Israel Distorted by Lowenstein’s and Slezak’s Lens
A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:
Gaza distorted by media lens by Antony Lowenstein and Peter Slezak
On Line Opinion January 2, 2009
One could re-write this article under the title “Israel Distorted by Lowenstein’s and Slezak’s Lens”. The lives of 400,000 Israelis that live and work within the range of the Quassam rockets are threatened on a daily basis and their freedom of movement is infringed, which is a cardinal principle of human rights, as they are enforced to live on a daily basis in-and-out of shelters, and L and S with a sleight of hand transform this threat and abrogation of freedom of movement into a failure of the media and of politicians to acknowledge the transgressor in this conflict which to them clearly is the terrorist government of Israel.
Guilty to the brim of his cup of consciousness that he does not support Israel in this deadly conflict, Lowenstein—as I don’t know whether Slezak too is a Jew—attempts to cover up his “turncoatedness” to Israel under the slogan of “tough love” and furtively place himself as a true friend of Israel. True friendship however is shown when friends rush along to help someone who is in a critical situation, like Israel is and has been for a long time. Lowenstein has no love for Israel.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Paul Krugman Plays his Dirty Politics
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The eminent economist and crown prince of punditry of the New York Times Paul Krugman laments that we are “entering a period of severe crisis with weak and confused leadership.” And I would respond that the people in the media like himself should be warning us about the economic abyss we are facing instead of being out playing their dirty politics. Only few moments after the speech of President Bush warning Americans of the imminent perils of the economy and of the absolute necessity for Congress to pass the legislation immediately, as time was a crucial factor for the success of the plan-with which Krugman himself agrees-what Krugman did? He ingloriously tried to associate the speech of Bush with the so called lies of the war in Iraq.
Thus like so many other weak commentators widening the credibility gap that was already extant between the President and many Americans and confusing the latter about the veracity of Bush about the economic crisis, when Krugman himself knew that what the president was saying was the absolute truth.
Tu ne cede malis
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The eminent economist and crown prince of punditry of the New York Times Paul Krugman laments that we are “entering a period of severe crisis with weak and confused leadership.” And I would respond that the people in the media like himself should be warning us about the economic abyss we are facing instead of being out playing their dirty politics. Only few moments after the speech of President Bush warning Americans of the imminent perils of the economy and of the absolute necessity for Congress to pass the legislation immediately, as time was a crucial factor for the success of the plan-with which Krugman himself agrees-what Krugman did? He ingloriously tried to associate the speech of Bush with the so called lies of the war in Iraq.
Thus like so many other weak commentators widening the credibility gap that was already extant between the President and many Americans and confusing the latter about the veracity of Bush about the economic crisis, when Krugman himself knew that what the president was saying was the absolute truth.
Tu ne cede malis
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Polical Tyros Have Tasteless Recipes To Cook in Kitchen of Foreign Policy
A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:
Richard Vague: Throwing More Troops at Afghanistan WRONG Move
By Steve Clemons Washington Note December 23, 2008
Richard Vague is another recruit in the league of political tyros led by Clemons. America is at war with an irreconcilable implacable enemy. In any war, especially in this one, there are no soft options. And those who suggest “retreats” and “withdrawals” prematurely from Iraq and Afghanistan are soft brained and they should never have delved in the complexity and hard tasks of war.
‘Vague was “very discouraged to hear...that the United States plans to send up to 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan next year’, says Clemons. Vague states that although “Obama said in his campaign that he would escalate in Afghanistan...I had hoped he was saying that as a way to deflect questions regarding Iraq without appearing soft, and when the time came he would exit Iraq but resist escalating in Afghanistan.” Clemons says that Vague told him “there are a whole lot of cooks in the foreign-policy kitchen these days.”
Looking at Vague’s photo, it’s obvious that he spends a lot of time in his own “kitchen” as a good cook in the culinary art but he would have made a very bad cook in the art of foreign policy. Clemons considers Vague to be ‘a giant in the U.S. credit card business’.
To each his own.
A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:
Richard Vague: Throwing More Troops at Afghanistan WRONG Move
By Steve Clemons Washington Note December 23, 2008
Richard Vague is another recruit in the league of political tyros led by Clemons. America is at war with an irreconcilable implacable enemy. In any war, especially in this one, there are no soft options. And those who suggest “retreats” and “withdrawals” prematurely from Iraq and Afghanistan are soft brained and they should never have delved in the complexity and hard tasks of war.
