My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

With you, I always wish you would say more. You have penchant for saying something cryptic and leaving off.

Hank used to do that. Now he just rarely says anything remotely coherent (aside from his astute ballistic missile analysis, that is).

ETA: We've really been short on good Sebby rants lately. I guess he's too busy predicting the imminent Thunderdome, Obama's re-election and how the Rs are playing to retake the Senate this time (huh?).

have you ever stopped to think how harmful you repeated judging of the quality of my posts might be? You seem not to worry about the chilling effect of your critiques, nor do you seem to be mindful of trying to convey criticism constructively. You seem happy just to harshly insult me, without apparent concern for how the words will sting.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2. I mean, someone who goes to Beirut to film a TV show in 2006 really doesn't get to complain about how anyone else was stupid or failed to anticipate world events.

It was interesting. The first day they were there, they were talking to everyone about how much Lebanon had recovered since 1998, the construction boom, the feeling of hope that everyone was getting along, the withdrawal of the Syrian army, and how much partying was going on, and then ...

Hezbollah captured/kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers the next day. Israel bombed the airport, and everything went to shit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

have you ever stopped to think how harmful you repeated judging of the quality of my posts might be? You seem not to worry about the chilling effect of your critiques, nor do you seem to be mindful of trying to convey criticism constructively. You seem happy just to harshly insult me, without apparent concern for how the words will sting.

I thought the other guy, who never ever reads this board, was the dainty flower?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

whifferoooski,

but, honestly, do you think Bourdain's choice of Beirut wasn't made in part by the edge of the potential danger. you don't think he was going for a bit of "holy shit, this guy is so fucking brave?" Fuck him.

I was agreeing with you. Seriously.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It was interesting. The first day they were there, they were talking to everyone about how much Lebanon had recovered since 1998, the construction boom, the feeling of hope that everyone was getting along, the withdrawal of the Syrian army, and how much partying was going on, and then ...

Hezbollah captured/kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers the next day. Israel bombed the airport, and everything went to shit.

Personally, I hate the episodes where Bourdain talks about stuff other than the food. He should focus on the food, with anything else being in the background.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Personally, I hate the episodes where Bourdain talks about stuff other than the food. He should focus on the food, with anything else being in the background.

He didn't have much choice since they hit only two restaurants before war broke out. He did cook in the hotel kitchen for his crew, and cover the mess served by the Navy ship that resuced them - mac and cheese and tuna noodle casserole.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It was interesting. The first day they were there, they were talking to everyone about how much Lebanon had recovered since 1998, the construction boom, the feeling of hope that everyone was getting along, the withdrawal of the Syrian army, and how much partying was going on, and then ...

Hezbollah captured/kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers the next day. Israel bombed the airport, and everything went to shit.

I was at a party with a Lebanese friend the day before the kidnapping, and we seriously talked about getting a group together to go to Beirut because things were finally getting back to the way they were in the 70s when Beirut was known as the Paris of the Middle East. We were both shocked to shit the next day when the bombing started. It really seemed in the early spring/summer of 2006 that things were turning around there.

ETA: My Egyptian friend, the host of the party, always thought that it was too dangerous to show us around Alexandria, even though he still has a house there. He also figured that Mubarak would stick around in power for the rest of his lifetime.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

He didn't have much choice since they hit only two restaurants before war broke out. He did cook in the hotel kitchen for his crew, and cover the mess served by the Navy ship that resuced them - mac and cheese and tuna noodle casserole.

Yummy.

I can understand that he might not have had much choice there. But the other night I watched two episodes -- one in Spain, where he ended up El Bulli after eating in the village where the chef came from and then eating on the beach with a fisherman and chef. The other in the Cal. desert, where he spent the first 10 minutes talking to a guy from Queens of the Stone Age about life and then I got bored and turned it off.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

ETA: My Egyptian friend, the host of the party, always thought that it was too dangerous to show us around Alexandria, even though he still has a house there. He also figured that Mubarak would stick around in power for the rest of his lifetime.

Mubarak's Egypt was an interesting place. Half police state, and half low-simmering rebellion.

The Egyptians I talked to before going told me that I would be perfectly safe in Cairo and in the tourist areas we would visit, and it certainly felt that way to me (aside from those trying to talk/harass their way into a crappy souvenir sale). There was an armed security person assigned to our tour group, and "tourist police" at every hotel and attraction, but it never really felt necessary and wandering around Cairo (not so easy to do for navigation reasons) and Aswan seemed perfectly fine.

