Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've heard they use that term in Hollywood also.
The implications, as always, are far ranging.
-
He chose the name. It would have been hard for us to purchase Jack at the baby shop, but somehow not Ambrose.
(I will note in passing that in some parts of the Italian northeast you say "I'm in the process of purchasing a baby" to mean "I'm pregnant")
-
Our youngest is called Ambrose Jack, Jack having been chosen by his older brother.
Say what you will about Peter's rants, but I for one am going to be grateful for his contribution when I sit down to write my one act plays on cardiofitness, which I plan to entitle The Angina Monologues.
-
What's this we, kemosabe?
It could be the social critic's "we", which roughly translates as "everybody except me".
-
We really, really do not realise how absolutely and utterly sedentary we have become.
Other than on PAS, that is. Here we have a guy who likes to remind us of that fact with a certain regularity.
-
Are there *any* hotels in NZ with free wifi?
I can think of several motels that have free wi-fi so long as you make reasonable use of it, which seems acceptable to me.
-
And happy birthday to your mum, Russell. Mine turns 60 this year. This freaks me out.
Mine turns 80 in February. And when she does, I'm going to have to steal this bit of Russell's speech:
I think some people might have become bitter through all that, but she never has.
-
(Having a drink now.)
-
And whatever the problems with Karzai, he did win at least one relatively free and fair election in which 41% of the votes were cast by women. The US has given him any number of tellings-off. Should they depose him?
I think the issue of RAWA and other groups was how the election was come to, in a manner that pre-selected the winner simply because there was no alternative. But I really have no element to judge that. Whilst pleading a vast amount of ignorance, I often think of it in relation to the first Italian elections of the 1860s, that attracted similar denunciations from Italian radicals. And one can understand why - they hadn't fought for decades to put the house of Savoy in charge.
-
Surely the US has been trying for a long, long time to prevent groups like the Taliban getting weapons?
Not that long. As late as early 2001, the US government gave the regime a $40 million plus gift in echange for their declaring the opium trade impious (I know, you can't make this shit up, can you?). Things changed in a rush after 9/11, but then how did they try to disarm the Taliban? There is a lot of diplomacy that needs to happen - with Russia, with China - and a willingness to make the hard decisions to stop the illegal drug traffic that funds that trade. It's not impractical, it's just not the way we do things. Which means that it's in fact impossible, because we simply won't change - but that in itself is appalling and inexcusable.
So yes, the continuing presence of NATO troops may be in fact in the short term the only means of preventing even greater destruction and loss of life. But that also underlines the madness of our politics, and besides it is no long-term solution. So I'm grateful to RAWA and Emergency and all the other activists who insist to point out that there are in fact alternatives beyond the current left-right consensus that we should give war (yet another) a chance.
(I'm not completely insensitive to those polls of male Afghanis either. But the relatively high support to the continuing presence of the troops must also be understood in the context of the available alternatives. With several guns pointed at your head, you may choose the guy who looks less likely to shoot you. But he's still got a gun to your head.)