I really don't understand where we get off thinking we are the only country in the world "responsible" or virtuous enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. We are, after all, the only ones who have ever used them. After that little foreign excursion by the Orange One, most of Europe is probably saying "those people gave THAT guy the codes??" You may be noticing a pattern with Trump, that is almost without exception. He praises and seems to envy the power of autocratic strongmen and insults leaders of longtime allies in Western democracies. Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and the Saudi regime are treated with infinitely more respect than anyone in NATO. I'm fairly certain the rest of the world is having the same conversation about us as we are having about North Korea, except they might actually have something to worry about.
I really don't understand where we get off thinking we are the only country in the world "responsible" or virtuous enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. We are, after all, the only ones who have ever used them. After that little foreign excursion by the Orange One, most of Europe is probably saying "those people gave THAT guy the codes??" You may be noticing a pattern with Trump, that is almost without exception. He praises and seems to envy the power of autocratic strongmen and insults leaders of longtime allies in Western democracies. Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and the Saudi regime are treated with infinitely more respect than anyone in NATO. I'm fairly certain the rest of the world is having the same conversation about us as we are having about North Korea, except they might actually have something to worry about.
That is absolutely happening. Angel Merkel said the Germany can no longer rely unconditionally on outsiders. Meaning Trump can't be trusted basically.
Especially since he refused to back up article 5 of NATO, so he isn't interested in mutual defense of our traditional allies.
So with one fell swoop, our orange know-it-all has ceded US authority and leadership on the world stage.
Also the G7 leaders voted 6 to 1 to take action on climate change. Guess who the climate denier was?
Trump seems to pathologically hate Merkel. He seems to have some personal problem with empowered women that he doesn't want to sleep with.
He really can't stand women like that for some reason. I could point to more example than this but the most obvious one is his long-standing pointless feud with Rosie O'Donnell.
I really don't understand where we get off thinking we are the only country in the world "responsible" or virtuous enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. We are, after all, the only ones who have ever used them. After that little foreign excursion by the Orange One, most of Europe is probably saying "those people gave THAT guy the codes??" You may be noticing a pattern with Trump, that is almost without exception. He praises and seems to envy the power of autocratic strongmen and insults leaders of longtime allies in Western democracies. Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and the Saudi regime are treated with infinitely more respect than anyone in NATO. I'm fairly certain the rest of the world is having the same conversation about us as we are having about North Korea, except they might actually have something to worry about.
That is absolutely happening. Angel Merkel said the Germany can no longer rely unconditionally on outsiders. Meaning Trump can't be trusted basically.
Especially since he refused to back up article 5 of NATO, so he isn't interested in mutual defense of our traditional allies.
So with one fell swoop, our orange know-it-all has ceded US authority and leadership on the world stage.
Also the G7 leaders voted 6 to 1 to take action on climate change. Guess who the climate denier was?
Article 5, for all practical purposes, IS NATO. It ceases to even mean anything without it. Trump actually seems to think NATO is like one of his resorts, where the countries need to pay their dues to the United States every year to retain membership, and he is acting like John Gotti and trying to make it a shake-down racket. That is NOT how the 2% figure that is bandied about works. That is the percentage of GDP the countries in NATO are supposed to spend on defense over the next DECADE. It was agreed to, in principle in 2014. We aren't even at the halfway point yet. But moreover, I'm fairly certain people have enjoyed the last 75 years without a third World War. No matter how much you want to rip on them from our high American perch, the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union are the main reasons that hasn't happened. Putin and his puppet in the White House are blowing holes in the side of that ship on a regular basis. Just another thing that is plain as day, and many of us have been warning about for months. Yet another one that is clearly coming to pass.
We may still view ourselves as the leaders of the West in our arrogance, but much of the rest of the world no longer sees us this way. We burned that bridge in November. Merkel, Macron, and Trudeau are the respected leaders of Western democracy on the world stage now, and with have to stand as a vanguard against what would have previously been unimaginable and inexplicable: a United States and Russia working towards the same goal of destabilizing the post-WW2 Alliances that have held for decades upon decades.
If Kathy Griffin holding a mock-up of a bloody, decapitated Trump head is a joke then Greg Abbott talking about showing a piece of paper to reporters is also a joke and should be dismissed just as quickly. Incidentally, I saved a copy of that picture just for future reference.
*************
North Korea is all bark and no bite. I am convinced that China has them on a very short leash and that Beijing lets Kim Jong-un say or do stupid things just to keep the West a little off-balance. That being said, I concur that we have mostly ignored North Korea for a couple of decades. That one meme notwithstanding--the one where you can see South Korea lit from space but almost none of North Korea--it is typically difficult to get accurate information about conditions in North Korea but I suspect poverty and near-starvation are rampant among the population, except for Party or military big-wigs.
re: nuclear weapons. I guy I knew on another board had a great hypothesis about nuclear weapons--he concluded that every nation should have them, which would force people to meet at the diplomacy table rather than the battlefield. Consider the following scenario--you are seated at a large table with a few people whom you like and a few people whom you do not like then everyone is given a gun and told to discuss touchy political topics. Since everyone has a gun the rhetoric and personal attacks would be kept to a minimum because a) no one wants to be the jerk who shoots first (no one who remains alive after the shooting stops will ever trust you again) and b) no one wants to die (if you shoot first you may miss but your target may not).
At first I argued against his hypothetical scenario--what if one of the people seated at the table is a psychopath or nihilist and doesn't mind if everyone at the table dies?--but nuclear weapons are not guns. Shooting across the table means no time to react; modern missile detection and interception systems are good enough that any limited attack is likely to be considerably less-than-lethal. Everyone punishing the nuclear aggressor, though, would make certain that the country who launches first ceases to exist.
The real danger from nuclear weapons right now, though, is the fact that some systems in control of them run on state-of-the-art 1982 technology, often including actual floppy discs. Most modern estimates of any sort of nuclear exchange presume that the event would be limited, thus not destroying the entire world (which was unlikely even when the United States and the Soviet Union had larger stockpiles) but death estimates would likely be over 1 billion and some areas of land would be uninhabitable for centuries.
If Kathy Griffin holding a mock-up of a bloody, decapitated Trump head is a joke then Greg Abbott talking about showing a piece of paper to reporters is also a joke and should be dismissed just as quickly. Incidentally, I saved a copy of that picture just for future reference.
Well, I'll tell you the difference. #1, Kathy Griffin is a Z-list celebrity/comedian who very few people ever thought was funny to begin with. Greg Abbott is the Governor of the 2nd most populace state in the country. One of them holds actual power, the other one was holding up a plastic head with fake blood on it.
#2, I didn't think it was funny (because she never has been), but let's get serious here. Do we want to go through the photos of effigies of Obama being hung from a noose, or pictures at Tea Party rallies that depicted him as a Witch Doctor with a bone through his nose?? Maybe I can splice in some audio of Ted Nugent telling Hillary and Obama to "suck on" and "take a ride" on his machine guns on stage at every concert on his tour. I could post pictures of the misogynistic trash that was being sold in the hallways of the Republican National Convention.
#3, since when do liberals own Kathy Griffin, especially when comparing her to the Governor of Texas?? Republicans, ostensibly, CHOOSE him to run their state. No one voted Kathy Griffin anything on our side. As a matter of fact, most liberals I follow on Twitter today had the same reaction, which was "damn, that was pretty stupid." If only because it allows for 48 hours of "both sides" garbage. But again, let's get real. She held up a plastic head. I don't think it was wise OR funny. But you know what it isn't?? Defunding clinics that provide cancer screenings for low-income women. Or proposing a budget that guts funding for special education in public schools. You know, shit that is ACTUALLY obscene.
By the way, I'll guarantee you right now that Kathy Griffin will NEVER appear on New Year's Eve with Anderson Cooper on CNN again. Ever. And that has been the only place anyone has seen her for the past decade unless her terrible show is still on Bravo (if that is even a channel anymore). Point being, unlike someone like Ted Nugent, her career is pretty much over. But again, her entire bit was that she wasn't even really famous to begin with.
Furthermore, when people made mock-ups of Obama being hung, that hit to a direct point in US history when black people were ACTUALLY lynched, and applying that to the first black President was a direct attack on pretty much every black person in the country. I'm not even sure what Kathy Griffin's "joke" was supposed to be, but there is no historical context of beheadings in America, and, even if someone was to make an attempt on Trump's life, the chances of him having the cause of death be decapitation are less than zero. It wasn't funny, but again, not nearly as obscene as some of the things the Republican Party is attempting to do to poor people, or even the things Trump has admitted to in audio recordings.
Oh, and just for good measure. The same Ted Nugent that (with no irony or sarcasm whatsoever) suggested "riding into the battlefield & beheading" Democrats and called for Hillary and Obama to be hanged?? Trump invited him to the Oval Office for a photo-op.
She's irrelevant and grasping at relevancy. I guess it worked since people are talking about her for the first time in a decade.
Poor taste and an offensive display. I'm no trump fan but a stunt like that doesn't win any supporters or help in any way. In fact it's harmful in that it's a distraction from what should be the real story: his close associates collusion with Russia, his unethical profiteering off of the Presidency. and his terrible agendas and policies.
re: nuclear weapons. I guy I knew on another board had a great hypothesis about nuclear weapons--he concluded that every nation should have them, which would force people to meet at the diplomacy table rather than the battlefield. Consider the following scenario--you are seated at a large table with a few people whom you like and a few people whom you do not like then everyone is given a gun and told to discuss touchy political topics. Since everyone has a gun the rhetoric and personal attacks would be kept to a minimum because a) no one wants to be the jerk who shoots first (no one who remains alive after the shooting stops will ever trust you again) and b) no one wants to die (if you shoot first you may miss but your target may not).
At first I argued against his hypothetical scenario--what if one of the people seated at the table is a psychopath or nihilist and doesn't mind if everyone at the table dies?--but nuclear weapons are not guns. Shooting across the table means no time to react; modern missile detection and interception systems are good enough that any limited attack is likely to be considerably less-than-lethal. Everyone punishing the nuclear aggressor, though, would make certain that the country who launches first ceases to exist.
That is a more eloquent reason of why I keep saying that we should never use nuclear weapons even if we have them in internet comment threads when it comes to "NUKE THE TERRORISTS/IRAQ/IRAN/SYRIA/LIBYA". Or why I think that even if Iran DID get nuclear weapons, they wouldn't use them.
Look at the shit that has been heaped on the U.S. for using nuclear weapons during a clear case of war. Although in hindsight it is debatable that it was NECESSARY, it's also not clear that it wasn't. Japan by the end of WW2 was basically incapable of stopping us from amphibious invasions to force Japanese surrender, but it would have been long, expensive, and probably have cost a lot of American lives in the ground fighting.
The first country to use nuclear weapons short of defense of massive invasion is going to have GLOBAL condemnation rain down upon it. So I say let North Korea have them. Let them try getting an ICBM. Either they launch a handful of weapons and literally have the world crash down on them. Or they don't, and eventually implode economically a la USSR.
Most modern estimates of any sort of nuclear exchange presume that the event would be limited, thus not destroying the entire world (which was unlikely even when the United States and the Soviet Union had larger stockpiles) but death estimates would likely be over 1 billion and some areas of land would be uninhabitable for centuries.
Well, as I recall, estimates for nuclear winters basically involved global nuclear exchanges of upwards of 10,000 MTons in order to be highly likely. Even for H-bombs, that is a LOT.
Poor taste and an offensive display. I'm no trump fan but a stunt like that doesn't win any supporters or help in any way. In fact it's harmful in that it's a distraction from what should be the real story: his close associates collusion with Russia, his unethical profiteering off of the Presidency. and his terrible agendas and policies.
This.
A few years ago when people were carrying mock Obamas, as @jjstraka34 notes, or even a few years before that when people were carrying signs calling for W's demise, I was arguing that such "over the top" discourse will end only in disaster. Nothing removes all credibility from "your side" quite like demonizing "the other side" or suggesting that folks on "the other side" should meet some horrible fate. (clearly I don't mean "you", personally, but the generic "you" for which I would substitute "one" if I were speaking correctly--"one does not act in such a manner", for example). I default back to Ambassador's Kosh's wisdom about "your side, their side, and the truth".
"What it should prove is that Trump is neither willing nor able to change his stripes. He is a 70-year-old man (he will be 71 on June 14) who has had much success in his life. And he believes that the way in which he was elected president--against all odds and doing everything traditional politics says not to--is an affirmation that he is the only person who really understands his supporters and the mood of the country."
Even if you promised to triple my salary I wouldn't take a White House job at this time. Incidentally, I know what "covfefe" means--it is the equivalent of Troll Face asking "you mad, bro?".
**********
What the--?? *sigh* I see now that Trump is also considering rolling back some bridges we built with Cuba. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. We should be making *more* ties with Cuba, a very close neighbor, rather then keeping our distance. Daily flights and ferries are already taking place, tourism is up, people are investing in Cuba, etc. Yes, a concentration of voters in the Miami area are direct descendants of people who had everything taken from them by force by Castro, escaping only with their lives, and those people want their family's land/belongings back, but that problem is going to take a long time to sort out (just ask the families of people whose ancestors lost belongings in World War II).
Finally, one of the top three reasons why illegal immigrants should make themselves legal as quickly as possible is so that they aren't treated as modern-day slaves by large farms. Unscrupulous employers--we have them here in Texas, I assure you--often don't think twice about abusing an undocumented worker because a) that person is most likely completely unaware of any legal protections they may have and b) they don't dare go to the police to report the abuse. (my usual disclosure: my grandfather probably hired illegal workers but that isn't my fault--I was not in control of my grandfather)
Trump seems prepared to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. Even China has been exceeding their obligations in regards to this, and we are going to back out. The US is quickly becoming a pariah nation under Trump. There is not only no reason to trust we will honor our commitments, but even going past Trump, there is no way the rest of the world will (or should) ever trust us not to make a similarly stupid mistake again. Our word is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
The text of the Paris Agreement may be found here; it opens as a .pdf file and is only 32 pages long. The Agreement ultimately really isn't anything more than that, an agreement--there is no way to enforce it on any signatory nation.
The text of the Paris Agreement may be found here; it opens as a .pdf file and is only 32 pages long. The Agreement ultimately really isn't anything more than that, an agreement--there is no way to enforce it on any signatory nation.
Not implying there is, but I am implying that pulling out of a hard fought agreement less than two years after it takes place is further proof no one can trust us. The word of the US Government means less than nothing on the world stage right now. It's the US spitting on 190 other countries
The text of the Paris Agreement may be found here; it opens as a .pdf file and is only 32 pages long. The Agreement ultimately really isn't anything more than that, an agreement--there is no way to enforce it on any signatory nation.
Not implying there is, but I am implying that pulling out of a hard fought agreement less than two years after it takes place is further proof no one can trust us. The word of the US Government means less than nothing on the world stage right now. It's the US spitting on 190 other countries
The word of any government is suspect. That's the nature if the beast. There's no guarantee that any of the '190 other countries' are going to stay with it for long either since there aren't any consequences to not adhering to it. The other countries could add some teeth with tariffs or something to try to force us to join. But they won't...
Climate change is a great wedge issue for China to force yet more space between the US and its past allies. China's pollution problems mean there's domestic support for some regulation in any case, and it can proceed at its own pace in dealing with the problem while attention focuses on the US. Japan already gets plenty of airborne sand large particles produced by Chinese industry so will be happy to see any progress on the Chinese side.
