Thursday Night Open Thread

The U.N. has authorized military strikes and imposed a "no fly zone" in Libya. Secretary of State Clinton said in Tunisia today.

"...that a no-fly zone would include "certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."

The U.S. is monitoring inbound flights from Japan for radiation. So far, there's no cause for concern. Also, the U.S. has chartered flights to evacuate family members of state department officials from the Northeast region of Japan. [More...]

American Idol: I've said for weeks the female contestants are not particularly great this year. No surprise that the bottom three this week were all females. I wish Haley had gone home, I think she's terrible. No such luck. It was Karen Rodriguez, who is way better than Haley. The judges didn't use their one save of the season to keep her, although the vote wasn't unanimous. It was pretty obvious Jennifer would have saved her while Randy wouldn't. The male that needs to go the most is Paul, with his manufactured smile, tacky dance moves and non-singing voice.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Report Criticizes U.S. Immigrant Detention Policy | ATF Agents Reassigned to Phoenix Police Unit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nighty-night music by the late, great... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    I do a pretty good impersonation of Blossom Dearie (none / 0) (#2)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 11:38:04 PM EST
    but I admit, it's a bit on the "making fun of" side...

    Thanks for the link, Dadler.


    YW, and now for something completely different (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 12:20:02 AM EST
    Okay, for you (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 01:45:59 AM EST
    My favorite singer, singing one of my favorite songs, vintage 1956:

    "Moonlight in Vermont," Betty Carter, from the album Social Call


    very nice, TY (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    whew (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:23:57 AM EST
    in other news:
    we are doomed as a species:

    DC's Blog Closes Comments

    In today's installment of "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things" news, The Source, the official blog of the DC Universe, has closed down their comments section following a brief but intense flamewar that broke out on a recent post and spiraled into personal attacks against readers, creators, and members of the DC comics staff.

    As for what could possibly have inspired so much anger from the readers that the Source had to lock the whole site down to keep things from getting worse -- well, it won't surprise anyone who has spent more than five minutes reading any given forum on the Internet that the vitriol was based on a subject of absolute, life-or-death importance: Who runs faster, Superman or the Flash?

    I Don't Read Comics, But... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    ... why all the super heroes, Superman is king, the rest are inferior, unless there is super hero that is immune to kryptonite.  

    They guy turned back time for christ sake, what more is there ?

    I am, kidding, so please no flame wars.


    How about (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:12:17 AM EST
    a compromise position?  The Flash can run faster on the ground, but Superman can fly faster than the Flash can run.

    havent you heard? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:13:17 AM EST
    compromise is a dirty word.  even when it comes to a discussion as completely lame and pointless and that one.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    Yes, I guess it's true.  Especially on the internet- it's so anonymous, people feel as though they can say anything, and don't have to compromise in any way.

    Two thoughts here (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    1.  I would like to see Leonard, Sheldon, Raj and Howard weigh in on this.

    2.  That is one reason why Talk Left is one of my favorite places in Blogtopia* -- the commenting standards.

    * Y!SCTP!

    Jack Balkin has an excellent post up, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:48:43 AM EST
    titled Bradley Manning, Barack Obama and the National Surveillance State, that is well worth reading.

    An excerpt:

    In an interview with Charlie Savage of the New York Times in July of 2009, several months after Obama took office, I explained that we were witnessing a normalization of the National Surveillance State and its basic policies...


    My view, as I expressed to Charlie Savage in that interview, is that Obama has played the same role with respect to the National Surveillance State that Eisenhower played with respect to the New Deal and the administrative state, and Nixon played with respect to the Great Society and the welfare state. Each President established a bi-partisan consensus and gave bi-partisan legitimation to certain features of national state building.

    After the Obama presidency, opponents of a vigorous national surveillance state will be outliers in American politics; they will have no home in either major political party. Their views will be, to use one of my favorite theoretical terms, "off the wall."


    All of which brings me to Private Bradley Manning. The Obama Defense Department's treatment of Manning, a American citizen, has employed the sort of harsh techniques that candidate Obama and his supporters would have loudly decried if applied to Guantanamo Bay inmates or to another American citizen, Jose Padilla.

