Life in Diatribe is moving to our new site: Lifeindiatribe.blogspot.com
Please update your readers or bookmarks. Much love from the Brothers-ranting
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
I talk to myself about afghanistan
12:33 PM me: So I wake up and I'm listening to NPR. The lead story is about how the Afghan election is today. But instead of reporting the story, all the reporters are talking about the limits placed on journalists.
12:34 PM I'm like, "surprise! the media is telling a story about itself!"
12:35 PM Then I get a call from pj: http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/08/20/police-crack-down-on-journalists-during-afghan-election/
Oops, sorry dude. Police chasing you with guns is news-worthy.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Representing the Ombuds or You Know Your Insitution is in Moral Trouble when...
Take a look at a recent chat with a friend of mine. What do you think we should infer about the University of Pennsylvania from this?
C: got it
C: got it
have you seen the ombuds current page from Penn?
1:28 PM as my friend said,
"ghetto."
problematic, yet apt.
me: wow!
worst page ever
seriously, that's the worst page ever
1:29 PM C: yupper
compare that to say
Stanford: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/ombuds/
Columbia: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ombuds/
Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/~ombuds/index.html
me: we are, apparently, the least ethical of the universities
C: and the beat goes on
1:30 PM me: that's shameful
John Bolton (Manny goes on vacation and I talk to myself)
So John Bolton (remember him? he's the crazy guy who yells at people that g.w.b. appointed to be our most notable representative to the world) was on NPR on Monday. He was one of the first people asked to respond to the Clinton Korea trip.
Why, you ask, would NPR or the Washington Mouthpiece put Bolton front and center when North Korea is on the line and any home-based dissent clears would send them the message that America is a weak and divided nation? We can only surmise that it's ok to dissent right, but that dissenting left is anti-american--i.e. it's ok to dissent when one's dissent is oriented at being more confrontational, abrasive, and domineering, but when one is arguing for more dialogue, greater communication and more sympathy, then one is an homeland hater.
Bolton told npr that he was against president clinton going to n. korea because it would encourage other countries to do the same. (You know, all of those countries around the world just dying for a guest appearance from a former president will immediately grab up the nearest passing tourists).
Comments npr:
"Bolton's point about the Iranians who are now holding three young Americans who allegedly entered Iranian territory from Iraq's Kurdish region, is worth considering. What does the U.S. do if the Iranians condition the release of the three Americans on a visit from former President Clinton as well?"
Now this is hysterical. Do they think that the Iranians are just dying for clinton to come to town? That's the outcome they're looking for? "Oh, forget our nuclear aims and plans for regional domination, send us pres clinton and then we can talk business!"
A much more reasoned point was present on Weds on the bbc where the popular view seems now to have shifted around to: "Wow, what a great opportunity to get one of the most savvy politicians of our age three hours face to face with the mysterious and secretive leader of a totalitarian regime that we desperately need to figure out how to deal with." This is a much more sound opinion.
Why, you ask, would NPR or the Washington Mouthpiece put Bolton front and center when North Korea is on the line and any home-based dissent clears would send them the message that America is a weak and divided nation? We can only surmise that it's ok to dissent right, but that dissenting left is anti-american--i.e. it's ok to dissent when one's dissent is oriented at being more confrontational, abrasive, and domineering, but when one is arguing for more dialogue, greater communication and more sympathy, then one is an homeland hater.
Bolton told npr that he was against president clinton going to n. korea because it would encourage other countries to do the same. (You know, all of those countries around the world just dying for a guest appearance from a former president will immediately grab up the nearest passing tourists).
Comments npr:
"Bolton's point about the Iranians who are now holding three young Americans who allegedly entered Iranian territory from Iraq's Kurdish region, is worth considering. What does the U.S. do if the Iranians condition the release of the three Americans on a visit from former President Clinton as well?"
Now this is hysterical. Do they think that the Iranians are just dying for clinton to come to town? That's the outcome they're looking for? "Oh, forget our nuclear aims and plans for regional domination, send us pres clinton and then we can talk business!"
A much more reasoned point was present on Weds on the bbc where the popular view seems now to have shifted around to: "Wow, what a great opportunity to get one of the most savvy politicians of our age three hours face to face with the mysterious and secretive leader of a totalitarian regime that we desperately need to figure out how to deal with." This is a much more sound opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
