Wednesday Open Thread
- North and South Korea have agreed to hold a summit in August, only their second ever.
- Fox reports breathlessly on the ("warning! contains graphic language") horror of firemen who were forced to attend a Gay Pride parade, and are now suing for sexual harassment :
I felt that I was forced against my will to be at the Gay Pride Parade and forced to see men in tight shorts dancing provocatively
- The Democratic candidates for President participated in the AFL-CIO debate last night, with mixed results .
- Some dude in some sport broke some record, so I hear.
This is your open thread. Treat it gently.
Submitted by pico on Wed, 2007-08-08 06:28
Tags:
Comments :
I have a diary up at dkos
that I didn't expect to get much attention, but there it is. Must See Film: The Devil Came on Horseback
. The film chronicles the efforts of a former U.S. Marine who found himself as witness to the genocide in Darfur, and has been bending over backwards to get the international community involved. Powerful stuff (the film, not my diary).
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am at work
getting ready for a meeting... Didn't watch the debate last night but read a few reviews and some of dkos live blog.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
When you get a chance,
I'd be interested in hearing your reactions to this diary
by Jay Elias, especially his predictions in the last major paragraph.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I agree with many of his conclusions
that theory makes sense. I've heard of that before. However that theory makes sense in Iraq due to the current circumstances and would not have created similar conclusions had different tactics been employed.
The theory generally works with more balanced sides but when a huge imbalance exists (like we could've created in Iraq initially with overwhelming force and more troops) it does not matter what the importance of winning was to US. So the theory is good for prolonged conflicts.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Senator Durbin (D-Illinois) was on NPR this morning,
He's over in Iraq right now and he said some very pertinent things.
He said what US troops are doing over there matters. He said that what they are doing is making a difference. I know the conservatives here don't like to hear Democrats say such things, but it's true. We aren't the ones who are your problem. It's your chosen leaders who are your problem.
Senator Durbin also said that the troops he's talked to don't hate being in Iraq, but feel like they're wasting their time and lives because the people they're there for (the Iraqi's & the bush43 administration that has sent them there) don't care about them beyond the headlines they can make.
He said the troops (and the military commanders he spoke to so far) say that the Iraqi government is doing absolutely nothing about taking the stability and turf we're giving them and making that a functional national setting. He said the Iraqi's are still acting like it's a gang war turf battle between each other. He said the Iraqi government doesn't really exist outside the Green Zone and that the current government is nothing but a Shia (Sadr) puppet. One of the US commanders he spoke to said that at this point, it doesn't matter if we pull US troops out now, or ten years from now. The Commander told Senator Durbin the Iraqi's are only set to kill each other whenever the US pulls out.
I know the bush43 administration is hanging their hat on the hope that we leave Iraq a pseudo-western democracy that will sell us oil. I know that Darth Cheney really only cares about the oil distribution law that the Iraqi's have yet to pass. Who'se kidding who? As soon as we're gone, any oil contracts that've been signed will be torn up and a whole new round of bribery and corruption will occur.
I'm sorry that dubya pulled off such a boneheaded move as to leave Afghanistan and attack Iraq, but not admitting it was a complete mistake only gets more American GI's killed for no good reason.
We liberals support our troops. We care about them, what happens to them and their families. When are the Republicans in our midst going to start treating our troops as more than chess pieces and cannon fodder for their news headlines? When are the Republicans in our country going to stand up and do something about the troops we've all put in harms way? When?
Way to go, kindness!!
The above-mentioned quote from your post says it all.....in a nutshell, kindness!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!! Way to go!!
Another one bites the dust
Just too good not to share. The newly elected head of the Young Republican National Federation goes down.
(h/t Dan Savage)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I love it....
....I love all stories like this.
Those that preach from a position of repressing sexuality, then see it bubble over in their own life in an unhealthy way.
It is my hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of moralizers on the subject of sexuality, are in fact closet practitioners of the very behaviors they are spouting off about.
Whenever I see some religious right jackass get in front of the microphones to tell us all about he evils of gay marriage, I immediately wonder who his boyfriend is.
Thanks, PF. Stories like this brighten my day.