‘Vague was “very discouraged to hear...that the United States plans to send up to 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan next year’, says Clemons. Vague states that although “Obama said in his campaign that he would escalate in Afghanistan...I had hoped he was saying that as a way to deflect questions regarding Iraq without appearing soft, and when the time came he would exit Iraq but resist escalating in Afghanistan.” Clemons says that Vague told him “there are a whole lot of cooks in the foreign-policy kitchen these days.”
Looking at Vague’s photo, it’s obvious that he spends a lot of time in his own “kitchen” as a good cook in the culinary art but he would have made a very bad cook in the art of foreign policy. Clemons considers Vague to be ‘a giant in the U.S. credit card business’.
To each his own.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Will America Rise from its ‘Comatose’ State?
By Con George-Kotzabasis
A reply to a very clever American Open Salon
The Global Credit Crunch and the Crisis of Legitimacy
By RCMoya612
RCMoya, after your excellent and resplendent analysis I feel, if I captiously quibble about few points, like a bat squeaking in the dark. First, inequality might have “continued its forward march” but I would argue that it did so on a higher level of general economic prosperity in America following the up till now unassailable historical paradigm of capitalism and free markets that has made the poor ‘richer’ in relative terms, as Amartya Sen has contended.
Secondly, America’s “hectoring and ignoring” has its counterpart in Europe and in other continents whose countries were strong allies of the US during the Cold War but with the collapse of the Soviet Union have reappropriated their independence both geopolitically and culturally and expressing this in their own hectoring and ignoring against America, thus continuing the irreversible law of the political and cultural competition of nation-states.
Thirdly, I would argue that as long as America continues to be the centripetal force attracting the “best and the brightest” to its shores and not stifling the Schumpeterian spirit of entrepreneurship and “creative destruction”, it will be able to rise again even from the ashes of a comatose state and will continue to be in the foreseeable future the paramount power in world affairs.
And fourthly, the rejection by Congress of the funding plan that would have a better chance than none to prevent the economy from collapsing was inevitable in the present political climate where reason cannot compete with populist emotionalism and when a swirl of weak politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, and, indeed, Barak Obama, are its ‘slaves’. Only by cleaning out these wimpish politicians from positions of power will the political narrative reassert its legitimacy.
RCMoya says
kotzabasis
October 01, 2008 07:26 AM
Thanks for the points. Interesting thoughts.First, I'd be careful in praising the 'unassailable historical paradigm' of capitalism and free markets. That has never really been the case elsewhere in world--including Japan and Europe, and definitely not in the third world--and yet that has not stopped those countries from reaping the benefits of a globalised economy. Simply put, capitalism may have been successful--it is--but it is not the case that completely 'free markets' have played a central role in the enrichment of advanced economies. That was probably the result of a misleading analysis (an altogether too cheery one at that) of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'--which has monumentally failed more than once since the 1980s.
Second, Europe may have been an American vassal in the early parts of the Cold War--and yet still managed to create economic structures that were different from the United States. Britain, France and Germany have had distinct economic approaches--and that's to say nothing of more interventionist Scandinavia--and in all of these countries (save for the UK) the post-war years were considered an extraordinary period of growth.You're probably right that we're now re-entering a period of political and cultural competition between states. I think this is a good thing, though it'll take some time for Europeans to get used to the idea of a weaker America.Your third point is probably concedable...though only to a point. The 'best and the brightest' only go to America because of its perceived economic vitality. Take that away and there'd be less of a reason to head over. Also, buying into the 'Americans are so entrepreneurial' myth is rather problematic--because some European states, for example, have a greater slice of the economic pie coming from small and medium-sized business owners than America, land of the corporate shopper, has. Maybe it's the contrary situation at present: maybe Europeans have 'stifled' entrepreneurialism here...and in any case releasing it would help, not hurt it.
I'd warn that nothing lasts forever, that nothing is ever guaranteed; if America's financial system DOES go under even further America's future role as a power would be substantially jeopardised.Your last point starts off well...until you reveal your partisanship. The Democrats certainly don't have a monopoly on forceful politicking, to their detriment. I would argue that their greatest weakness is in their 'social democracy light'-style of policies.Yet, all the perceived 'strength' in the world hasn't made the belligerence of the Reagan-Bush-Republican era any more palatable to the world--and, in fact, has in the longer-term probably weakened America considerably.Strength alone cannot substitute for pragmatism, intelligence and good policy.