A study using a dating app was conducted a few years ago; its results confirm your claim. When the chips are down--stressful situations only, not everyday life--every human being defaults to preferring other human beings who look like them on the outside...except in the cases of mass tragedy, in which case everyone is treated equally and we all try to help each other. Unfortunately, this is hard-wired into our brain and no amount of open-mindedness or sensitivity training can overcome it.
People often misuse studies.
1) No study proves or confirms anything. The media likes to act otherwise, but they are wrong.
2) This study specifically can't show anything other than a tendency for a certain group to have certain preferences. It is completely outside the scope of the study to speculate on why this is; for instance, is it hard-wired into our brains or is it cultural or some combination of the two or something else altogether.
3) It is flagrantly impossible to say such a conclusion about "every human being" based upon this or any other study.
You're misusing this study to provide the justification for the conclusions in your last line, which the study offers no support whatsoever for.
Far too many people throw around the label "racist" these days for things which are not racist. Strangely, many people also think that racism flows in one direction only, from white towards black. Consider the Congressional Black Caucus, whose official policy does not cite skin color as a prerequisite to join; however, if you aren't black then they won't let you in, period. That clearly meets the definition of "racism"--negative discrimination towards people based on skin color.
Who wrote the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary? And why does everyone have to abide by it?
An argument I have seen advanced when I looked for answers to questions like yours is:
1) Racism can be defined in a dictionary however you like, but
2) The lived experience of racism by minorities in American society is not possible to experience as a white person, and certainly not by something as the above, therefore
3) There is no such thing as racism towards white people in America in the way minorities and particularly black people experience it, though there may be prejudice or discrimination in a specific circumstance.
(Disclaimer: I'm white myself, obviously I don't speak for all black people, I may be forgetting some details of the argument, this may not be the only argument, you will not understand why people do things if you do not ask them yourselves.)
I certainly agree completely with the argument to the extent that if the above example is to be called "racism", that it is a pretty qualitatively different racism than what I think of when I hear the term.
Well, I'll tell you the difference. #1, Kathy Griffin is a Z-list celebrity/comedian who very few people ever thought was funny to begin with. Greg Abbott is the Governor of the 2nd most populace state in the country. One of them holds actual power, the other one was holding up a plastic head with fake blood on it.
#2, I didn't think it was funny (because she never has been), but let's get serious here. Do we want to go through the photos of effigies of Obama being hung from a noose, or pictures at Tea Party rallies that depicted him as a Witch Doctor with a bone through his nose?? Maybe I can splice in some audio of Ted Nugent telling Hillary and Obama to "suck on" and "take a ride" on his machine guns on stage at every concert on his tour. I could post pictures of the misogynistic trash that was being sold in the hallways of the Republican National Convention.
#3, since when do liberals own Kathy Griffin, especially when comparing her to the Governor of Texas?? Republicans, ostensibly, CHOOSE him to run their state. No one voted Kathy Griffin anything on our side. As a matter of fact, most liberals I follow on Twitter today had the same reaction, which was "damn, that was pretty stupid." If only because it allows for 48 hours of "both sides" garbage. But again, let's get real. She held up a plastic head. I don't think it was wise OR funny. But you know what it isn't?? Defunding clinics that provide cancer screenings for low-income women. Or proposing a budget that guts funding for special education in public schools. You know, shit that is ACTUALLY obscene.
Can't we just admit that what she did was wrong, flat-out, and indefensible without a big long list of what-about-isms and comparing one tasteless and dangerous calling for the death of a politician with another?
IT WAS WRONG.
It is wrong to implicitly threaten or glorify the death of an elected official (or anybody, really). Which is what she did. Whether other people did it or not is beside the point. Comparing it to budget and policy decisions is nonsensical and a transparent attempt at deflection. IT WAS WRONG.
Well, I'll tell you the difference. #1, Kathy Griffin is a Z-list celebrity/comedian who very few people ever thought was funny to begin with. Greg Abbott is the Governor of the 2nd most populace state in the country. One of them holds actual power, the other one was holding up a plastic head with fake blood on it.
#2, I didn't think it was funny (because she never has been), but let's get serious here. Do we want to go through the photos of effigies of Obama being hung from a noose, or pictures at Tea Party rallies that depicted him as a Witch Doctor with a bone through his nose?? Maybe I can splice in some audio of Ted Nugent telling Hillary and Obama to "suck on" and "take a ride" on his machine guns on stage at every concert on his tour. I could post pictures of the misogynistic trash that was being sold in the hallways of the Republican National Convention.
#3, since when do liberals own Kathy Griffin, especially when comparing her to the Governor of Texas?? Republicans, ostensibly, CHOOSE him to run their state. No one voted Kathy Griffin anything on our side. As a matter of fact, most liberals I follow on Twitter today had the same reaction, which was "damn, that was pretty stupid." If only because it allows for 48 hours of "both sides" garbage. But again, let's get real. She held up a plastic head. I don't think it was wise OR funny. But you know what it isn't?? Defunding clinics that provide cancer screenings for low-income women. Or proposing a budget that guts funding for special education in public schools. You know, shit that is ACTUALLY obscene.
