I think it's important to understand that the right-wing (by which I mean anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich or Al Grayson; including the GOP & the 'Blue-dog' Dims) pay only lip-service to their oaths. What they actually support is Mussolini-style fascism in which they & their corporate fellow-travelers govern to suit their own best interests & reap benefits they deny to the hoi-poloi, while permitting sufficient benefits, to sufficient numbers of the 'hoi' as to stave off open rebellion while keeping the numbers of those sufficiently disenfranchised as to contemplate rebellion too low to accomplish it. Keep in mind 'democracy' is "government by 'the people". The term does not specify 'ALL the people'. People like Peter King draw a distinction between those entitled to govern and those to be governed.
Any suggestions on how to watch AJ/E videos now that they've blocked 'em in the U.S. in deference (I suppose) to AJ/AM? I had a major collection of AJ/E videos (esp. from 'Inside Story' with Shihab Ratansi) that became useless after AJ/E determined to censor its U.S. content. I now get AJ/E online news via a proxy server (Anonymouse), but it doesn't allow videos.
Kudos to Mr. Alharbi for doing the one thing these idiot race-baiters fear the most... whatever might decrease the bloated incomes they make by peddling fear & hatred. I only hope he's not put off by a generous settlement offer since seeing headlines about Beck & the Blaze being forced to pay compensation & damages for lying (which they've been getting by with for far too many years without 'paying the piper') would be just f**king delicious!
"International Law" seems to be pretty much a term of convenience used to legitimize any stance one wishes to take. In this instance, you (and the West) claim that the Crimean vote to join Russia is 'illegal' under "International Law" while, Russia & Crimea insist that the Kiev putsch & resultant coup government (much like that of Honduras some years back) is 'illegal' under "International Law". And, since the World Court hasn't offered an unsolicited opinion (who's going to ask and be told it's their actions that are illegal?), nobody's convincingly wrong. I will note, however, contrary Juan's assertion that the Crimean vote wasn't legitimate, international observers from many outside nations found it to be just that; free, fair, without evidence of coercion or occupation. By the way, outside of assertions by those in the west regarding the 'Russian Invasion of Ukraine' has anyone seen a photo or video of demonstrably Russian forces anywhere they're not allowed by treaty? Seems odd to me, in these day's of ubiquitous cellphone cameras capable of HD quality video at the push of a button, that nobody's showing videos of Russian tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap... oops, sorry wrong cold war. And, while there are lots of photos of troops (both regular & otherwise) outfitted in Russian-type uniforms, operating Russian equipment, considering the prior Eastern Block nations still operate Russian equipment, it's hardly surprising that they all look Russian. Perhaps what we're really seeing here is another example of NeoCon overreach (they've never seen a regime they didn't think they could change for their better profits) and since USAID & IRI (among others) have been there "promoting democracy" for the six months prior to the revolt and funding nascent 'democrats' with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, what we're really seeing is another NeoCon plan playing out just like their prior plans (e.g.; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum).
A variation of this tactic is employed by the U.S. military when investigating civilian deaths at the hands of our troops. First, deny the deaths were caused by us, blame the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq, Sunni militia, Shia militia, or the families themelves, etc. When confronted with incontrovertible proof of responsibility, maintain the deaths were 'collateral damage' and that others (see foregoing list) were the actual target but that their comrades spirited the bodies of the intended casualties away before the press got there. When grieving families go on TV stating that there were no [see foregoing list] present, only family members who are now dead, admit that 'some' civilians were killed in error but that the number claimed is actually twice as many as were really killed - inflated by the grieving families so as to profit from compensation for deaths that didn't happen. When confronted with proof that the deaths claimed are actually an under-count (after an inventory of body parts & identification of bodies and of who's still 'missing'), send a senior officer to make consolation payments of cash & goats in exchange for ongoing silence on the issue.
I am worried that the image of tube feeding, as portrayed by the guards at Gitmo, may cause a major backlash against a valuable medical tool. Many patients, unable to take nutrition by mouth have feeding tubes placed via their nostrils into their stomachs. These tubes are very small (size 8 French - 'French' sizes are the measurement of the tube's circumference in millimeters), made of highly flexible silicone with a small weight in the end to help them pass. Insertion is typically not uncomfortable and the tubes stay in place between feedings. Similarly, tube feedings are administered in a specific fashion designed to prevent diarrhea or painful overdistention. With the proper medical indications & training, a feeding tube should not be 'torture' under any circumstance. A larger tube, a Naso-Gastric or NG Tube is anywhere from 10-18 F. and is used to aspirate gastric contents in patients whose intestinal tracts have ceased working (after bowel surgery for Eg.) or to remove gastric contents (e.g.; drug O.D.). They are often inserted during surgery (patient is unaware) but are usually well-tolerated (full disclosure - I had one in for a week after an operation & found the nasal/pharyngeal pain tolerable only with I.V. pain meds & local anesthetics, but it was necessary to allow bowel healing and to prevent gastric over-distention from natural secretions). I have placed them, or ordered them placed, in multitudes of patients over many years and found almost all of them tolerated them better than I did although having a large (18F) tube placed is uncomfortable, local anesthetics are very helpful in that circumstance. Regarding the situation at Gitmo, there's absolutely no assurance that the considerations afforded patients at civilian (or military) hospitals are afforded the detainees and I have no doubt that 'punative' tube placement is SOP. One need only listen to Amy Goodman's interview of al Jazeera reporter Sami al-Hajj to understand the deviation of Gitmo's procedures from standard medical practice.
All this to say that if tube-feeding is recommended for you or a loved-one, do not think 'Gitmo'!
I think it's a great bit of performance art! I love the fact that, although they may be called on to fight each other that they can agree to coordinate on the ceremony and salute each other. It's a bit of the old Raj that continues and is clearly loved by the crowds who cheer their 'teams' and both sides are winners.
Agree with all above... to boot, they laughted like idiots as the camel slimed their child's head with its tongue and then, when she trid to touch it's spit on the steering wheel, they're all 'euuwwww, don't touch that!' All-in-all, a pretty disgusting event.
Becoming the target of a coordinated vituperative Faux[NOT]News witch-hunt can only be construed as the highest accolade for expressing rational thought. Congratulations & Kudos to Jim Carry for achieving that recognition and for a really funny video!
IMHO, the segregated buses, while not an 'issue' as regards the overall dismal quality of life for Palestinians in or out of occupied territory (whatever you might consider those boundaries to be), they are without doubt prima facie evidence of Israel's construction of an apartheid state in the West Bank. As some others have observed, it's a potent symbol upon which to focus outrage and to motivate resistance... much like Rosa Parks' seat on the bus or the lunch counters on North Carolina.
False equivalence Joe for Lowell, if one accepts that "Christianist" refers to Dominionists, as "Islamist" evidently refers to right-wing Muslims (Salafists & Wahhabis), there's no confusion. As far as the interplay between religion & politics, my take is that right wing Christians use religion to justify politics whereas MLK & Liberation Theology Catholics used religion to drive politics. It may all be relative... objects in space, etc.
First, this is an important article that helps clarify events in the Muslim world. One hopes (rhetorically, sadly) that the Islamophobes who continually deride the Muslim world for not rejecting extremism will take note.
Secondly, as opposed to abandoning 'Islamist' why not adopt 'Christianist' to describe the right-wing Dominionists? ...just a thought.
Frankly, my hat's off to this feisty lady (and she is a Lady!) for defending her honor without hesitation and in a fashion considered most insulting in the Arab world. One wonders if the offender got the message. On a larger scale, one wonders how willing the Salafists/Wahhabis would be to destroy shops, beat or kill 'backsliders [including all Shia]', etc. if they were met with that kind of immediate stiff resistance. Just like any 'fundi' group imbued with self righteous indignation and backed (according to them) by 'god's inviolate word' they appear entirely unwilling to enter into meaningful negotiations regardless of what country we're discussing (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, or Syria... among others)that would lead to peaceful cohabitation. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Muslims want nothing more than to live their lives peacefully among their neighbors with neither bothering the other. However, the Muslim world seems to be under attack by the Fundi's (as if Westboro Baptist Church had free reign to determine how everyone in the U.S. must behave) and cannot seem to bring them under control. I fear for the nature of the 'final solution' to this dilemma.
If you read the article Juan linked to his comments (link to blogs.reuters.com), you'll see that the issue of whether or not the U.S. could charge the banks criminally is irrelevant to the reason the laws are on the books; which is to create problems for Iran. Thus, destroying HSBC, while possible, wasn't the intent of the legislation or enforcement and would constitute unacceptable 'collateral damage'.
