![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (45)
 Blog archive
 Share link
The Latest Right-wing Faux OutragePosted Tuesday, November 17, 2009, at 11:19 AM
A few days ago President Obama met with the Emperor of Japan and appropriately executed a bow. http://snipurl.com/ta13b As one would expect, the right wing noise machine (apparently free from any real issues to address) went bananas. One op-ed from the Washington Times even went so far as to claim it was an example of Obama not having "what America is about" in his blood, due to his Kenyan father. The author also took a special moment to insult the President's mother. http://snipurl.com/ta1az [www_washingtontimes_com] The irony of that coming from the Washington 'Moonie' Times is epic. But I'll get to that in a second. First, allow me to address the folks like Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of The Washington Times, who are creating this faux outrage: It's called diplomacy, wingnuts. You should try it sometime. It helps you get what you want without having to kill people or destroying your global image and treasury. I'm sure you would have preferred for the President to have been a shirtless white guy in American flag boxing shorts with a lit sparkler in his teeth, pumping his fists in the air and grunting "AMERICA! HECK YEAH!!!". But not all diplomatic events are monster truck rallies. In the eyes of the right wing nutters there were only 2 mistakes Obama could have made: 1) He bows to the emperor 2) He does not bow to the emperor. And either choice would be an egregious public faux pas, according to the right wing noise machine, and their audience would be outraged. Here's the reality: Bowing is a tradition in Japan. Bowing does not infer inferiority in any way. It is just a mark of respect. In Japan they have three types of bows: * A quick 15 degree bow for informal greetings, like a wave or a friendly handshake * A 30 degree bow meant for first introductions in business or used to show deep respect. You'll see sales clerks do this type all the time. * A full 90 degree bow (Obama did this), usually reserved for highly formal occasions like funerals, weddings, graduations, etc. None of these bows has anything to do with inferiority or social rank. If you read the first link in this post, You'll have noted that the article mentioned that they were showing a photograph of Cheney shaking hands with the Emperor. If you ever get the chance to meet a Japanese official, DO NOT DO THIS! It is extremely rude and insensitive. Most Japanese people understand that's just what Americans do, but you'll make a much better impression if you follow the local customs. So why is this Ironic coming from the Washington Times? The Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon. Sun Myung Moon is the Korean founder and leader of the worldwide Unification Church. Moon has said, and it is believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ. The followers of his cult are often referred to as "Moonies". On March, 23 2004, in a United States federal office building in Washington D. C., at a reception organized by a senior John McCain adviser and with more than 12 United States lawmakers in attendance; Sun Myung Moon was crowned "King of Peace." And I do mean crowned. Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) wore white gloves and carried a pillow holding an ornate crown that was placed on Moon's head. The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
There's a short film about the event, which can be viewed here: http://www.gorenfeld.net/book/ Somehow, all that was OK at the time, but the nutters who follow the right wing noise machine are having a crapstorm over a completely appropriate Presidential bow. References: http://www.gorenfeld.net/book/ http://snipurl.com/ta1t3 [www_rawstory_com] Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Owner and founder of a liberal/progressive online news aggregator, former candidate for State Representative, media reform activist, internet communications consultant.
Hot topics Change I can believe in: Environmental Edition(8 ~ 7:03 PM, Mar 16)
A Socialist Party Platform
A Return to Fiscal Responsibility
Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations
Dumbing Down America... One Hannity at a Time
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
You can say that again. I like how the coronation was organized by a McCain adviser and the crown was presented by a Democratic Congressman. It was such a bad idea that BOTH parties could get behind it!
This is just proper respect shown to royalty. If Obama had shown improper etiquette to Elizabeth II od England, they would have a field day. So we should show respect to British royalty and not the Japanese? Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't have a link or a photograph to back it up, but if someone really needs it, I'm sure they can find something. Anyway, I do believe both Nixon and Eisenhower both bowed. And I also believe they were both members of the GOP. In fact, one of those men was actually the military leader of the nation that was the victor in WW2, bowing to the symbolic leader of the losing nation.
Interesting, no?
TJ,
Have a watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U6fL7Y4B...
To quote you...