Kotzabasis says
OK, but you have to answer the intruding historical questions under what economic system Japan and Europe developed and which was the motor of the globalised economy? One would be silly to say that capitalism is an ‘absolute monarch’ and free markets are the ‘Sun King’ of economic development. But we are talking here about basics and not the sometimes necessary state intervention which has been merely, if you allow me to use this metaphor, a changing of an occasional punctured wheel (excepting the present situation) of an omnibus that has been running quite well for a long time on all rough terrains.
And you have to be consistent with your own logic, if you accept the reality of a globalized economy, as you do, which was the offspring of a long gestation starting in the 1980s, how can you imply at the same time that this globalized economy was begotten by the “monumental” failure of the 1980s? The question of Europe is what cemented more the “economic structures” of Europe. Was it the working spirit of capitalism or the working spirit of socialism? And if a mixture of both is your obvious answer, I’ve to remind you that mixtures are not equal and on the scales of economic development capitalism continues to ‘tilt the scales’ in its own favour contra socialism, and that also applied to your economic model in Europe. Perceptions do not have a long life and for more than a hundred years now America continues to attract the best and the brightest on its shores. So its economic vitality must have more solid grounds than perceptions. Again you are inconsistent with your own logic; if the best and the brightest are in America, as you concede, then your “Americans are so entrepreneurial” cannot be a “myth”.
Needless to say “nothing lasts forever and... ever guaranteed” since man’s fate is to live and cope in a world of uncertainty.Lastly, I’m surprised that you consider my judgments on person’s characters, in this case of Pelosi and Obama, and on political parties as being partisan. Under your criterion only a person who made no judgments would be absolutely impartial. The facts are that the Democrats have cut their sails to the populist wind and are running their campaign on the emotional hate and animadversions many Americans have for the Bush administration and by association the Republicans. “Pragmatism, intelligence and good policy are the offspring of strong genes.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
A reply to a very clever American Open Salon
The Global Credit Crunch and the Crisis of Legitimacy
By RCMoya612
RCMoya, after your excellent and resplendent analysis I feel, if I captiously quibble about few points, like a bat squeaking in the dark. First, inequality might have “continued its forward march” but I would argue that it did so on a higher level of general economic prosperity in America following the up till now unassailable historical paradigm of capitalism and free markets that has made the poor ‘richer’ in relative terms, as Amartya Sen has contended.
Secondly, America’s “hectoring and ignoring” has its counterpart in Europe and in other continents whose countries were strong allies of the US during the Cold War but with the collapse of the Soviet Union have reappropriated their independence both geopolitically and culturally and expressing this in their own hectoring and ignoring against America, thus continuing the irreversible law of the political and cultural competition of nation-states.
Thirdly, I would argue that as long as America continues to be the centripetal force attracting the “best and the brightest” to its shores and not stifling the Schumpeterian spirit of entrepreneurship and “creative destruction”, it will be able to rise again even from the ashes of a comatose state and will continue to be in the foreseeable future the paramount power in world affairs.
And fourthly, the rejection by Congress of the funding plan that would have a better chance than none to prevent the economy from collapsing was inevitable in the present political climate where reason cannot compete with populist emotionalism and when a swirl of weak politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, and, indeed, Barak Obama, are its ‘slaves’. Only by cleaning out these wimpish politicians from positions of power will the political narrative reassert its legitimacy.
RCMoya says
kotzabasis
October 01, 2008 07:26 AM
Thanks for the points. Interesting thoughts.First, I'd be careful in praising the 'unassailable historical paradigm' of capitalism and free markets. That has never really been the case elsewhere in world--including Japan and Europe, and definitely not in the third world--and yet that has not stopped those countries from reaping the benefits of a globalised economy. Simply put, capitalism may have been successful--it is--but it is not the case that completely 'free markets' have played a central role in the enrichment of advanced economies. That was probably the result of a misleading analysis (an altogether too cheery one at that) of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'--which has monumentally failed more than once since the 1980s.