;-)
Like I said last week..... another fanatic down, billions more to go.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Merry christmas
My Dreams of Flame series of posts on GNN were nothing but stories of GOP hypocrites getting outed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If I may be crude,
the guy in question is on the record saying
Truer words never spoken!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Think of how much money he could save the party.
He could run his campaigns through the personals on Craigslist.
Every time...
Every time a closeted gay Republican gets outed in the media...
....an angel gets its wings.
;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
It gets better
The man's attorney posted to the blog that the victim's sister got it on videotape.
Prime, stop dancing. It's undignified.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Youtube. That is all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
wait...
I'm not clear from the article if the firefighters were ordered to march in the parade or if they were ordered to be on hand for safety purposes.
I don't think they should be compelled to march in a parade they don't agree with, but if they were there to do their actual jobs then they get to suck it up (no pun intended).
I assume if a fire broke out in a gay club these men would do their job regardless, even if it means be exposed to a sexual lifestyle they aren;t comfortable with. If not they should be fired.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It's not so clear
Here's some of what the actual complaints say:
"While moving down the parade route we were subject to verbal abuse (show me your hose, you can put out my fire, give me mouth to mouth, f*** you firemen), sexual gestures (showing their penis, blowing kisses, grabbing their crotch, rubbing their nipples, tongue gestures, flipping us off)"
"I became so distraught and uncomfortable that my knees began to shake"
Had the recipients of this been women and the perpetrators straight men, would the harassment aspect be clearer to you?
This is a difficult issue, because under current federal sexual harrassment laws, exposure to this type of behavior does indeed qualify as sexual harrassment, IMO. The exact culpability of the fire department and how that balances with their role in the community will have to be decided by the courts.
Harassment like this is not a laughing matter. I've been harassed. Recently I've been sexually harassed in SL, and even in a virtual world, where physical contact is impossible, it makes you angry and still makes your knees shake.
If we are going to have harassment laws, they have to apply equally, regardless of gender or orientation.
EDIT: and it appears from the complaint that they were essentially just another float in the parade and not there in an official firefighting capacity
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Interesting scenario
While I see your point, I think some professions while on the field should expect a hostile environment. Can you imagine a police officer filing a complaint for every time he/she was subjected to harassment? (This is if they were there in an official capacity which I understand now that they were not).
In light of the non-official status, perhaps specific individuals could be arrested/sued for violating rights, but to sue the city/fire department over their attendance is a bit much.
Suing the entire department/city might set a bad precedent even if they were forced to be there due to the fact that firefighters regularly participate in other parades (including religious parades
--here also 
). I think the fact that it is a 'Gay Pride' parade should not be seen as anything different.
P.S. I am sorry you faced sexual harassment recently. It is emerging as a major problem
at SL (I think we discussed virtual crimes at SL here briefly before).
I agree, somewhat
I tend to agree that suing the department sounds like a bit much, and that culpability is not clear, but sometimes we have to take things to the courts when laws and real world situations collide, as in this case. The court can provide some specific guidance that future lawmakers (and policymakers) can incorporate.
There are always risks that well-intentioned laws will be misinterpreted or misapplied. "There ought to be a law" is sometimes a dangerous supposition. And the results of this case might indeed have an affect on other types of parades and demonstrations, as you mention.
EDIT: gratuitous Rush quote ". . . .so they passed a noble law, and the trees are all kept equal / by hatchet, axe, and saw. . . "
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Thanks
And in defense of your gender, I've had the support of nice guys in both cases, both from friends and from total strangers who witnessed the attacks.
But, I was still glad I was already armed with the best defensive and offensive weaponry system SL money can buy. And glad I was on my own land when the first one tried to cage me, because I was able to trap and then orbit his sorry ass.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
huh?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, are you saying "specific individuals" as in marchers or "specific individuals" as in the people within the FD who ordered them to attend?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I meant marchers
but I think participation in parades should be voluntary. Litigation of the chief (individuals within the FD) should only be based on whether the firefighters were forced to attend other parades in the past. If they never complained about those, then I don't see how they can complain about being forced to attend this one.