I think it's important to understand that the right-wing (by which I mean anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich or Al Grayson; including the GOP & the 'Blue-dog' Dims) pay only lip-service to their oaths. What they actually support is Mussolini-style fascism in which they & their corporate fellow-travelers govern to suit their own best interests & reap benefits they deny to the hoi-poloi, while permitting sufficient benefits, to sufficient numbers of the 'hoi' as to stave off open rebellion while keeping the numbers of those sufficiently disenfranchised as to contemplate rebellion too low to accomplish it. Keep in mind 'democracy' is "government by 'the people". The term does not specify 'ALL the people'. People like Peter King draw a distinction between those entitled to govern and those to be governed.
Fellow at 'Barracuda VPN' says 'won't work'...
Tks... have neither. Am PC only.
Okay... looked up 'VPN' on Wikipedia. See vendors listed in Google Search. Will investigate.
Any suggestions on how to watch AJ/E videos now that they've blocked 'em in the U.S. in deference (I suppose) to AJ/AM? I had a major collection of AJ/E videos (esp. from 'Inside Story' with Shihab Ratansi) that became useless after AJ/E determined to censor its U.S. content. I now get AJ/E online news via a proxy server (Anonymouse), but it doesn't allow videos.
Kudos to Mr. Alharbi for doing the one thing these idiot race-baiters fear the most... whatever might decrease the bloated incomes they make by peddling fear & hatred. I only hope he's not put off by a generous settlement offer since seeing headlines about Beck & the Blaze being forced to pay compensation & damages for lying (which they've been getting by with for far too many years without 'paying the piper') would be just f**king delicious!
"International Law" seems to be pretty much a term of convenience used to legitimize any stance one wishes to take. In this instance, you (and the West) claim that the Crimean vote to join Russia is 'illegal' under "International Law" while, Russia & Crimea insist that the Kiev putsch & resultant coup government (much like that of Honduras some years back) is 'illegal' under "International Law". And, since the World Court hasn't offered an unsolicited opinion (who's going to ask and be told it's their actions that are illegal?), nobody's convincingly wrong. I will note, however, contrary Juan's assertion that the Crimean vote wasn't legitimate, international observers from many outside nations found it to be just that; free, fair, without evidence of coercion or occupation. By the way, outside of assertions by those in the west regarding the 'Russian Invasion of Ukraine' has anyone seen a photo or video of demonstrably Russian forces anywhere they're not allowed by treaty? Seems odd to me, in these day's of ubiquitous cellphone cameras capable of HD quality video at the push of a button, that nobody's showing videos of Russian tanks streaming through the Fulda Gap... oops, sorry wrong cold war. And, while there are lots of photos of troops (both regular & otherwise) outfitted in Russian-type uniforms, operating Russian equipment, considering the prior Eastern Block nations still operate Russian equipment, it's hardly surprising that they all look Russian. Perhaps what we're really seeing here is another example of NeoCon overreach (they've never seen a regime they didn't think they could change for their better profits) and since USAID & IRI (among others) have been there "promoting democracy" for the six months prior to the revolt and funding nascent 'democrats' with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, what we're really seeing is another NeoCon plan playing out just like their prior plans (e.g.; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum).
And who said Saudis have no sense of humor?
A variation of this tactic is employed by the U.S. military when investigating civilian deaths at the hands of our troops. First, deny the deaths were caused by us, blame the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq, Sunni militia, Shia militia, or the families themelves, etc. When confronted with incontrovertible proof of responsibility, maintain the deaths were 'collateral damage' and that others (see foregoing list) were the actual target but that their comrades spirited the bodies of the intended casualties away before the press got there. When grieving families go on TV stating that there were no [see foregoing list] present, only family members who are now dead, admit that 'some' civilians were killed in error but that the number claimed is actually twice as many as were really killed - inflated by the grieving families so as to profit from compensation for deaths that didn't happen. When confronted with proof that the deaths claimed are actually an under-count (after an inventory of body parts & identification of bodies and of who's still 'missing'), send a senior officer to make consolation payments of cash & goats in exchange for ongoing silence on the issue.
