« Post Election Hangover | Main | New Rules »

Links With Your Coffee - Saturday




C. J. Chivers and Ellen Barry for the New York Times:

Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

Er, anyone who actually followed the events knows that Georgia attacked Tskhinvali. Why is this news?

If the New York Times and others decided to report propaganda as truth then shouldn't they reporting about that rather than pretending they didn't know.

Er, anyone who actually followed the events knows that Georgia attacked Tskhinvali. Why is this news?

John McCain lied to us?

And Obama didn't call him on it.

Doing that would have been "partisan". The US Government needs to be one big happy family, doncha know.

No, Obama didn't call him on it and that was a disappointment. However, to consider this in context:

Obama originally understood the complexities of the recent Russia vs Georgia conflict, and Obama realized that Georgia was the original agressor. However, the overwhelming majority public view in the U.S. was that Russia was the agressor and all of us Real Americans had to support Georgia. In context of this reality, Obama had to make a decision and had to decide upon the following:

(1) Stick his neck out and risk losing the nomination/election in an attempt to educate the American public, and to risk doing this against all odds. Hell, even his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton was playing the "Russia bad, Georgia good" card at that time.

(2)Realize that if he spoke his mind, it would be political suicide.

There's a reason that Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel did not win the primary, much less the general, election.

P.S. Norm: On the discussion of vaccinations and autism. I was no doubt wrong. It seems that you have studied autism more than I have, so I'll defer to you. I still remain a tad skeptical as to the conventional "scientific wisdom" because of what I learned about how research powers can affect what studies are available to the general public. Believe me when I say that most medical studies are never known by most people, even those who pay attention. There is the matter of statistics in which certain percentages might be viewed and analyzed in a different manner. I'll have to dig up my research on the Lancet studies of the benefits chemotherapy as compared to varying stages and types of cancer. It turns out that any given result on any given disease is more complex than any simple conclusion might indicate.

I will also add that I spent hours and hours and hours of research over about four years studying cancer research. My knowledge of autism research is extremely limited. All I'm saying is that my studies of what is spoken of re cancer research lead me to be a tad skeptical of what is spoken of re autism research.

I'll never forget the day that i asked my oncologist the following question:

"Are you telling me that given the fact that I am er positive, and other facts relative to my own situation, that the chemotherapy that I endured only improved my odds of being alive five years from now by five percent? Really?"

She was shocked that I had managed to obtain the knowledge and facts to even be aware of this fact.

But I had studied this area so thoroughly that in the end I realized how much the medical profession manages to pull the wool over our eyes.

JoAnn - I'm sorry you've been through such physical h@ll. Here's to some healthy and stress free years....

Thank you Jill. I have been living some great years since then. And now those years are relatively stress free now that Obama will be our president. :)

I love the article on culture jamming. But the true pioneers are the "Yes Men".

I thought we were all Georgians? Does that mean we are all aggressors?

Also, as concerns both Ayers and vaccinations. When Obama's influential, strong opponent in the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, challenges Obama on such issues as vaccinations and Ayers, it has the effect of pushing Obama further to the right.

Of course, Hillary also had the same goal as Obama had -- to win the primary and the general election. Hillary moved to the right, which then had the effect of moving Obama to the right... all in a race to win the nomination.

And now there's the matter of "holding Obama's feet to the fire". But the more that partisans insist that Obama do exactly, right now, what they want, and if Obama follows these edicts, then the more likely that the Democrats will lose their majority in the Congress, and the more likely that Obama will only be a one-term president.

There has to be a balance between ideology and reality.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives