Obama Speaks at U.N.

President Obama addressed the U.N. today. Here is the full text of his remarks.

< New Video Message From Hostage John Cantlie | French Hostage in Algeria Beheaded After Demands Rejected >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Prety Hard for America... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    ...to argue:
    • what Russia is doing is bad after we invaded Iraq for lesser reasons.
    • that we have a goal of eliminating extreme poverty globally when we aren't doing anything about it at home.
    • we will do are part in reducing greenhouse gases when half the country thinks its all a myth.

    I basically get, don't look at us, just do as we say and all will be fine in the world because our ideas are great, never mind that we don't actually adhere to them, that isn't the point here.

    My fourth and final point is a simple one: the countries of the Arab and Muslim world must focus on the extraordinary potential of their people - especially the youth.

    And Obama needs those extraordinary young people to join other young people in a war to save the region we decimated and unstabilized a decade ago.

    I know I am being cynical, but damn, he wants war and wants everyone to participate, but uses words that don't reflect the nature of war.  And while I agree with most of his views, how in the he11 is going to sell it globally when he can't even sell it at home.  And by it, I mean all of it, not just war.

    My views are different. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Green26 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    The situation in Russia and Iraq are completely different. Apples to oranges. The US was certainly not trying to just grab territory in Iraq.

    I thought there had been significant strides in eliminating poverty in the US, as well as abroad. Is this not true? "According to the new research, the safety net helped reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. The results were especially striking during the most recent economic downturn, when the poverty rate barely budged despite a massive increase in unemployment." Washington Post article.

    I thought the US had done a significant amount to reduce greenhouse gases. Not true? Isn't what the US has done and is actually doing more important than what polls say about the beliefs of Americans? Bloomberg article.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 12:02:50 PM EST
    when the new Great Satan Russia-Putin is doing it it's "just" to grab territory; while the U.S's engagements in the ME are always complex, multi-faceted, and rife with tough choices that are forced upon us.



    Dumb Comparison, IMO (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    To compare Putin's annexation of Crimea and Ukraine to what Bush did in Iraq is really silly. It is not a far cry from the birthers BS. Something to score points for some imaginary political agenda.

    If Obama decided that Mexico should belong to the US, then we would have something similar to compare.


    If you would ever expand your (3.80 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    comments beyond describing things as "silly," "dumb" and "poor," we might think you actually had something of substance to add to the discussion.  

    It's hard to take seriously someone who just sits and waits for others to provide substance, links and research so that you can play Roger Ebert Does Politics.  

    Thumbs Up!  Thumbs Down!

    Oh, wait, those aren't thumbs...


    Where is the substance in this comment? (3.89 / 9) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    How very meta (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    Where is the substance in this comment? (3.50 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 01:13:15 PM MDT
    Is that what you intended.

    No. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    Aw... (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    I think I'm sorry to hear that -- it was an excellent example.

    Intention would have made it kind of brilliant.


    Roger, is that you? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    So predictable.  Like peas in a pod.

    Way off topic oculus (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    but believe I've found what should happen when you and kdog next get together. The maybe perfect oculus/kdog mix.... Arlo Guthrie at Carnegie Hall

    The Job Offer Still Stands (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    Squeaky's secretary....

    shudder... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sj on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:55:13 PM EST
    Some people should never be bosses.

    I agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    no love for Bush here.  But the comparison is a fail.

    Except the Ukraine had been (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    been part of the USSR (though not b/c it wanted to be). Maybe Russia is to Ukraine as U.S. Is to the Phillipines.

    That may not be a good comparison -- yet. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    Following the successful conclusion of the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States embarked upon a ruthless three-year war of subjugation (1899-1902) in the Philippines.

    President William McKinley's "Proclamation of Benevolent Assimilation," which he issued in December 1898, clearly reneged on initial intimations made to Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo in June 1898 that the U.S. government would recognize his country's independence, once the surrender of the Spanish army then occupying Manila had been secured. The war formally began in February 1899.

    One can credit the American military and the McKinley-Roosevelt administrations with having effectively stage-managed American public opinion throughout the conflict, which was achieved in large part by a ban on media coverage in the war's active theatre of operations.

    Thus, even though 6,165 American soldiers died in the war, relatively few people back home at the time would ever know or learn that their government was then engaged in a savage campaign of conquest in the Philippines.

    (The official U.S. estimate of the Filipino death toll in the war is 250,000, but contemporaneous estimates offered by American military commanders at the time actually place that number at closer to 800,000.)

    That deception continues in part to this very day, because while most history textbooks play up the importance and significance of the Spanish-American War, few if any even mention the far bloodier and longer Philippine-American War.

    Rather, we've since been sold on the dubious notion -- reinforced greatly by the Japanese-compelled U.S. military surrender of the Philippines in early 1942, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur's vainglorious vow to return thereafter -- that Filipinos really do love the United States.

