6
POPSHillary's Own Sexism
Although there is a lot of talk about sexism, and how it is to blame for Hillary's defeat, I think people are barking up the wrong tree. Obama never campaigned against Hillary on the basis that as a woman she would be "unelectable" because conservative "swing voters" would never elect a woman. On the other hand, she did make that case against Obama on account of his race. In fact, nobody ever questioned Hillary's ability to lead the country, as a woman or otherwise. The should have: her foreign policy is scary and ignorant. But the most sexist person in the race was Hillary herself. Her campaign, with the pant-suits and tough guy attitude (especially on Iran) seemed to reflect her own belief that if a woman was going to win, she had to convince people that she was "one of the guys." I think almost anyone who would vote for Obama would also vote for a woman - if it was the right woman. What I'm not willing to do is vote for any woman simply for the sake of making history.
10
POPSMcCain: A Critical Weakness on Foreign Policy McCain's critical weakness on foreign policy is that he knows next to nothing about it. Although I have a lot of respect of McCain, I think he falls into the typical trap of myopic patriotism. Many people love their own country so much that they are blind to the reality of the world outside their borders. The outside world is a place where America is a pretty good nation, but has certainly seen better days. The outside world is a place where our enemies occasionally have legitimate points, and certainly have lives and families much like our own. In the reality beyond our borders, the US isn't guaranteed to win every fight, especially when we go in on shaky ground. In the reality beyond our borders everyone has to talk, whether they like it or not, because in the end, nations, like people, are created equal. McCain knows everything about the US Military, but knows nothing about our enemies. With a perspective like that, how can we expect to win?
6
POPSBush: Out of Touch, and Out of his Mind At a certain point I fail to understand what our President thinks he is doing. It would seem he is newly possessed with an urgent desire to invade Iran, regardless of the circumstances. Apparently, he doesn't understand the game he's playing. He's confirming America's stereotype as a global villain in they eyes of the rest of the world. Bush led the push to attack and isolate Iran because of their nuclear weapons program. When that allegation was firmly contradicted by our own intelligence community, he didn't miss a beat. He's going on as if the NIE never even came out, still talking about nuclear weapons as if nothing had changed. Now Iran agrees to answer questions and open up to the IAEA, as well as fulfilling other obligations to the UN. As they do, Bush keeps cheer leading for war. Doesn't he realize that he's impeaching what little credibility America has internationally?
7
POPSA Plan to End the Crisis With Iran Just so nobody can say I only criticize Bush, I offer here a plan to immediately end the crisis with Iran. Ahmadinejad is an aggressive, anti-Western president who is isolating Iran, much to the chagrin of the Iranians. The economy is weak, and it is getting harder for people to make a living, which is causing unrest. On the other hand, his predecessor Khatami was a progressive, who wanted relations with the west, and had a good record on the economy. I suggest that we use these factors in to our advantage in the following plan: (see comments bellow.)
11
POPSConflict in Iran: Symbiosis between Bush and Ahmadinejad I've stitched together three very interesting articles over the last week, which become much more interesting when you read them in sequence. Look carefully at what is happening. If there is anything that lays bare the role of the Bush Administration's jingoistic belligerence in the Middle East, it is the recent conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. With the international pressure off Ahmadinejad, he starts taking heat in Iran for the shortcomings of his leadership. Without fear, his belligerent and isolationist politics lose their appeal. In order to defend his world view, and preserve the source of his power, he needs America as an enemy... So some Iranian boats play around with one of our convoys, Bush comes out with some insane saber-rattling press conference, and, Ahmadinejad is back in business, courtesy of the Bush administration. If you desire war, you need an enemy. If you need an enemy, you desire war. Bush needs Ahmadinejad. Just like Ahmadinejad needs Bush.
7
POPSHow to Win the War on Terror This is the perfect evidence of what many people, myself included, have been saying all along. A muscular foreign policy approach only empowers extremists and terrorists. It gives them justification; it gives people reason to believe them. Why has democracy failed to take hold in Iraq? Why do the extreemists still control the country? Could it be directly linked to the US military presence that empowers the extremists? After all, in a time of war it is the most radical elements that are able to shout down the voices of reason. This also shows why an invasion of Iran, or military action against the country would be idiocy, and possibly suicide. When faced with an outside enemy, the Iranians are no different from Americans: they will unite to defend their country. If we attack Iran, the Iranians will unite against us, and we will only empower the most brutal element of society. As long as we fight against them, they will fight against us. When we stop fighting, progress begin
13
POPSEdwards has a point: Hillary is Wrong Edwards raises a very good point, something Democrats have an amazing capacity to over look. In 2000 the Democrats ran Al Gore, and he wasn't able to generate enough enthusiasm to secure the white house. In 2004 they ran John Kerry as the "Bush-beater" candidate, and he didn't generate enough enthusiasm to even make people bother noticing the blatant fraud in the election. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Stevenson were no better. The democrats have run an outstanding array of losers since the mid point of the 20th century. As long as Hilary Clinton remains an establishment candidate with no clear ideological positions and delicately structured plans that only go half way, she won't be winning anything. Also, seriously, if the election came down to Hillary (Bomb Iran) v. Guliani (BOMB IRAN) then we would be looking at a contest where the Daisy Girl add would be considered positive PR!
