Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following questions:
1. If everyone owned a gun, this would make people safer, because everyone would be able to protect himself/herself.
2. Every country should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon to defend itself from aggression.
3. High taxes and government regulations harm the economy and limit our freedom.
4.The internet content should be completely free from any government sensorship and regulations.
If your answers are "yes/no/yes/no" - you are a conservative (support Romney).
If your answers are "no/yes/no/yes" - you are a "progressive" (support Obama).
If your answers are "yes/yes/yes/yes" - you are a libertarian (support Ron Paul).
If your answers are "no/no/no/no" - you are a either a communist or a fascist (support your Leader)
If you have any different combination of answers - your political views are in contradiction with your views on economy.
If you have doubts about answering "yes" or "no" to at least one of the above questions - would you like to write an article for this blog?
A comment:
Obviously, logically questions 1 and 2, as well as 3 and 4, should be answered in the same way. Libertarian and communist/fascist views are the consistent ones. The former take the personal freedom to extreme, while the latter deny any freedom at all (for the sake of the common good, of course).
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"Are we sliding toward war with Iran?"
"Are we sliding toward war with Iran?" - a good question to ask
"Amid all of this, the one place that the United States has resolutely marched forward—or perhaps been dragged by the Congress and our European allies—has been in applying ever greater pressure on Iran. But if the Obama administration’s forward progress is clear enough when it comes to its Iran policy, its ultimate destination is not. The sanctions against Iran may well succeed on their own terms while producing regrettable, if unintended, consequences.
[...]
Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants because that is the nature of wars, especially wars involving this Iranian regime. Thus, if we continue down this path, we had best be ready to walk it to its very end. And if we don’t have the stomach to realistically prepare for war, we should seriously reconsider our current embrace of sanctions."
My comments:
1. If not war and not sanctions, what does the authors of the article suggests? Allowing Iran to have nuclear arms might be "fair" from the "progressive" point of view, but it also would be irresponsible from the point of view of the Worldwide safety (ironically, this is very similar to the claim that making guns freely available for self-defense would reduce the number of violent deaths - something with which the "progressive" community correctly disagrees.)
2. The next legitimate question to ask is why US is sliding into war, rather than preparing to have it on its own terms and at the time of its own choice? Isn't such a hands down approach the most certain way to maximize the damage that the eventual war will cause?
"Amid all of this, the one place that the United States has resolutely marched forward—or perhaps been dragged by the Congress and our European allies—has been in applying ever greater pressure on Iran. But if the Obama administration’s forward progress is clear enough when it comes to its Iran policy, its ultimate destination is not. The sanctions against Iran may well succeed on their own terms while producing regrettable, if unintended, consequences.
[...]
Doubtless such a war would leave Iran far, far worse off than it would leave us. But it would be painful for us too, and it might last far longer than anyone wants because that is the nature of wars, especially wars involving this Iranian regime. Thus, if we continue down this path, we had best be ready to walk it to its very end. And if we don’t have the stomach to realistically prepare for war, we should seriously reconsider our current embrace of sanctions."
My comments:
1. If not war and not sanctions, what does the authors of the article suggests? Allowing Iran to have nuclear arms might be "fair" from the "progressive" point of view, but it also would be irresponsible from the point of view of the Worldwide safety (ironically, this is very similar to the claim that making guns freely available for self-defense would reduce the number of violent deaths - something with which the "progressive" community correctly disagrees.)
2. The next legitimate question to ask is why US is sliding into war, rather than preparing to have it on its own terms and at the time of its own choice? Isn't such a hands down approach the most certain way to maximize the damage that the eventual war will cause?
"Two-state" game
President Obama compliments the Jordanian King for the latter's role in confronting Syria and trying to restart the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations:
"Noting Abdullah's role in decrying the Syrian government's violent crackdown on protesters, Obama said of the Jordanian leader, "I want to thank him for his willingness to stand up. As a consequence, Jordan has been part of an overall Arab League effort to encourage this sort of peaceful transition inside of Syria that is needed."
[...]
The US president also addressed Israel-Palestinian peace talks, saying that "the Jordanians have taken great leadership on this issue, and we very much appreciate their direction."
