak that said Bush had authorized attacks inside Pakistan without Islamabad's consent.
The purpose behind the leak was to put Pakistan on notice and somehow force the issue down on Islamabad in the hope that Pakistan will grudgingly accept it.
After Gen. Kayani's tough-worded counter statement, an embarrassed Prime Minister Gilani said the statement reflected his government's policy.
But the biggest question mark is the silence of President Zardari. He did not endorse Gen. Kayani's statement. Even more shocking for Pakistanis was that Mr. Zardari reneged on his promise that China will be his first foreign visit as President. Instead he left for London after a call from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 'inviting' him to London to discuss the new U.S. strategy.
It is clear that President Zardari supports the new U.S. policy and does not agree with the Pakistani military's warning that it will protect Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs.
Mr. Zardari is in power thanks to the arrangement -- known as the 'deal' - that Washington and LondonPakistan to accept. His assets are mostly in United States and Britain. There is no way he can risk alienating his backers. forced
There is every possibility that President Zardari has been convinced by close advisors, especially Ambassador Husain Haqqani in Washington, to tacitly accept U.S. operations inside Pakistan and not allow the Pakistani military to dictate its terms.
Ambassador Haqqani is strongly sympathetic to Washington's position. Last year, he played a major role in convincing Benazir Bhutto to make public statements accepting U.S. boots on Pakistani soil and American access to Dr. A. Q. Khan. Before his present assignment, Mr. Haqqani has been closely linked to the same hawkish U.S. think tanks that are the biggest advocates of U.S. military intervention in Pakistan. The elected government's soft position on U.S. attacks has a lot to do with the work of Ambassador Haqqani and another American figure--Zalmay Khalilzad, President Zardari's 'secret' American adviser.
It is a foregone conclusion; based on Ambassador Haqqani's intrusive record at the Pakistan Foreign Office in the past four months, that he has a direct link to the bizarre statement by Prime Minister Gilani ["PakistanU.S."-Sept 12] and the series of statements made by Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar that justified U.S. attacks against Pakistan ["U.S. drones fly too high, we can't attack them" and "If U.S. attacks, there must be a reason."]. can't wage war with
If Pakistani military tries to block U.S. military violations, there is a possibility of limited armed conflict between Pakistani and American soldiers on the Afghan border. Gen. Kayani's warning of retaliation did help NATO make a public statement that it does not share Washington's idea of taking the war to Pakistan. However, no one in Islamabad is convinced that NATO will remain neutral in the event that U.S. military tries to engage Pakistan in a conflict.
In case of conflict, Washington is expected to signal to India to open a front in the east in order to divert Pakistani military resources. Intelligence assets that have been planted inside Pakistan with links in Afghanistan will be activated and will possibly try to ratchet up the campaign of public terror in order to spread chaos and exert pressure on Pakistan military. More Chinese targets can be attacked or killed in order to strain ties between Beijing and Islamabad.
But Pakistan is not without options. In fact, the Pakistani position is stronger than what it appears to be. Islamabad can activate old contacts with a resurgent and rising Afghan Taliban inside Afghanistan. The entire Pakistani tribal belt will seize this opportunity to fight the Americans. The attempts to divide Pakistanis along sectarian lines have failed and the Americans cannot expect to repeat what they did in Iraq Pakistanis will fight and resist. There is a possibility that Pakistani tribesmen could cross the border in large numbers using secret routes to dodge aerial bombardment and join the Afghan Taliban and find their way to Kabul. The misguided 'Pakistani Taliban' who appear to be operating as an extension of U.S. military in Afghanistan will also come under pressure of the tribesmen and will be forced to target the occupation forces instead of fighting the Pakistani government. in March 2003.
Washington might be tempted by the idea of signaling to the Indians to engage Pakistan from the east. But the fact is that the Indian army has a dangerous rebellion on its hands in the valley. By opening a front with Pakistan, Indian soldiers will have to protect their front and rear simultaneously. The Pakistani military has contingency plans for dealing with hostilities on two fronts.