Can't we just admit that what she did was wrong, flat-out, and indefensible without a big long list of what-about-isms and comparing one tasteless and dangerous calling for the death of a politician with another?
IT WAS WRONG.
It is wrong to implicitly threaten or glorify the death of an elected official (or anybody, really). Which is what she did. Whether other people did it or not is beside the point. Comparing it to budget and policy decisions is nonsensical and a transparent attempt at deflection. IT WAS WRONG.
I'm not required to genuflect and apologize for someone I have nothing to do with, nor give in to your demands that I do so. I also don't need an editor, I said exactly what I meant to say, and would again.
I'm not required to genuflect and apologize for someone I have nothing to do with, nor give in to your demands that I do so. I also don't need an editor, I said exactly what I meant to say, and would again.
I didn't try to edit you, though I did criticise your position.
Nor did I suggest that anyone apologise (or genuflect). That you interpret "admit this was wrong, without qualifications" as "apologise and genuflect" is either a pretty far stretch, or a misunderstanding.
Ok then....Kathy Griffin should resign from her position as a Democratic member of Congress immediately.....oh wait, that's right, she wasn't elected to anything, nor does she represent anyone but herself. So, not disimilar to how Muslims are expected to respond after any terrorist attack, Trump critics are expected to bend over backwards to criticize something they had nothing to do with. There is only so much pearl-clutching I can take, especially given the myriad of incidents on the other side of the aisle that received no media attention whatsoever. I don't dance on command.
She was fired by CNN nearly immediately, which I said would happen. It's also perfectly in line and consistent with my thoughts on free speech. You can say what you want, but you aren't guaranteed a platform to say it and will suffer social or professional consequences. They got rid of her. Good, grand, swell. So what else is supposed to happen here?? Massive liberal self-flagellation to attone for Kathy Griffin's sins?? I suppose I could go see a priest and confess I didn't condemn Kathy Griffin strongly enough, hopefully he doesn't give me more than 50 Hail Marys as punishment.
Hmmm, the FBI would like to have a nice chat with Nigel Farage- one of the chief architects of Brexit. Nothing may come of it... and even if anything does then it will probably be too late for the British election... but it made me raise an eyebrow .
1) No study proves or confirms anything. The media likes to act otherwise, but they are wrong.
If this were true then no one would ever conduct studies on things.
No one has to abide by anything I say--I am not in charge of anyone here.
*************
Venezuela is very close to utter collapse. Chavez's death started a slow spiral downward as political and military figures scrambled for power but in recent months the degeneration has escalated exponentially.
There was a very large blast in Kabul, in the section of town near various embassies. So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The article I read stated 80 deaths and over 350 wounded.
Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann, who arrived on the scene and decided, after assessing the situation for only 2 or 3 seconds (this isn't long enough for most people to note what someone is wearing, much less what their eye/hair color might be or whether they are acting suspiciously or dangerously), to kill 12-year-old Tamir Rice back in 2014 has been fired. Not for killing a child, mind you, but for lying on his application to the police department.
1) No study proves or confirms anything. The media likes to act otherwise, but they are wrong.
If this were true then no one would ever conduct studies on things.
No one has to abide by anything I say--I am not in charge of anyone here.
*************
Venezuela is very close to utter collapse. Chavez's death started a slow spiral downward as political and military figures scrambled for power but in recent months the degeneration has escalated exponentially.
There was a very large blast in Kabul, in the section of town near various embassies. So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The article I read stated 80 deaths and over 350 wounded.
Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann, who arrived on the scene and decided, after assessing the situation for only 2 or 3 seconds (this isn't long enough for most people to note what someone is wearing, much less what their eye/hair color might be or whether they are acting suspiciously or dangerously), to kill 12-year-old Tamir Rice back in 2014 has been fired. Not for killing a child, mind you, but for lying on his application to the police department.
Even if you discount every other incident of police murder caught on tape the last couple years, the summary execution of a 12-year old child by an officer of the State is reason enough, on it's own, for Black Lives Matter to exist.
In case anyone is interested, you may research police-related deaths here at killedbypolice.net. Listings go back only through 2013--the site didn't exist before that.
Ok then....Kathy Griffin should resign from her position as a Democratic member of Congress immediately.....oh wait, that's right, she wasn't elected to anything, nor does she represent anyone but herself. So, not disimilar to how Muslims are expected to respond after any terrorist attack, Trump critics are expected to bend over backwards to criticize something they had nothing to do with. There is only so much pearl-clutching I can take, especially given the myriad of incidents on the other side of the aisle that received no media attention whatsoever. I don't dance on command.
She was fired by CNN nearly immediately, which I said would happen. It's also perfectly in line and consistent with my thoughts on free speech. You can say what you want, but you aren't guaranteed a platform to say it and will suffer social or professional consequences. They got rid of her. Good, grand, swell. So what else is supposed to happen here?? Massive liberal self-flagellation to attone for Kathy Griffin's sins?? I suppose I could go see a priest and confess I didn't condemn Kathy Griffin strongly enough, hopefully he doesn't give me more than 50 Hail Marys as punishment.
I don't always (or possibly most of the time) agree with what you say but I'll definitely defend your right to say it. I wish more people would stand up for their statements and own them. The crocodile tears and fake apologies get really old after a while (especially from reporters, actors, entertainers, and elected officials).
