Who needs fiction?
Posted by ampontan on Wednesday, November 24, 2010
THERE ARE several reasons why I seldom read fiction anymore. Here’s one of them.
* South Korean military forces have recently been conducting long-planned military exercises, part of which involved firing artillery rounds from islands near the border with North Korea. The artillery was fired to the west and not the north, however.
* North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and his son, the heir presumptive Kim Jong-eun, visited a military installation this past weekend near the same location at the border. Perhaps the visit was to inspire the troops on the eve of battle.
* Four hours after the South Korean artillery exercises ended yesterday, the North Koreans began shelling Daeyeonpyeong Island, which, with the smaller Soyeonpyeong Island, makes up what is considered the geographical entity of Yeonpyeong Island. They have a population of about 1,790.
* The North Korean barrage lasted 50 minutes, consisted of at least 100 rounds, killed two South Korean marines, wounded at least 15 other marines and three civilians, and started fires in 60 buildings and the surrounding forest.
Here’s what it looked like:
The North Korean military said in a statement:
“The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK standing guard over the inviolable territorial waters of the country took such a decisive military step as reacting to the military provocation of the puppet group with a prompt powerful physical strike…It is a traditional mode of counter-action of the army of the DPRK to counter the firing of the provocateurs with merciless strikes…(We) will unhesitatingly continue taking merciless military counter-actions.”
* In March this year, North Korean forces sank the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, killing 46 sailors.
* Siegfried Hecker, the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the U.S., visited North Korea earlier this month. He was given a tour of a difficult-to-detect uranium enrichment facility. As the Washington Post reported:
“My jaw just dropped,” he said, describing a modern facility containing row upon row of centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium. “I was stunned.”
On the other hand, some people weren’t stunned at all.
In other words, North Korea now has two nuclear weapons programs. Mr. Hecker saw around 2,000 such centrifuges in all, though everyone is claiming they’re for peaceful purposes. Right-o! If they weren’t making an implied threat that the centrifuges are for military purposes, and they’ll use them to make weapons unless they get more cash/fuel/food, they wouldn’t have let Mr. Hecker see them to begin with. Those who bet on form will place their money at the window selling the tickets that say they get the cash/fuel/food and make the weapons anyway.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak considers the artillery attack an invasion and is threatening retaliation. He was especially angered at the attacks on civilians, all the more because the South is was providing the North with humanitarian aid.
No satirist, however–not Swift, Hasek, or Vonnegut–would have dared create a fictional plot device that included this news story from the South Korean government on the same day. The Yonhap report speaks for itself:
Korea’s Demilitarized Zone, the world’s most heavily fortified border separating South and North Korea, got its own mascots Tuesday as part of government efforts to promote it for its ecological value and tourism potential…
As part of such promotion efforts, cartoon images of a butterfly family were developed as the mascots for the DMZ, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism said in a press release. The butterflies, named Didi (dad), Mimi (mom) and Zizi (their child) and with blue, pink and green wings, respectively, symbolize a family from an alien planet making their visit to Earth to find its natural charms.
Here’s what Didi, Mimi, and Zizi (DMZ–get it?) look like:
Didi, Mimi, and Zizi
To be sure, the MCST had no way of knowing what else was going to happen on the day they released the alien butterfly cuties from their cocoons. Besides, the planning for that promotion must have been underway for some time. The South Korean government has been trying to encourage tourism to the DMZ, as it is one of the few areas whose natural environment has been spared the intense development in the rest of the country. They opened hiking trails for tourists along the DMZ in May. Guidebooks were printed in Korean and English, so it’s safe to assume they’re hoping overseas tourists as well as Korean nationals come to visit.
On the other side of the DMZ, North Korean military forces have their substantial weaponry locked on Seoul, just 40 miles away. Even granting that the territory is unspoiled and attractive, one wonders how some in the Seoul government could be so oblivious of the potential danger, and why they would tempt fate and the Kim Family Regime with a space butterfly-friendly eco-tourist program. It is perhaps as Dashiell Hammett explained in The Maltese Falcon: People get used to the idea that steel beams can fall any time without warning, and then they get used to the idea that the steel beams don’t fall any more.
But as we’ve now seen, steel beams are ready to drop on the Korean Peninsula at any time, and some Koreans understand that. After all, how far are those tourist hiking trails with the Alien Space Nabi from the machine gun-equipped Samsung robot sentries for which trials were conducted this July? It’s thought the trials will run until the end of the year.
Wasn’t the music cool? Just like an action program on television!
Let’s be frank, shall we? While the recent North Korean moves against the South and the Chinese bravado against the Japanese are an immediate challenge to the political leadership in Seoul and Tokyo, it’s unlikely any of this would have happened if someone other than Barack Obama (or a political soulmate) were in the White House. The political leadership in Beijing and Pyeongyang obviously wants to see what it can get away with, and they’re betting they can get away with quite a lot. The Chinese like to pretend they can’t control the North Koreans, but if similar circumstances obtained anywhere else in the world, people would suspect that at least some coordination was involved. It’s time to apply the same common sense to Northeast Asia.
The downside to their game is that Mr. Obama has become so discredited domestically he might be desperate enough to regain his standing by doing something militarily unwise to prove that the United States in general, and the weak-on-defense Democrats in particular, can’t be pushed around.
Be that as it may, we should all be glad we aren’t faced with the choices of Lee Myung-bak. Were it me, there’s a certain North Korean artillery installation that would no longer exist by the weekend, but then I don’t live in Greater Seoul. On the other hand, doing nothing now likely ensures that something worse will happen in the future. Does he take the chance to find out how suicidally terrorist the North Koreans can be? Does he factor into his thinking that the North Korean move might have been taken with the intent to distract the attention of an increasingly unhappy citizenry?
Perhaps there is something to be gained from fiction after all. In one of the scenes in The Maltese Falcon, the bad guys (Gutman, Wilmer, and Cairo) are negotiating with Sam Spade over possession of the ornament. Gutman and his allies want the bird, and Spade wants either the murderer of his partner or a fall guy in return. During the course of the discussion, Cairo hints that they could physically force the information they want out of Spade without cutting a deal. Said Spade:
“If you kill me, how are you going to get the bird? If I know you can’t afford to kill me till you have it, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?”
Presently (Gutman) gave his genial answer: “Well sir, there are other means of persuasion than killing and threatening to kill.”
“Sure,” Spade agreed, “but they’re not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down. See what I mean? If you try anything I don’t like I won’t stand for it. I’ll make it a matter of your having to call it off or kill me, knowing that you can’t afford to kill me.”
…Gutman chuckled. “That is an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides, because as you know, sir, men are likely to forget in the heat of action where their best interest lies and let their emotions carry them away.”
“That’s the trick from my side,” (Spade) said, “to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.”
That about describes it, does it not? I could be wrong, but I suspect Mr. Lee is much more capable of dealing with this situation than either Kan Naoto or Barack Obama are of dealing with theirs. I hope I’m right. So do Didi, Mimi, and Zizi. If anyone needs fiction, they do.
Afterwords:
* All those who’ve insisted over the years that the North Koreans are crazy like a fox and aren’t really batso enough to do anything serious should consider taking a punditry break for a while and stand under a waterfall to chant some sutras.
* Isn’t it wonderful what government bureaucrats can dream up when you give them enough money to play with?
UPDATE:
The Japanese media are upset with their government’s information flow and response to the attack. Foreign Minister Maehara was informed first of the attack, even though he was in Australia; Prime Minister Kan didn’t find out until after Chief Cabinet Secretary Sengoku was told. Roughly three hours later, the American government issued their strong condemnation, and three hours after that, Mr. Sengoku said the attack was (literally) “difficult to permit”, though that could be stretched linguistically to “intolerable”.
The media’s criticism is that the sequence in both cases is the reverse of what it should be. Poor crisis management and the inability to make a rapid response is a perennial complaint of the Japanese about themselves, however.
loco said
I still contend they have as much right to have nukes as any other country, esp. the US. At least they’ve had the sense not to have used them yet. Anyway, let me get back to my waterfall sutras (-:
Tony said
I once new a woman who was just finishing her PhD on the relationship between N Korea, S Korea and the US. She said that border skirmishes, the sinking of ships and subs, and other foul stuff were not so uncommon and when they do occur are often purposefully misreported as accidents at sea or training accidents and so on. All for diplomatic purposes as it was how they avoided having to go to war. That may still be happening but these recent events suggest that things have been scaled up, waaaay up, a fair bit.
@ Loco, in the hypothetical world where we are all equal and therefore share the same rights, your point that “they have as much right to have nukes as any other country” would be valid. But in this world, that’s not the case. Kind of like the same reason we don’t let violent nut cases with a history of murder legally buy guns. There is no way the N Korean government thinks along the same lines as the U.S., British, French, Israeli, Russian, Chinese, and Indian governments (not sure about the Pakistani gov’t) and therefore, “NO!” they don’t “have as much right as any other country”.
Rebecca said
Disputes like this remind me of those fables that don’t end very well. Although I’ve seen things and experienced things that people are totally ignorant of and write them off as fiction. There are certain aspects of fiction that are rather refreshing after a while of being in your world, not the imaginary but the life you live. Not every life is the same, everybody has their own reality. People often say; You have no life if you read about everybody else’s or lets say kind of “stalking” them(everybody does it, whether they mean it or not). But its absurd to think that the person has “no life”, we all have lives, different realities. Whats wrong with learning about other lifestyles and realities, don’t know why people are ignorant of this instinct, if you know somebody that snoops around, eavesdrops or stalks; don’t discourage(or encourage) or ignore. They are fascinated, they want to know more about other people, try introducing them to their crush and other people. Encourage them to socialize and most people are delighted to explain what they are talking about so no one should be afraid to ask questions.
Pat Donnelly said
Funny post!
But clearly the DPRK want more……. of whatever they have been offered by your buddy in the CIA, Obama.
Helps the dollar and keeps people on their knees, praying to Obama….
level3 said
Loco,
North Korea has a “right to have nukes” ?!
I bet you 5-man-en that you starting parroting that meme when Bush decided to start the ongoing adventures in the Mid East.
It was one of the classic signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome – leftists giving up key values they’d claimed to have supported for decades: Stopping nuclear proliferation. Getting evil regimes (unless Communist) removed for genocide and environmental disasters. Relgious zealots who blow up ancient statues of Buddha, mutilate girls, and put clerics in charge of the legal system should not be tolerated, etc.
All given up just to be contrary in every way to anything Bush did. The mind boggles.
Didn’t you get the memo? Obama won the Nobel “Peace” Prize for giving a speech about stopping the spread of nukes. You’re not supposed to support the “right to have nuclear weapons” anymore. Get with the program. You’re supposed to be spouting conspiracy theories about Palin’s baby or something.
Loco said
Well….
@Tony, your opinion of how North Korea conducts its affairs are based on the bombardment of propoganda aimed at just such an effect. Since the ceasefire with North Korea there has been a propoganda war and “clearly” North Korea is the loser of that war. Sure, they have what most consider odd ideas about how a country should be run, and how a country should conduct itself in the modern world but if harming its own citizens, nastiness aimed at neighboring countries, refusal to kowtow to the will of the international consensus, and all the others stones lobbed at the glass house of North Korea are the makings of a “violent nut case” of a country, then I submit that there are a number countries on that esteeemed list of countries you offered up that should consider themselves lucky not to be on the same international shit list as the North Koreans. I mean, geez, come on! You gotta be kidding!!!Not thinking along the lines of the US sounds like a compliment.
@level8
I don’t parrot memes, I’ve just never drank the koolaid (well ok I might have sipped a little and gargled during Obama’s campaign, i admit). But, Seems to me, you’re still drinking it by the 40oz. But, ef-it, it’s an international keg-er so get your drink on.
When the US, a country btw that North Korea is STILL officially at war with, disarms- not to mention stops weaponizing space and creating weapons to neutralize the abiility of nuclear weapons to do harm to the US while stockpiling one of the largest arsenals of these weapons in the world- then we can talk, or rather they can talk. The US actually has the audactity to call another country evil. It’s almost laughable. We have truly entered Bizarro world. While the US’ activities around the world (before, during and I’m sure post-Obama) can best be described as disrespectful and exploitive interference and at worst as hegemonical, I really don’t see why other countries can’t do whatever is necessary to keep the US, the American dream, its corporations, and all the nonsense that entalis, at arms length as long as possible.