My comments:
1. The commendation for His Majesty's "willingness to stand up" to the Syrian dictator, sounds strange on two counts:
i) President Obama has consistently refused to do the same vis-a-vis the Syrian dictator. This notably involved consistent refusal to withdraw the US ambassador despite the continuing massacres. The ambassador himself behaved honorably and had to be withdrawn after Assad's collaborators attacked the US embassy.
ii) King Abdullah is himself an autocrat, which explains his desire to end protests and otherwise calm the situation - he is very much afraid that similar things may happen in his domain. While there is nothing wrong with Obama assisting a US ally, so explicitly supporting an undemocratic leader is inappropriate for the US president and potentially risky. (Just recall the uncomfortable 180 degrees turn that the Obama Administration had to make within a few days in regard to Mubarak.)
2. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations:
i) President's praise for King Abdullah is in striking contrast with his treatment of the Israeli Prime-minister or the Palestinian leadership, from whom he however requires greater sacrifices. (and arguably receives them - settlement freeze is an example.)
ii) The motivation behind King's efforts to make peace is well-known - half of his subjects are Jordanian Palestinians, who would be happy to united with their brothers in West Bank and form a truly Palestinian state. Two-state solution is a way to postpone this outcome by creating an artificial Palestinian state that will be a home to less than a half of all the Palestinians living in the neighborhood.
The President perfectly knows that "two-state solution" seems like a solution only to the concerned public in the US and Europe, but not to the Palestinians or Israelis. He also knows that the "two-state solution" does not resolve the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. While all the Western politicians are obliged to play this "two-state" game, there is no need to be more zealous than necessary.
iii) One still may wonder why the most unstable moment in the recent history of the Middle East is supposedly the best time to make Arab-Israeli Peace. (I mean government changes in many countries and the shift of power confrontation line from Arab-Israeli to pro-Iranian and anti-Iranian.)
"Noting Abdullah's role in decrying the Syrian government's violent crackdown on protesters, Obama said of the Jordanian leader, "I want to thank him for his willingness to stand up. As a consequence, Jordan has been part of an overall Arab League effort to encourage this sort of peaceful transition inside of Syria that is needed."
[...]
The US president also addressed Israel-Palestinian peace talks, saying that "the Jordanians have taken great leadership on this issue, and we very much appreciate their direction."
My comments:
1. The commendation for His Majesty's "willingness to stand up" to the Syrian dictator, sounds strange on two counts:
i) President Obama has consistently refused to do the same vis-a-vis the Syrian dictator. This notably involved consistent refusal to withdraw the US ambassador despite the continuing massacres. The ambassador himself behaved honorably and had to be withdrawn after Assad's collaborators attacked the US embassy.
ii) King Abdullah is himself an autocrat, which explains his desire to end protests and otherwise calm the situation - he is very much afraid that similar things may happen in his domain. While there is nothing wrong with Obama assisting a US ally, so explicitly supporting an undemocratic leader is inappropriate for the US president and potentially risky. (Just recall the uncomfortable 180 degrees turn that the Obama Administration had to make within a few days in regard to Mubarak.)
2. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations:
i) President's praise for King Abdullah is in striking contrast with his treatment of the Israeli Prime-minister or the Palestinian leadership, from whom he however requires greater sacrifices. (and arguably receives them - settlement freeze is an example.)
ii) The motivation behind King's efforts to make peace is well-known - half of his subjects are Jordanian Palestinians, who would be happy to united with their brothers in West Bank and form a truly Palestinian state. Two-state solution is a way to postpone this outcome by creating an artificial Palestinian state that will be a home to less than a half of all the Palestinians living in the neighborhood.
The President perfectly knows that "two-state solution" seems like a solution only to the concerned public in the US and Europe, but not to the Palestinians or Israelis. He also knows that the "two-state solution" does not resolve the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. While all the Western politicians are obliged to play this "two-state" game, there is no need to be more zealous than necessary.
iii) One still may wonder why the most unstable moment in the recent history of the Middle East is supposedly the best time to make Arab-Israeli Peace. (I mean government changes in many countries and the shift of power confrontation line from Arab-Israeli to pro-Iranian and anti-Iranian.)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Progressive chauvinism
For my "Theatre of the Absurd" section:
It seems that "The Iron Lady" cuts right in the middle of the modern political debate. While the conservative side complains about inexact depiction of the Thatcher's hard-core right-wing politics, the American left wing tries to downgrade the value of the movie that has a potential to attract more attention to the Thatcher's ideas.