The firefighters should be able to go after the individuals (marchers) who they feel harassed them though, even if it makes the judge laugh.
(edit): I agree with your statement below though ("again, wait")
again, wait.
That has nothing to do with it. If these actions were being taken by coworkers there is no doubt they would be sexual harrassment. But they weren't taken by coworkers they were taken by people apparently unaffiliated with the fire department in any way. There is no law against suggestively gesturing at a woman on the street (unless nudity is involved). The Firefighters cannot sue the people who made the gestures they are instead suing their employer for requiring them to be there.
Now whether that is valid or not depends a lot on in what capacity they were there. If they were there in an official capacity to provide safety services then they really have no grounds to sue. If they were ordered to participate in the parade not as firefighters per se but as marchers then I do think their complaint has some standing.
I don't think anyone was laughing here.
But that's precisely the question. You can lick your lips suggestively at a police officer who is on duty and it isn't any form of actionable sexual harrassment. Society does not so far make criminal such actions in social settings between non-coworkers.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
One clarification
With regards to this:
As my employers always interpreted the law, the employer retains responsibility for the entire work environment, regardless of whether or not the actors are employees. For example, an employer would be responsible if a manager said that today's staff meeting would occur at a topless bar, even though the employees of the bar are unaffiliated.
I agree that with regards to law enforcement and firefighters in their usual role (which these were not) the line is not so clear. Which is why this will probably have to be decided in court.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Yes, but...
Yes in that case the employer is culpable because they are forcing you into a situation you are uncomfortable with. The topless bar owner, employees and patrons are not culpable. As an alternate example your employer is not culpable if they order you to go see a client and the client's shop happens to be next to a topless bar. Nor, i suspect, would they if your job is to inspect basements for radon buildup and the topless bar is next on the list for monitoring- your job requires you to be there in an official capacity if you can't then you shouldn't do that work.
Again it depends on what capacity the firefighters were ordered to attend. If as you say above they were merely part of the parade itself then I think they have grounds in a complaint against the person who ordered them to go.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
oh yeah?
Recently, I fell asleep during a virtual "date" with someone in SL (*cough* purpleface *cough*) and awoke to find, placed in my inventory, pictures of my avatar with a 12-inch dildo attached to its forehead, among other things.
;-)
Of course, I deserved it. heehee.... ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
12" you say?
I have several gay friends that play on SL.
They want to know your number......
Alas...
It wasn't my 12" penis. Purpleface and her husband just happened to attach it to my forehead to photograph me.
Had this been the real world, they would have been guilty of sexual harassment. ;-) They are anti-narcoleptics.
I think that qualifies it as a "hate crime". hehe.
It was no different than hazing some passed out kid at a frat house by putting one's dick in his mouth and taking a picture.
;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
That was not harassment. That was revenge ;}
Technically, it was a penis, not a dildo. A human one, at least. You should be grateful that I restrained my hubby. The blindfold was a nice touch, I thought. As was the cow and the dead parrot.
And hey, as I said, it could have been much worse. It was only the hubby and I who offloaded the, um, best of our inventory trash upon your sleeping avatar. Had we invited the whole nightclub to join in, you can just imagine what might have ended up attached to your body.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
The photos
It was hard to choose which ones, but here's some that work.
The before. Such a nice beach, too.
And the after, sans the final item. Even a cartoon version might violate the site's decency standards.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Whiplash...
...weren't you the one earnestly telling me that sexual harrassment is no laughing matter?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes I was
Your funny bone is still missing, Tlaloc. This is not harassment. It's payback. And it's not even sexual.
;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I get that it's okay between you two
my point is that those actions certainly would be considered harrassment (and placing a dildo on someone's head has a few sexual overtones) were PM to object.
Harrassment is only harrassment if someone objects after all, because, like rape, it's a matter of an action going against consent not of the action itself being inherently wrong.
Put it this way the marchers in the parade would almost certainly tell the firemen it wasn't harrassment it was just a bit of harmless fun.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Understood
But it was the hubby's idea, not mine. What does THAT say? This hetero guy-to-guy stuff always confuses me. . . .
To be serious though, I do understand what you're saying and agree. The law is actually very vague on this and in practice relies on how the recipient feels about the environment and effectively ignores the intentions of the supposed harassers.
One legal reference I found described it this way:
So in the case of the firemen, their supervisors ordered them to participate in a community service event (not exactly equivalent to their normal line of work) which created a workplace environment of "unwelcome" sexual conduct. What the parade goers intended is functionally irrelevant under the law. It is how the firemen felt that matters in court.
But in the case of our hazing of Prime, it does not appear to meet the criteria of "unwelcome" or even necessarily sexual. But under the law, that is his call to make, so we did take a legal risk in doing what we did.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Woot!
I've reconsidered. I consider what you and your hubby did to be "most unwelcome" and it has damaged my self-esteem beyond repair.
I've decided to sue, and I've hired Tlaloc as my attorney.
We are suing for $12 trillion Lindens... which is approximately $5.35 US. ;-)
Seriously... you took no legal risk in what you did... SL is a pretend world. The only risk you took was in having your SL account suspended.
There is no circumstance where a physical action taken against someone's avatar could be considered harrassment or assault in the jurisdiction of the United States.
....and if there is such a circumstance, then our society is FUBARed beyond all repair.
If my avatar rapes your avatar in SL, there should be no court in the U.S. that takes up that case as a real assault or harrassment case. Avatars are pixelized puppets, for chrissakes. I'd like to see any "victim" in some such case try to claim some harm in a U.S. court. At most, some $$$ for aggravation and for the perpetrator to have their SL account cancelled. Nobody will ever spend time in a real jail for crimes committed against another avatar in SL.
"Your honor, his puppet had sex with my puppet against my wishes. Give him the chair!"
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
According to conventional wisdom
physical scientists make awful lawyers.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes, but...
In SL, you can be anything you want.
;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
OMG did you see it?
A glimpse, a brief glimpse, of Tlaloc's very dry sense of humor.
;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Leave it to
The Onion to shed light on what the firefighters wanted to attend
.
Hahaha,
lovely.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Crimes at SL
are very possible. (I am putting this comment in a new thread so as not to hijack with a tangent--see the end of this comment
for the original reference).
It seems those collars for BDSM that PM discussed are possible to slip into any item
an avatar accepts or buys. These collars allow another avatar to control yours leading to a situation in which one cannot voluntarily escape.
Stealing property by copying
is also a problem.
My two cents
The analogy to virtual murder is apt, I think, when thinking about whether or not there should be real-world punishments for virtual crimes.
Just speaking for myself, despite being physically affected by the SL harassment, I would have a hard time saying that these guys deserved some sort of real-world punishment. It's like anything else: the first time it happens, you are taken by surprise, and that is almost as irritating as the attack itself. The second time, you have a plan and remain in control of the situation, even if it still sucks that you have to experience it.
As long as my weapons systems function better than theirs, and as long as SL doesn't punish me for justifiable retaliation (even if I have to crash an entire sim and melt every avatar on it to do so) then I'd rather go libertarian on this one. If my weapons don't work, or for those who do not have any, there is always the off button.
But then again, I've only been attacked by amateurs. I'm sure there are guys out there who've spent time perfecting their traps. But how is that different from real life? I'm not guaranteed safety here either. It's a risk one takes by participating in an open, virtual community.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
More SL in the news today
Must be a slow news day. CNN has a story up about the predicted explosion in attendance in virtual worlds
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
personally
I am waiting for Virtual Reality type stuff where it's a bit more realistic :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Condi Rice treats "the little people" horribly.
Who else has seen this post?
It started yesterday, and Crooks and Liars linked to it today.
Apparently Condi and her good chum, a Stanford Professor, were out shopping at a local store (for jewelry), and this lead in & exchange took place between Condi & the Salesperson:
"when our Secretary of State was on a shopping trip to purchase some jewelry and the saleswoman brought her earringt that she didn't deem worthy of her salary, Rice snapped "Let's get one thing straight. You're behind the counter because you have to work for the minimum wage. I'm on this side because I make considerably more."
Classy. Real classy.