Second, Europe may have been an American vassal in the early parts of the Cold War--and yet still managed to create economic structures that were different from the United States. Britain, France and Germany have had distinct economic approaches--and that's to say nothing of more interventionist Scandinavia--and in all of these countries (save for the UK) the post-war years were considered an extraordinary period of growth.You're probably right that we're now re-entering a period of political and cultural competition between states. I think this is a good thing, though it'll take some time for Europeans to get used to the idea of a weaker America.Your third point is probably concedable...though only to a point. The 'best and the brightest' only go to America because of its perceived economic vitality. Take that away and there'd be less of a reason to head over. Also, buying into the 'Americans are so entrepreneurial' myth is rather problematic--because some European states, for example, have a greater slice of the economic pie coming from small and medium-sized business owners than America, land of the corporate shopper, has. Maybe it's the contrary situation at present: maybe Europeans have 'stifled' entrepreneurialism here...and in any case releasing it would help, not hurt it.
I'd warn that nothing lasts forever, that nothing is ever guaranteed; if America's financial system DOES go under even further America's future role as a power would be substantially jeopardised.Your last point starts off well...until you reveal your partisanship. The Democrats certainly don't have a monopoly on forceful politicking, to their detriment. I would argue that their greatest weakness is in their 'social democracy light'-style of policies.Yet, all the perceived 'strength' in the world hasn't made the belligerence of the Reagan-Bush-Republican era any more palatable to the world--and, in fact, has in the longer-term probably weakened America considerably.Strength alone cannot substitute for pragmatism, intelligence and good policy.
Kotzabasis says
OK, but you have to answer the intruding historical questions under what economic system Japan and Europe developed and which was the motor of the globalised economy? One would be silly to say that capitalism is an ‘absolute monarch’ and free markets are the ‘Sun King’ of economic development. But we are talking here about basics and not the sometimes necessary state intervention which has been merely, if you allow me to use this metaphor, a changing of an occasional punctured wheel (excepting the present situation) of an omnibus that has been running quite well for a long time on all rough terrains.
And you have to be consistent with your own logic, if you accept the reality of a globalized economy, as you do, which was the offspring of a long gestation starting in the 1980s, how can you imply at the same time that this globalized economy was begotten by the “monumental” failure of the 1980s? The question of Europe is what cemented more the “economic structures” of Europe. Was it the working spirit of capitalism or the working spirit of socialism? And if a mixture of both is your obvious answer, I’ve to remind you that mixtures are not equal and on the scales of economic development capitalism continues to ‘tilt the scales’ in its own favour contra socialism, and that also applied to your economic model in Europe. Perceptions do not have a long life and for more than a hundred years now America continues to attract the best and the brightest on its shores. So its economic vitality must have more solid grounds than perceptions. Again you are inconsistent with your own logic; if the best and the brightest are in America, as you concede, then your “Americans are so entrepreneurial” cannot be a “myth”.
Needless to say “nothing lasts forever and... ever guaranteed” since man’s fate is to live and cope in a world of uncertainty.Lastly, I’m surprised that you consider my judgments on person’s characters, in this case of Pelosi and Obama, and on political parties as being partisan. Under your criterion only a person who made no judgments would be absolutely impartial. The facts are that the Democrats have cut their sails to the populist wind and are running their campaign on the emotional hate and animadversions many Americans have for the Bush administration and by association the Republicans. “Pragmatism, intelligence and good policy are the offspring of strong genes.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Will Obama Sheathe the Sword and Use the Paper Knife of Diplomacy to Deal with Fanatics?
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The attack on Mumbai is the continuation of terror by all means. The question is whether the civilized people of the world in this struggle for existence will be expecting the U.S.A., under the new incoming administration, which is the only nation that can defeat these warriors of ‘God’ decisively, and its allies, to also fight terror by all means and whether President Obama will have the timely mettle, resolution, and sagacity to do so. His Clintonian appointees to chief Cabinet positions and his selection of liberal minded ‘consigliore’, who have all been critical of the ‘pugnacious’ foreign affairs policy of the Bush-Cheney administration, do not bode well, despite the fact that all of them are highly intelligent and replete with experience in world affairs.
However, the crucial test for all these people in the proscenium and the eminence grise that will be in the wings and will be advising President Obama, is whether they will have the moral strength and imagination to break from their experience of the past that can no longer apply to an unprecedented unique enemy in the form of fanatical irrational terror, and forge by the power of imagination a policy not only made of carrots but also of the cold usable blade of the sword against this deadly irreconcilable foe. And ultimately, since it will be Obama’s decision, whether the latter will sheath Bush’s sword and instead use the paper knife of diplomacy as the major instrument to defeat state and ‘stateless’ fanatics.
