Politics: A new beginning - Page 38

Say_hello_for_me · 10-19-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

So what's this about asbestos reform? Are they bringing it back?

Yeah, it looks like they are going to try and run it out of the Senate this week or next. Daschle threatened a filibuster (duh!).

The insurers were the ones who sank the last version out of committee, so they sat down with the companies. The insurers pay less, the companies pay more (and there is a lot more that could be wrung from the companies if need be), and the tort reversion backstop was pulled.

The ATLA and the AFL-CIO started screaming as soon as it was announced on Thursday.

It should be decided this week or next.

Hello

bridge of love · 10-19-2003, 11:51 AM

Dean was speaking to an Arab-Am meeting here, and of course, pointed to so much Bush has done wrong re. Arab Americans-that's politics and expected- but then this:

Quote:

``If I was president tomorrow, the first thing I would do would pick up the telephone and ask Bill Clinton to go to the Middle East and represent me,'' Dean said.

Clinton was close to bringing together the two sides but President Bush has dropped the ball, thinking Israelis and Palestinians will never get along, Dean said.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews...3_20031018.htmspree- simple news story-

my god. the fact of the Israel/Pali fight is Bush's fault? My memory is fading, but didn't the latest intifada start during Billy the C's term? His other thoughts are similarly recycled. What's sort of interesting is that the "new idea" different guy has nothing new to propose about this issue. I don't mean the "sending Bill C", I mean the other thoughts in the article.

I really hope he wins the nomination, because he will get killed on this issue.

sgtclub · 10-19-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bridge of love

I really hope he wins the nomination, because he will get killed on this issue.

The only way the DEMS have a chance in 2004 is if they nominate someone that is credible and serious on foreign policy. Kerry and Lieberman fit this bill. Clark, while seemingly experienced, is open to a lot of critism from the military establishment. This is not to say that he can't overcome this, but it is baggage with which the others don't have to deal.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-19-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I haven't heard of it. What's the deal? I'll miss TMQ until it is picked up by someone else. I was a fan.

Writing in his blog on The New Republic's website, he made some comments about violence in the movies and about Jewish executives in Hollywood who make money making such movies. One can understand what he was getting at, but at the very least he echoed some ugly stereotypes. He has since apologized. One of the people he named was Michael Eisner, and one can speculate that someone high up at Disney was sufficient pissed that they told ESPN to dump him.

sgtclub · 10-19-2003, 04:20 PM

8 months after the initially reported praise. I'm officially starting the Clark Lied organization, if anybody is interested.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/prin...524416,00.html

Say_hello_for_me · 10-19-2003, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
8 months after the initially reported praise. I'm officially starting the Clark Lied organization, if anybody is interested.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/prin...524416,00.html

Ouch, I guess. Does he criticize the Afghan mission these days? I mean "criticize" with a big "C", as compared to "nitpick" or "quibble" etc....

Seriously, my first instinct would be to laugh in the face of any would-be democrat who argued that the Afghanistan campaign has been anything less than brilliant, militarily speaking at least.

Sure, I'd like to see some nice inter-province highways built there, but, uhm, my understanding is that such building is exactly what's happening. The kids are in school. THe militias are slowly coming to terms.

You get one generation of girls through 9-10 years of formal education, and I'll bet Afghanistan never sees the stone age again.

Seriously, what do the democrats say about Afghanistan? I can't imagine any reasonable way that things might have turned out better (absent killing bin Laden at Tora Bora, of course or otherwise not missing any opportunity that we might have missed) after 9/11.

Hello

Shape Shifter · 10-19-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Writing in his blog on The New Republic's website, he made some comments about violence in the movies and about Jewish executives in Hollywood who make money making such movies. One can understand what he was getting at, but at the very least he echoed some ugly stereotypes. He has since apologized. One of the people he named was Michael Eisner, and one can speculate that someone high up at Disney was sufficient pissed that they told ESPN to dump him.

His apology, which inludes the offending (and offensive) paragraph, is found here.

http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml/

I am satisfied by his apology, but I am not a Jewish movie executive who pays his salary. I will miss TMQ, one of the few good things about Tuesdays. Perhaps we can convince him to post his thoughts on lawtalkers.

sgtclub · 10-19-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
His apology, which inludes the offending (and offensive) paragraph, is found here.

http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml/

I am satisfied by his apology, but I am not a Jewish movie executive who pays his salary. I will miss TMQ, one of the few good things about Tuesdays. Perhaps we can convince him to post his thoughts on lawtalkers.