Reminder with all this fake outrage over Kathy Griffin how Ted Nugent, who no one on the right has denounced that I've noticed. Here's some stuff he said and did:
“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November,” he said of the Obama administration in April 2012.
Two years later, during a hunting and outdoor trade show in Las Vegas in 2014, he called Obama a “communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel” and a “gangster” who weaseled his way into the presidency.
In a lengthy Facebook post last year, Nugent said Obama and Clinton should be tried for treason and hanged over their handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
I mentioned how it was wrong that Trump invited him (via Sarah Palin) to the White House and took photos with him. I didn't hear the same people complaining about Kathy Griffin chopping a fake Trump head off saying anything about the guy that called for chopping off Obama's head.
Anyway, as I said she's a C or D level celebrity seeking attention. She got it. Don't feed the troll.
But imagine if the next president, presumably a Democrat, invites her to the White House for a photo op. Wouldn't that be great? No it would be insulting and distasteful, just like how Trump was fine with Sarah Palin inviting Ted Nugent.
Ok then....Kathy Griffin should resign from her position as a Democratic member of Congress immediately.....oh wait, that's right, she wasn't elected to anything, nor does she represent anyone but herself. So, not disimilar to how Muslims are expected to respond after any terrorist attack, Trump critics are expected to bend over backwards to criticize something they had nothing to do with. There is only so much pearl-clutching I can take, especially given the myriad of incidents on the other side of the aisle that received no media attention whatsoever. I don't dance on command.
She was fired by CNN nearly immediately, which I said would happen. It's also perfectly in line and consistent with my thoughts on free speech. You can say what you want, but you aren't guaranteed a platform to say it and will suffer social or professional consequences. They got rid of her. Good, grand, swell. So what else is supposed to happen here?? Massive liberal self-flagellation to attone for Kathy Griffin's sins?? I suppose I could go see a priest and confess I didn't condemn Kathy Griffin strongly enough, hopefully he doesn't give me more than 50 Hail Marys as punishment.
I don't always (or possibly most of the time) agree with what you say but I'll definitely defend your right to say it. I wish more people would stand up for their statements and own them. The crocodile tears and fake apologies get really old after a while (especially from reporters, actors, entertainers, and elected officials).
To be 100% honest, I'm far more pissed off at her for making this a national news story that the left is forced to defend than anything in the photo. I'm not "offended" by much of anything, I just happen to think what she did falls in the "insanely stupid" category. On the other hand, I find what Gianforte did and Greg Abbott said part of a dangerous trend of trying to deligitimize the press, starting with Trump, who called them "the enemy of the people", almost verbatim what Stalin called them. It doesn't "offend" me, I simply recognize it as a authoritarian tactic and trend. It's not about taste. Kathy Griffin holds no power, and, it could be argued, doesn't even have any tangible influence as a celebrity. Which is why I don't feel much more condemnation is necessary. She ruined her career and lost her job. Seems fair to me. I do find it interesting that the free-speech absolutists of the Alt-Right are conspicuously silent on this one. And by all means, if Kathy Griffin was scheduled to speak at a college campus, disinvite her. I'll be interested to see if Milo and Ann Coulter go to bat for her.
Comments
Especially since he refused to back up article 5 of NATO, so he isn't interested in mutual defense of our traditional allies.
So with one fell swoop, our orange know-it-all has ceded US authority and leadership on the world stage.
Also the G7 leaders voted 6 to 1 to take action on climate change. Guess who the climate denier was?
Trump seems to pathologically hate Merkel. He seems to have some personal problem with empowered women that he doesn't want to sleep with.
He really can't stand women like that for some reason. I could point to more example than this but the most obvious one is his long-standing pointless feud with Rosie O'Donnell.
We may still view ourselves as the leaders of the West in our arrogance, but much of the rest of the world no longer sees us this way. We burned that bridge in November. Merkel, Macron, and Trudeau are the respected leaders of Western democracy on the world stage now, and with have to stand as a vanguard against what would have previously been unimaginable and inexplicable: a United States and Russia working towards the same goal of destabilizing the post-WW2 Alliances that have held for decades upon decades.
@Nonnahswriter Thanks for pointing this out. It doesn't change that I was an idiot, but at least I'M aware of it now.
*************
North Korea is all bark and no bite. I am convinced that China has them on a very short leash and that Beijing lets Kim Jong-un say or do stupid things just to keep the West a little off-balance. That being said, I concur that we have mostly ignored North Korea for a couple of decades. That one meme notwithstanding--the one where you can see South Korea lit from space but almost none of North Korea--it is typically difficult to get accurate information about conditions in North Korea but I suspect poverty and near-starvation are rampant among the population, except for Party or military big-wigs.
re: nuclear weapons. I guy I knew on another board had a great hypothesis about nuclear weapons--he concluded that every nation should have them, which would force people to meet at the diplomacy table rather than the battlefield. Consider the following scenario--you are seated at a large table with a few people whom you like and a few people whom you do not like then everyone is given a gun and told to discuss touchy political topics. Since everyone has a gun the rhetoric and personal attacks would be kept to a minimum because a) no one wants to be the jerk who shoots first (no one who remains alive after the shooting stops will ever trust you again) and b) no one wants to die (if you shoot first you may miss but your target may not).