Don’t postpone your opinion on this critical issue
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The attack on Mumbai is the continuation of terror by all means. The question is whether the civilized people of the world in this struggle for existence will be expecting the U.S.A., under the new incoming administration, which is the only nation that can defeat these warriors of ‘God’ decisively, and its allies, to also fight terror by all means and whether President Obama will have the timely mettle, resolution, and sagacity to do so. His Clintonian appointees to chief Cabinet positions and his selection of liberal minded ‘consigliore’, who have all been critical of the ‘pugnacious’ foreign affairs policy of the Bush-Cheney administration, do not bode well, despite the fact that all of them are highly intelligent and replete with experience in world affairs.
However, the crucial test for all these people in the proscenium and the eminence grise that will be in the wings and will be advising President Obama, is whether they will have the moral strength and imagination to break from their experience of the past that can no longer apply to an unprecedented unique enemy in the form of fanatical irrational terror, and forge by the power of imagination a policy not only made of carrots but also of the cold usable blade of the sword against this deadly irreconcilable foe. And ultimately, since it will be Obama’s decision, whether the latter will sheath Bush’s sword and instead use the paper knife of diplomacy as the major instrument to defeat state and ‘stateless’ fanatics.
Don’t postpone your opinion on this critical issue
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Australian Academic Accuses US and Aussie Forces of Committing War Crimes in Fallujah
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The Australian academic Chris Doran in his article on Online Opinion on August 3, 2008, accuses and condemns the Coalition forces in their attack on Fallujah on November 2004 of breaching the Geneva Conventions and of committing war crimes. But in his passionate condemnation he disregards the fact that wars are not fought by holding the sword in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other. An ineradicable law of war is that its prolongation increases its brutality in 'geometrical' proportions and hence its casualties in civilians and the military.
The action in Fallujah had the strategic goal to shorten the war. Fallujah was a hornet's nest of foreign and local jihadists who were not only manufacturing the lethal car bombs but also sending their suicidal fanatic warriors in other cities of Iraq. The collateral civilian casualties, not in the huge overblown fictional figures presented by the writer of the article, were inevitable in a war that the enemy uses civilians, and, indeed, members of his own family and relatives as a shield. And the question arises who is the real moral culprit and war criminal in such a case. It's obvious however, that Doran in the heat of his pacifist hate of all wars, whether justified or not, has no propensity to even deal with this question, least of all answer it.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
The Australian academic Chris Doran in his article on Online Opinion on August 3, 2008, accuses and condemns the Coalition forces in their attack on Fallujah on November 2004 of breaching the Geneva Conventions and of committing war crimes. But in his passionate condemnation he disregards the fact that wars are not fought by holding the sword in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other. An ineradicable law of war is that its prolongation increases its brutality in 'geometrical' proportions and hence its casualties in civilians and the military.
The action in Fallujah had the strategic goal to shorten the war. Fallujah was a hornet's nest of foreign and local jihadists who were not only manufacturing the lethal car bombs but also sending their suicidal fanatic warriors in other cities of Iraq. The collateral civilian casualties, not in the huge overblown fictional figures presented by the writer of the article, were inevitable in a war that the enemy uses civilians, and, indeed, members of his own family and relatives as a shield. And the question arises who is the real moral culprit and war criminal in such a case. It's obvious however, that Doran in the heat of his pacifist hate of all wars, whether justified or not, has no propensity to even deal with this question, least of all answer it.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Strength of Character is Shown in Critical Circumstances and Obama Fails the Test
Will the American electorate be susceptible to the false idealistic promptings of a confused weak leader?
A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to a Bush contrarian
Only the poverty of thought can make a statement such as the”poor republicans...through no fault of their own.” There is no virtue to be found in human beings not making mistakes. No one is infallible, especially in the multi-variable dimensions of war. The virtue lies in swiftly correcting these mistakes. And this is exactly what Bush did when he adopted and implemented the Surge turning a losing war into a potentially victorious one. This was the “major” and crucial policy that “was successfully implemented and carried out” with all the potential geopolitical developments that could flow into the region with the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and hence justifying fully the Bush Doctrine of democratizing the Middle East as a preventive cure for terrorism.