Here is the full list of complaints against Thatcher:
"In The Iron Lady, a figure named Margaret Thatcher orders the sinking of the Argentinean battleship, the Belgrano. She “wins” the war of the Falkland Islands, just as she had won leadership of the Conservative party in Great Britain and had become the nation’s first female prime minister. As such, she imposed austerity cuts; she beat down the trade union movement; she gutted many parts of her country, especially the manufacturing north; and she restored a version of prosperity in the financial services industry that was lifted on the wave of the Internet. She was the most significant leader Britain had had since Churchill. But she was more drastic than the wartime premier. He responded to an external threat when he had no other choice. Mrs. Thatcher was an innovator determined on radical surgery. Churchill was resolute, and she was an ideologue—which is most useful or more dangerous?"
Unfortunately, further this article becomes a dirty and ungrounded slur... a rather chauvinistic one (this is unfortunately typical of liberal media when attacking non-liberal opponents. Just recall the same edition making racist remarks about Israeli Russians):
"As you might expect, Streep is magnificent but speciously sympathetic in the Alzheimer-like coda to the real drama, even if her husband Denis (played by Jim Broadbent) proves such a bore you can’t understand why so decisive a woman stayed with him. One answer is hinted at: that she had to be married to a businessman to win a seat in Parliament. Another is easily imagined: like many people fixed on power she had no interest in love or sex, except where it might assist her.
Thatcher in lonely dementia has nothing to do with the mounting isolation of her leadership, but it softens the project. I do not intend to suggest that Thatcher used actual sex to gain power, but winning the leadership of her party was her most startling achievement. She appropriated a men’s club, and that took charm, warmth and ways of impressing men. But Streep is as chilled in this film as she is inventive, and she does not convey how Thatcher affected her male associates. There is no reason for making this story if you can’t get inside Thatcher’s head and feel her instinct for manipulation. Streep is endlessly creative and actressy; but there is no nature in her Thatcher, and no secret to draw us in."
It seems that "The Iron Lady" cuts right in the middle of the modern political debate. While the conservative side complains about inexact depiction of the Thatcher's hard-core right-wing politics, the American left wing tries to downgrade the value of the movie that has a potential to attract more attention to the Thatcher's ideas.
Here is the full list of complaints against Thatcher:
"In The Iron Lady, a figure named Margaret Thatcher orders the sinking of the Argentinean battleship, the Belgrano. She “wins” the war of the Falkland Islands, just as she had won leadership of the Conservative party in Great Britain and had become the nation’s first female prime minister. As such, she imposed austerity cuts; she beat down the trade union movement; she gutted many parts of her country, especially the manufacturing north; and she restored a version of prosperity in the financial services industry that was lifted on the wave of the Internet. She was the most significant leader Britain had had since Churchill. But she was more drastic than the wartime premier. He responded to an external threat when he had no other choice. Mrs. Thatcher was an innovator determined on radical surgery. Churchill was resolute, and she was an ideologue—which is most useful or more dangerous?"
Unfortunately, further this article becomes a dirty and ungrounded slur... a rather chauvinistic one (this is unfortunately typical of liberal media when attacking non-liberal opponents. Just recall the same edition making racist remarks about Israeli Russians):
"As you might expect, Streep is magnificent but speciously sympathetic in the Alzheimer-like coda to the real drama, even if her husband Denis (played by Jim Broadbent) proves such a bore you can’t understand why so decisive a woman stayed with him. One answer is hinted at: that she had to be married to a businessman to win a seat in Parliament. Another is easily imagined: like many people fixed on power she had no interest in love or sex, except where it might assist her.
Thatcher in lonely dementia has nothing to do with the mounting isolation of her leadership, but it softens the project. I do not intend to suggest that Thatcher used actual sex to gain power, but winning the leadership of her party was her most startling achievement. She appropriated a men’s club, and that took charm, warmth and ways of impressing men. But Streep is as chilled in this film as she is inventive, and she does not convey how Thatcher affected her male associates. There is no reason for making this story if you can’t get inside Thatcher’s head and feel her instinct for manipulation. Streep is endlessly creative and actressy; but there is no nature in her Thatcher, and no secret to draw us in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)