    It's worth noting that if Private Manning were a prisoner of war, his treatment at the hands of the Obama Administration would violate the Geneva Conventions; indeed, if he were an non-uniformed enemy combatant, his treatment would probably violate Common Article III. Apparently, President Obama has gone Attorney General Alberto Gonzales one better. Not only must he believe that the protections of the Geneva Conventions are quaint, he must also think the same of the Bill of Rights, at least as applied to leakers--or at least, leakers whom the President and his associates did not authorize.

    Many of us have, for some time, and well before the Manning situation, been concerned that the Obama presidency was normalizing many of the terrible policies and practices of the Bush administration; I wish it were the only area where Democrats have blurred the lines that used to separate them from Republicans, but it's not.

    The normalization of it is the worst part (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    When someone like Obama, because of his popularity, and because of the mistaken label that he is a center-left politician, supports these policies, they become mainstream.

    Exactly right, and a terrible waste of a popular president who could have led the nation in the opposite direction:

    After the Obama presidency, opponents of a vigorous national surveillance state will be outliers in American politics; they will have no home in either major political party. Their views will be, to use one of my favorite theoretical terms, "off the wall."

    Not just that he "could have" led (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    us in a different direction, but that he campaigned on doing exactly that.

    His FISA vote was a big, red flag for me - and for a lot of other people - that that Obama was the one we'd see as president.


    Yep - campaigned on it and won (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    fergawdsake. What more permission does he need?

    Yes, that FISA vote was the sign that we were not going to be making any big changes. The 'serious people' think the security state is essential to freedom.


    Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    MADISON, Wis. -- A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday blocking the state's new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect.

    The judge's order is a major setback for Walker and puts the future of the law in question.

    kewl (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    So we've gone no fly in Libya (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:33:05 AM EST
    Fine, but could someone have listened to Wes Clark yesterday?  NOPE

    See, if they would have listened to Wes yesterday suggesting that demanding a cease fire would have been part of the "bargaining" taking place (now there is no bargaining) and direct open lines of communication to the Gaddafi crazies would have been established....and that way when Gaddafi feels some heat he has a much easier way of expressing himself to those who can talk him off the ledge and save more lives and shut this damn thing done much faster....but NOPE...we will go into the whole damned thing STOOPID STOOPID STOOPID.  Sometimes I get tired of the STOOPID

    I think (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:44:01 AM EST
    they want him dead.  or at the very least arrested.

    Sometimes getting to that place (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:45:03 AM EST
    and feeling all justified about it gets a whole lot more people killed though.

    oh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:51:01 AM EST
    no argument
    just sayin.  I dont think they want to talk.

    Pisses me off is all (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    I know he is literally the worst person in the world at this time.  I can't argue with them on that.  But the goal is to end the flying bullets and bombs and they plant their heads right up their butts in how to best get there as quickly as possible.

    good! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    that means you are still sane

    hey (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:17:27 AM EST
    not to get whacked as a site violater or anything but consider getting Homefront.  its cool.  the reviews are not great but its interesting if you read them.  its like they aimed a bit to high for the IQ and attention span of their audience.  they almost all say the story is great but their is not enough shoot um up.
    I would hate to see the company get smacked for trying something new.  not a franchise.  not a typical shooter.  it has a point of view and it has politics in a funny way not common in games.
    do you know the story?  an united Korea invades and occupies the US. makes for some interesting situations.

    I almost got it last night (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:35:18 AM EST
    but I was at Target and we try to give our game business to our local GameStop and keep those employees humming along.  They do a lot for us, to include when my spouse is deployed sneaking things out to our car that are Christmas presents while distracting Josh with something in the store.