I am worried that the image of tube feeding, as portrayed by the guards at Gitmo, may cause a major backlash against a valuable medical tool. Many patients, unable to take nutrition by mouth have feeding tubes placed via their nostrils into their stomachs. These tubes are very small (size 8 French - 'French' sizes are the measurement of the tube's circumference in millimeters), made of highly flexible silicone with a small weight in the end to help them pass. Insertion is typically not uncomfortable and the tubes stay in place between feedings. Similarly, tube feedings are administered in a specific fashion designed to prevent diarrhea or painful overdistention. With the proper medical indications & training, a feeding tube should not be 'torture' under any circumstance. A larger tube, a Naso-Gastric or NG Tube is anywhere from 10-18 F. and is used to aspirate gastric contents in patients whose intestinal tracts have ceased working (after bowel surgery for Eg.) or to remove gastric contents (e.g.; drug O.D.). They are often inserted during surgery (patient is unaware) but are usually well-tolerated (full disclosure - I had one in for a week after an operation & found the nasal/pharyngeal pain tolerable only with I.V. pain meds & local anesthetics, but it was necessary to allow bowel healing and to prevent gastric over-distention from natural secretions). I have placed them, or ordered them placed, in multitudes of patients over many years and found almost all of them tolerated them better than I did although having a large (18F) tube placed is uncomfortable, local anesthetics are very helpful in that circumstance. Regarding the situation at Gitmo, there's absolutely no assurance that the considerations afforded patients at civilian (or military) hospitals are afforded the detainees and I have no doubt that 'punative' tube placement is SOP. One need only listen to Amy Goodman's interview of al Jazeera reporter Sami al-Hajj to understand the deviation of Gitmo's procedures from standard medical practice.
All this to say that if tube-feeding is recommended for you or a loved-one, do not think 'Gitmo'!
I think it's a great bit of performance art! I love the fact that, although they may be called on to fight each other that they can agree to coordinate on the ceremony and salute each other. It's a bit of the old Raj that continues and is clearly loved by the crowds who cheer their 'teams' and both sides are winners.
Thanks for posting this Juan... truly a lovely city (also appreciate the info in Farhang's post).
Agree with all above... to boot, they laughted like idiots as the camel slimed their child's head with its tongue and then, when she trid to touch it's spit on the steering wheel, they're all 'euuwwww, don't touch that!' All-in-all, a pretty disgusting event.
The detail is astonishing as is the degree of activity!
Becoming the target of a coordinated vituperative Faux[NOT]News witch-hunt can only be construed as the highest accolade for expressing rational thought. Congratulations & Kudos to Jim Carry for achieving that recognition and for a really funny video!
Should I start holding my breath?
IMHO, the segregated buses, while not an 'issue' as regards the overall dismal quality of life for Palestinians in or out of occupied territory (whatever you might consider those boundaries to be), they are without doubt prima facie evidence of Israel's construction of an apartheid state in the West Bank. As some others have observed, it's a potent symbol upon which to focus outrage and to motivate resistance... much like Rosa Parks' seat on the bus or the lunch counters on North Carolina.
False equivalence Joe for Lowell, if one accepts that "Christianist" refers to Dominionists, as "Islamist" evidently refers to right-wing Muslims (Salafists & Wahhabis), there's no confusion. As far as the interplay between religion & politics, my take is that right wing Christians use religion to justify politics whereas MLK & Liberation Theology Catholics used religion to drive politics. It may all be relative... objects in space, etc.
First, this is an important article that helps clarify events in the Muslim world. One hopes (rhetorically, sadly) that the Islamophobes who continually deride the Muslim world for not rejecting extremism will take note.
Secondly, as opposed to abandoning 'Islamist' why not adopt 'Christianist' to describe the right-wing Dominionists? ...just a thought.
Frankly, my hat's off to this feisty lady (and she is a Lady!) for defending her honor without hesitation and in a fashion considered most insulting in the Arab world. One wonders if the offender got the message. On a larger scale, one wonders how willing the Salafists/Wahhabis would be to destroy shops, beat or kill 'backsliders [including all Shia]', etc. if they were met with that kind of immediate stiff resistance. Just like any 'fundi' group imbued with self righteous indignation and backed (according to them) by 'god's inviolate word' they appear entirely unwilling to enter into meaningful negotiations regardless of what country we're discussing (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, or Syria... among others)that would lead to peaceful cohabitation. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Muslims want nothing more than to live their lives peacefully among their neighbors with neither bothering the other. However, the Muslim world seems to be under attack by the Fundi's (as if Westboro Baptist Church had free reign to determine how everyone in the U.S. must behave) and cannot seem to bring them under control. I fear for the nature of the 'final solution' to this dilemma.
Louis,
If you read the article Juan linked to his comments (link to blogs.reuters.com), you'll see that the issue of whether or not the U.S. could charge the banks criminally is irrelevant to the reason the laws are on the books; which is to create problems for Iran. Thus, destroying HSBC, while possible, wasn't the intent of the legislation or enforcement and would constitute unacceptable 'collateral damage'.
Thanks for calling a spade a spade Juan!
You could write a similar article by changing the words 'Bill Maher' to 'Sam Harris'.