"...Cheney shaking hands with the Emperor. If you ever get the chance to meet a Japanese official, DO NOT DO THIS!"
Now watch this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kyD_e0Y7...
It looks to me like Barry is pumping the emperor's hand. What do you see?
It is the minor customary gestures of the society being visited and the return gestures of the society visiting that shows most respect and creates an environment for accomplishing the goals planned in advance. Knowing the customs and values is imperative to having successful negotiations. Proper focus can be attained and proper attitudes set to make tough decisions where parties disagree more reconcilable.
I think that Obama taking an approach by example is of higher respect and merit than what previous presidential tactics have been. (Leading by example and not by condemnation).
Dan, I see two things:
1. Clips of dignitaries shaking the emperor's hand (when it would be appropriate to do so) juxtaposed with one clip of our President bowing (when it would be appropriate to do so).
2. Video proof that the UConnRepublicans are suffering the same affliction that is ruining the GOP nationally: spending their time creating fake controversy instead of addressing real issues.
I understand your confusion. I should have been more clear. I should have pointed out that if you ever get the chance to meet a Japanese official, DO NOT DO THIS because it will most likely not be in the capacity where a handshake would be acceptable, although Americans do that quite often.
Now let me ask you a question. Knowing what you now know, do you think the Washington Times editor emeritus, Wesley Pruden, was using his resources in the best, most effective manner in writing this piece?
I ask this because, for 8 years, every time someone like me suggested the need for something like oversight of Halliburton's contracts, someone like them shouted me down and said I shouldn't be undermining our President in a time of war and that I was aiding and abetting the enemy.
Isn't that EXACTLY what the Washington Times and the UConnRepublicans are engaging in, by their own standards? Manufacturing a controversy to undermine support for the President in a time of war? I don't think Sarah Palin would stand for that kind of traitorous un-Americanism. Why should we?
Update: Japanese response to the Obama bow is coming in:
http://snipurl.com/taex0 [www_examiner_com]
"What a bow!"
"Such a deep bow from Obama, what a fine guy."
"I'm surprised he bowed. He's really trying hard to meet the Japanese way!"
"President Obama is a top-class person, isn't he? Amazing!"
"The Emperor is giving a nice smile!"
"Is the Japanese Emperor really that special?"
"The Emperor or the Pope, the President or the Prime Minister, whoever is greater is not something that I think can be decided objectively."
"I laughed because it was a much better bow than I had imagined."
"Obama's huge!"
"Obama has more of a true Japanese heart than most Japanese do."
Diplomacy instead of arrogance. That's change I can believe in.
"do you think the Washington Times editor emeritus, Wesley Pruden, was using his resources in the best, most effective manner in writing this piece?"
An editor at the Washington Times has no less freedom to opine than you do. I would imagine a true progressive would defend that right.
Just as I defend your right to link stories you feel are important.
I am referring to the following story which you have linked to on your web site (click link and read)...
http://firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/attent...
(the comments section at the above link is a fine cross section of progressive speak in which we see your term "wingnuts" again in response #5).
By the way, did you ask where the oversight of Halliburton was during the Clinton years? As you know I am certain, the no bid contract began during the Clinton Administration for work in Bosnia And Kosovo and was extended during the Bush term.
Dan, I asked your opinion on the effectiveness and best use of editor's resources. I didn't question his freedom to opine. I'd think someone whose job description involves education would know the difference.
I appreciate your link and your generosity in explaining that to read the link, that I must click it, but do you really want to get into a game where we find comments on blogs to demonstrate "a fine cross section" of a certain political leaning? Really? I can promise you that it would not end well for your argument.
And I'm sorry, but I don't find that particularly constructive. The whole my team vs. your team is great for sports but not so good for discussion.
Let's be adults and deal with real issues, not what some guy said in the comments section of some blog and what a big bunch of dummies they all must be because of it.
And finally, it's really bad form to continue asking questions when you won't address any of mine in response. So until you can start, I won't be entertaining any more of your attempts at playing "gotcha".
TJ,
An editor has the right to say what he wants. If the paper doesn't like what he says they fire him and find another.