    But the harsh truth be told, there's actually very little love lost between our two countries, and most Filipinos still harbor no small amount of resentment toward our unstinting support of Ferdinand Marcos's 20-year dictatorship.

    And I fear that if not soon deterred from their adventures in Ukraine, the Russians might soon make the American experience in the Philippines a valid comparison after all.



    Greenhouse Gases (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    I think your definition of significant is where we vary.

    From your link:

    The U.S. can reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 if it enacts proposed rules to cut pollution from power plants and curbs methane leaks, the U.S. State Department said in a report today.

    In order for the nation to meet the goal laid out by President Barack Obama for cutting reductions relative to 2005 levels, the country will need to follow through with proposals to curb carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, spur use of high-efficiency light bulbs, and policies to boost solar and wind deployment, said the draft report, which will be submitted to the United Nations.

    In other words has not happened, and Greenhouse gases in 2005 are right under half of 2010, HERE is a graph.  Notice the curve is damn near vertical, which means by 2020 they are going to be at levels around 10x current levels.

    Kilotonnes of CO2 for the world in 2010, 33,615,389  for the US 5,433,057 or 16.1%.  Even though we hold 4.43% of the world's population.   That is nearly 4 times, aka 363%, even if we reduce by 17% that would be 4,509,437 kiltonnes or 13.4% in 2010 numbers.  Which is 3 times the average CO2 emissions per person.

    That to me is not a significant reduction, namely because it has not happened, but for the sake of this argument, even if it did, it is in no way a significant reduction in relation to the planet.  It's a drop in the bucket at best, at worse, it will not happen because industry has convinced people is all a hoax.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jack203 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    I think Obama is trying to make the best out of a bad, very bad situation.

    He was trying his damnedest to stay out of this mess until ISIS began to attack one of our only allies in the region the Kurds.   Although the Kurds were not innocent in this conflict after taking Kirkuk.  The Kurds begged for our help once ISIS began to attack them, and Obama was in a bad spot.  Abandoning your allies and allowing ISIS to continue their momentum, or to get drawn in a complete clusterf*ck of a situation.

    It's a matter of how drawn in we are.  Hopefully not much.  Obama sure blustered around and wagged the stick against Assad 2 years ago, and the end result was that the civilized world stressed the importance of not using WMDs and accepting Assads WMD stockpiles.  It wasn't pretty, but the end result wasn't bad.

    One thing is for sure, the different factions of the Middle East are very good at manipulating us. Our politicians and the majority of American public seem always willing to bomb someone, anyone in the Middle East when we get drawn into choosing sides.

    I understand Obama is going to take some heat for his Middle East policies.  But I think he has done better than most to try an untangle ourselves from the disaster that is the Middle East.  Maybe it's just that after Bush, everyone looks good.  But I still approve of Obama's handling of the ME.

    Hopefully our next president does even better.


    I would like to think we weren't (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 07:31:36 PM EST
    Very committed, but we pulled together regional players that worked even harder than we did to ignore addressing ISIS.

    I think we are in pretty deep.  And whenever they tell us a three year commitment go ahead and add three more years because that is what they really meant.

    We probably have to stay in to keep the regional actors in play.


    1967 ?? (4.50 / 6) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    Going back nearly 50 years is silly, but even then, right now using your number 16%,  that is roughly 1 in 6 in poverty. If you think that's anywhere near eradicating poverty, well then I understand why our views differ.

    From the US census:

    • In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down from 15.0 percent in 2012. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006.
    • In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year's estimate.
    • The 2013 poverty rate was 2.0 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.
    • The poverty rate for children under 18 fell from 21.8 percent in 2012 to 19.9 percent in 2013.
    • The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.6 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 9.5 percent. Neither of these poverty rates were statistically different from their 2012 estimates.
    • Both the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased for Hispanics in 2013.
    • Despite the decline in the national poverty rate, the 2013 regional poverty rates were not statistically different from the 2012 rates.

    Lowering it is arguable, depending on long/short term stats, but is it's no where near eradicating it, which is what Obama stated.  

    1 in 10 retirees in poverty and 1 in 5 children should be criminal, certainly not the numbers one expects from a country who believes they can eradicate it globally.

    Russian land grab = Bad
    US oil grab = Good

    Or should have Putin stated that he believes they had WMD's ?  

    Is there any valid reason for a country to invade another one that did not attack them ?

    Since August 2005, the majority of Americans have viewed the invasion of Iraq as a mistake.  But that wasn't my point, my point was that we invaded a sovereign country and now we are chastising another country doing the same thing.

