Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't mean this question to sound glib, but has Shakespeare been taken off the curriculum in NSW and England? There might be some (weak) correlation between exposure to The Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon and teen suicide (Romeo and Juliet), murdering you wife (Othello), and more batshit crazy nastiness than you could shake a bloody stick at (Titus Andronicus).
In the latter case, W.S. doesn't actually encourage you to commit
a pack rape, then cut off your victim's tongue and hands when you're done so she can't nark on you. But you've got to wonder about the play's possible influence on vulnerable youths. Don't you? -
This part of the coming election is becoming clear now. There will be a spending spree, and there will be a lot of effort to portray the spending spree next year as, oh, I don't know, "the last ditch attempt by a tired, directionless government desperately trying to hang on to power", that sort of thing.
I'm kinda hoping we might have an election campaign where debate over government spending is pitched slightly above the level of Prono-nomics -- where size trumps all else every time. Or should I put that in the fantasy file, along with the candle-lit dinner a deux with Viggo Mortensen?
-
Anyhow, in good news from South Carolina: Clinton gets owned by a twenty-eight point margin.
And after watching shit like this, you've got to wonder whether Bill Clinton is working on the down-low for Obama. It's the only rational explanation I can come up with...
-
I wonder where Mr Soros has been putting his billions!
Well, as long as Mr. Soros never feels inclined to to do to the New Zealand dollar what he did to the pound, I can't much care.
-
I don't know anyone who watches Motorway Patrol.
I'd agree with the qualification that I don't know anyone who admits to watching Motorway Patrol et. al. But someone must be, otherwise there's a cabal of 'reality show' producers and a filing cabinet stuffed with truly horrendous dirt files out there.
-
I daresay the point I am missing is why people bother writing "alternative" versions of history.
Things happened when they happened and the way they happened, nor all thy piety and wit... etc.
Unless it's to prove that they are clever dickies.
Well, I think military historian Sir John Keegan might disagree with you there. I once read that while he was lecturing in military history at Sandhurst, he'd set his students the task of coming up with a counterfactual history of a significant battle. His argument (and a sound one to my mind) is that before you can intelligently speculate on how the Battle of Gettyburg, the Roman Civil War or Operation Barbarossa might have ended differently, you need a firm grasp on why it ended it way it did. And that kind of analytical and strategic thinking might be something useful to develop in an army officer who might one day have to make complex decisions very quickly on which lives depend, don't you think?
Here's something else to consider, daleaway. I'm a huge admirer of Winston Churchill, but if you believe the more dense hagiographies out there you'd think that on May 10, 1940, the heavens opened over Westminster and in a blaze of celestial light, accompanied by choirs of angels, the Hand of God slapped Churchill on the arse as a voice intoned "Tag you're it! Go ye forth and righteously bitch-slap the Nazis back to Kraut-land." Not to put too fine a point on it, that's utter bullshit -- along with the notions that Britain would never, ever have bent its knee to the Third Reich.
The idea of looking back on history as a chain of inevitable events has its charms, I admit, but it is bad (and intellectually lazy) history that leads to bad social science and even worse policy. Just ask those folks who took the title of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History rather too literally, and never quite got around to reading - let alone getting to grips with - his rather complex arguments. -
An ambitious Obama - no problem. An ambitious HRC - suddenly it's "ugly".
Well, Neil, since you went there.. Its a lovely evening, and the rest of Dorkland anniversary weekend looks like being equally fine, so I'm NOT going to give your poorly coded allegation of a sexist - nay, misogynistic - double standard the handbagging it deserves.
But please commt the following to memory:
Senator Clinton has a ve-jay-jay.
Senator Obama has a pee-pee.
Whatever.Senator Clinton has skin the colour of fresh-whipped cream.
Senator Obama has skin the colour of sweet dairy milk chocolate.
Whatever.Senator Clinton's campaign issued an outright deceptive radio ads that took five words so far out of context they're not on the same planet any more. I find that despicable
If Obama follows suit, I'll find that equally despicable and you'll hear all about it.
We crystal clear on that?
-
Trouble is, he didn't say that. I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
Indeed - and while every campaign needs a surrogate to throw out the red meat on your behalf, perhaps Senator Clinton might want to choose someone who sends out significantly less mixed messages than her husband.
-
The only backward step would be electing another Republican at this point.
Well, if this is a taste of what another Clinton Administration is going to be like I might well be serving you a well-done crow with a big side of humble pie to follow. In my view, at least a McCain-Obama race would be one between adults (despite my substantive policy differences with both men). If the party bases run to expectations (and I pray I'm wrong) and serve up Clinton vs. Romney or Huckabee. Forget the US general election being a circus, think seriously skanky freak show.
I picked up on that during the misting up. If Obama gets the Democratic nom the country will go backward ... seriously? Won't go forward enough, sure, but electing Obama would actually be a backward step!?
Well, you vote for Obama the terrorists win!
-
And I should have to say this, but here goes:
Of course, anyone seeking political office -- especially the highest one their nation has to offer -- should be subject to rigorous scrutiny of their political record, policy and public statements from all sides. Obama doesn't get a pass on that score, and I'd say his campaign hasn't exactly been sterile when it comes to unfair and misleading charges laid at Clinton's feet.
But there is a real line between legitimate differences of interpretation that are open to debate, and blatant unspinnable deception. The latter is never tolerable in my view, but I guess if this ad has created the (misleading) impression of Obama's record and views in the minds of a few thousand South Carolina Democrats who cares? It did what it was intended to do, just as the vile and dishonest attack ads and robocalls deployed against McCain in the same state eight years ago did theirs.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 … 1235 Older→ First