As far as undermining the support of a President and our troops during war, I agree it is treasonous. I just find it thin skinned to complain about an editorial regarding a bow/handshake and then claiming it might be called a traitorous act. Now if it was a Presidential candidate questioning a sitting President on his handling of the war, during a campaign speech that would be another story.
Try this on for size.
"Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama told voters Saturday that in the wake of President Bush's "catastrophic failure of leadership" the nation needs a candid leader like himself, not rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's calculated politics. Bush failed with handling of the Iraq war, spread fear and fumbled with Hurricane Katrina, Obama said."
Do you want me to find more?
You mentioned Halliburton and I responded. Was that out of line?
Regarding the link to a blog on your site.
You automatically assumed the instruction was for you only? How conceited can a progressive be?
Thanks for responding, Dan. I appreciate what you are saying about an editor's rights to say whatever. That wasn't my point. I wanted your opinion regarding the use of that space in the paper. The reason I asked that was for us to come to an agreement to establish the author's motive. A written piece like that has an audience and a purpose. My commentary was regarding the author's purpose. I think we both agree that the author's motive was to undermine support for our President and his method of doing so was by manufacturing a controversy when there was none. The question wasn't about freedom of speech.
I take issue with your opinion that it is treasonous to question the President's leadership when you are campaigning for the Presidency, but just making crap up in an editorial is OK. I think the opposite is true.
My mentioning of Halliburton was to point out something that we both agree upon: that it is thin-skinned to cry "traitor" when anyone dares question government policy. However, you question whether I was complaining about the no-bid Halliburton contracts during the '90s. Maybe I was. Maybe I wasn't. My behavior 20 years ago isn't really relevant. That's just a weak attempt to marginalize my viewpoint as hypocrisy.
As an example: You seem to take issue with my defense of the President's bow in Japan. Were you equally outraged when Bush Jr. gave the German Chancellor an unwelcome back-rub or was holding hands with and kissing the Saudi Royals? Maybe Republican leaders only bow to Asian officials when they are vomiting on them, but that's not really relevant, is it? We're just going to have to accept the fact that a hypocritical right-wing propaganda outlet is manufacturing a controversy to undermine support for the popularly elected president for purely partisan reasons. And when legitimate concerns about governance have been raised in the past, those same hypocritical right-wing propaganda outlets accused fellow Americans of treason.
...and finally, you closed with this:
"You automatically assumed the instruction was for you only? How conceited can a progressive be?"
I think that goes back to your "us vs.them" mentality. Earlier, you pointed to one comment out of 97 comments on one blog out of the entire internet and claimed it was "a fine cross section of progressive speak". And now you suggest that my assumption that a comment on my blog was directed at me is somehow indicative of the conceitedness of "progressives".
Do you see anything wrong with that?
Us vs Them.
Isn't that the last remaining plank in the GOPs platform?
They want the country to fail, so they can show that Progresivism has failed. They want the President to fail. They want his reforms to fail. They want Progressivism to fail. Why? Because they do not want to admit, that 30 years of concerted effort by the GOP to impose Conservative ideology on America and the world has failed. And not just kind of failed. In every aspect of conservative policy, they have failed magnificently. Everything! The economy dominated by Reaganomics, failed! The new world order with Iraq as the center piece, failed! The respect of the people of the world, failed! Energy, failed! Environment, failed! Infrastructure, failed! Etc etc etc The one single aspect in which they absolutely managed to succeed, was to make rich people considerably more wealthy!
This is why obstructionism continues. This is why the whole argument gets boiled down to your side and our side. This is why doing what's good for the people has been absolutely forgotten. Because some poor schmucks that bought the Conservative schpeal hook line and sinker, simply can't suck it up and move on. They aren't secure enough to accept that failure is in fact, an opportunity to learn!
Yes, it's us against them, and conservatives decide to stop playing that game, it will continue. It must!
Say, did you catch the latest installment of the Sarah Palin show?
Progressives are like shifting sand. Put a little pressure on them and they slide to restate their point.
To quote an AP story on a loose lipped tough guy "Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."