That is appalling and his apology, while seemingly sincere, is not sufficient, especially his attempt at a spin on the "some of my best friends are black" excuse. Notably, he blames two jews for making the movie, when in all liklihood, they were not decision makers, especially Eisner. Thus, he not only perpetuates the jews control hollywood stereotype (which may or may not be true) based on the making of one movie, but also links that with the "greedy" stereotype, which has dogged the jews throughout recorded time.

This is far worse than what Rush said on MNF. At least Rush had the "I was fucked up" excuse.

Shape Shifter · 10-19-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is appalling and his apology, while seemingly sincere, is not sufficient, especially his attempt at a spin on the "some of my best friends are black" excuse. Notably, he blames two jews for making the movie, when in all liklihood, they were not decision makers, especially Eisner. Thus, he not only perpetuates the jews control hollywood stereotype (which may or may not be true) based on the making of one movie, but also links that with the "greedy" stereotype, which has dogged the jews throughout recorded time.

This is far worse than what Rush said on MNF. At least Rush had the "I was fucked up" excuse.

Unlike Rush, he fully acknowledged the offensiveness of what he had written and explained why his words were offensive (in case anybody didn't get it, I guess). And I would not characterize his interfaith worship as a "some of my best friends are black" excuse.

Does this mean we won't get TMQ on lawtalkers?

rufus leeking · 10-20-2003, 11:24 AM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1066287148796

spree column- no swear words.

interesting column on how the reporter's "framework" results in different stories on (military action)/(terrorist attacks). J.Post certainly has a political agenda, but is worth the time to register to get the Israeli side of things.

also, curious- raises the allegation of whether FDR actually "lied us into" WW2. google that and there is some interesting reading. Lying the country into war can't be impeachable because most presidents would be impeached.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rufus leeking
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1066287148796

spree column- no swear words.

interesting column on how the reporter's "framework" results in different stories on (military action)/(terrorist attacks). J.Post certainly has a political agenda, but is worth the time to register to get the Israeli side of things.

also, curious- raises the allegation of whether FDR actually "lied us into" WW2. google that and there is some interesting reading. Lying the country into war can't be impeachable because most presidents would be impeached.

I should note that I read an interesting interview with Perle on the jpost site a few days ago. Basically, his words reflected my views on the 1.) settlements; 2.) the morality of asking others to protect dangerous, illegal and provocative settlements, and 3.) the moral dilemna posed by the question whether evacuating the settlements (not ending the occupation) would dangerously signal weakness to the Palestinian militants.

Hello

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Unlike Rush, he fully acknowledged the offensiveness of what he had written and explained why his words were offensive (in case anybody didn't get it, I guess). And I would not characterize his interfaith worship as a "some of my best friends are black" excuse.

Anyway, Rush could never use that excuse.

BTW -- did anyone else see the skit on the Fox pregame show with commentary by "Rush Limbaugh" from the "Trent Lott Rehabilitation Facility"? Cute.

sgtclub · 10-20-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Unlike Rush, he fully acknowledged the offensiveness of what he had written and explained why his words were offensive (in case anybody didn't get it, I guess). And I would not characterize his interfaith worship as a "some of my best friends are black" excuse.

Does this mean we won't get TMQ on lawtalkers?

What else would you call that whole paragraph? He was saying, "I'm not a racist, I even worship with Jews."

dtb · 10-20-2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I may never advocate something like this again, but it would be nice if they could work something out. It would totally suck to be landlocked in S.A. Maybe I should check a map before I say that landlocked is what they are. Ugh.

Yup. Bolivia and Paraguay are the only two landlocked countries in SA

Shape Shifter · 10-20-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
What else would you call that whole paragraph? He was saying, "I'm not a racist, I even worship with Jews."

Easterbrook takes religious issues seriously.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

I view his interfaith worship much differently than I view the person who can't be racist because he went to high school with a black guy.

Edited to add link to website for ADL, who agree with you.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4374_12.htm