I, by no means, agree with all the maneuvers by the NK but you gotta admire their pluck! And this from a man living in a country in the scope and within range of NK missiles.
Sazelus said
Ampontan.
How well known is the case of Megumi Yokota ?
———-
Very extremely well-known.
- A.
Tony said
@ Loco, Interesting nomenclature you subscribe to. I never knew that starving a significant portion of your population and kidnapping meant “odd ideas about a country should be run”. I imagine that annihilation of a people could could be phrased as “a poor choice of birth control” or some other similar thing.
Still, if you truly believe that N Korea deserves to have nuclear weapons just because America does, great, but that “I deserve one because Billy has one” is a bit juvenile. Good on ya’ though, how about we extend that equality or rights blanket a little more to cover everything. That way N. Korea deserves higher traffic fatalities rates, obesity, Justin Bieber, political polarization, and Dancing with the Stars too……………. Ahh yes, perhaps there is a method to your madness after all.
toadold said
I “sponsor” four kids in S. Korea. One of them is in an Orphanage in
Seoul. Of course if a shooting war starts none of them are safe since they are all in orphanges in costal cities. I’m old enough and have met enough people to know a bit about the N. Koreans. While I have some pity I don’t have a lot. I’ve seen the dictatators of the world get rough every damn time the US has President who thinks you can pick up a turd by the clean end and conflicts can be fought with self imposed politically correct rules. Obama is putting my kids at more risk and I fart in the general direction of those who are apologists for the Norks. I’ve had a lot of medical expenses this year and my go to Korea savings got wiped out. Now it looks like I’m going to miss more than just some high school graduation ceremonies.
PaxAmericana said
A,
What is your source for the info that “The artillery was fired to the west and not the north, however.” This seems rather important as the NK claim is that, during the US/SK drill, artillery was fired into the area that NK claims, and, in addition, that NK had warned those forces not to do it as it would be considered provocative and require retaliation. If NK is correct in these claims, it changes the nature of this event significantly into one that either the US or SK wanted to some extent. It’s not like drills have to be done that close to the border when the countries are still in an official state of war.
Not questioning you, as NK is even less reliable than the US media or government, just “trust, but verify”ing.
—–
Several English-language news reports on the web.
- A.
Harry said
I feel that the Kim family may have lost control of the military.
Given this American non-response and Chinese tacit approval, I fear that
the worst is yet to come. What are they going to do next? Attack other
islands? Launch missiles?
NHK is now showing videos and animations of this attack.
Ecoutez said
NK is bats**t crazy, but how is that Obama’s fault? Seems like BO is damned if he doesn, damned if he doesn’t. If he tries a show of strength, he’ll get blamed for starting/escalating another war, if he does less he’ll be called weak. Hell, Ampontan seems to blame this incident on Obama on the basis that simply [i]being[/i] Obama is enough to make NK trigger happy! That’s rather irrational, don’t you think?
On another note, people who defend NK’s right to anything but sufficient agriculture (under the current regime) are, IMHO, mentally ill. I’m no fan of American capitalism, but America’s big corporations would be a vast improvement for the North Korean people. Turn the whole country into a Wal-Mart and you’d probably quadruple the happiness index there.
—–
It’s never irrational to pay attention, not only to what I wrote and to Mr. Obama’s behavior rather than his presence, but also the behavior of NK, the Chinese, the Russians, both in the east (South Korea, Japan) and the west, the Chinese and the Russians working together again, the Iranians, the dealings with Russia in re: Iran, sanctions on Iran that people are ignoring, sanctions on NK (because of an April 2009 nuclear test) that people ignored (those centrifuges were new), and the idea that the US can prevent the Iranians from going nuclear by reducing its own stock of weapons.
Nor is it irrational to note that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan when Carter was president, Iranians took over the American embassy, and the Chinese were in Vietnam.
I know you’re a Chomsky fan, so I understand your perspective, but people–including more than a few Democrats–have been noticing for at least a year. This is the demonstrated result of soft power, resets, mea maxima culpa, inordinate fear of Communism, ad nauseum. It was predictable and should not be surprising in the least. NK may be b—–t crazy, but they know from looking at the White House when to act out and when to hide out in the bunkers.
- A.
Ecoutez said
A,
I appreciate your response, as always, but let me make something clear for future reference: “Chomsky fan” in no way describes my politics. I have read Chomsky, and I like Chomsky more than most left-wing writers…but that is because I think most left-wing writers are (sorry to repeat myself) bats**t crazy, and rather dumb to boot. Chomsky is trained in scientific method, and knows how to be rational and internally consistent. I admire that. But when it comes to dealing with the Great Leaders of the world, Chomsky is the last place I go for advice. Ergo, I truly doubt you understand my perspective.
Now, I understand your important point about opportunism. Your examples include opportunities taken when Carter was president. Then again, NYC and Washington were attacked by terrorists when Bush was president. Looks like OBL saw an opportunity there as well…an opportunity to provoke. Iran was also provoking and ignoring sanctions when Bush was president. Saddam Hussein was also provoking and ignoring sanctions when Bush was president. NK performed underground nuke tests when Bush was president. These people tend to do what they want to, regardless of who the president it.
When Bush was president, the fact that the world didn’t respect him was taken by his supporters as a sign of his strength and resolve. Now that the world doesn’t respect Obama, those same people cite this as evidence of Obama’s weakness.
I know a whopping double-standard when I see it.
—–
1. The planning for 9/11 predated Bush.
2. Saddam’s wholesale ignoring of sanctions also predated Bush.
3. Kim hid in his basements during Bush’s first term, but then Bush’s approach to NK softened drastically during his second term, which is when that test (singular, I think) occurred.
- A.
level3 said
`ecoutez,
refreshing thoughful arguments, but I think many would say your line:
“When Bush was president, the fact that the world didn’t respect him was taken by his supporters as a sign of his strength and resolve. Now that the world doesn’t respect Obama, those same people cite this as evidence of Obama’s weakness. I know a whopping double-standard when I see it.”
puts the cart before the horse. The respect given/withheld by “the world” (or at least its fashionably leftist representatives who get airtime in the mainstream media, coinciding with those who have always hated America anyway) and how they “didn’t respect Bush” (which actually meant, didn’t like his choices) was BECAUSE he had stength and resolve – against them.
Bush supporters took it all as a sign of these peeoples’ thinking, about their double standards. (We’ll write Resolution 1441, but how dare you actually enforce it!)
Not as a sign of anything about Bush.
Strength and resolve to use it are anathema to hard leftists, unless it is the resolve to shoot people for thinking the “wrong” way (and this goes all the way up to the resolve that murderous totalitarian statist regimes should have the “right” to nuclear weapons) One thing I learned in college pretty quick is that “pacifists” are usually the most violent people on campus.
Obama’s lack of respect from “the world” (but this time just the evil regimes, not the fashionably leftist talking heads who get air time) is a different issue. Obama made that damned stupid pipe dream speech about nuclear states disarming (while terrorist states are devloping nukes)and got his “Peace” Prize. How else could NK, Iran, et al take that? Of course they see him as weak. And they surely all know his inexperience in geopolitics.
Anyway, it is not a double standard. It is 2 separate standards. And 2 different definitions of the word “respect”.
Dislike of one who acts against you. (“Not respecting”, but really just “not liking” Bush. I think plenty of world leaders respected Bush, in his first term at least, just fine. Maybe they didn’t like him, but they respected him.)
vs.
Hoping to be able to take advantage of weakness. (Not “respecting” Obama, but I’m sure they like him just fine.)
A Willy Lowman field day.
Of course, it’s not as simple as all that, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it a double standard when its different parties applying different standards in different circumstances to 2 very different people. There are plenty of double standards in all this mess already though. IMHO, if you are looking for blatant double standrads, looking left produces the fastest results. (Where are have all the war protestors gone since Obama got elected and decided to stay the course in the Mid East?)
Tony said
Ecoutez – It would seem every bad thing that has ever happened in America, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa is the result of a Democrat (aka weak) president. Except when terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, that was Ronald Reagan’s watch. Ahhh, but they started planning when Carter was in I suppose.
I’ve heard that Genghis Khan knew that Obama was going to be president 805 years in the future so took advantage of that fact and razed Asia. Those damn democrats and their weak presidents, I can’t believe the rest of the world hasn’t recognized that they are the cause of all the world’s problems. I mean Kim Jong il was born in 1941 and do you know who was president then? Yup, Roosevelt, ……sigh!
——
Well, Bill Clinton was tough–he destroyed an aspirin factory on the eve of the Lewinsky hearings. He also wore a leather bomber jacket.
But as to political parties, refer to #3 of my previous note. It is behavior, and the people most likely to demonstrate it.
This is a two-dimensional argument, of course. All of them get tested fairly quickly. Not long ago I referred to the air games the Chinese played with Bush II. It is not the party label, but rather the response to the initial provocation.
Sometimes, however, people know what the response will be without testing. It was obvious what Obama’s was going to be before he got elected, and it was just as obvious at the same time what was going to happen. That’s what the original reference was about.
- A.
Tony said
Historical pareidolia. Little more than drawing lines to connects cheery picked events to fit your preconceived view of world events. The rest of the world does not plan their actions solely on who happens to be president, even if their actions have some bearing on the U.S.
Ecoutez said
I wonder if anyone here feels that Obama’s most recent actions regarding this issue lack “strength and resolve?”
This is happening because there is a power succession in NK, not because Obama presents an “opportunity” to megalomaniacs who are somehow frightened by the Palin-McCain ticket.
Who was president NK bombed the South Korean airliner? Right, thank you.
———–
E:
Before you take your bow, glance up two notes and read:
For example:
“The United States and the international community must take action in response,” Obama said…”We will work with friends and allies to stand up to this behavior.”
And
“He said the United States would continue working in multilateral talks and will hold consultations with members of the U.N. Security Council.”
That was after a nuclear test and three missile firings in the spring of 2009.
What a stand-up guy!
Here’s how he dealt with the Cheonan. Watch Mr. Sarkozy’s expression.
I watched this and remembered all the people who thought he was hyper-intelligent and a mesmerizing speaker. Then the word “surreal” came to mind.
Even before this meeting, Mr. Sarkozy was reported as saying Obama’s views were “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”
But now Mr. Obama says:
“The United States strongly condemns this attack and calls on North Korea to halt its belligerent action and to fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement.”
So NK just activated surface to air missiles off the Yellow Sea.
Heck, I don’t blame you for bringing up Reagan, McCain, and Palin. I’m surprised you didn’t trot out a few more. Anything to distract attention from Mr. Firm-hand-on-the-tiller.
This sort of escalation in just two years is all because of an NK power succession?
Right. And Barack Obama’s a light worker.
- A.
relepast said
Dear A, you seem to express a deep knowledge about ‘Obama’ and his policies that is not something evident to anyone who has been around for the past two years of his presidency. What do you know about him except that he is black? this seems to be the most critical issue you hold against him though you never say it. What has President Obama done in the past two years that any and most other U.S. presidents have not done? When you castigate western media articles for their willful ignorance in comments about japan I can agree with you. However, in the past year that I have been reading your blog I can say without any reserve that you drink from the same racist juice that they do. Keep talking about japan and it’s issues within and you can pass as someone with some intelligence but speak of President Obama and you reveal yourself as a critical buffoon.
—————
R: Thanks for the note.
He just led his party to the worst loss of Congressional seats in more than 60 years, and all he did was keep his promises.
He eats arugula. He still smokes cigarettes.
It’s curious, though–why would you say he is “black”? If someone wanted to take the narrow monochrome view, they could just as easily claim he is white.
Could it be that you think only the ethnicity of the father is important?
Or that if some Caucasian has a child with someone not Caucasian, their children are somehow no longer pure and become The Other?
I sure hope not.
- A.
PS: Nobody took your argument seriously in the United States, so no one’s about to take it seriously here.
Tony said
@ Relepast – Nobody made comments about Obama’s skin color, except you. I’m curious as to why you think that any criticism against him is due to the color of his skin? Obviously Bill and I disagree on the point that started this thread but that is based solely on politics (and Bill’s penchant to cherry pick historical events to support his political views) but I haven’t read nor heard anyone comment on his being black- or as Bill pointed out, his being white. While I am obviously “left” of Bill in my political view, I am just as fed up with the “thoughtless, reactive, bleeding heart liberal left” who beat the race drum as soon as anybody expresses a critical opinion on the actions and decisions of a visible minority. That vector of thinking is as bad as that of Glenn Beck’s and Japan’s Hiranuma’s and there is no place for it in a civil society nor in a civll debate.
—–
T: Thanks.
And Jeremiah Wright, in whose church…
Don’t those cherries taste good?
Cornel West is developing an…interesting… new perspective on this.
- A.
Tony said
LOL, one backhanded slap deserves another.
Ecoutez said
I also did not find any racial subtext in Ampontan’s criticism of Obama — he specifically referred to Obama and his “political soulmates,” by which he meant (I presume) Democratic surrender-monkeys of all colors and ethnicities.
But, A, you are not so much clarifying your point as changing it. Specifically, you are changing an indefensible assertion into an obvious one. Of course, it goes without saying that a president’s reaction to one provocation will have an effect on the magnitude or existence of subsequent provocations.
But, as you say, this has nothing to do with party label, which is why I objected to your initial assertion that this event was “unlikely” if “Obama” or a “political soulmate” hadn’t been elected. Because, while not stating it directly — perhaps because it sounds silly when you state it directly — you are in essence saying that a Republican president would have produced a different outcome from NK.
This is a particularly extraordinary claim, especially given that the journalist in the you tube video you linked to (and yeah, I agree that Obama sounds like he’s on quaaludes) begins by pointing out that “current” policy is largely an extension of past policy, i.e., policy during the Bush administration.
On what basis do you believe that John McCain would have broken with Bush Administration policy?
“While the use of force may be necessary, it can only be as a last resort not a first step. The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions.”
“The United States cannot and will not stop the spread of nuclear weapons by unilateral action[...]we must lead concerted and persistent multilateral efforts. As powerful as we are, America’s ability to defend ourselves and our allies against the threat of nuclear attack depends on our ability to encourage effective international cooperation. We must strengthen the accords and institutions that make such cooperation possible.
John McCain, May 2008, on his Iran and North Korea policy.
But I think I could put “Barack Obama” on the bottom of this quote and most readers would hardly know the difference.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/mccain_talks_to.html
———-
Difficult to talk about Bush because his policies changed a lot from the first to the second term.
McCain is now calling for regime change.
The commentary in that post is not all that interesting, but I don’t know how to embed CNN videos.
There are ways to promote that without military action. One way is to cut off all business with Chinese banks and other companies that do business with NK.
As for McCain and possible military action, I’m reminded of a discussion I had with a poli sci professor long ago. He was a Democrat, but reasonable to talk to and not an outrageous propagandist. He said the one reason to support Nixon (this was a long time ago) was that with the Democrat, the Soviet Union knew they were unlikely to do anything robust militarily. (This is post LBJ.) They would not be willing to take that chance with Nixon, however. While McCain is not Nixon, the same applies, regardless of what he says.
- A.
relepast said
what’s in a name?
I’ve watched enough old movies and read enough period pieces to know that general white folk did not like to call the black people they lived among by their names – this would mean that they would have to accept that they were equal human beings and should be treated as such. So instead they would call them among other things boy, or son, or you there. At the risk of simplifying a complex argument I have come to see the same derogatory tactics being deployed by many of those who oppose President Obama. President Obama is the president of the United States so in writing about him one should in fairness use the title of his office. For some, though it hurts them to use the title when refering to him so they just call him Obama. This is shorthand for – ‘we don’t accept this man as president’.
And if you’re trying to cover and say that this president is not seen as black and could just as easily be called white then I say invite him over for dinner, or let your children marry on of his daughters.
@Tony If you knew me you’d know that I ain’t no bleeding heart liberal and I don’t pull the race (prejudice) card out except when I percieve there to be foul play be it against black, white, japanese, jewish, muslim, asian, south african etc.
Tony said
Relepast – if you are basing your current concept of racial prejudice upon old movies and period pieces I can hardly see the point in discussing this issue with you any further. And I will say that there is nothing wrong with being a bleeding heart liberal, I just find it offensive and intellectually binding when they or anyone else pull the race card for no other reason than someone of color being criticized. Saying it’s what “I perceive to be foul play” means nothing more than “in my opinion” and that is no defense for lack of rationale thought.