    I would describe it as mildly the same in that they didn't shock and awe or create decks of cards of the bad guys to murder.  Nor did they spent a billion dollars and way too many soldiers lives only to face the redux.  Not with a new war, just dealing with the aftermath of a previous one.  So those number can only increase.

    Apples and Oranges indeed.


    Real good info Scott... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    Poor Comparison (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    And poor logic, iMO.

    BushCo, in the name of the US tortured people, should th US just nod in agreement for time immemorial, (or do you have a time limit) when another country or group of people, or person tortures?

    And since Stalin killed so many people in the name of Russia, is Russia never allowed to condemn mass killing?

    Sounds to me as silly as stuff the GOP spouts off in order to score political points against Obama.


    I Understand What You Are Saying... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    ...and I agree, but the point was not about agreeing, which I stated, above in the "don't look at us, just do as we say and all will be fine in the world because our ideas are great" comment.  

    The point is getting a coalition, which is pretty hard to do when we don't even do the things here at home.

    My points are clearly republican pitfalls, Iraq, poverty in America, and Global Warming.

    So while I didn't come out an say it, the reason Obama is standing on hypocrisy is the GOP and there love of war, hatred of the poor, and love of big industry with a side of refusal to believe scientific facts in regard to the planet.


    Makes Sense (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    But you imply that Obama blessed BushCO's war on Iraq.

    Russian land grab = Bad
    US oil grab = Good

    And the poverty, yes the Congress has much to blame, both D's and R's but the R's basic policy depends on a large base of poverty stricken individuals to work for peanuts, fill the jails, and join the military. Obama, Clinton and other mainstream D's do not share those values or work to enforce those policies.

    We know what we need to do -- make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like. But realistically, the immediate challenge is keeping what we have. Representative Paul Ryan and his ideological peers would slash everything from Social Security to Medicare and on through the list, and would hand out more tax breaks to the people at the top. Robin Hood would turn over in his grave.

    NYT Peter Edelman  the author, most recently, of "So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America."


    Actually, the poverty rate is far higher (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Sep 28, 2014 at 04:52:12 PM EST
    The census uses (I am approximating here) $21,500 annual income for a family of four as the cut-off for determining who in the U.S. lives in poverty; most researchers, policy wonks, etc. use $41,000 in annual income as the cut-off for a family of four.
    The poverty level actually began increasing during the Bush (2) administration, with even greater increases starting in 2007.  This trend is tied to the now axiomatic (dare I say this) observation that the middle class has been shrinking. Studies showed that the greatest shrinkage in the middle class, with increases in the number of families declining from middle class to poverty status, occurring in suburbs of major metropolitan areas.
    I did this research for a paper in my doctoral program.  Can dig out the citations if anyone questions my sources, but I'd rather spend my time on school work.....

    The poverty rate was falling steadily (none / 0) (#52)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 26, 2014 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    Outsourcing (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 26, 2014 at 03:21:12 PM EST
    the concerted right-wing attack on white working class and urban poor solidarity (Nixon and Wallace), the redirecting of resources from infrastructure to overseas adventures and defense contractors, generalized wage stagnation, the attempt to undermine organized labor at practically every turn..

    Or if you prefer nasty, simple-minded memes that'll fit on a bumper sticker or a postage stamp and that'll give the Angry White Man faction in this country convenient fuel for their kick-down-kiss-up impulses, blame it all once again on "government programs for the poor".

    Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?


    Poverty (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    Is relative

    I think a true progressive would realize that extreme poverty around the world is much worse then the poverty you would find in most western nations.  

    This relative relationship is to me a direct cause of strife and war around the world.   The extreme poor thanks to technology in other countries can be made acutely aware of how bad their situation is and understandably don't like it and if the right person comes along can incite them to radicalism and violence.

    To me it seems a bit selfish to take such an isolationist view of poverty.  

    Can't we worry and combat both?


    That is Not What I Wrote... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    ...my point was if we can't do it at home how in the he11 do we expect anyone to think we can do it abroad.

    That has nothing to do with isolationism.


    In some cases he has (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    Had more luck abroad than at home.  Personally I don't think that's entirely his fault.

    Poverty Thresholds (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    Poverty is relative. People are not math integers which are equal across the globe because people live in societies with norms.

    That is why poverty thresholds were developed.

    Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year.[6] The largest of these expenses is typically the rent required to live in an apartment, so historically, economists have paid particular attention to the real estate market and housing prices as a strong poverty line affecter...

    Measuring poverty by an absolute threshold has the advantage of applying the same standard across different locations and time periods: it makes comparisons easier. On the other hand, it suffers from the disadvantage that any absolute poverty threshold is to some extent arbitrary; the amount of wealth required for survival is not the same in all places and time periods. For example, a person living in far northern Scandinavia requires a source of heat during colder months, while a person living on a tropical island does not.



    libertarian economists.. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    there's an ongoing argument as to whether they're fully warm-blooded or not. Some Herpetologists say they are, some say they're not.

    He cared about people living in poverty just long enough to write that article so his readers could continue to not care at all.


    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 25, 2014 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    Forbes knows all about poverty...  welfare queens and all..

    Shokingly (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Slado on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    I liked the speech on the whole.

    I especially liked the part were he challenged Islamic countries to do more about radical Islam.   This is the elephant in the room for me.   20 or 30 years ago these same countries did not have this issue.   They've allowed it to grow within their midst and in the case of Saudi Arabia are arguably wholly or partially responsible for the ideology.

    It is their religion after all that is being "hijacked" in their name.   Seems they should be the most responsible to stopping it.

    I could have done without the Ferguson reference only because it to me wasn't on the same scale as global jihad buy why quibble.

    Unfortunately such a strong and principled speech is worthless in front of the UN General Assembly but at least the president had the gumption to put it out there.

    I thought it was very good (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    his motives and ideas and for that matter speeches have never been the problem.  IMO great political leaders are made of more.  I believe O is an honorable man.  Maybe, just to make you cringe, a great man.   But he is not a great political leader.  That takes the will to lower yourself into the mud.  I actually think his personal integrity is one of the obstacles to this.  He did not understand and has never been willing to accept how dishonest, shameless and degrading politics is.

    It's a fact the Clintons understand.  It why I think she will be a great president.  She will have a war room on day one.   Even if it's not called that.


    It's not just Islam, Slado. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    Most all organized religions have long harbored a very nasty fundamentalist streak within their own ranks. We have only to note the atrocities committed against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia only 20 years ago, to realize Christianity's own complicity in so taking the Lord's name in vain through the wholesale slaughter of the non-believer and the heathen.

    The history of mankind is replete with truly horrid examples of crimes against humanity, all perpetrated in the name of one's religion. Condemnation of an entire particular faith to pariah status does nothing to solve the present problem.

    Rather, it serves only to further perpetuate general ignorance in this country regarding that problem's actual root source of discontent, by once again invoking a false sense of Judeo-Christian superiority in order to make an exception of ourselves.



    He hammered Russia pretty hard (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 10:40:09 AM EST

    Well, I missed everything since (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    my DSL and TV all got submerged in the rains we've had.  I could launch my boat in the yard, drive down the street and into the ocean.  Hopefully there will be some good comments here and I'll just have to wait for the Rev and Tweety Bird.

    Only read the text (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    drought or flood.   Which is worse?
    Hmmm. Choices of the new century.

    Right reacts (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    Oh, Breitbart (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    Can just Bite-me.

    Well, yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    sadly of course it's not just them.  The message is already being picked up by the usual suspects.  Mike Pence tips his hand that he is considering running for president by going on quite a long rant on this.

    It is seeded through out the Foxosphere by now


    FOX video (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    HA! You almost made me watch that. (none / 0) (#43)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:03:17 PM EST
    But I resisted.  Verrrry devious.

    I put the disclaimer (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:05:13 PM EST
    in bold face

    Of course it's not just them (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 08:50:23 PM EST
    It appeals to the low-information voter.  Of which, unfortunately, there are way, way too many in this country.

    At some point (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    we may need a new term.  These days it's not that they have a lack of information so much as it is all wrong.

    I am rehoming one of my dogs (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Very hard when you discover they are a low information voter.  You start asking yourself if this person is responsible enough to own a dog.

    If you have to ask.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    I'm thinking my criteria in judging responsibility is harsh.  They are ranch people.  Who knew ranch people could be so "not bright"?

    Getting to know each other got into religion.  Surely military families are Muslims haters right, and this is a Crusade and the end times are coming.

    I told her that I did not believe in "end times", and that that whole Christian concept of end times and rapture...that was all a pretty new interpretation.  And I don't believe in it. I believe we have to figure this out together, and nobody is coming to save us from the task :)

    They have children, ranch, what I don't understand is if you think this is it....what are you really living for?  Why have plans and dreams and goals when you are so certain these are the end times?  Doesn't that like distract you too from seriously addressing your life, dreams, and goals?


    The easy way out is to not think about things. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    I am damned! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:30:29 PM EST
    I think about cranking out that five miles (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    At the three mile mark, when it starts to hurt.  Why continue into the high when tomorrow I'll be high forever, or the day after tomorrow or the day after that...soon anyhow...pretty soon...shortly,  just go home and eat a Danish.

    God I love Danish.  If it's all over soon let's just eat Danish and pet the dogs :)

    Hey, maybe that is how you become a different dog owner but still a good dog owner :)


    They will run wildly through (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2014 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    The forests naked with it.  Thankfully on a planet that is on a different plane than mine.  I don't want to see all those pasty flabby butts :)