Did I really hear this?

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Topos
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am

"credible reference "

Post by Topos »

Gene,

I was dial switching and passed through either MSNBC or CNN,which kept my interest for only one femtosecond, when I heard the snippet.

I will ask my cohorts around the country for a specific reference and gladly post it.

As for me, I still sing the 'racist' SOUTHIE IS MY HOME TOWN" :) :) :)

I still cherish having grown up on the 'Irish Riviera' for my first 33 years. As an Irish wag friend once intoned after being maudlin having sung "Oh Danny Boy" - "How did it feel being the only Albanian growing up in the all white neighborhood of South Boston?" :) :) :)

[Inside joke: he actually had a B.C. education and amazingly could read, as I told him, more than just the labels on the Irish Mist or Guinness bottles. And, Albanian is Latin for white. :) ]

Great day to you.
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

My mother got her undergrad at BC and my father his MBA. That school has served my family well!

Gene
User avatar
Rising Star
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Townsend, MA
Contact:

Post by Rising Star »

Gene

The quote was from the NY Times although I am sure that it could be questioned as to whether or not they are a reliable source.

"March 6, 2007, Nicholas D. Kristof at the New York Times wrote an article about Barack Obama's upbringing, "Obama: Man of the World," where Obama discussed his Muslim upbringing in Jakarta.
Kristof's article which, I blogged about it several months ago, is missing from NYTimes page....I was outraged! Is New York Times protecting Obama :



"I was a little Jakarta street kid," he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

John
It's what we do!
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

As an atheist who despises much of what Islam is, I've got to agree. Muslim prayer songs are extremely beautiful. Dave Matthews even wrote a song about them. :)

The music in Black Hawk Down always gives me chills, even though I've watched it dozens of times.
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Rising Star wrote: March 6, 2007, Nicholas D. Kristof at the New York Times wrote an article about Barack Obama's upbringing, "Obama: Man of the World," where Obama discussed his Muslim upbringing in Jakarta. Kristof's article which, I blogged about it several months ago, is missing from NYTimes page....I was outraged! Is New York Times protecting Obama :
Actually it's still there, I found it quite easily. Here is the full article:
Obama: Man of the World
Obama: Man of the World
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 6, 2007

The conventional wisdom about Barack Obama is that he’s smart and charismatic but so inexperienced that we should feel jittery about him in the Oval Office.

But that view is myopic. In some respects, Mr. Obama is far more experienced than other presidential candidates.

His experience as an antipoverty organizer in Chicago, for example, gives him a deep grasp of a crucial 21st-century challenge — poverty in America — that almost all politicians lack. He says that grass-roots experience helps explain why he favors not only government spending programs, like early childhood education, but also cultural initiatives, like efforts to promote responsible fatherhood.

In foreign policy as well, Mr. Obama would bring to the White House an important experience that most other candidates lack: he has actually lived abroad. He spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks.

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

Our biggest mistake since World War II has been a lack of sensitivity to other people’s nationalism, from Vietnam to Iraq. Perhaps as a result of his background, Mr. Obama has been unusually sensitive to such issues and to the need to project respect rather than arrogance. He has consistently shown great instincts.

Mr. Obama’s visit to Africa last year hit just the right diplomatic notes. In Kenya, he warmly greeted the president — but denounced corruption and went out of his way to visit a bold newspaper that government agents had ransacked. In South Africa, he respectfully but firmly criticized the government’s unscientific bungling of the AIDS epidemic. In Chad, he visited Darfur refugees.

“My experience growing up in Indonesia or having family in small villages in Africa — I think it makes me much more mindful of the importance of issues like personal security or freedom from corruption,” he said, adding: “I’ve witnessed it in much more direct ways than I think the average American has witnessed it.”

As a senator, Mr. Obama has not only seized the issue of nuclear proliferation, but also the question of small arms. For a majority of the world’s inhabitants, those AK-47s and R.P.G.’s are the weapons of mass destruction.

