Bin Laden / Al Qaeda have claimed all along that unless the US entirely leaves the Middle East, Israel is dissolved, Muslims are released from jails worldwide, and the region accepts sharia law, they will not work for peace or compromise.
Without any of these likely to occur, why would anyone characterize Al Qaeda as "diplomatic" - they've made it very clear that they will not compromise on these basic principles?
Am I to believe they're ready to cross an item off their list? Not bloody likely.
They can't confirm that the tape is him. That's been true for a lot of tapes released by Al Qaeda that purport to be from Osama Bin Laden. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes I wonder if the man himself might not have died and they're getting impersonators and Tupaq'ing it.
Regulation of tobacco? I like it in theory sort of but not so much in practice. Like others have pointed out, we tried this before, remember prohibition?
How about this? In exchange no new legislation of tobacco regulations, we simply hook up the major tobacco companies w/the health providers?
Patient smokes, time passes, pathology develops: emphysema, cancer, CPD. Health care providers turn around and submit billing to the tobacco giants.
That way, those who profit from tobacco production are forced to ameliorate the negative side effects of the drug they market. Nice benefit to non-smokers; you don't have to chip in to pay for the self-destructive behaviors. Benefit to smokers: you continue to rcv health care benefits despite using destructive controlled substances. Benefit to major tobacco corporations: you will likely STILL make profits as you continue to market your product to the young, the poor, the uneducated, and all those people in the developing world whose concerns are often easily ignored by corporate America.
@FurrierAndIves: I really don't see how the reversal of a ban on alcohol is in any way similar to regulating tobacco. We are not talking about banning tobacco. We are talking about regulating tobacco. Prohibition may have been reversed, but we still regulate alcohol.
I suppose even magical unicorns aren't perfect, per se.
Government of, by, and for the people means ALL people. And we keep slowly but surely expanding the definition of "people" -- someday, please God, it will include the LGBT community.
(This "not perfect" clause would also explain the President's notion of administrative detention -- oops, my bad, that's the phrase for the internationally decried and insupportable Israeli habit of detaining people ad infinitum without needing to show cause. The POTUS wants "preventive detention." I'm sure it's quite different).
The WP article linked to on taxing health benefits is about other Democrats, particularly Senators, pressuring Obama to tax health benefits, not about Obama himself supporting the tax: "Yesterday, top administration officials pushed back forcefully against the tax, which Obama criticized during the campaign."
Here is, word for word, the email I got from my dearest friend in Tel Aviv, a woman old enough to be my mother, who moved there from England out of Zionist conviction more than 40 years ago:
"Dear ellaesther,
Did you hear Netanyahu's "historic" speech last night? Same old Bibi. In case you didn't, here's the summary:
1. It's all their fault, not ours. We, and I personally, have strived unceasingly for peace. They have always rejected it.
2. First condition, they have to recognize publicly that Israel is the state of the Jews.
2. No right of return for refugees.
3. The "area" that will become the Palestinian state (a word he didn't use in this context) at the end of the negotiations will be totally demilitarized.
4. Jerusalem ours only.
Believe it or not, a lot of people seem to think this signals some kind of breakthrough.
@ellaesther: What I hear out of the local deli is that we think that this was very "WTF, this makes no sense". It's very "Who elected Bush again? Was it you, Ohio?" in scope.
Ugh, I got in one of the worst fights I've ever had with my dad about the army's policy around gays/lesbians. He hates DADT as much as the next person but he tried to defend them letting in felons and rapists because he said the army would be guaranteed that they'd do their job (ie shoot people). It all went down hill from there because honestly, allowing people like that into the army only opens it up to more "friendly fire" deaths and mass-murders like the one Steven Green was just convicted of. They are not controllable and not reliable.
And for the record, my dad was arrested twice for protesting the Vietnam War and if he'd have been drafted, his mother was moving the family to Canada. So really, I have no idea why he defended it in the first place.
@EkaterinaBallerina: As one of "those people" I'm tired of everyone assuming that all felons are violent. Seeing that I'm a felon due to having 2 hits of acid 12 years ago, I would hardly say that I'm likely to have any "friendly fire" situations or anything happen. I've never even seen a gun.
Remind me, again, why we have to continue pandering to an increasingly tiny, increasingly crazy conservative right-wing? Didn't they lose? By, like, a lot?
@missteenwordpower is your sexy Ms. Magoo.: Did you catch the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi skit on SNL two weeks ago. It was about that issue exactly, and it was awesome.
I will never really get why everyone makes a bid deal about not finding and capturing bin laden. To me, it seems so totally obvious that we haven't caputured him because we don't want to. All it would do is martyr him, and probably set off a firestorm of attacks around the world. He is mainly a spiritual leader at this point anyway, and cells are operating independently from his leadership, so it is not like capturing him would end anything or make us any safer. Additionally, tons of Americans who don't really "get" terrorism would think, "well hey, we got him! Glad this whole terrorism business is over!" So yeah. This whole hunt-him-down-and-kill him business was such cowboy Bush rhetoric, why have liberals bought into it, as if a capture would be some major coup?
@LaFemme: Because we don't want to martyr him. We want him tried, convicted, and placed in a nice, tight, dark cell somewhere. I don't want him dead, but I do want him punished.
@NefariousNewt: I guess. I just don't think it would make a difference. And all of his supporters would still view him as being unfairly persecuted by the West. I don't think it would do anything overall for trying to combat terrorism.
I know some really stand up people who joined the armed forces for one reason or another, but I also know that of the ultra racist "let's go muddin' on the weekends" redneck and proud "from my cold dead hands" "why are my tax dollars paying for ESL for the Somolian refugees" people I knew in my high school, probably 75% of them joined the armed forces.
@morninggloria: Well, you just summarized the deep south cliche better than I could, and I am impressed. A friend of mine (who is similar in mindset to her husband, though in denial about how deep her racism etc runs) is married to a man exactly like that. He doesn't think african-americans should be in the army either, nor women. We could probably recruit his dog, though.
I can't tell you how many parties were thrown by my classmates that centered on drinking beer around some stuff that was on fire while someone drove their souped up truck through deep mud and occasionally got stuck.
@dreamweave: Well yes, of course. Growing up in the south, there are family members of mine in the midwest who are similar in action and viewpoint, I just tend to see more of it here because this is where I live.
@dreamweave: True. I walked out of the only debate club meeting I ever attended when the head tried to argue that women shouldn't be allowed in the army because they'd make men want to have sex with them all the time. I screamed that if that was the case, then maybe men shouldn't be in the army at all because they clearly had no self-control and walked out.
And this was at an East Coast private school and said man went on to an Ivy League education.
"CIA Chief Leon Panetta thinks Dick Cheney wants someone to attack the U.S. just so he can say, "I told you so." "
Yes but the problem with this Dick, is that after 9/11, you tried to blame the intelligence failure on the Clinton administration. So I don't really see how, according to your books, that if something happens to this country within the next three months, it's Obama's fault.
Oh, righ, I know why. Nothing is ever your fault. You're completely blameless.
Look, it's totally cool for you to have your very own house, I totally respect your right to this. In the meantime, I'm gonna build MY house in YOUR yard - I mean, I gotta be free!
09/14/09
Without any of these likely to occur, why would anyone characterize Al Qaeda as "diplomatic" - they've made it very clear that they will not compromise on these basic principles?
Am I to believe they're ready to cross an item off their list? Not bloody likely.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
06/15/09
How about this? In exchange no new legislation of tobacco regulations, we simply hook up the major tobacco companies w/the health providers?
Patient smokes, time passes, pathology develops: emphysema, cancer, CPD. Health care providers turn around and submit billing to the tobacco giants.
That way, those who profit from tobacco production are forced to ameliorate the negative side effects of the drug they market. Nice benefit to non-smokers; you don't have to chip in to pay for the self-destructive behaviors. Benefit to smokers: you continue to rcv health care benefits despite using destructive controlled substances. Benefit to major tobacco corporations: you will likely STILL make profits as you continue to market your product to the young, the poor, the uneducated, and all those people in the developing world whose concerns are often easily ignored by corporate America.
06/15/09
06/15/09
I suppose even magical unicorns aren't perfect, per se.
Government of, by, and for the people means ALL people. And we keep slowly but surely expanding the definition of "people" -- someday, please God, it will include the LGBT community.
(This "not perfect" clause would also explain the President's notion of administrative detention -- oops, my bad, that's the phrase for the internationally decried and insupportable Israeli habit of detaining people ad infinitum without needing to show cause. The POTUS wants "preventive detention." I'm sure it's quite different).
06/15/09
06/15/09
"Dear ellaesther,
Did you hear Netanyahu's "historic" speech last night? Same old Bibi. In case you didn't, here's the summary:
1. It's all their fault, not ours. We, and I personally, have strived unceasingly for peace. They have always rejected it.
2. First condition, they have to recognize publicly that Israel is the state of the Jews.
2. No right of return for refugees.
3. The "area" that will become the Palestinian state (a word he didn't use in this context) at the end of the negotiations will be totally demilitarized.
4. Jerusalem ours only.
Believe it or not, a lot of people seem to think this signals some kind of breakthrough.
What are they saying in America?
Love to you,
friend of ellaesther"
I don't have much to add, really....
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
And for the record, my dad was arrested twice for protesting the Vietnam War and if he'd have been drafted, his mother was moving the family to Canada. So really, I have no idea why he defended it in the first place.
06/15/09
06/15/09
NOT ALL FELONS ARE VIOLENT!!
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
It's like he has a built in nickname.
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
I can't tell you how many parties were thrown by my classmates that centered on drinking beer around some stuff that was on fire while someone drove their souped up truck through deep mud and occasionally got stuck.
06/15/09
06/15/09
And this was at an East Coast private school and said man went on to an Ivy League education.
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
06/15/09
Yes but the problem with this Dick, is that after 9/11, you tried to blame the intelligence failure on the Clinton administration. So I don't really see how, according to your books, that if something happens to this country within the next three months, it's Obama's fault.
Oh, righ, I know why. Nothing is ever your fault. You're completely blameless.
06/15/09
06/15/09