SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Politicsforeign affairs, unchaperoned


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: marcos who started this subject9/2/2004 2:02:31 PM
From: teevee
   of 261
 
Bush or Kerry? I don't think it matters because the issues are tribal. Look at how native North American and African tribes have treated each other. There is no difference when considering the outcome between the USA tribe and the Arab tribes. The strong prevail and the weak die. That is what history teaches.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (213)9/2/2004 3:10:20 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 261
 
Zell goes wild

Maybe Zell Miller was just strung too tight following his wild-eyed attack on John Kerry Wednesday night. But following his prime-time convention address, he made the rounds on the cable TV circuit and stole the show -- and not in a good way. Miller's speech was so over-the-top (he essentially questioned Kerry's loyalty to America), it prompted mild-mannered talking head David Gergen to compare Miller to racist demagogue Lester Maddox, while Time's Joe Klein had to pick his jaw up off the ground before he could analyze it. But Miller's post-speech cable performance was even more jaw-dropping, as he first badly fumbled questions from CNN anchors, then lost it with "Hardball's" Chris Matthews, repeatedly challenging the MSNBC host to a duel and telling him to "shut up."

On CNN, he came under respectful but close questioning from Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield, who pressed the wayward Democrat about why he mocked Kerry for using the phrase "occupiers" when describing U.S. troops in Iraq (Miller prefers "liberators"), when President Bush has himself used the same phrase for the same U.S. troops. Miller clearly had no idea that was the case and passed on giving a response. He was also asked why just three years ago he had introduced Kerry in Georgia as an American hero who had worked hard for our nation's security (the speech is still up on Miller's Web site). Miller suggested he was new to the Senate at the time and basically didn't know what he was talking about.

And about those weapons system votes that Miller criticized Kerry for making over a decade ago -- wasn't it true that while as secretary of defense Dick Cheney raised similar doubts about those very same systems? Miller said he'd let Cheney answer that himself. Finally, Blitzer asked Miller why he looked so angry during his speech, and couldn't that hurt the cause he was pushing? Miller, who in fact looked like he was suffering from flashback Atlanta road rage at the podium periodically, said he was sorry if he came across as angry because he didn't mean to.

But that was just the warm-up. Next it was over to Chris Matthews' "Hardball" on MSNBC where Miller, perhaps still bruised by his wobbly CNN showing, just plain lost it. Actually, Miller appeared from Madison Square Garden, while "Hardball's" set was over in Herald Square. And when Miller was announced he was greeted with a chorus of "boos" by the crowd of local Democrats assembled behind the "Hardball" taping area. Things went downhill for Miller from there.

Matthews asked Miller to defend his speech, and particularly his allegations that John Kerry voted "against" various defense appropriations. (As both Matthews and Miller know, voting against a large appropriations bill doesn't necessarily mean that you disapprove of every part of the bill). Miller got progressively angrier as Matthews persisted in holding him to his statement, telling Matthews several times that he wished he was in the studio so he could "get up in your face."

As Miller steamed, Matthews asked him if he thought that he was helping the political discourse in the country, and then, whether he even thought he was helping the Republicans by what he was saying. At that point Miller's meltdown peaked. He started waving his arms around, demanding Matthews "shut up" and let him answer the question. Miller then lapsed into a dialogue with himself wondering, "I don't know why I even came on this program," before returning to Matthews and announcing he wished they lived in a previous era because he would have "challenged you to a duel."

Thursday morning, Miller may deny he was serious when he said all of that, but the semi-deranged expression on his face at that moment suggested he'd truly lost control. Matthews, slightly embarrassed by the whole thing, laughed off Miller's left-field explosion, and invited him back tonight in person for a "more civil discussion." More important, Matthews insisted the show would get great ratings because everybody would be waiting to see if Miller was going to "beat me up."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: American Spirit who wrote (215)9/2/2004 3:14:00 PM
From: Karen Lawrence
   of 261
 
The Zell Miller show would be a hoot.

He'll probably retract his retraction about his stance against "negroes".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (216)9/2/2004 3:16:15 PM
From: American Spirit
   of 261
 
Zell is a disgrace to his nation.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: American Spirit who wrote (217)9/2/2004 3:18:55 PM
From: Karen Lawrence
   of 261
 
What does GA think of Zell now? Obviously, they voted for a dem, who flimflammed and flip/flopped and turned out to be a racist liar rightwing looney. Must make Georgians proud!!!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: teevee who wrote (214)9/2/2004 4:05:13 PM
From: marcos
   of 261
 
Sure, we're tribal at core, that's chuck's main point, and he's right of course .... at the same time, everything we think of as Civilisation has been a process of reducing the damage of too-tight too-exclusive tribalism .... if we hadn't been able to overcome that to great degree, none of our tribes would span more than a few days ride across, we'd be at constant war with each other, we'd all have distinct languages and be unable to communicate well, we'd have developed far less, if at all

It's all about learning to get along together - even within the tribe, the physically strongest would rule, if the others were unable to cooperate well enough to spread power more intelligently

Now we've got technological power up the ying yang, and we've definitely got dominion over the natural world - these are very new concepts, we'll be a while learning how to deal with them ....... we have been clever, now can we be wise, that is the question ..... only answer i see is to merge the tribes, marry each other's sisters - project present trends off into the future, and it's a clear choice, we've got One World, or no world

You have to have struggle of course, for release of excess testosterone ... but we have a home-grown medium for that - hockey

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: marcos who wrote (219)9/2/2004 8:33:34 PM
From: teevee
   of 261
 
I agree with what you say, but most of it gets parked when commodities are in short supply and prices are high. Funny how these seem to be spacially and temporally associated with wars throughout history. Probably just a coincidence eh:-))

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: marcos who wrote (219)9/2/2004 8:53:11 PM
From: Chas.
   of 261
 
Marcos,enjoyed your post....and in response.

we Are at constant war with each other, we Do speak distinctly different languages, we Do have trouble communicating with each other(nations)...half of our world population has Not developed, look at India, China,Africa and Middle East as example......

I agree with you that we would all be better off if we could get along together....however that is wishful thinking...

re "spreading power more intelligently" look to North Korea, Iran, Syria, SA, China....examples galore..

"Technological power up the ying yang", "dominion over the world" I am thankful these concepts reside mostly with USA, Canada, Great Britain......

we, the free West have been clever and we are fairly wise, IMO...

the tribes will never merge, the obstacles are religion,
ethnic loyalty, false pride of Motherland....

Hope for future generations lies in economic viability and jobs for all peoples of all tribes...these two tangibles will transcend politics....

I do not rule out the possibility of extraterrestial intervention at some future date also.......

I am reminded of "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

regards from Chucky

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Chas. who wrote (221)9/2/2004 11:31:31 PM
From: teevee
   of 261
 
Hope for future generations lies in economic viability and jobs for all peoples of all tribes...these two tangibles will transcend politics....

not so sure its that simple now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Take Pakistan for example. Before they were a nuclear power, they were shunned for all kinds of bad behavior. What happened since becoming a nuclear power? The USA is a friend, India won't seek a "final solution" for disputed territory (Pakistan has at least 20 nuclear tipped missiles that can hit anywhere in India) and Pakistan now has the respect it needs to follow Frank Sinatra's mantra "I did it my way". Why wouldn't Iran want to become a nuclear power too if becoming one garners instant respect, especially when you are sitting on all that oil? Funny how everybody seems to get along better under a MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (191)9/3/2004 6:25:03 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 261
 
Re: Then I read that organized crime places their people in low-level bank jobs to steal IDs. In other words, identity theft is actually an inside job.

Karen, you ain't seen nothing yet....

Where a bribe can buy an unsuspecting bride

Sharon LaFraniere/NYT

Thursday, September 2, 2004

JOHANNESBURG
The first Sylvia Tshigo knew of her marriage was the day her husband showed up at her door in March 2003, requesting a divorce. The 37-year-old Nigerian husband had in hand an official marriage certificate from South Africa's Department of Home Affairs. The certificate declared that she had married him in 2000, she said. He wanted to dissolve the marriage, he told her, because his mother in Nigeria was critically ill and he had to go home. At first, Tshigo said, she was flabbergasted. Then she was furious at the man and at the South African Ministry of Home Affairs, which handles immigration and passports, for marrying her off without so much as a fare-thee-well. "Home Affairs is supposed to be people who can be trusted," Tshigo, 31, said in a telephone interview. "I am so very disappointed."

Thousands of South African women would agree. In the past three years, the Home Affairs agency has ruefully admitted, 3,387 bewildered brides have complained that their recorded "I do's" were really "I never did's." More than 2,000 marriages have been annulled so far. Another 1,000 or so cases are under review.

The ministry itself is also under intense scrutiny. As investigators have discovered, marrying a South African woman without her knowledge was as simple as paying a bribe, averaging about $750, to one of many willing Home Affairs officials. The certificates were valuable because a foreigner who marries a South African is automatically entitled to permanent residence and a work permit.

As the most advanced nation in the region, South Africa is a magnet for immigrants seeking a new life and criminals seeking new identities. After Tshigo's ersatz marriage, for instance, her husband was hired as a doctor at a public hospital in Pretoria, enjoying the rights of a South African citizen. "That man," she said bitterly, "he has benefited a lot with my name."
[...]

iht.com

Oh, and before I forget: My greetings to Manolo, your charming Mexican spouse...

Gus

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10