HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 11:55 PM
Number of posts: 2,380

Journal Archives

There is no way to forget about him

when you live in New Jersey, where all non-essential construction work on roads and rail has been stopped for over a month now because of his feud with the Democratic Senate.


Construction workers are losing their income, and people are being stuck in traffic, because of Chris Christie's narcissism. Unfortunately, we're stuck with this guy until 2018.

Do these people understand what "not being scared

to use" the nuclear codes means?

Do they have any idea what it would mean for the United States, and for the world, for any country to use a nuclear weapon today?


When President Kennedy addressed the nation and said that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be met by “a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union,” Perry knew exactly what that meant. He had been studying such nuclear strategies for ten years. Each day as he went to the analysis center, he thought to himself that this would be “my last day on earth.”

Perry says it was by luck that we avoided a nuclear holocaust in the Cuban crisis. Years later, we found out that there were some additional and dangerous circumstances that might have pushed us into nuclear war.


Perry tells us that parity is “old thinking” because nuclear weapons can’t actually be used—the risk of uncontrollable and catastrophic escalation is too high. They are only good for threatening the enemy with nuclear retaliation. Our submarine force, equipped with nuclear weapons, is virtually invulnerable and can perform that deterrent function well. (It should be noted that the doctrine of deterrence is severely criticized by those who worry about the implications of threatening mass slaughter.6)


While many complain of the obvious dysfunction in Washington, few see the incomparably greater danger of “nuclear doom” because it is hidden and out of public consciousness. Despite an election year filled with commentary and debate, no one is discussing the major issues that trouble Perry. It is another example of the rigid conformity that often dominates public discourse. Long ago, I saw this in the Vietnam War and later in the invasion of Iraq: intelligent people were doing mindless—and catastrophic—things. “Sleepwalking” is the term historians now use for the stupidities that got European leaders into World War I and for the mess they unleashed at Versailles. And sleepwalking still continues as NATO and Russia trade epithets and build their armies and Moscow and Washington modernize their nuclear overkill. A new cold war.

A witch hunt.

Trump's, and the Republican party's, attacks on Clinton are looking more and more like a witch hunt. We have a smart woman who is a better politician and understands foreign affairs better than men, so she must be a witch; she must be the devil. This is a dog whistle to all the religious nutcases out there who still believe, as people did centuries ago, that women are intrinsically evil. Hopefully people who still think this way are too small in number to give us President Trump.

Please read some in-depth articles about Hillary.

She is not the person she has been made out to be. No liberal should feel she is compromising her principles by voting for Hillary.

Here is a good one:

And here is another article that puts everything into perspective. (Please try to get past the title; it is not a good indicator of the actual content of the article.)

 Whatever Clinton says, some will remain unconvinced. But in attempting to court progressive voters, Clinton isn’t adopting new positions; rather, she’s coming full circle. “I think her progressive résumé and her progressive roots are very, very strong,” says Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a progressive stalwart who backed Barack Obama eight years ago but is now an enthusiastic Clinton supporter. “Not only has she decided to go back to her roots, but the time is different. This is a progressive moment, I believe.”

Has this person listened to any of President Obama's speeches?

Has she missed the parts where he says that when other people struggle to pay their bills or get the health care they need, it hurts all of us? Does she not see that when the weakest among us do well, we all do better?

Does she not understand that she is already paying to support McDonald's workers? People who can't make ends meet end up needing welfare and food stamps. By allowing the minimum wage to be so low, we're using our taxes to enrich the owners and highest-paid earners at McDonald's. The money that could be used to build roads and bridges instead goes toward feeding the people McDonald's should be paying fairly in the first place.

If this is the level at which this person thinks and functions, her education has been completely wasted on her. Seriously, people like this cause me to lose all hope for this country's future. It's sad that such selfishness and such a total lack of empathy are not considered shameful in this country. People should feel ashamed, not proud, to express such views.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If a fast-food worker can make $15, many people who are in jobs that currently pay less, or not much higher, will have an incentive to leave their jobs for one that pays better. As a result, employers who underpay their workers will feel pressure to increase their wages. This process will repeat itself, each time at a higher wage level, until everyone's wages will go up.

Seriously, this argument is incredibly selfish. It always depresses me that people can be so self-centered. If we're so near-sighted that we only care about ourselves and don't want anyone else to do better, we will never achieve much as a society. I hope most people are smart and thoughtful enough to be able to see the trees and the forest.

I find it very interesting

(and a little depressing) that people are so uncomfortable with the idea of a male First Spouse being just a First Spouse. It's pretty outrageous to suggest that the position of First Spouse be upgraded to Second-Vice-President when the First Spouse happens to be male.

For some reason, when the First Spouse is female, regardless of her level of education, career background and accomplishments, people assume that she has zero say in what happens and no influence whatsoever on her husband. People seem to think that the President doesn't even talk to his wife about the things he's working on and thinking about. (I wonder if this says something about how some men still treat their wives in the twenty-first century.)

Well, to those people, I can only say that Bill Clinton, when he is First Spouse, will be a traditional First Spouse. Hillary will listen to Bill as much as Barack listens to Michelle. Bill will have as much influence on the governing of the country as Michelle does now. To think anything else is not only sexist but also dangerous: the First Spouse is not an elected office and must therefore be a position that comes with very limited power. Fortunately, Bill is smart enough to understand this, and feminist enough to respect that his wife, not he, will be the one who is President.

What other minority group's concerns have "gotten old and dull"?

Pray tell. LGBT people's concerns: have they "gotten old and dull"? How about Jewish people's concerns about antisemitism? Or Black people's, or Asian people's concerns about racism? Is that "old and dull"? After how much time do we decide that a group has complained about unequal treatment long enough and should just shut up?

Let me guess: every other group that is and has been discriminated against has the right to speak out and deserves to be listened to, except women. Women should know our place and shut up. Right? Because no one wants to hear women talk about our desire for equal and fair treatment. No one wants to hear about women's perspective on the way we're treated in this society. The status quo, in which women know our place, suits everyone just fine, as long as women just accept it and avoid complaining about it.

It is so offensive that so many people think that women's concerns are irrelevant, old, or annoying. It is incredibly insulting. Sadly, all it shows is that women still are not considered the equal of men in our society. We're supposed to sit quietly, look beautiful and smile while we're young, and sit quietly, serve men, and disappear into the background when we're old. I'm sick of it.

This is great!

I've thought for a long time that Democrats should not have abandoned Howard Dean's idea of fighting in all 50 states. It's not right to ignore certain states because they've been red for a long time. People change, and their beliefs change. The Republican Party's ideas are weak and unrepresentative of people's interests. There is no reason we should not be able to turn several red states blue with sustained effort over several election cycles.


You're telling someone who has told you that she used to be suicidal and would have committed suicide if she had a gun, that she is doing a "disservice" to those who choose to commit suicide?

The insensitivity in your post is breathtaking. We're talking about people who are suffering so much that they are considering ending their lives. What they need is easy access to mental health services, not easy access to guns.

When you're considering killing yourself, moments count. If a friend shows up and talks to you, you can get out of the mental state you're in, at least temporarily. If you had a gun in your house at the time, your friend might show up only to find you dead.

This is not a theoretical argument. This is real. People -- sensitive, loving, beautiful people -- die every day because they get suicidal and are able to immediately act on that impulse. We need to do all we can to make life worth living for those people, not give them the tools to let them take their lives more easily.

This whole sub-discussion started with a poster claiming that suicides should not "count" in deaths by gun. If anything is disrespectful of suicidal people, it is that.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »