“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Is this political cartoon racist?
This cartoon caught my attention. It was posted in The Guardian. Is this racist?
Certainly makes Ms Rice out to be unattractive. That's for sure, but is that racist, I tend to think not.ReplyDelete
More sexist than anything.
The Elephant in the room, that is cleverly done.
Allen and My favorite Diplomat/Stand in for Don Quixote:ReplyDelete
"But this is old news. The interesting thing about Kessler's story is the fervor Rice exhibits when, for example, she states:
I am commmited to this. This takes hard work. It takes patience, it takes perseverance, it takes getting up after a bad day and trying to make a better day.
And that's what I am going to do. As long as I am secretary of state, that's what I am going to do. And that's what the president wants me to do.
Rice is talking like a football coach hoping to will his team to victory in the Super Bowl.
Kessler probably does not exaggerate when he says that Rice "is staking her reputation as secretary of state on her ability to leverage the talks."
And that's absurd.
If there's no good deal to be had, then there's no point in pushing for a deal because in that event the alternatives are failure in the weak sense (no deal) and failure in the strong sense (a bad deal). In other words, lose-lose.
But diplomats too often fail to appreciate this because their initiatives take on a life of their own.
The imperative becomes brokering a deal without much regard to whether it will accomplish our objectives and serve our interests. We saw this with Oslo, and we almost saw it at Camp David under Clinton. We've seen it once with North Korea, and now we seem to be seeing it again.
And that's one answer to the Democrats when they ask what the harm is in talking with Iran.
The last thing we need is for a Condi Rice or a Madeleine Albright to become obsessed with getting Iran's signature on a piece of paper, any piece of paper. "
Is teaching children from birth to hate others "discriminatory?"
...just saw part of one strange thread, unfortunately too busy to read them all right now.
The whole idea of a "peace process" strikes me as an absurdity with those people, but the effort makes the long war in Iraq seem like a mere flash in the pan.
GWB and Condi seem to be about as down to earth sometimes as Halfbright and Carter.ReplyDelete
Skulls, bones, Phd's and fine Pianos do not a Patton make.
To the children being taught, at least.ReplyDelete
They're gettin' ready to kick the can down the road.
Calling it Victory or Defeat.
Depending upon perspective.
I just call it more of the samo samo high profile bullshiite.ReplyDelete
Ingraham was talking about ANOTHER malicious prosecution by Bush "Justice" of a Border Agent doing his job.
The list of Bush's "friends" (or friends of this great country) that get screwed grows and grows, and the ass-licking by Bush and Company of enemies at home and abroad increases right along with it.
A Pathetic President, all in all.
AMMAN, Jordan (Associated Press) -- Israel said Tuesday it would stop dealing with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas if he goes ahead with plans to join Hamas in a new government, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Arab allies sought a way to break the Hamas logjam and push forward the stalled peace process.ReplyDelete
Jordan's King Abdullah II, after separate meetings with Rice and Abbas, urged the United States to continue seeking to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. But Israel said it would stop dealing with Abbas on larger peace issues if he went ahead and formed the coalition government with Hamas.
But in Israel, Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Olmert, ruled out any talks on a final peace deal with Abbas if he went ahead with plans to form a new Cabinet including Hamas.
Israeli talks with Abbas would be limited to matters such as improving living conditions for the Palestinians and ending Palestinian attacks against Israel. "We're not talking about negotiations on final status issues," Eisin said.
The planned Palestinian coalition government fell far short of what the United States and Israel wanted, and also disappointed Sunni Arab states _ many of them U.S. allies _ that had hoped Hamas would soften anti-Israeli policies enough to satisfy the West and restart the flow of vital international aid.
Rice invited security and intelligence chiefs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to Amman for the talks to ask their advice on what, if anything, can be done further to persuade Hamas to back down.
Tuesday's session at the government security headquarters in Amman included some of the region's wiliest and best-connected heavies, fixers and go-betweens, including Saudi national security adviser Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Egyptian intelligence head Omar Suleiman.
Prince Bandar to the Rescue!!
Hamas will offer to "moderate" in exchange for the Golan returning to Syrian demilitarized Administration, Reinstatement of the payment of Tax Revenues, including those missed payments during the past 13 monthhs.
Ms Rice and Team will go for it, it is Mr Baker's Plan, after all.
Doc Kissinger has been earning his fees.
Why would the Bush Admin would invest so much time and effort in the Palestinian hell hole?ReplyDelete
Because Saudi Arabia insists.
Whit said, Why would the Bush Admin would invest so much time and effort in the Palestinian hell hole? Because Saudi Arabia insists.ReplyDelete
And what will the KSA do for Bush in return? They promise to spend whatever it takes to acquire nuclear weapons and export radical Wahabbi imans throughout the west.
ahh Ms T, you miss the essence of the Sunni Block, with the Pakistani nuclear backbone.ReplyDelete
The Wahabbists have their nukes, already. The Shiite Caliphate just trying to catch up.
There will be some Security Agreements the Sunni Kings and Princes enjoy making. The Pakis, whose nuclear program was Saudi funded to begin with, deliver the Wahabbist warheads to the Game, offically.
A Sunni mutual defense pact will be in the offing, good old Prince Bandar's being no one's fool
The Kingdom will keep the oil flowing. More than that is wishful thinking.ReplyDelete
Does anyone seriously believe that the world can deal with the Iranians on the nuclear issue?ReplyDelete
From Duetsche Welle
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected a looming UN deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. He said Iran would only halt the sensitive nuclear activity if the West suspended its own nuclear programs.
"We are in favor of dialog. But in order for us to talk they are imposing a condition that would deprive us of our right," Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a public rally in Rasht, the capital of the northern Gilan province.
His comments come ahead of the expiration on Wednesday of the latest UN Security Council deadline for Iran to halt sensitive uranium enrichment work as well as a UN watchdog report Friday on its compliance with this demand.
Wishful perhaps, but achievable.ReplyDelete
When first introduced the Saudi influence was discounted, as their military is marginal, put the Pakistani can project power, outside their own country.
The challenges of Warizistan not found in Ramadi, push comes to shove, the opponents are not cousins.
If the US is "getting out of the way" as Mr Gates testified if the Surge fails, or handing over to the Iraqi, if it succeeds, the outcomes are the same.
The Block's peacekeeping detachment can give US political cover.
It could become a big deal.
The "End Play" for Mr Bush.
Palistine, Israel & MidEast Peace.
The Pakistani, supported by the Sauds reinforce US in Iraq.
It is an exit play that saves face for everyone involved.
Religion of Peace Attack Map:ReplyDelete
Vince, over at Belmont posted this link to all jihaddi attacks since 2003
Those Indians show a lot of restraintReplyDelete
Amazing how little control the General President has. Or how much control he does have.ReplyDelete
What's worse, his controling the violence the ISI forments, or it happening without his consent or control.
Mr Bush asked that of Iranian involvement in Iraq. Seems a fair question about the General President, as well.
Maybe Deuce or Whit can do a post explaining to us out here why Clinton leaving the Afghan Taliban Training Camps unharmed was a bad thing that led inevitably to 9-11, whereas the present enlighted policy of letting them REBUILD them for the past four years is a cool move by team CondiBush?ReplyDelete
...but they ARE in Warizistan, which is part of Pakistan, which is our Ally, so I guess I see why it is A-OK.ReplyDelete
("stay the course" being passe)
"Youthful exuberance" overtook Hezbollah militants this weekend...ReplyDelete
ADN Kronos surrendered this news today:
Hezbollah militants have forced a unit of French military medics to leave the southern Lebanese town of Marun al-Ras, on the order of the local municipal authorities, sources from the UNIFIL multinational peacekeeping force have told Adnkronos International (AKI). The incident, first reported by Lebanese daily al-Nahar and later confirmed by Hezbollah sources, is the latest indicating growing tension between the UNIFIL troops and Hezbollah.
On Sunday a group of young Hezbollah supporters threw stones at Spanish troops in another village, Balat.
UNIFIL sources have downplayed the incidents describing the one in Marun al-Ras as a "misunderstanding", and the action of the youths at Balat as "youthful exuberance".
(like that Mohammedan running down Jews in SF was exhibiting "Midlife Exhuberance")ReplyDelete
As depraved and loathsome as Jihadists in Palistan are, they could not have done half the things they get away with, without the love and support of mainly british news media. And of course the Saudis.ReplyDelete
Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"ReplyDelete
Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
re: love and support of mainly british news media. And of course the Saudis.
Why sell the American enablers short? You did read the comments of the ever thoughtful Dr. Rice? Or do you lump America's enablers with the Saudis?
The way I see it, Dr Rice got herself caught drowning in the whirlpool of Jihadist propaganda, and just doesn't have the intellectual and linguistic strength to make her way thru the undertow. But, it is the British media, along with Saudi political influence, which allows this Jihadist propaganda its Orwellian sway.