    I regret not getting it last night though because Josh is home sick today.  It would make being home sick a little bit better.


    wiki (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:21:24 AM EST
    Homefront is set in a near future America in 2027 when a nuclear-armed Korean People's Army invades the USA. The game is written by John Milius, who co-wrote Apocalypse Now and wrote/directed Red Dawn. The beginning gameplay is reportedly set in Montrose, Colorado.[5]

    One of the major portions of the story arc is built around not only the growth of the North Korean forces over the years leading to the year 2027 (the year in which the game takes place), but also the economic downfall of the United States of America, and the unrest that seems to grip the nation before the invasion.[6]

    Sounds interesting (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    I don't get into games much, but that one sounds intriguing.

    grand theft auto (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    it aint.

    but it is a first person shooter.  


    If he wrote Apocalypse Now (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:37:30 AM EST
    and Red Dawn the Daddy in the house will buy it :)  Do you know that both of the those movies have a cult following in the military?  We own working copies of both.

    its the first completely (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    Hmm (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    I didn't know there were gamers in the TL comments.

    Good stuff.

    Dead Space 2 people.  It is the truth.


    heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    truth it is.

    This household is a huge gamer (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    household.  The early training of new Delilah has pushed it to the side for the moment, but that will be very temporary.  My son is very intelligent, yet has some physical disabilities.  He plans on being a game designer when he is an adult.  Captain Howdy is a game designer.

    in truth (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    I am an artist.  not a designer.  lighter current to be precise.

    not to split hairs (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    but there is a gianormus divide between the "designers" who actually make the stuff up and program the game play and us "artists" who just make it look good.

    Late to the party (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    but can you reveal the shop you work at Capt. Or at the least, can you giveme a game title or two that you've been associated with?

    No worries if not.  I shield my identity like a member of the Justice League.


    sure (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    I think everyone here already knows.  I work for a company called Volition.   in the past we have had to primary "tent pole" franchises.  Red Faction, of which the latest installment, Armageddon, is coming out May 13th(I think) I did lighting on that one and effects on the one before Guerrilla.  and Saints Row which I am on now.  we were just officially announced with Saints Row the Third.  which made the cover of Game Informer.  doing lighting again.

    on (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    and the current big deal is our new deal with Guillermo Del Toro.

    but it will take several months for that to get rolling.


    Saints Row 2 (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    My favorite podcaster and man in Japan Cheapy D loved the game so much that he got to do som vocals for it. Red Faction was excellent and I am looking forward to the sequel.

    Color me impressed.


    I see (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    Even though without you guys, their stuff wouldn't be that great.  The look is part of getting you into the game.  My son and my husband jump when something jumps out at them in a game, cracks me up cuz its a game :)

    Heh, and my cousins were born (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    in Montrose :)

    I am torn (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:49:42 AM EST
    The problem is that the Iraq war jaded us and somewhat made me (speaking for me only) forget first principles of libertarianism. And that principle, when you strip it all down for me, is "help those who are not in a position to help themselves".  

    When Rwanda happened, when South African apartheid was raging, when Bosnia was undergoing turmoil, I wanted us there. I wanted us saving innocent lives and protecting those that could not protect themselves.

    If not for Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan) I think I would be in full support of intervention and the no-fly zone without reservations.

    Obviously the entanglement in a 3rd war has thrown a huge wrinkle into the issue, but does that mean I should give up core principles? Do you set aside the obvious costs and complications?

    When I see Ghaddafi say that there will be "no mercy" for those who dared to demand their own freedom, I feel like there is only one moral response to that. Yes. Possibly with others leading the charge, but yes.  We have to do something.

    So grudgingly, and with dread about the obvious consequences, I support the intervention.  

    It's an interesting situation from an Obama/Hillary perspective because all indications are that Obama was hesititant and both Clintons wanted this action.  And the Hillary view won.

    I find myself more aligned with the Clinton position than the Obama position.  I am glad that she was able to persuade him.


    me too (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:51:24 AM EST
    I support the intervention (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:09:36 AM EST
    I don't see it as another war or able to morph into such a situation.  Following a Clark strategy though would truly make it virtually impossible for it to morph into a war.

    How far are you willing to go? (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:06:33 AM EST
    What if what is really needed is what Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy calls a 'no-drive zone'? Are we going to actually help the rebels win, or just protect them from air strikes?

