![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm hardly one of Obama's most outspoken admirers. I do nevertheless believe in giving the devil his due, and IMHO the man's trip to China was the best showing there by any American President since Nixon. Unlike every other President for the past 30 years, he didn't try to publicly embarass the Chinese with awkward questions at press conferences, or wanting to meet with political dissidents, or generally trying to appear at odds with his hosts. He conducted himself instead in a dignified and polite fashion, as befits a head of state visiting a friendly nation. This will become a trend, I hope.
Nov. 18th, 2009
In the News!
Nov. 18th, 2009 11:54 amOut of all the articles I've read about the recently-completed 'Food Security Summit', I've yet to see a single mention of overpopulation as even a minor contributing factor to creating a world where famine is the normal condition.
Gotta love the Pope labasting 'opulence' as a root cause of starvation. He'll be selling off much of the Vatican to help feed the hungry, I'm sure.
*****
So, the Senate has just quietly announced that they won't be taking substantive action on Obama's proposed carbon tax until March or so. Whether or not they're entirely serious about the date, it does send a welcome message to the President to put the economy first. I'm filled with schadenfreude when I contemplate the House Dems who went rushing forth to take the most exposed position they possibly could back in June, sure that the country would follow. Brave politicians make for entertaining elections.
*****
It's always interesting to contemplate the gulf between the Senators, who for the most part intend to be President someday, and the Representatives, who for the most part intend to change the world immediately. You'd think that people who have to face the electorate every two years would be more cautious than those who have a six year term, but that's not how it works. Senators tend to look two or three election cycles ahead. Representatives tend to do impulsive things in the first year of their term, then spend the next year trying to explain them away.
*****
Obama offers a moment of unintentional humour when he tries to defend the idea of putting the 9/11 terrorists on trial.
In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial.
I've yet to hear anyone give me a coherent answer as to what possible benefit is supposed to come of these trials. The assumption from the left seems to be that having a trial is itself a benefit.
*****
Sarah Palin thinks Newsweek's cover picture of her is 'sexist' and 'inappropriate'. I'm left to wonder who that is in that picture, posing that way, then.
I'm left to wonder why, as well, that when Newsweek displays a picture of their own magazine cover on their website, the picture is linked from the Christian Science Monitor's website.
Gotta love the Pope labasting 'opulence' as a root cause of starvation. He'll be selling off much of the Vatican to help feed the hungry, I'm sure.
*****
So, the Senate has just quietly announced that they won't be taking substantive action on Obama's proposed carbon tax until March or so. Whether or not they're entirely serious about the date, it does send a welcome message to the President to put the economy first. I'm filled with schadenfreude when I contemplate the House Dems who went rushing forth to take the most exposed position they possibly could back in June, sure that the country would follow. Brave politicians make for entertaining elections.
*****
It's always interesting to contemplate the gulf between the Senators, who for the most part intend to be President someday, and the Representatives, who for the most part intend to change the world immediately. You'd think that people who have to face the electorate every two years would be more cautious than those who have a six year term, but that's not how it works. Senators tend to look two or three election cycles ahead. Representatives tend to do impulsive things in the first year of their term, then spend the next year trying to explain them away.
*****
Obama offers a moment of unintentional humour when he tries to defend the idea of putting the 9/11 terrorists on trial.
In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial.
I've yet to hear anyone give me a coherent answer as to what possible benefit is supposed to come of these trials. The assumption from the left seems to be that having a trial is itself a benefit.
*****
Sarah Palin thinks Newsweek's cover picture of her is 'sexist' and 'inappropriate'. I'm left to wonder who that is in that picture, posing that way, then.
I'm left to wonder why, as well, that when Newsweek displays a picture of their own magazine cover on their website, the picture is linked from the Christian Science Monitor's website.