We were told that the middle of the country (between Luxor and Cairo) was not that way, but did not go there or Alexandria.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Juan Cole:

The [] American invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was so epochal a catastrophe that it spawned a negative phrase in Arabic, “to Iraqize” or `arqana. Tonight I heard an Alarabiya anchor ask a spokesman for the new government in Libya whether there as a danger of the country being “Iraqized.” He was taken aback and asked her what she meant. Apparently she meant chaos, civil war, no services, etc. (Those Neoconservatives who trumpet their Iraq misadventure as a predecessor to the Arab Spring should take a lesson; no one cites Iraq among the youth movements except as an example of what must be avoided). The Libyan intervention was legal in international law, authorized by the UN Security Council, and so can hope to have a better outcome. So how can Libyans and the world avoid the Iraqization of Libya? ....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Matt Yglesias : Tom Friedman :: me : Hank

In his latest column, Thomas Friedman sets out to show that magical thinking about presidential power is not just for left-wing critics of President Obama any more. Friedman likes Obama’s proposal for a “grand bargain” on fiscal policy. And Friedman knows that for a “grand bargain” on fiscal policy to pass, you need both the president and the speaker of the House to agree. And Friedman knows that the president has agreed to such a bargain, so the sticking point is the Speaker of the House. So for this sorry state of affairs Friedman blames . . . the president:

Nope! As Friedman astutely observed earlier in the piece, the talks broke down because “House Speaker John Boehner could not deliver his Tea Party-led G.O.P. caucus.” Boehner, in other words, is the leader of a party cartel in the House. And most of the members of the cartel don’t want to achieve a grand bargain. Nothing about President Obama barnstorming the country in support of said grand bargain will change this. Most House Republicans represent safe Republican districts. Not only are they not amendable to public pressure, but strongly identifying an idea with himself will make them less likely to back it. The way for Obama to get his way would, as Friedman indicates, be to score electoral victories. But this will depend more on the state of the economy than on what Obama says. And, again, merely getting “a mandate for the change the country needs” won’t change the fact that only things that members of Congress want to vote for will pass Congress.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Juan Cole:

Wait, what? Why does the legality under International law imply anything about expectations of likely outcomes? Things that are legal under international law never result in chaos?

ETA: To put it differently, I do not think those who are using "to Iraqize" are primarily concerned about the niceties of international law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Wait, what? Why does the legality under International law imply anything about expectations of likely outcomes? Things that are legal under international law never result in chaos?

Dunno. I don't get what's he saying with the illegality stuff, but that wasn't the interesting point to me -- it was more about club and Hank's notion that Iraq was the beacon that guided Libyans.

eta: Agree with your eta.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Juan Cole:

When I do read your blogs I get sad: the guy claims that in Arabic (lumping all Arabic countries and dialects together already highlighting his ignorance) there is a new word, "Iraquize." then the anchor asks the spokesman if there is danger of Libya becoming "Iraquized" and the spokesman has no idea what the word means.

Is there any standard at all in the blog world? like maybe requiring one not contradicting oneself for at least 4 or 5 sentences?

Inspirations are hard to point to. But we pried some people from under one thumb, and now a lot more people are prying themselves out from under others. You point to the very young rebels being motivated by a revolt in 1960 (is that the right year?) I suggest it might be the AJ coverage of elections going on presently.

I still will stick with my side, even after actually reading Mr. Cole's quite unbiased take.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I do read your blogs I get sad: the guy claims that in Arabic (lumping all Arabic countries and dialects together already highlighting his ignorance) there is a new word, "Iraquize." then the anchor asks the spokesman if there is danger of Libya becoming "Iraquized" and the spokesman has no idea what the word means.

Is there any standard at all in the blog world? like maybe requiring one not contradicting oneself for at least 4 or 5 sentences?

Inspirations are hard to point to. But we pried some people from under one thumb, and now a lot more people are prying themselves out from under others. You point to the very young rebels being motivated by a revolt in 1960 (is that the right year?) I suggest it might be the AJ coverage of elections going on presently.

I still will stick with my side, even after actually reading Mr. Cole's quite unbiased take.

I never quote my own complaints to further complain about a stupid original post, but here goes: this cole guy has 10 things libya should do, and they are fucking stupid, or wishful, example "talk to norway about how an oil producer can stay a democracy!" They have to form a democracy first you fucking idiot.

but 10 is absolutely funny, like I'm looking for an Onion tag: "10 Once it gets on its feet socially and economically, Libya should go forward with bruited plans to get into solar and wind energy big time. Petroleum will always have value in petrochemicals, but burning it is bad for the earth because extra carbon in the atmosphere causes global warming, which will hit Libya especially hard."

Can you believe this board's valuable space is taken up by someone so myopic as to not feel a complete dick for having that thought, but to go ahead and have written that? published it? Motherfucker motherfucker motherfucker.

And the crazy thing is I do believe a lot of the "points" posted here to criticize Bush and how wrong we were in Iraq were from this imbecile.

Ty, you have young kids. You take time away from your family to read this? Motherfucker.