The liberal intelligentsia with their tongue stuck in the bitterness of being totally wrong with their gloomy prognostications about the outcome of the war, cannot and will not concede this ‘reversal of fortune’ for the Bush administration. But history, which has no taste either for bitterness or sweetness, will give the final verdict on Bush. And dare I say it will be a favourable one.
What Obama proposes to do is to deprive America of this tremendous strategic victory over the extremists of Islam by his pledge to pull out US forces from Iraq before the conditions for such a withdrawal are strategically ripe.
If you were an editor even in the most provincial newspaper and spelled out the obvious as news, you would not have held your position as editor for very long. Bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance—like poverty—up to the present inflict even the best and most affluent societies. If educated prosperous America has this bane in its midst you can imagine other less educated and prosperous countries in what state they are in this area. To say however, that either McCain or Palin would select to govern for the irrational beliefs and ignorance of such minorities, is to show that one is completely politically naive and no one can take such person seriously.
And do you really believe that Obama has his “feet on the ground,” when he says that once America starts implementing its own values it will turn the present hate of the world for America into love, into a global loving circle of holding hands, including perhaps the fanatical jihadists?
Always bear in mind the great adage of Friedrich Nietzsche that the character of a person is revealed in critical circumstances, followed by my minuscule one that in hard times only the hard men/women prevail. Obama lacks the strength of character to lead a great nation in these most dangerous times. In the vocation of Statecraft according to his populist policies and faith in changing America he remains an infant and is the ultimate ‘mummy’s boy’. As the worst mummy’s boy is the one who had no mother. (His mother abandoned him when he was an infant to be brought up by his grandparents.) That is why he chose Biden for his vice president instead of the most savvy politically Hillary Clinton, because his wife Michelle didn’t want the latter. It’s Michelle that wears the pants, and if he wins, which I doubt, it will be the first ‘matriarchic’ presidency of the United States.
Your opinion
Will the American electorate be susceptible to the false idealistic promptings of a confused weak leader?
A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to a Bush contrarian
Only the poverty of thought can make a statement such as the”poor republicans...through no fault of their own.” There is no virtue to be found in human beings not making mistakes. No one is infallible, especially in the multi-variable dimensions of war. The virtue lies in swiftly correcting these mistakes. And this is exactly what Bush did when he adopted and implemented the Surge turning a losing war into a potentially victorious one. This was the “major” and crucial policy that “was successfully implemented and carried out” with all the potential geopolitical developments that could flow into the region with the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and hence justifying fully the Bush Doctrine of democratizing the Middle East as a preventive cure for terrorism.
The liberal intelligentsia with their tongue stuck in the bitterness of being totally wrong with their gloomy prognostications about the outcome of the war, cannot and will not concede this ‘reversal of fortune’ for the Bush administration. But history, which has no taste either for bitterness or sweetness, will give the final verdict on Bush. And dare I say it will be a favourable one.
What Obama proposes to do is to deprive America of this tremendous strategic victory over the extremists of Islam by his pledge to pull out US forces from Iraq before the conditions for such a withdrawal are strategically ripe.
If you were an editor even in the most provincial newspaper and spelled out the obvious as news, you would not have held your position as editor for very long. Bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance—like poverty—up to the present inflict even the best and most affluent societies. If educated prosperous America has this bane in its midst you can imagine other less educated and prosperous countries in what state they are in this area. To say however, that either McCain or Palin would select to govern for the irrational beliefs and ignorance of such minorities, is to show that one is completely politically naive and no one can take such person seriously.
And do you really believe that Obama has his “feet on the ground,” when he says that once America starts implementing its own values it will turn the present hate of the world for America into love, into a global loving circle of holding hands, including perhaps the fanatical jihadists?
Always bear in mind the great adage of Friedrich Nietzsche that the character of a person is revealed in critical circumstances, followed by my minuscule one that in hard times only the hard men/women prevail. Obama lacks the strength of character to lead a great nation in these most dangerous times. In the vocation of Statecraft according to his populist policies and faith in changing America he remains an infant and is the ultimate ‘mummy’s boy’. As the worst mummy’s boy is the one who had no mother. (His mother abandoned him when he was an infant to be brought up by his grandparents.) That is why he chose Biden for his vice president instead of the most savvy politically Hillary Clinton, because his wife Michelle didn’t want the latter. It’s Michelle that wears the pants, and if he wins, which I doubt, it will be the first ‘matriarchic’ presidency of the United States.
Your opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)