He actually didn't add it on his own, he tried to cover his mistake by rewording his reply when pressed by interviewer Chuck Todd MSNBC. Hang in there on the video this question comes up at the 3:55 mark in the interview.
Here is the link to the video.
http://ochairball.blogspot.com/2009/11/o...
Progressives also like to blame others for their troubles. Remember when Obama used his daughter Malia's poor test scores as a teaching example?
To quote part of the story "He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn't match up with the test."
I wonder how her classmates did.
Obviously children mimic their parents.
Read this if you want the quote in context.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...
Any thoughts on Obama's gift to the British PM of the DVDs, and Obama's return of the bust of Churchill, a gift to the United States following 9/11? There are plenty of protocol gaffes for those who want to look for them. Who can forget Hillary's famous "reset" button to the Russians that was improperly worded? And the bow was inappropriate, according to protocol. I agree there's not much of a story there, though. The DVDs, bust, and reset button deserved more space than they received.
11Indy, regarding the DVDs and Ipod gift to the Queen: It was later reported that the Queen had requested it and the Obamas also gave her a rare and signed (by the composer) songbook along with it. The two items together made more sense, but reporting it that way made it more difficult to spin as some sort of blunder. Again, another manufactured controversy.
That isn't to say that Presidents don't make mistakes. Anyone would in that capacity. Obama has and will, the President before him did, and the President before him. The next president will as well. And 90% of the time, they only matter to people who are aching for something to pin on the "other team" to make themselves feel better.
Dan:
"Progressives are like shifting sand..."
"Progressives also like to blame others for their troubles..."
Generalizations and stereotypes are fun! They make blaming easy! With all the respect due to you, I don't think you are qualified to make statements regarding "Progressives" as a whole.
I realize you need an enemy and a group to hate, but please, stay on topic or post something in your own blog. If you are outraged that Malia Obama got a bad grade and her father talked to her about it, you should blog about that and state your dissatisfaction. Maybe even write your Congressman. I'm sure it'll be a compelling read.
Us -vs- Them.
Orson Wells once did a radio story that was Us -vs- Them, and it was just about as reasonable as what I've seen on this thread.
You know what amazes me, Leslie? The hypocrisy of trying to pin some sort of blunder status on the current President in the shadow of the Bush administration. I mean just recently Italy convicted several CIA agents of KIDNAPPING from an incident in 2004. That seems like a pretty big diplomatic blunder. Remember when Cheney showed up at the Holocaust memorial service in a parka looking like he was going snowboarding? That was a pretty big diplomatic blunder. Bush's impromptu backrub to the German Chancellor? Major blunder. Do we even need to mention Bush's massacre of the English language abroad?
But the President gives a completely appropriate bow to the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese people love us for it, and a certain segment of the population shake their fists and howl. You'd think they'd be thanking him for restoring our national image. But I guess this is what happens when you put party or ideology over country.
Too bad that whole "Country First" slogan didn't really sink in for some of the party faithful.
Not really, "again, another manufactured controversy." I am not confusing the questionable gift of the iPod to the Queen (I am not sure who requested it, but she may or may not have) with the DVDs that didn't work which were given to the British PM. These are two separate instances. My point really is it's all manufactured, from parkas at ceremonies to bows to DVDs. I can admit there have been mistakes on both sides of the aisle. The current crop of moonbats can't seem to admit anything they do is wrong.
11Indy, thanks for the clarification. I assume the DVDs were in American format? Yeah, that's pretty boneheaded. I'm not sure how much that reflects on the diplomatic skills of the President or the foresight of a staffer, but whatever.
I think a gaffe is determined by it's outcome. Had Obama bowed, and the Japanese gasped, it would have been a gaffe. However, the Japanese response was overwhelmingly positive. Thus, no gaffe. Cheney and the parka created quite a bit of negative international headlines. I'd think only a moonbat could deny that was a gaffe.
You are right on regarding the current crop of moonbats. Just this morning I was making a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich and I didn't have enough jelly to cover my slice of bread. And I was all like "Barack HUSSEIN Obama socialized my jelly and now I don't have enough for my sammich!!!!!!!!!!". The current crop of moonbats would have none of it. None.
*shakes fist*
STUPID MOONBATS!
I (and the British) just thought DVDs compared to what we received from the British PM was inappropriate. There were very few headlines in the US on that - I don't know anyone in my office who even heard of that gift exchange. Overseas it received a lot of media attention. I agree on the staffer part. I don't think Obama personally attended the School of Protocol, but he probably isn't getting very good advice. I don't hold Hillary responsible for the reset button with Russia either, but clearly someone played her for a fool. I know we have Russian speakers at State. Someone had a laugh in the breakroom over that. Love the jelly rant, but I meant moonbats are unable to admit even the slightest hint of anything this administration does could possibly be wrong, or in error, or otherwise, well, unwise. You not having enough jelly is your fault, unless you somehow manage to get your case to Sen. Dodd, in which case you will promptly be labeled a "victim" and appropriately compensated for your shortage with jelly the government doesn't have yet. And yes, I do enjoy your writing and that you actually respond to us in the replies. You may not change my mind but I do enjoy your perspective.
11Indy, Thanks for the kind words. Especially regarding my moonbat rant. I had trouble deciding between that one or telling about the time I was hiking in the Grand Canyon and got a moonbat caught in my hair. =-)
Seriously, thanks. I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind, but I am trying to help people make informed decisions and dispel some stereotypes. I hope I'm successful.
TJ,
Thanks for the advice.
Don't forget to sift the sand in the morning. Lots of feral cats in the neighborhood.
One thing I just can't get my head around.
Why is it all these people that are so angry with their president and are so expressive of their fear of big government, why weren't these people as vocal 4 years ago? Is there anybody that thinks Bush was in any way an economic conservative?
No, let's get pissy because the current president that actually reads and can speak fluent English knows what's kosher in foreign countries, and makes the effort to show respect.
I think it's the reading, speaking eloquently, being respectful, and general lack of buffoonery that has them so angry.
On the plus side... Fox Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Say Obama Bowing To Japanese Emperor Was Appropriate.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091120/pl_...
US admiral defends Obama's Japan bow
AFP Thu Nov 19, 7:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- The former top commander of US troops in Asia on Thursday strongly defended President Barack Obama against critics of his bow to Japan's Emperor Akihito, calling it a gesture of respect.
Admiral Timothy Keating, who retired last month when he ended his stint as head of the Honolulu-based US Pacific Command, said he did not hesitate to bow when Akihito and Empress Michiko visited Hawaii in July.
"That's what one does when one sees the emperor of Japan. I don't care if it's the president of the United States or the commander of 325,000 Americans," Keating told a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"You see the emperor, you express your respect for the man and the history and the position he holds and she holds," he said of the imperial couple.
"It's almost a reflexive gesture," he said. "I did it and it didn't bother me even a New York second."
Obama, who has tried to project a humbler image of the United States, bowed as he shook Akihito's hand last week in Tokyo at the start of a four-nation tour of Asia.
The image infuriated some of Obama's conservative critics such as former vice president Dick Cheney, who said the president should stand tall overseas.
Akihito is the son of wartime emperor Hirohito, in whose name Japanese troops fought in World War II, but is forbidden from any role in government under the post-war constitution.
Posted by Leslie C on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, at 8:54 PM
"Why is it all these people that are so angry with their president and are so expressive of their fear of big government, why weren't these people as vocal 4 years ago?"
It sounds to me like 4 years ago the people weren't as afraid of big government as they are today. You should be asking yourself what changed. If somebody hasn't been vocal in the past are you saying they need to stay that way?
"No, let's get pissy because the current president that actually reads and can speak fluent English knows what's kosher in foreign countries, and makes the effort to show respect."
Could you list the presidents we have had that couldn't read and speak fluent English? Or don't know what is kosher in foreign countries and make an effort to not show respect.
My take on all this hub bub over bowing is "when in Rome do as the Romans" discussion over.
Could you list the presidents we have had that couldn't read and speak fluent English? Or don't know what is kosher in foreign countries and make an effort to not show respect.
Yes, of course I could.
But would it do any good, or accomplish anything?
