Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There was a terrific article in the New Yorker recently about counter-insurgency and what makes people into insurgents. Sadly I can't find an on-line version: but if you're in the US, you can read it on-line here (crosses fingers and hopes this appears as a link?!) courtesy of your local library.
In a nutshell: religion is not a particularly important factor in making a terrorist. Social networks, family bonds and the desire to take part in a "great struggle" are more important.
(James- I know the New Yorker is written by and for The Atheists of Manhatten... but here they are propounding the ideas of Pentagon hired experts in counterinsurgency. If you're not too busy re-building your neighbours houses, its worth a read.) -
Congrats and thanks for opening yourselves up on this.
Any chance "Attitude" is or could be in the free download section of the on-demand site? It should be. TVNZ don't exactly have a record of giving good time-slots.
What I'd like to see- NZ on Air supplying programming they've solely funded on demand from their own site. World-wide. We have, after all, already paid for it. -
James- with respect- I'm left-leaning myself but I can tell a comedian from a Fox news hack. The latter simply aren't deliberately funny. One of the curious things about watching the US from abroad (I was born in Vt, so I'm almost an american- I can vote but I'm forever barrred from the mainstream!) is how right-wing the so-called American centre is. Eg, there may have been a time when CNN was a bit liberal- but now? Jon Stewart's "leftism" can seem like clear vision from here.
This is probably a more than a little arrogant, but my understanding of what's goin' on in the US is that it's a lot harder to see what's going on from within the country. Most of the rest of the world watched the build-up to the invasion of Iraq with disgust, derision, fascination and fear. Inside the country, it seemed the flags never stopped waving- nor the Dems caving...
That's one big reason Obama looks so good. You could just about run for any global office on "I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to a dumb war."
But also with respect: Fox not gunning for Obama? About the first thrity youtube clips if you do a search for Obama relate to exactly that. The list of attacks ranges from snide (middle name that starts with H, Obama "not black enough"!) - to untrue ("educated in a madrassa"- I believe this one was also falsely attributed to Hillary's campaign) to trivial but blown big ("Obama's dirty little secret!" turns out to be he's a smoker) etc etc... You should maybe take a look. You are screwing youirself "in a republican manner" if you don't. :-)
Kerry was cringe-worthy at times: "reporting for duty" was horrible. But he didn't look so bad in the debates. And if lying the country into war, handing the environment and economy over to corporations, running up unheard-of deficits, and thoroughly corrupting the integrity of the public service aren't enough for you, how about mispronouncing newulear and calling your closest advisor "turd-blossom"? Not exactly a class act. -
James- with regard to Novak- perhaps I'm overly influenced by jon Stwewart's "douchebag of liberty" crack. I don't mean to insinuate he's an insider in terms of some conspiracy. I've really only seen him via clips on youtube, but he's oozed an air of bad faith. Didn't know about his son, but it's not surprising. But ok- he's unbiased on Plame, and simply an opinionated, self-serving right-wing loudmouth, on good enough terms (at least before Plame broke) with Rove to have had many friendly chats.
Re Hillary/Obama- they'd make a good ticket, but I can't see it happening. Hillary has a lot of strengths, but for me- so far- she's just not good enough on TV. It may be shallow, but Al Gore is the last candidate who wasn't any good on tv to win- no wait! (actually he's done a LOT of work on being telegenic- there IS a good chance he's a "lurker" candidate.) But it's easy to see that TV loves Obama.Maybe that's why Fox are gunning for him so hard- that and no doubt 'cause it wouldn't be smart to go for Rupert's new pal Hillary? -
Obama does lack experience and he could implode under pressure or some as yet unheard scandal. But ain't he done well so far! Truely impressive, and actually (I'm not saying this is good!) might appeal more to the conservative Xtians than Guilianni (not only pro-abortion, but all those links to the mob?) Ideally Obama'd be in a better position after a stint as VP (one barracade at a time) but even if the wounds have healed, it seems unlikely either Edwards (who is stodgy to me) or Hillary (who I also don't get) would want someone so charismatic that close.
With regard to wounds healing- I think that's partly why the Dems have gone at it so early- to get the blood-letting of the primaries get well and truely out of the news cycle before the campaign in earnest. But it might just mean an extended season for blood-letting!
With regard to Hillary- she IS a hard candidate to sell. But don't underestimate the power of Bill campaigning for her. I s'pect he's the ace-up-the-sleeve they're counting on. He's still popular. They can have him campaigning on the same stage, or split up and keep Hillary in Ca and NY and send Bill through the south. What other candidate has an advisor with that sort of experience they can kiss goodnight? -
someone once said a writer is an actor who's too lazy to wait tables
Nice- or as in "too lazy to work, too nervous to steal."
Yeah, it's just the jealousy of the wannabe writer. -
Bush has a lot to hide. Firing a USA (Carol Lam, whom he appointed) while she's engaged in the prosecution of the biggest political corruption case for a generation- that's just hubris plus. This is the case, don't forget, that implicated the CIA's number 3 and forced Porter Goss' swift resignation. It's not over. Do you think Bush/Gonzales is going to appoint someone who'll keep pushing it- on past Lewis- just as hard as possible?
The MSM tend to give up on a story once there's a scalp. It's one of the things this White House counts on. Throw another (no)body (a Cunningham here, a Libby there) off the lifeboat. It keeps the sharks busy for weeks.
And James- with respect- you surely can't expect us to take Novak seriously on the Plame affair? Yep, he's surely an insider (tho' without, it would appear, the balls to be quite the same sort of insider as Miller...). But unbiased? Please. -
I'm getting old too... but innit cool how damn good bands in their 40s can sound? People who've been playing for 20 or thirty years- often together. Musicianship informed by- dunno, life, and lots and lots of music. Band-mates who just fall into a song like it's home- so comfortable with the structure of it they can mess about. Saw the Bats a few weeks ago and they were superb. All the glory of youf (die before I'm 30 etc) hasn't helped rock'n'roll mature. Even allowing for nostalgia, isn't there something on the nz scene from the late 70s/ early 80s that's starting to get some of the vibe of old jazz masters or something? It's very easy on the ears. </rant>
-
It could be argued that marmalade is moonshine. Since I've spent a lot of time among left-wing academics and never heard a word against evolution, this is, prima facie, completely specious....
-
Disappearing?