So how would an Obama administration differ from the Bill Clinton presidency in foreign policy? One way, he said, would be a much greater emphasis on promoting education, health care and development in Africa and other poor regions — not just for humanitarian reasons, but also with an eye to national security.

“If we can’t take what, relative to our military hardware and defense budgets, are a pittance, and put some resources into these areas, we will not be secure,” he noted, adding: “The Marshall Plan was part of a security strategy; it wasn’t simply charity.”

Mr. Obama thumps the White House on trade and foreign investments, like the Dubai ports deal — but he isn’t demagogic in the way that too many Democrats have been. And three years ago, Mr. Obama was quoted in The Chicago Tribune as making hawkish comments about a military strike on Iran, but in the interview he pirouetted and noted that one of the lessons of Iraq is that “being trigger-happy ... is a recipe for disaster.” That’s a welcome sign of growth.

So, granted, Mr. Obama lacks the extensive experience at top levels of diplomacy of, say, Dick Cheney or ... oh, never mind.

What sets Mr. Obama apart is the way his training has been at the grass-roots rather than in the treetops. And that may be the richest kind of background of all, yielding not just experience, but also wisdom.
Glenn
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Interesting that Obama buys into the canard that people don't like us because we don't give them enough money and are not "sensitive to their nationalism."

Sheesh-----is "sensative to their nationalism: anything like:

-Germany and the Sudatenland?
-Japan and the east Indies and a large chunck of China?
-North Korea wanting ALL of the country?
-That little "natiionalism" dispute between the 2 Vietnams?
-Iraq deciding that Kuwait was actually part of Iraq?
-That little spat of "nationalism" in Bosnia? Kosavo?
-Georgia and Russia and Osetia and "nationalism."

I don't think we lack "sensitivity" I think we grasp it all to well and in many cases are opposed to it.

As far a Obama's "visit" to Africa----Africa as a whole is one of the ew places where GWB is greatly respected----but of course you never here that from our "unbiased" media. ;)

If as is asserted that Obama believs that "AK-47 and RPGS are weapons of mass destruction"....well Saddam had plenty of those WMD's. ;)

In "Chad he visted Dafur refugees"......wow! A personal visit!
How did he vote and what has he advocated doing in Darfur??????
What is his opinion of say the janjiweed sense of "nationalsim?"

Let see while overseas Obama charactrized the "Muslim call tto prayer...one of the prettist sounds on Earth at sunset"
But while meeting with American Lefties.......ooops...excuse me American "Progressives" ;) he denagites American Christians as "bitter" people "clinging to their guns and relgion."
Hmmmmmmm....what was the phrase the author used...ah yes Obama is "less likely to sterotype." :roll:
Perhaps the author meant to say "less likely to sterotype unless you have the misfortune to be a American citizen, then of course sterotyping is not only perfectly valid but expected." :roll:

Obama "man of the world" funny I thought we we electing a President to represent American interests and see to American stablity and safety. :oops:
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

cxt wrote: Sheesh-----is "sensative to their nationalism: anything like:
-Germany and the Sudatenland?
-Japan and the east Indies and a large chunck of China?
-North Korea wanting ALL of the country?
-That little "natiionalism" dispute between the 2 Vietnams?
-Iraq deciding that Kuwait was actually part of Iraq?
-That little spat of "nationalism" in Bosnia? Kosavo?
-Georgia and Russia and Osetia and "nationalism."
How any of these 'examples' relate to the issue of whether a presidential candidate is more sensitive to all the nationism issues in the world is beyond me. If anything they highlight the dangers of ignoring insensitivity. The first, sixth, and seventh are examples of insensitivity to others nationalism. Vietnam was a conflict within an artificially divided country over who should rule the entire country. So has been Korea although it is still separated into two, and South Korea also wants to reunify the country but under democratic rule. Germany and the Sudatenland (and Austria) was not about sensitivity to someone else's nationalism but rather using German nationalism as a pretext to 'unify the German people of all countries'. Iraq invaded Kuwait as the culmination of economic tensions between the two countries that had been escalating for about 10 years, starting with Kuwait refusing to write off the debt Iraq owed it for helping to fund Iraq's war with Iran, it had nothing to do with Iraq trying to re-annex a former province as some have claimed.
Kuwait had heavily funded Iraq's eight year-long war with Iran. After the war ended, Kuwait declined an Iraqi request to forgive its US$65 billion debt. An economic warfare between the two countries followed after Kuwait increased its oil production by 40 percent. Tensions between the two countries increased further after Iraq alleged that Kuwait was slant drilling oil from its share of the Rumaila field. On 2 August, 1990 Iraqi forces invaded and annexed Kuwait. Saddam Hussein, then President of Iraq, deposed the emir of Kuwait, Jaber Al-Sabah, and installed Ali Hassan al-Majid as the new governor of Kuwait.
Glenn
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Interesting that Obama buys into the canard that people don't like us because we don't give them enough money and are not "sensitive to their nationalism."

These were the words of the editorialist, not Obama's. Key distinction. I don't see anything from Obama here about buying favoritism or rolling over for pushy nations. In fact what was mentioned was a comment about being hawkish for anti-Iran strikes which he later ambivalent about.

"If as is asserted that Obama believs that "AK-47 and RPGS are weapons of mass destruction"....well Saddam had plenty of those WMD's."

You don't reallt think he would mean we need to invade all coutries with AK 47's do you? Maybe he really meant we need to control their proliferation especially in places plagued by ongoing war driven by these weapons? You know, like, totally different than Iraq, which was a mess, but stable, and not a slaughterhouse between two or more groups armed with AKs and RPGs?

And you don't want someone who understands the world to be the President. Interesting. Why don't you vote for someone like McCain/Palin, since the Republicans don't ever make a point of stereotyping Americans or dividing the country for political gain?*

*unless you're talking about that little "leftist elite" "east coast mentality" "out of touch with mainstreeet or mainstream america" "radical liberal agenda" "gay marriages performed in your kid's elementary school by your pastor who's at gunpoint with the last gun in america" stuff
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Obama: Man of the World
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 6, 2007

The conventional wisdom about Barack Obama is that he’s smart and charismatic but so inexperienced that we should feel jittery about him in the Oval Office.

But that view is myopic. In some respects, Mr. Obama is far more experienced than other presidential candidates.

***
To make a long story short... This is less about Obama's qualifications, and more about Kristof's extreme liberalism. Sorry, but I'm not buying Kristof's propaganda.

'Nuff said.

- Bill
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ

Ah, yeah, its the serious errors in logic of the author.......never claimed it was Obama personally...I was reffering to him as did the author.

Yes, the author, seems to have an quite intersting opinion of what WMD's might be---I just pointed out the foolish nature of his assertion.
In context, to honestly answer your question....ie "you don't really think we need to invade all countries with AK's"....you would have to ask the author how serious he was in using the WMD's comparsion.

"You don't want someone who understand the world to be President"

Nope, that not even close to what I actually said........as you keep pointing out IJ, I spell poorly......but I don't have any trouble in keeping things stright.
I expected better of you IJ.......man of your education and all. ;)

I was pointing out, again, that the author has an interesting postion on what job we are electing people to fill.....not something like "president of the world" but President of the USA.

Think of it this way, you certainly want your significant other to be popular and well liked by others----but you don't want your significant other or anyone else to be confused as to whom they are supposed to an advocate and supporter of....which would be you.....you expect your significant other to stand up for you, you expect your significant other to defend you, you expect your significant other to advance your causes........not get so chummy with the other guy that you start to question where their loyalties really lie.