Leslie, so you are saying people are "pissy" because President Obama can read and speak fluent English and past presidents couldn't. What is the point of this unsubstantiated comment? You asked if giving names would accomplish anything. Yes it would change your comment from an opinion to a fact. Remember it is possible to verify a fact and opinions are just opinions. If this was given as an opinion, I will regard it as such. If you make accusations you should be ready to back them up. It would give you credibility.
Crane. That's not gonna work. Try something else.
Just as I suspected, just looking for someone to stroke your ego.Have a nice day!
You may think that if you wish Crane. Personally it doesn't matter, because I already know the truth.
Your attempt to manipulate failed because I would not play. The fact is you already know the answer to your questions, which you will of course deny. Besides, what does this tangent have to do with the correctness of PRESIDENT Obama's respectful bow to the Japanese Emperor? Do you think if you can discredit me you can prove the President was wrong to do this?
My ego is just fine. How's yours?
Here is the Fox News poll question referred to above on "the bow"
18. When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think
it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's
custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?
SCALE: 1. Yes, bow when it is the proper custom 2. No, it is never appropriate
for the president to bow 3. (Don't know)
Yes 67%
No 26%
Don't know 7%
Details
Democrats Yes 84% No% 9% DN 7%
Republicans Yes 53% No% 40% DN 7%
Independents Yes 62% No% 30% DN 8%
I think it is encouraging that Republicans were pretty evenly split on this.
As long as we are using Fox as a source here is a quote from a Jake Tapper (ABC) story...
"Embarrassing an Ally
Over the weekend President Obama declared himself the first Pacific president. I'm not sure if that was before or after he bowed to the Japanese emperor while trying to shake his hand at the same time. Unfortunately, that's not exactly how the Japanese perform their customary bow. ABC's Jake Tapper reports that at least one Japanese newspaper is not printing the picture of the president's mortifying bow because the Japanese are embarrassed by his behavior. A scholar of traditional Japan tells Mr. Tapper, "The bow... did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms... The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak-looking American president."
Tapper closes.."Wasn't this president elected to restore our alliances and repair our images abroad? Now he's embarrassed the U.S. and one of our allies all at the same time. That takes real effort."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5754...
Personally it really doesn't matter to me what the president did in this case.
What sticks out is what seems to be an overkill reaction by some to any kind of criticism of the president. I could have understood a nuclear (nucular in Bush speak) reaction to a blog hosted here but don't understand such a blowup over an editorial that would have gone unnoticed by most.
This part of the editorial "He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream." was unneeded and seems to be intended to hurt feelings. But T.J. haven't we all been guilty of this on occasion?
"Do you think if you can discredit me you can prove the President was wrong to do this?"
Posted by Leslie C on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, at 12:49 PM
My take on all this hub bub over bowing is "when in Rome do as the Romans" discussion over.
-- Posted by cranemaster on Fri, Nov 20, 2009, at 11:50 AM
Maybe I should have typed slower, you should follow the customs of the country you are visiting.
On a side note, you were the one that went out on a tangent.
heh heh. Nice neener there Crane. I'll give you 1 point, though it's a charity point.
I didn't tangent. You decided to take issue with a part of something I posted. That part was there to make a point on the central topic.
Now who's typing too fast, Mr Neener neener?
Dan, your last quote was from Sean Hannity (a persuasive media personality) not Jake Tapper (a journalist), as you claimed.
Restoring our national image??? Only if you believe that our national image should be one of weakness. I will forever remember Obama in India talking of nuclear didarmament while in the background North Korea was shooting off a missle. Who can take this guy seriously? The liberals keep crying about us against them mentality. This is the difference, plain and simple. Conservatives want individuals to be able to make up their own minds - Liberals want to tell you what to think. Hence, political correctness, limits on free speech, and Christian intolerance. A conservative platform is simple: Strong military - Peace through power, individual freedoms, and private sector opportunity. When you complain about the rich becoming richer, perhaps it is because the liberals have bred the entitlement mentality for just too long. What were the poorest of the poor doing while the rich upper crust were putting in a long hour work week? Ask Donald Trump how many hours he works. Ask Rush. And now the liberal compassionate answer is just to give them more. I hate to tell you, but there is NO compassion in a handout. Next idea: Let the wealthy, who work and earn pay for those who don't. Ridiculous! I am in the "lower class" financially, but I am a strong conservative. I want to be responsible for my lot, not to have it handed to me. Woe is me and blame are not going to further my future. Conservative compassion comes through personal action and empowerment, liberal compassion comes by taking from one class and giving to another. Conservatives give. Liberals take.
Wow Readme, at least you know who your villans are eh? We're all American patriots, but some of us are more American than others?
What was gained by the deft mastery of Asian culture by the president. This is from Der Spiegel concerning the Chinese portion of the trip:
There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...
What about a community organizer not speaking out for human rights in a nation with an appalling human rights history? (See paragraph in above article about news conference in which questions were forbidden.)
I don't think any great diplomatic victories were won.
Leslie C, I think "read me" just inadvertently did a public service announcement on what happens to a brain when overly exposed to right wing persuasive media.
I personally like the juxtaposition of Smith's "Progressives blame all of their problems on others" followed by the Read Me's "all of our problems are the fault of liberals".
And, of course, the final conclusion: I'm poor but won't someone stand up for the poor oppressed CEOs???!!!??
TJ,
Thanks for the correction on the second quote, I'll correct it here....
Hannity.."Wasn't this president elected to restore our alliances and repair our images abroad? Now he's embarrassed the U.S. and one of our allies all at the same time. That takes real effort."
Thanks for clarifying, Dan. That reflects back to my previous blog entry: The difference between informational media and persuasive media. An informational media outlet would report: "The president bowed today while shaking the hand of the Japanese Emperor". They might even report: The President bowed while shaking the hand of the Japanese Emperor in a moment that was met with overwhelming approval from the Japanese people and the majority of Americans".
And then you have Fox "news": "Japanese Mortified By Obama's Bow".
working_class_dog, I responded to you, but my post mysteriously disappeared. I'll try again...
I agree with you on the issue of human rights, but we're in no position to put sanctions on China for human rights abuses. This predicament started long before Obama and won't end until long after. Our economy depends on their cheap products. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't willing to pay a dollar more per item so that some kid in China won't have to work 18 hour days.
However, the following is a quote and observation from a town hall that Obama gave in Shanghai:
'Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn't flow so freely because then I wouldn't have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are -- when they're in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that's irresponsible, or -- but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear. It forces me to examine what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.'
Those words will resonate far more deeply -- and potentially more "subversively" or "destabilizingly" -- than any overt thumb-in-the-eye hectoring that any foreigner or foreign leader might muster, in public or private. Those words are precisely the kind that Zhongnanhai [Chinese term equivalent to "the Kremlin"] fears the most, and rightly so."
http://snipurl.com/tepwj [the atlantic via dailykos.com]
Sometimes more can be done by planting the seed of an idea, than all the power the most powerful nation in the world can bring to bear.
However, a seed requires the patience it takes to grow, and the faith that indeed it will grow.
A seed also won't as likely piss off the leaders of the country that holds a large portion of our national debt!
Walk your talk and lead by example, and others will be impressed enough to walk with you. Most Chinese citizens are already extremely impressed with America.
Leslie, I think it's the difference between playing chess and checkers. I think the current president is playing chess and the last one just gnawed on the game board.
localyocal, I don't consider myself an extremist at all, but I think there's a lot of truth to what you say. Very often it is those extreme folks who are most vocal. I try to keep introducing moderate thinking into the discourse, but some folks won't have it. Others see my attempts at my own kind of extremism.
Some times I think this sort of commentary stands as an example of "Kids, don't let this happen to you and STAY IN SCHOOL".
And it can make for interesting reading.
Extreme or moderate, depends on perspective.
I'm certainly no extremist, though most any extreme right winger will, and has to me personally, stated other wise.
In other words, no matter who you are or what your views may be, a moderate is someone with views similar to your own.
The key I think, and I've said this many times, is in the ability to allow others to not agree with you. They aren't wrong, we just don't agree!