But the situation between Islamabad and Washington does not have to come to this. Islamabad can help tip the scales in Washington against the hawks who want a war with Pakistan. Not all parts of the U.S.Pakistan must make it clear that it will retaliate. Statements like that of Prime Minister Gilani must be stopped. His statement virtually damaged the psychological effect of army chief's warning. government accept this idea and this must be exploited.
U.S. military posturing aside, Washington has recently seen a string of diplomatic defeats. Russia has cut American meddling in Georgia to size. In Iraq, a coalition of Shiite parties is forcing the Americans to leave the country. Bolivia and Venezuela have expelled U.S. ambassadors, and, in Bolivia's case, the world has suddenly become alert to Washington's meddling in that country's politics and the role of the U.S.U.S. role inside Pakistan, where U.S. ambassador in fueling separatism. Which is not very different from the diplomats have created political chaos by directly engaging the politicians, coupled with creating and feeding insurgencies to weaken the country.
The only way to entrap Pakistan now is to either orchestrate a spectacular terrorist attack in U.S. and blame it on Pakistan, or to assassinate a high profile personality inside Pakistan and generate domestic strife that will make it impossible for the military to resist U.S. attacks.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/14/2008 09:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uh, I think there's already plenty of domestic strife in pakistain and all the US has to do is watch, wait and lower the boom at the appropriate moment...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/14/2008 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's nice to know that as the American MSM collapse there's a place they can go to continue their profession of creative writing. It may not pay as well, but they get ink, damn it.
#5
Somehow the U.S. drones and spy satellites are unable to target the shady rebel leaders who are exclusively fighting Pakistan and never attack U.S. soldiers across the border.
Why should the US attack those who never attack us?
The Sikh king Ranjit Singh conquered the Pashtuns. The graveyards were filled with those Muslims who rose up in jihad against him and were defeated.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/14/2008 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
ARCLIGHT, just one, but a big one, down through the center of the FATA. Pakistan will fold like a wet paper bag trying to hold 20 pounds of potatos.
We don't want Pakistan. We really don't want anything to do with Pakistan. They just keep poking us with a sharp stick, and we're getting tired of it. It's time to spank a hand or two, preferably hard, but not nuclear. We also need to let them know that if they DON'T stop, they will disappear from the face of the Earth faster than a snowcone in the Mojave. The future of Pakistan is in the hands of the Pakistanis. They have to make the decision as to how they go forward from here. We, however, hold the trump if they make the wrong decision.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/14/2008 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
Humayun Gauhar is the ghost author of General Pervez Musharraf's 2006 In The Line of Fire: A Memoir. His father, Altaf Gauhar, was the ghost author of General Ayub Khan's 1967 Friends, Not Masters
One of the cutest non-political political story about the election.
A taste:
Everybody wants to talk to Sarah. The moms about raising children and paying bills. The working moms about balancing work, children and paying the bills. Career women about the challenges of doing business, how to motivate people and the most efficient methods to get it done. The guys want to talk about fishing and hunting. The older guys about running efficient government, corruption and energy. Her husband Todd is a lucky guy. Pretty cool, too.
Over in the corner, your sister and some of her friends are making catty remarks about how she's running around with all those kids, shooting stuff *ugh* and generally making them look like a bunch of unaccomplished school girls. No one can be all of those things and definitely no woman. Women have to choose to either be a mom or a career woman. Besides, there is no way they are going to have four kids, live in a freaking igloo and shoot moose. Not that anyone asked them to, but just in case someone gets the big idea. They give all the guys the stink eye.
Did you hear? She actually wanted to pray before eating dinner! What is she? Some throw back to the 1950's? Now she's helping pick up the mess after dinner without being asked. Is she deliberately trying to make everyone look bad? What the hell is wrong with her? She is sooo setting women back like a gazillion years. Doesn't she know that the men should be helping clean up the mess and watching the babies, too? Oh. They are. That b*tch!
Lou: "KO savaged my two children and I have to say this... if I ever meet Keith in a dark alley ... we are going to have a real meaningful conversation about his ..."
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.
