Posts

Showing posts from November 30, 2003
Howard Dean has shown himself to be unfit for the Presidency several times this week. First up, announcing that he'd break up Fox because they are ideologically opposed to him. The gobsmacking hubris of this is just beyond the pale. Don't try and tell me he was joking, he wasn't. I saw the tape.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp?cp1=1
[i]MATTHEWS: Well, would you break up GE?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: I can`t -- you...
MATTHEWS: GE just buys Universal. Would you do something there about that? Would you stop that from happening?
DEAN: You can`t say -- you can`t ask me right now and get an answer, would I break up X corp... ...[/i]
[GE owns NBC and MSNBC. But a little later: ]
[i]Matthews continued:
"Would you break up Fox?"
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I`m serious.
DEAN: I`m keeping a...
MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has "The Weekly Standard." It has got a lot of other interests. It has got "The New York Post." Would you brea…
On national sovereignty:

I've come to the conclusion that tyrannical and non-democratic* nations deserve no sovereignty. Why should we countenance truly evil regimes like Zimbabwe, and North Korea? By what right does a tyrant deserve the protection of international law when they violate it by virtue of its very existence? We do not allow criminals to remain in their houses unmolested because a man’s home is his castle. Certainly we have restraints on the state’s ability to violate the sanctity of one’s home with good reason. However, suppose the man has a piece of property with a fenced in yard and clearly definable boundaries. His tenant is in the back yard talking on the cordless phone. He says he’s forbidden her to talk to certain people on the phone because they are dangerous people who undermine his authority at home. He’s warned her before but she feels it her right to talk to whomever she pleases. He seizes the phone beats the woman and puts her through a show tria…
Censored News Stories of 2003: A Fisking

1. The neoconservative plan for global dominance
Indeed, the neocons have had the Persian Gulf in their crosshairs for 30 years now. Ever since the oil crisis of 1976 and the Gulf states' nationalization of their petroleum industries in the years that preceded it, the United States began building up forces in the region – primarily in Saudi Arabia – and strengthening relationships with regional dictatorships. The reasons seem simple: the region holds two-thirds of the world's oil.

1. To say that this has been "censored" is just silly. I"ve heard endless yammering about this very topic from all corners of the media.
2. The author implies that we are going to seize and control the Persian Gulf. If so, why have we not done so? Why not do so now? What are we waiting for?
3. Access to oil is of vital strategic importance to almost every nation on earth. Any nation without access to vital resources will ultimately go…