    One thing that nobody (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    Talked about much on the left blogs is that a no fly zone usually comes with bombings too, and this one was too.  They bomb all the big bases that can be flown out of and certain strategic military targets.  We did it to Saddam too, and then later looked at our handywork up close when Bush had us invade and we even ended up repairing some of it in order to be able to fly our own troops in and out.  We had bombed huge holes into runways, and then our aircraft were having to jockey around them to land and take off.

    hence the ceasefire I think (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:33:03 AM EST
    he want to avoid that.  will it work?  will the believe him?

    I spoke to my spouse (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:39:43 AM EST
    He says that some expect Gaddafi to announce this yet still wage ground attacks and demand that the UN prove he is doing it.  So looks like much of the U.S. military thinks this is most likely just stage 1 a of propaganda war for Gaddifi.  I suppose we will see.  He certainly doesn't want us bombing any of his key military targets.

    Intervention & no-fly (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    From the write-ups & early radio news this morning, the description is that France & Britain have been/are taking the lead for the UN (which makes sense given their primary customer role here.) My question: Understanding that the decision taken & any action that follows really does appear to be a more unified UN Security Council matter, what do you foresee the resource, etc. role of the US being? I have no idea, and may be kidding myself, but it does seem to be one where we are attempting to be in a more "second line" (or something like that?)  Thoughts?

    I tend to agree with Digby (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    that it is all about keeping the oil supply stable. If it were a humanitarian effort we'd be calling for more intervention in Africa and elsewhere, but we don't.

    I don't even get the impression the most danger to the rebels is coming from the air. Are we supporting them on the ground too?

    We are either all in or all out, and let's be honest about the motivations.


    Sorry, meant that as a post, not a reply (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    Clark's plan sounds worth a try. I'd be surprised if negotiations had not already been tried however.

    Clark's plan comes with global (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    announcements though and global consesus building, not backroom talks and deals.  It is very important when confronting these situations to build a global voice and global humanitarian consensus.  It leads to more permanent changes being made.  Clark is genius at such things, and puts a great deal of pressure on evil dictators too doing such things in that fashion.

    I'm less concerned that (none / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    all of our motives may not be pure.  The important thing was to get the int'l community together to act to stop Gaddafi.  Frankly, I'm still a little surprised the UN actually finally did so.  For a few weeks, this one looked like it was going to be slow-walked to death by pols and leaders who may have just wanted to give the impression of acting.

    Now, with the cease fire -- so far, so good.  The move to intervene looks promising.  It was certainly the morally right thing to do regardless of the ultimate outcome.

    Standing and applauding self for calling early on for int'l intervention to stop Gaddafi.


    the schism (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:52:19 AM EST
    Despite having a generally conservative governing record, in the run-up to a possible candidacy, Daniels has managed to alienate all parts of the GOP's so-called "three-legged" stool. He has rattled economic conservatives by floating the possibility of a VAT tax, unnerved national security hawks by talking about defense cuts and seeming indifferent about foreign policy, and angered values voters by calling for a "truce" on social issues while the country confronts the national emergency of our fiscal crisis.

    It's the latter comments that have drawn the most heat, giving his potential rivals an easy opening at conservative events to say that yes, social issues are a priority.

    He's (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:01:48 AM EST
    not running I guess. It would seem that he has no constituency within the GOP.

    I will be amazed if (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:07:27 AM EST
    there is not a wing nut third party run because surely the republicans are not stupid enough to nominate someone crazie enough to please these people?

    but who knows.  maybe they will just so as not to split the party since they know its lose lose.


    I think (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:14:49 AM EST
    that hoping for a third party is just wishful thinking. It's more likely that people just sit home. There's been a schism within the GOP going on for about 20 years now. It's just now coming to a head. What I think is much liklier is that the GOP is completely taken over by the wingnuts eventually, the part suffers massive electoral losses for a few cycles and then the wingnuts finally give up on using the government as a way to validate their social conservatism.

    This country has always ended up in favor of freedoms for people. Now sometimes that may take a while...


    I dont know (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:19:20 AM EST
    I think lots of republicans think Obama is beatable with the right candidate.  I dont think those few sane people will go quietly.

    He is beatable (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    with the right candidate. I just happen to think that the wingnuts would probably sit home more than run a third party. At least that's what they've done in a few elections like '96.

    As bad a candidate as McCain was, he ended up with what? 46% of the vote in '08?

    My prediction from all the information we have on hand now is that '12 is going to be close. I think that the GOP could win but it would be similar to a Jimmy Carter in '76 type win where it's down to the wire. Right now Obama does not have a lot going for him electorally and his reelection plan is downright stupid. Of course, now all this could change on a moment's notice but that's what I kind of see where it is right now.


    Perspective (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:33:33 AM EST
    Obama will not be less popular than he is now.  We've seen the bottom of the unemployment numbers.  The economy is going to be better in a year regardless of Japan and such. Plus, his opponents will have spent the last few years pushing to slash the entitlements of seniors.

    I don't think he even needs a crazy, extreme opponent.

    Th dynamic plays out in such a way that if he stays moderate left, the independents and seniors will cut his way.  That's all he needs to win.


    He's going (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    to have a problem with seniors because he has always had a problem with seniors for whatever reason. He lost the senior vote in '08 and I'm sure will lose it in '12 too with his deficit commission recommendations.

    You cannot rely on the top line numbers for Obama as was witnessed last November. You have to look at the strongly approve/disapprove.

    It is extremely unlikely that the economy is going to get better with the budget cuts that Obama is agreeing to.


    I basically (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:35:19 AM EST

    oh sweet baby jesus yes! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:36:06 AM EST
    David O. Russell to Direct Biopic of Sleaze Auteur Russ Meyer?

    Russ Meyer made cheap, grimy and oddly effective movies filled with violence and astoundingly buxom women. Consequently, he was an inspiration to, possibly even a hero for,  multiple generations of filmmakers, musicians and artists who worked outside the lines. He was a gold standard, really, and films like Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!; Supervixens; Up! and many more were great pictures for both exploitation fans and kids looking for some weird thrills in the days before the internet provided instant access to every possible human fantasy object. (And, yes, he directed Beyond the Valley of the Dolls from Roger Ebert's screenplay.)

    sooo....who do you see playing Russ? (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:57:03 AM EST
    Jack Black? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:05:02 AM EST
    Danny DeVito?  

    DeVito - excellent! He can bring multiple layers. (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    Libya's existing governing (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    declare a CEASEFIRE!!!

    I'm so glad this is functioning well.  I still think Clark's plan is the plan that should always be followed in such situations.  But if we get to ceasefire.....I'm terrific, I'll take it how we get it.

    funny (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:17:49 AM EST
    I think he agrees with my observation upthread.  dontcoo?

    It would seem so :) (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:21:10 AM EST
    Fear of being snuffilicious (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    on the way out the door (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    TUNIS (Reuters) - Twenty-five people, including several children, were killed during heavy bombardments by forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on the western city of Misrata on Friday, a doctor in the city told Reuters.

    This would seem to go hand in hand (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    with what my husband predicts will happen with Gaddifi.

    Can you imagine... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    ...if we had a government that actually possessed the kind of imagination and creativity and humility that any country that advertises itself as "the greatest and most free nation on earth" should have?

    As it is, we're stuck with people who don't even know how to tell a joke.  As such, we are stuck with people who can't even understand one.

    None of our actions in this arena, helping those who seek to be "free" (when we ourselves can't even decide what being free means), will be worth a dime until we can stand up, apologize genuinely for our wretched crimes, and behave like a humble, self-aware nation is supposed to.  That is, until we show the world that we can say "Boy, are we full of sh*t or what?" and act on that principle, then all of our talk and actions are in the service of the status quo.

    IOW, we are not capable, right now, of helping anyone do anything.  Our help is illusory, as it comes from a nation that can't even decide to affirmatively help its poorest citizens.  So we're REALLY going to help others?

    Sorry, but we are far too delusional and corrupt right now to help anyone but ourselves.  ONLY when we get our OWN sh*t together at home can we genuinely have any impact abroad.  


    Take THAT you half-pint bully (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:16:07 AM EST