"gay marriage preformed in your kids elementary school"

Ah, the hysterical hypebole of the self proclaimed progressive left.......any questioning of a persons reasoning and motives lead inexcapably to burning people at the stake....hey this "hyperbole" thing is kinda fun. ;)
Last edited by cxt on Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Glen

Kinda depends on exactly how your defining "sensitivity"...as I mentioned..IMO we understood the nature and thinking of those involved quite well......we just seriously disagreed with their plans.......we understood quite well that the Communist North Korea wanted to rule the whole peninsula---we just though it was a bad idea.

I view the common use of the term "sensitive" as an ill-defined and oft misused word......a weasel word if you will.

As another example---we, IMO we fully understood that Iraq under Saddam wanted to invade and rule Kuwait for "economic reasons" as you put it.
We got that, we were "sensative" to their wants and needs and rationaliztions......we simply didn't think it was a good idea......we didn't oppose it because we were "insensative" we opposed it because even though we were well aware of the whys and the hows and the where-fors---we still didn't like it.

See what I mean????

IMO the word "sensative" often implies that if we just were nicer to people then they wouldn't dislike us so.........but when you stop people from getting that they want---regardless of how nice and "sensative" you are....they often still dislike you.

IMO "sensative" is often a Weasel Word............in the fallicious sense.
Like when people say "we pacified the area" instead of "we killed every living thing and napalmed the ground just in case."

The word implies all sorts of things that may not be exactly so.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

CXT, sometimes your posts just seem to come out of a blender. All the rhetoric and smileys aside, it's perfectly legitimate to consider small arms "WMDs" as far as the developing world is concerned. They've been a serious problem for struggling African nations and the cause of displacements and refugee messes. That doesn't mean they're to be treated like traditional WMD, it's just a way of recognizing the importance of the issue to the people of those nations. If you mistakenly assume that calling something a WMD means it has to be dealt with with W's approach, the author can't be faulted.
--Ian
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ

I disagree, mainly because if you start calling them WMD's the ultimate effect is to take the "sting" as it were from real WMD's.
IMO it cheapens the word and its impact---like using the term "Holocaust" outside its general context merely for its effect.

If the author "really" considered them actual WMD's---for which a case could well be made IMO--then one should approach dealing with them with the same seriousness and concern for their use as actual WMD's.......if one really belives that they are......they want them to viewed like it and get them controlled like real WMD's-----then they should act like it.

IMO the author was simply trying to "sound" cool and edgy and turn what they took to be a clever phrase.....which is exactly why I dislike it.

I'm all for a ban on small arms---but how are people going to protect themselevs from folks like the janjiweed without weapons?
I'd like to see things get more safe..... I just can't think of way to do it....I'm sorry to say. :oops:
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Well, we can agree to disagree. I for one do not see an ethical advantage to destroying a whole city overnight with thousands of incendiary bombs creating a firestorm (Dresden) over using one nuclear bomb to initiate a firestorm (Hiroshima). The result is the same. And if you tally up the deaths from historical use of chemical / bio weapons and even nuclear, the persistant poverty, displacements, famine, disease, and misery that continual conflict in Africa have caused, the term seems fair.

There can be a dilution of terms and I agree "holocaust" shouldn't be tossed around lightly. It's worth pointing out these were called "WMD of the developing world" which is relevant because no one is going to go after impoverished farmers with nukes. The point is that the travails of the poor nations matter too, even if their concerns differ.
--Ian
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

IJ

Of course the "travails of poor nations" matter."

Its one of the reason why I was scornful of the author's downgrading their plights with "cutsey".....oh-so-clever-look-at-me-and-my-wicked-smart-turn-of-phrase verbage.
If the author wanted it to be taken seriously then the author needed to address it as such....being cute and clever detracts from the message.

If the author isn't going take it seriously and address it in serious fashion why should the reader?

I'm more or less in agreement on Dresden-----further, since you mentioned Hiroshima--the Japanese killed more people by hand, up close and personal---tossing babies onto bayonets etc during the Rape of Nanking----yet Hiroshima is decried and Nanking.....well Nanking is treated much differently.......and the arguments applied to Nanking are not considered for Hiroshima.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”