Clark on Iraq withdrawal
General Wes Clark has a diary on dKos talking about exiting Iraq. Here are two snips, first from the diary:
And then from a comment that specifically addresses the logistics of withdrawal:
Good stuff. We have to move into this level of thinking about this. It's gonna be hell any way we slice it. There's a place for the blame game, but we need to be talking strategy and taking a hard look at what we face in the future.
EDIT: Found one more Clark comment that's pertinent, I think. This is the entire comment
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Immediate pull out
I don;t think anyone has seriously suggested we actually remove the troops immediately. Rather what a growing number have called for is to begin the process immediately. Anyone who has thought about the topic knows the withdrawal will take a minimum of months and likely a year or more, but that timeframe never starts counting down until we actually begin,
If the president wanted to order three aircraft carrier strike groups to the persian gulf to cover the withdrawal (and assuming we had some reason to believe they weren't intended to attack Iran) I'd be all for it. By all means do what you need to to make the withdrawal as clean and safe as possible but for god's sake get it started *now*.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Strategy vs Tactics
I saw some of this in the dKos comments, which is why I added Clark's last comment: "stop talking about troops and start talking about policy."
Moving troops is a tactical step. It is not a strategic step. We need to talk about the bigger issues and get the other strategic items in order before we begin moving men around. He mentions some in his diary: the political machinations, the regional ramifications, etc, none of which have been begun yet. (And, realistically, IMHO, cannot probably be handled effectively by the current Administration's players.)
One dKos commentor put it pretty succinctly (and I paraphrase): Do you really want to leave the way we went in --- without a plan?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
No strategy
The reason we are getting out is because we have no winning strategies in the area so it's kind of a dead end to talk about. All we have for the moment are tactical steps. Once we get out then we can approach the strategic situation anew.
To put it another way when your house is on fire is not the time to think about whether you should move to a different neighborhood. Get the fire out first. Deal with the emergency which is destroying you, the long range planning has to wait.
Besides which the best long range plan is precisely the same as the immediate tactical need: get the hell out. Our presence is far more damaging than helpful. Our interests in the region are not served by our presence.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Plan for what?
I mean, any thing we might "plan" on....what good is it? The Iraqi "government" that we've set up hasn't done anything to help stabilize their end of the deal. At this point, I don't think that there'd be any difference in what happens in Iraq if either we pull out tommorrow or we pull out in 10 years.
And let's not forget, the comparisons that dubya has made with regard to what his choice scenerio of the US "presence" (occupation) of Iraq is the model of US forces in Germany and South Korea. He was serious too! He thinks US forces should be in Iraq for the next 50 years.
Some may think an occupying army sitting in an unwelcoming middle eastern country for 50 years is a good idea. I'm not one of 'em though.
Planning
Planning is a key part of any military action. The lack of effective planning is often cited as part of the reason Iraq is so FUBAR'd, is it not?
The General seems to think we need a strategic plan too. And he's on your side of the aisle.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
My thoughts were less to do with what General Clark
said, so much of what I have observed on le affaire Iraqi from afar.
I have great regard for General Clark. he certainly holds much more tactical knowledge than I do.
But....there's always a but.....if all that's going to happen is that the Iraqi's gang up and try to throttle each other after we're gone....what good is a plan going to do? It won't be followed when we leave. I'm NOT saying there should be no plan. I am saying a plan is only going to be of value while we're there to back it up. When we finally do leave, all bets are off.
And that's his point
We are all accustomed to viewing l'affaire Iraqi from afar. We have to stop that. There are tough times still ahead and pretty soon, we won't have this President around as a scapegoat. It will be some other President's job to clean this mess up.
His sketchy outline in the dKos diary included brokering deals with folks who will be there after we leave. We have to discern what our options are with regards to our allies in the region, our other bases there, the ports we use to protect international shipping, the other regional instabilities, and the rich Iraqi oil fields that everyone wants a piece of. As I mentioned already, I am not certain we have the right people in the right jobs who can even begin these type of diplomatic actions. Do we let them start and risk their bungling them? That's only one question we need to ask and answer.