10
POPSNeo-Cons on Iran: From Ignorant to downright Insane This is a worthy article in general - one of the better ones you'll see fro Krugman (although it is still annoyingly conversational, at least he isn't Maureen Dowd!) He makes a good point: that fear is what our leaders embrace, not courage. I'm sick and tired of Americans who are scared. I for one am not scared of terrorists, and anyone who lives their life in fear is an idiot. (Probably a manipulated idiot.) But the real gem is when Krugman calls it like it is on Iran. Podhorertz and others like him have departed so far from reality that they are basically making things ups as they go along. I expect next that Commentary will be linking Iran to Voldemort, Darth Vader, and the Dark Lord Sauron. They are so blatantly disconnected from reality, and yet, people listen to them! That's the part I don't understand. Even a student in a High School Social Studies class should be able to tell you the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda.
6
POPSTalking Sense: An Alternative to Sanctions and Bombing These days it seems most people can only think in terms of either sanctions or bombing. If we cannot bomb them, then use sanctions; if we sanctions don't work, we must bomb! This is a horrific false dichotomy. Bombing and Sanctions are both barbaric and uncivilized. They hurt average people, and in the history of civilization, neither has proven particularly effective. A true diplomat thinks of ways to resolve problems through helping people, not hurting them. Diplomacy appeals to humanity, rather than brute appeals to force, be they military or economic. Bernard Kouchner is the first real diplomat I've seen in a long time. Hats off to you! This should also remind us that our plan to sanction/bomb Iran is totally futile and simply leading us down the garden path to our own destruction. Has America learned nothing from the way Bush manipulated us with Iraq? Why are people falling for the same trick again with Iran?
9
POPSClueless On Cuba US foreign policy has long hinged on the rather shaky presumption that we are always right, and that those who disagree with us must be universally reviled. With such a perspective, Bush is no doubt very confused as to how someone like Fidel Castro could have maintained power, overlooking the fact that a lot of Cubans actually LIKE their communist government. Delusional egotism is no basis for foreign policy. Americans have an increasing reputation (since the beginning of the cold war) for being willfully out of touch with reality and utterly oblivious to inconvenient truths. Bush simply continues to prove that stereotype correct. The real danger lies in that we might soon apply the same naive optimism to a very dangerous war that we WILL lose in Iran. Sad to say, America is such a great nation, the only people who can destroy it are the Americans themselves. Unless we wise up and start taking the rest of the world seriously, we are doomed.
12
POPSFundamentalism & Government: There, but for the Grace of the Constitution, Go I It's interesting how much agendas of Christian fundamentalists can overlap with other religious fundamentalists. Obviously, they will never be able to get a completely straight society. Laws and persecution don't make homosexuals go away. Is a society of convenient denial what these religions truly want? In that case they aren't saving souls, they are just insulating themselves from diversity. What is also quite interesting is that the article goes on to talk about Iran's encouragement of homosexuals to undergo sex changes. (Never mind that gender disphoria isn't necessarily linked with homosexuality...) I see in this the same agenda at work as when American Christians talk about "curing" homosexuality. But the BIG question is: if we let the Christian fundamentalists run the country like they want to, would they do things any differently than what we are seeing in Iran? I haven't seen anything to suggest they would.
6
POPSWith friends like Putin, who needs Ahmadinejad? Vladimir Putin is one of the scariest men in politics, and with an election approaching, things are about to get a whole lot scarier. Anyone who thinks that Iran or North Korea are the greatest threats world peace and stability needs to take a look closer to the Urals. I'm worried that all our presidential candidates will be building their Middle Eastern resume when the next crisis they are going to face will come from Russia first.
7
POPSThe US & China: Military Diplomacy As I have argued before, I believe China's military spending is not a genuine threat, but instead an effort to be taken seriously internationally, and esspecially to impress America. At their core, they want cooperation and friendship with America, but they have a funny way of persuing it. However, the Chinese can be very responsive if you show them just a little bit of respect. They are very sensitive to gaining or losing face. John Denver visited this country once more than twenty years ago, but the Chinese were so touched that they all still know the words to "Country Road Take Me Home" by heart! I am impressed by the diplomatic restraint and good judgment that Defense Secretary Robert Gates seems to be showing on this issue. If only we could start using the same level-headed judgment on Iran and North Korea...
12
POPSThe Economist Ranks USA 96 out of 121 for Peace Hmmm... Andrew Williamson, a director of research for the Economist is quoted here as saying: "We are just mechanics and technicians behind the index. We are not making judgments about foreign policy." Seems like he's trying to say to us: "Don't shoot the messenger!"
1
POPSOn the constancy of leadership... (orgasm) It is interesting to observe that this has become a key difference between American and British policy. Originally, however, it was not. The Presidency was only an implicitly political position. The Office of the President was intended as an Executive, or administrative branch. Political agendas are produced by Congress, administered by the President, and then reviewed by the Courts. It is a shocking commentary on how far our society has gone in the wrong direction that, although we talk of separation of powers, we can no longer recall what exactly those powers were to begin with!
25
POPSMath Behind Ancient Islamic Tile Patterns Decoded When Peter J. Lu traveled to Uzbekistan, he had no idea of the mathematical journey that he was about to embark on as well. See the full research article as published in Science . It's a wonderful example of original, multidisciplinary academic research bridging history and mathematics that happens to force us to re-think the sophistication of ancient geometrical knowledge. When Lu looked at photographs of Islamic buildings, he found that he could break the patterns on their surfaces up into the same shapes, even though the shapes often weren't immediately visible. "I couldn't sleep for days," he said. "I skipped Christmas break to work on it."
Newest Clips
see Newest Clips
7
Latest Pops
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Tags
Print
Save
Turn on live update