At first I argued against his hypothetical scenario--what if one of the people seated at the table is a psychopath or nihilist and doesn't mind if everyone at the table dies?--but nuclear weapons are not guns. Shooting across the table means no time to react; modern missile detection and interception systems are good enough that any limited attack is likely to be considerably less-than-lethal. Everyone punishing the nuclear aggressor, though, would make certain that the country who launches first ceases to exist.
The real danger from nuclear weapons right now, though, is the fact that some systems in control of them run on state-of-the-art 1982 technology, often including actual floppy discs. Most modern estimates of any sort of nuclear exchange presume that the event would be limited, thus not destroying the entire world (which was unlikely even when the United States and the Soviet Union had larger stockpiles) but death estimates would likely be over 1 billion and some areas of land would be uninhabitable for centuries.
#2, I didn't think it was funny (because she never has been), but let's get serious here. Do we want to go through the photos of effigies of Obama being hung from a noose, or pictures at Tea Party rallies that depicted him as a Witch Doctor with a bone through his nose?? Maybe I can splice in some audio of Ted Nugent telling Hillary and Obama to "suck on" and "take a ride" on his machine guns on stage at every concert on his tour. I could post pictures of the misogynistic trash that was being sold in the hallways of the Republican National Convention.
#3, since when do liberals own Kathy Griffin, especially when comparing her to the Governor of Texas?? Republicans, ostensibly, CHOOSE him to run their state. No one voted Kathy Griffin anything on our side. As a matter of fact, most liberals I follow on Twitter today had the same reaction, which was "damn, that was pretty stupid." If only because it allows for 48 hours of "both sides" garbage. But again, let's get real. She held up a plastic head. I don't think it was wise OR funny. But you know what it isn't?? Defunding clinics that provide cancer screenings for low-income women. Or proposing a budget that guts funding for special education in public schools. You know, shit that is ACTUALLY obscene.
By the way, I'll guarantee you right now that Kathy Griffin will NEVER appear on New Year's Eve with Anderson Cooper on CNN again. Ever. And that has been the only place anyone has seen her for the past decade unless her terrible show is still on Bravo (if that is even a channel anymore). Point being, unlike someone like Ted Nugent, her career is pretty much over. But again, her entire bit was that she wasn't even really famous to begin with.
Furthermore, when people made mock-ups of Obama being hung, that hit to a direct point in US history when black people were ACTUALLY lynched, and applying that to the first black President was a direct attack on pretty much every black person in the country. I'm not even sure what Kathy Griffin's "joke" was supposed to be, but there is no historical context of beheadings in America, and, even if someone was to make an attempt on Trump's life, the chances of him having the cause of death be decapitation are less than zero. It wasn't funny, but again, not nearly as obscene as some of the things the Republican Party is attempting to do to poor people, or even the things Trump has admitted to in audio recordings.
Oh, and just for good measure. The same Ted Nugent that (with no irony or sarcasm whatsoever) suggested "riding into the battlefield & beheading" Democrats and called for Hillary and Obama to be hanged?? Trump invited him to the Oval Office for a photo-op.
She's irrelevant and grasping at relevancy. I guess it worked since people are talking about her for the first time in a decade.
Poor taste and an offensive display. I'm no trump fan but a stunt like that doesn't win any supporters or help in any way. In fact it's harmful in that it's a distraction from what should be the real story: his close associates collusion with Russia, his unethical profiteering off of the Presidency. and his terrible agendas and policies.
Look at the shit that has been heaped on the U.S. for using nuclear weapons during a clear case of war. Although in hindsight it is debatable that it was NECESSARY, it's also not clear that it wasn't. Japan by the end of WW2 was basically incapable of stopping us from amphibious invasions to force Japanese surrender, but it would have been long, expensive, and probably have cost a lot of American lives in the ground fighting.
The first country to use nuclear weapons short of defense of massive invasion is going to have GLOBAL condemnation rain down upon it. So I say let North Korea have them. Let them try getting an ICBM. Either they launch a handful of weapons and literally have the world crash down on them. Or they don't, and eventually implode economically a la USSR.
Well, as I recall, estimates for nuclear winters basically involved global nuclear exchanges of upwards of 10,000 MTons in order to be highly likely. Even for H-bombs, that is a LOT.
A few years ago when people were carrying mock Obamas, as @jjstraka34 notes, or even a few years before that when people were carrying signs calling for W's demise, I was arguing that such "over the top" discourse will end only in disaster. Nothing removes all credibility from "your side" quite like demonizing "the other side" or suggesting that folks on "the other side" should meet some horrible fate. (clearly I don't mean "you", personally, but the generic "you" for which I would substitute "one" if I were speaking correctly--"one does not act in such a manner", for example). I default back to Ambassador's Kosh's wisdom about "your side, their side, and the truth".
CNN definitely understands Trump, though. In the wake of the early-morning "covfefe" tweet we have this:
"What it should prove is that Trump is neither willing nor able to change his stripes. He is a 70-year-old man (he will be 71 on June 14) who has had much success in his life. And he believes that the way in which he was elected president--against all odds and doing everything traditional politics says not to--is an affirmation that he is the only person who really understands his supporters and the mood of the country."
Even if you promised to triple my salary I wouldn't take a White House job at this time. Incidentally, I know what "covfefe" means--it is the equivalent of Troll Face asking "you mad, bro?".
**********
What the--?? *sigh* I see now that Trump is also considering rolling back some bridges we built with Cuba. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. We should be making *more* ties with Cuba, a very close neighbor, rather then keeping our distance. Daily flights and ferries are already taking place, tourism is up, people are investing in Cuba, etc. Yes, a concentration of voters in the Miami area are direct descendants of people who had everything taken from them by force by Castro, escaping only with their lives, and those people want their family's land/belongings back, but that problem is going to take a long time to sort out (just ask the families of people whose ancestors lost belongings in World War II).
Finally, one of the top three reasons why illegal immigrants should make themselves legal as quickly as possible is so that they aren't treated as modern-day slaves by large farms. Unscrupulous employers--we have them here in Texas, I assure you--often don't think twice about abusing an undocumented worker because a) that person is most likely completely unaware of any legal protections they may have and b) they don't dare go to the police to report the abuse. (my usual disclosure: my grandfather probably hired illegal workers but that isn't my fault--I was not in control of my grandfather)
1) No study proves or confirms anything. The media likes to act otherwise, but they are wrong.
2) This study specifically can't show anything other than a tendency for a certain group to have certain preferences. It is completely outside the scope of the study to speculate on why this is; for instance, is it hard-wired into our brains or is it cultural or some combination of the two or something else altogether.
3) It is flagrantly impossible to say such a conclusion about "every human being" based upon this or any other study.
You're misusing this study to provide the justification for the conclusions in your last line, which the study offers no support whatsoever for. Who wrote the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary? And why does everyone have to abide by it?
An argument I have seen advanced when I looked for answers to questions like yours is:
1) Racism can be defined in a dictionary however you like, but
2) The lived experience of racism by minorities in American society is not possible to experience as a white person, and certainly not by something as the above, therefore
3) There is no such thing as racism towards white people in America in the way minorities and particularly black people experience it, though there may be prejudice or discrimination in a specific circumstance.
(Disclaimer: I'm white myself, obviously I don't speak for all black people, I may be forgetting some details of the argument, this may not be the only argument, you will not understand why people do things if you do not ask them yourselves.)
I certainly agree completely with the argument to the extent that if the above example is to be called "racism", that it is a pretty qualitatively different racism than what I think of when I hear the term.
IT WAS WRONG.
It is wrong to implicitly threaten or glorify the death of an elected official (or anybody, really). Which is what she did. Whether other people did it or not is beside the point. Comparing it to budget and policy decisions is nonsensical and a transparent attempt at deflection. IT WAS WRONG.
Nor did I suggest that anyone apologise (or genuflect). That you interpret "admit this was wrong, without qualifications" as "apologise and genuflect" is either a pretty far stretch, or a misunderstanding.
She was fired by CNN nearly immediately, which I said would happen. It's also perfectly in line and consistent with my thoughts on free speech. You can say what you want, but you aren't guaranteed a platform to say it and will suffer social or professional consequences. They got rid of her. Good, grand, swell. So what else is supposed to happen here?? Massive liberal self-flagellation to attone for Kathy Griffin's sins?? I suppose I could go see a priest and confess I didn't condemn Kathy Griffin strongly enough, hopefully he doesn't give me more than 50 Hail Marys as punishment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/nigel-farage-is-person-of-interest-in-fbi-investigation-into-trump-and-russia
No one has to abide by anything I say--I am not in charge of anyone here.
*************
Venezuela is very close to utter collapse. Chavez's death started a slow spiral downward as political and military figures scrambled for power but in recent months the degeneration has escalated exponentially.
There was a very large blast in Kabul, in the section of town near various embassies. So far no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The article I read stated 80 deaths and over 350 wounded.
Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann, who arrived on the scene and decided, after assessing the situation for only 2 or 3 seconds (this isn't long enough for most people to note what someone is wearing, much less what their eye/hair color might be or whether they are acting suspiciously or dangerously), to kill 12-year-old Tamir Rice back in 2014 has been fired. Not for killing a child, mind you, but for lying on his application to the police department.
“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November,” he said of the Obama administration in April 2012.
Two years later, during a hunting and outdoor trade show in Las Vegas in 2014, he called Obama a “communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel” and a “gangster” who weaseled his way into the presidency.
In a lengthy Facebook post last year, Nugent said Obama and Clinton should be tried for treason and hanged over their handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/31/the-right-is-mad-over-kathy-griffins-gruesome-trump-video-the-left-asks-remember-ted-nugent/
I mentioned how it was wrong that Trump invited him (via Sarah Palin) to the White House and took photos with him. I didn't hear the same people complaining about Kathy Griffin chopping a fake Trump head off saying anything about the guy that called for chopping off Obama's head.
Anyway, as I said she's a C or D level celebrity seeking attention. She got it. Don't feed the troll.
But imagine if the next president, presumably a Democrat, invites her to the White House for a photo op. Wouldn't that be great? No it would be insulting and distasteful, just like how Trump was fine with Sarah Palin inviting Ted Nugent.
Places of learning.