The plan we need is strategic and therefore is much bigger than "how do we get out of Iraq" -- it's "how do we salvage the Middle East." It's policy, not tactics.
If I knew the answers I'd not be posting here. But I agree with him; focusing only on getting the troops home is far too short sighted a view.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Presumptions.
It is definitively not our job to "salvage" the middle east. It's precisely that kind of presumption of our own infinite authority that got us here. We have no right, if you wish to think morally, and no capacity, if you wish to think practically, to remake the middle east as we wish.
Bringing our troops home is exactly the right goal because it is the only step we can take that is legitimate. We remove ourselves from a situation we had no business interfering in.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Clarification
I don't mean imperialism, or remaking the Middle East, by any stretch of the imagination. But we do have interests in the region that we cannot simply ignore, and we should not pretend that they will not be adversely affected by an ill-planned withdrawal from Iraq.
Now, we could say that yes, we know what will most likely happen to all of our interests in the region if all we do is remove our troops, and we are willing to let it happen; that would be one strategic option. But I'd be happier if I felt that we evaluated all our options first; if we then happen to decide that that is the most reasonable one, then fine.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
LOL
Ha, now THAT's funny. Revisionist garbage if you ask me. The left has been going on and on about their "mandate from the people" to end the war NOW.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Reading comprehension...
please develop some.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
you two
are too fricken hilarious... :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Is China threatening to dump US Treasury Bonds?
I'm not sure what to make of it. The Telegraph(UK) has an article out that says that's what China is threatening to do
. We're in deep sh*t if they do that, you all know. Big Dollar Collapse.
I caught it through SadlyNo! who was making fun of HotAir!
but I don't really see much humor in it....
The threat is implied...
..by the mere fact that they hold such a vast reserve of dollars-- there doesn't even have to be an expressed threat. I hear a lot of "get tough" talk on trade with China by Bernie Sanders and other pro-labor progressives but it's easier said than done when you've got this implied threat hanging over your head. I just don't see how we are realistically in a position to make a lot of demands in our trade agreements with China currently.
I think this is absolutely a critical issue. I consider myself to be very pro-environment, but I feel that reducing our trade deficit is so crucial that I favor things like aggressively opening up areas for domestic oil & gas drilling in currently protected areas-- this would put a big dent in our total trade deficit, and I haven't heard of any alternative that would have an equivalent effect. But this strategy always lays a big egg on my side of the aisle.
We're in a bit of a spot currently, and people need to wake up and figure out that we can either choose our compromises now, or have them chosen for us later.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Oh bloody hell...
source
Bugger.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This sounds like good news to me
We want Pakistan to be addressing extremists within its borders, so we don't have to.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
On a good day...
...Pakistan, and its small but significant cache of nuclear weapons, are 15 minutes and one bullet away from a hardline fundamentalist take over.
If they actually declare a state of emergency it means this isn't one of their good days.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Overly dramatic much?
You'll have to explain this 15 minute, 1 bullet plan to everthrow the Pakistani government.
Tell me this: if it's so darn easy to overthrow the Pakistani Government, why haven't the extremists done it already? What are they waiting for?
I'm as worried about unsecured nukes as the next guy, but let's not go overboard here...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I really don't think so.
It's not a plan, it's a measure of general instability of the government. It means they only need to make one mistake and it'll be over before they get a chance to make a second. If you doubt that a single bullet can make such a difference in a region of high tensions I'd like to introduce you to my friend the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
You misunderstand me. It's not that the fundamentalists can do it anytime they want, it's that there is a lot of unease and resentment towards the corrupt military dictatorship of Pakistan and it can boil over in a heartbeat. And the people best positioned to grab power in the chaos are Osama's best buddies. It's not exactly a secret that the ISI is more than sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists (having, you know, trained them).
Add to that the 50 years of sectarian related bloodshed between India and Pakistan and the fact that both are now pointing nuclear weapons at each other. The region is the proverbial powder keg. I really don't want to hear Musharraf use the words "national emergency."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
China's naval modernization efforts
CRS report here
it's pretty interesting and covers they strengths and weaknesses. the following tidbits struck me as particularly interesting: