Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 17,526
Hometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 17,526
- 2014 (82)
- 2013 (109)
- 2012 (74)
- 2011 (3)
- December (3)
concentrating instead on destroying its rivals, the Jabhat al-Nusra (Succor Front), other radical groups, and the more secular-minded Free Syrian Army."
When IS comes after its rivals among the rebels, it is vicious, mowing them down without conscience. Even classic al-Qaeda under Ayman al-Zawahiri has condemned IS and kicked it out of al-Qaeda.
Abu al-Miqdad of the Islamic Front, which has fought both the regime and IS, said he supported the American intervention against IS because of the latter’s bloodthirstiness. “They don’t distinguish between civilians and combatants and they kill people with knives,” he said. “Who kills people with knives?” He said he hoped the US bombed every last one of them to smithereens. “They are not Muslims,” he said, “but infidels.” He said that real Muslims would never have done what they did to civilians and to the Free Syrian Army.
Jaber, head of the Islamic Front’s ad hoc military police in Aleppo, agreed that the US air strikes would be welcome. He said that fighters were facing a de facto alliance of the regime of Bashar al-Assad with IS, since the two avoided fighting each other and concentrated on the other rebels.
Meanwhile, the UN has issued a report condemning both the Baath and IS/ ISIL for war crimes.
Syria jets hit Islamic State targets in Raqqa
Regime planes bombard Islamic State positions as fighters close in on Tabqa air base in northern Raqqa province. Activists say Syrian jets have bombarded positions of the Islamic State group in the northern province of Raqqa as the self-declared jihadists close in on the last army base in the region.
Government forces have previously held off from targeting the Islamic State group, formerly known as ISIL - a strategy that has aided the group's battle against other rebels such as the Islamic Front coalition, the Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda's affiliate in the Syrian war, the Nusra Front.
Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has long painted the uprising in Syria as a foreign-backed conspiracy and his enemies say he has allowed the Islamic State to grow to promote that idea.
The attacks come after the Islamic State group on Thursday captured the headquarters of Syria's 17th Division, based in the Raqqa area. It posted a video online of its operation.
Posted by pampango | Thu Aug 28, 2014, 10:14 AM (6 replies)
qualify as RW nutz? "Real" RW nutz seem to want the US out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and trade agreements.
The John Birch Society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states' rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes "one world government", and it has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this alleged trend is not accidental. It cited the existence of the former Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.
Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.
Tea Party members absolutely despise "free trade" agreements ...
Real Conservatives Oppose NAFTA
Here are some examples from Tea-Party outlets,
Trans-Pacific Partnership – Sign The Petition to OPPOSE
Sen. Rand Paul fights Obama’s Fast-Tracking Attempt w/ TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership! (Another Corporatist ‘Free Trade’ BS)
Trans-Pacific Partnership: Secret Surrender of Sovereignty
Is Obama Negotiating A Treaty That Would Essentially Ban All Buy American Laws?
Trans Pacific Partnership Could Nuke New Balance
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama’s Globalization Agreement (Part 1) (Part 2)
Trans-Pacific Partnership __ The Next (Secret) Step Toward A New World Order?
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Bigger and More Dangerous Than ObamaCare
Jerome Corsi attests to the persistence of globalists in the Obama administration ... new “free trade” pacts between the United States and other nations must be stopped and existing ones, such as NAFTA, repealed.
And from China:
The Chinese take on why the TPP is bad for China and why it is talking so long to negotiate
France's Front National leader Marine Le Pen will meet other far-right and eurosceptic leaders on Wednesday in an attempt to create a powerful bloc in the European parliament.
These links are all 6 months or more old. I haven't updated it since the last time I updated it. I know some of these folks are really out there on the right-wing lunatic fringe, but you did ask for RW nutz.
Posted by pampango | Wed Aug 27, 2014, 03:34 PM (1 replies)
Today, fewer people go hungry. There are more children attending school. Fewer and fewer people are dying unnecessarily from easily preventable and treatable diseases. Yet with only 500 days until the end of the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, criticism remains that many countries will be unable to reach what can be considered arbitrary global targets.
At the beginning of the new millennium, the world decided to make tackling global poverty a top priority. The MDGs attempted to address this through a set of eight specific goals and 21 targets. The framework focuses on economic poverty, communicable diseases, gender equality, education, environmental issues, and global partnerships. In an unprecedented manner, developed nations rose to the challenge of addressing the key issues facing humanity by instituting innovative programs and significantly increasing funding.
While valid criticisms surround the current MDGs, their success in reducing poverty is difficult to ignore. It is thus worth reflecting on some of the countries that have not achieved overall MDG success but have nonetheless managed to improve the lives of millions of their citizens despite large challenges. This column takes a look at the great progress nations have made toward four specific MDGs.
Pulling back from these notable victories and continuing challenges, the global community must now look toward the next 15 years with lessons learned and should feel a great sense of accomplishment in the number of lives saved and improved—even if targets and goals are not fully met in 500 days’ time. It is, and will always be, a challenge to apply a uniform set of targets and goals to all nations, but with continued, focused efforts, we may see a world without poverty by 2030.
Much has been accomplished and much still needs to be done. Neither should be ignored.
It does help explain why the republican base wants the US out of the UN and to slash US foreign aid. Their concern for poverty - domestic or global - is negligible.
Posted by pampango | Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:11 AM (0 replies)
The John Birch Society (JBS) is an American political advocacy group that says it supports anti-communism and limited government. It has been described as radical right. The organization claims to identify with Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism. It opposes collectivism, totalitarianism, and communism. It opposes socialism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating U.S. governmental administration.
The society opposed the 1960s civil rights movement and claimed the movement had communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer titled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?", which was used as a newspaper advertisement. In the piece, one of the answers was: "For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years." The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states' rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes "one world government", and it has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this alleged trend is not accidental. It cited the existence of the former Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.
The society has been described as "ultraconservative", "far right", and "extremist". The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the society as a "'Patriot' Group". Other sources consider the society as part of the patriot movement. Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, was one of the founding members.
The society continues to press for an end to United States membership in the United Nations. As evidence of the effectiveness of JBS efforts, the society points to the Utah State Legislature's failed resolution calling for United States withdrawal, as well as the actions of several other states where the Society's membership has been active. Since its founding, the society has repeatedly opposed United States military intervention overseas, although it is strongly supportive of the American military. It has issued calls to "Bring Our Troops Home" in every conflict since its founding, including Vietnam. The society also has a national speakers' committee called American Opinion Speakers Bureau (AOSB) and an anti-tax committee called TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately).
Posted by pampango | Mon Aug 25, 2014, 05:11 PM (0 replies)
Here’s how it works: If you believe that we’ve spent the past six years suffering from a huge overhang of excess supply, that inadequate demand is the whole story — as Yellen does, I do, and so should you — you do have one slightly awkward question to answer: while inflation has been subdued, why hasn’t it turned into deflation? If labor is in huge excess supply, why are average wages still rising, albeit slowly?
Doves like me have taken that question seriously, and placed a fair bit of weight on downward nominal wage rigidity. If wages don’t fall except in extreme cases, you can explain average wages continuing to rise by the combination of sticky wages for some workers and rising wages for those workers who, for whatever reason, face better-than-average prospects.
What’s notable, then, is that you hardly ever see this kind of thing on the other side. Inflation hawks never lay out any specific model of how inflation is supposed to take off in a depressed economy; nor do they talk about testable implications of their view, or for that matter offer any explanation of why they’ve been so wrong for so long.
It is, in other words, an asymmetric debate from an intellectual point of view. Doves are doves because their analysis leads them to believe that rates should stay low, and they make a point of explaining that analysis, addressing its implications even if they don’t lend support to their policy case, and suggesting what information might lead them to change their mind. Inflation hawks know what they want, and don’t feel any need to explain clearly why or how they might be wrong.
If this reminds you of other debates these days, it should. It’s not just facts that have a liberal bias; so does careful, open-minded analysis.
Just goes to show that even in discussions of economics (just like with climate change denial, cutting taxes for the rich), conservatives "know what they want, and don’t feel any need to explain clearly why or how they might be wrong." Liberals believe what they believe "because their analysis leads them to believe" it "and they make a point of explaining that analysis, addressing its implications even if they don’t lend support to their policy case, and suggesting what information might lead them to change their mind."
Conservatives never, never suggest "what information might lead them to change their mind" because the policy choice comes first and now amount of facts or evidence will "lead them to change their minds."
Posted by pampango | Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:54 PM (0 replies)
that I never thought I would see that here at DU.
Now there is a liberal foreign policy. We support dictators in some countries because frankly you folks are just less evolved than those of us in the West.
Or would any of those "less evolved populations" that would benefit from a dictator be in North America or Europe?
Posted by pampango | Sun Aug 24, 2014, 03:52 PM (1 replies)
Krugman: new study shows Americans think income is much more equal here than in Europe. The opposite
At other times, Krugman has said that the US would have to adopt European fiscal, tax, regulatory, labor and social policies in order for us to achieve European levels of income equality. That seems a long way from happening.
It is interesting that Americans say they want a degree of income equality similar to what Sweden actually has, but we are not willing to adopt the taxation, labor and economic policies that Sweden has used to accomplish this.
Posted by pampango | Wed Aug 20, 2014, 05:50 PM (35 replies)
A Brief History of Wingnuts in America (US vs THEM", “heated exaggeration & conspiratorial fantasy")
American political history has been marked by periodic eruptions of the “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” that Richard Hofstadter famously characterized as “the paranoid style in American politics.” Wingnuts have masqueraded under different names and causes at different times, but they have always been committed to an “us against them” framing of domestic debates while inflaming group hatred in the name of politics and alleged principle. They prey on fear and ignorance.
Survey Wingnut rhetoric through the ages and the usual suspects keep surfacing: appeals to religious suspicion; ethnic and racial divisions; foreign subversion of sovereignty; and perhaps the oldest conspiracy theory of them all—accusing the president of the United States of being a tyrant and a dictator bent on destroying the Constitution.
In the long journey from frontier expansion to landing on the moon, there are clear common undercurrents to the paranoid politics advanced by the Wingnuts during different eras in America.
There is always the divisive drumbeat of ‘us against them’—the demagogue’s favorite formula. There is always an emotional appeal to an idealized past, targeted to people who feel besieged by cultural change, paired with the promise of a well-deserved return to power after years of resentment. And there is always the sale of special knowledge, pulling the curtain back on a monstrous conspiracy that will prove once and for all that your political opponents are not just misguided, but evil. The result is not only vindication, but also the self-serving sense that only you can save the republic.
Today’s unhinged hyper-partisans are not likely to look any better or wiser in the rearview mirror than the Wingnuts of our past. Instead, they will be at best a stale and bitter punchline of our times and then fade, unloved, into obscurity.
Just when I think the tea party types are a unique 21st century phenomenon, the author details "tea partiers" of old. "US vs THEM" and "the paranoid style in American politics” goes back to the days of Washington. The opposition to Washington, Adams and Jefferson were 'tea partiers' of their day. Then came the "Know Nothings", the KKK, the anti-evolutionists of the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920's, Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society.
There are probably many others in the book which this is an excerpt from. We all know of these examples of the disease of "US vs THEM" and "conspiratorial fantasy" but it is interesting to see them brought together throughout American history.
Posted by pampango | Mon Aug 18, 2014, 03:13 PM (4 replies)
Good news to liberals that global inequality is falling. Bad news that domestic inequality is rising
OECD study: Income gains to top 1% last 30 years - US worst (by far), Europe best (by far).
Canada is second only to the U.S. in its growing inequality. In the U.S., about 47 per cent of total growth went to the wealthiest one per cent between 1975 and 2007, compared to 37 per cent in Canada, while in Australia and the U.K., about 20 per cent of growth went to the wealthiest.
In Nordic countries and in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, about 90 per cent of growth went to the 99 per cent of middle and low-income earners in the same period.
Larry Summers, who was secretary of the treasury under Bill Clinton and is now a Harvard professor, has pointed out how the constant push for tax cuts and the erosion of union bargaining rights has led to greater income inequality.
The study calls for higher marginal tax rates and fewer tax deductions and credits aimed at high income earners. It also advocates wealth or inheritance taxes.
Nordic countries support (and the rest of European countries for that matter) support trade with the global poor with tariff-free trade with the poorest countries. They both support global equality and domestic equality at the same time.
Posted by pampango | Mon Jul 21, 2014, 09:42 AM (0 replies)
In absence of a single narrative, Canadians by and large cling to a celebration of difference. Accommodating a new culture is the national pastime, while intolerance is the national sin. This, of course, gets tricky when a new culture is intolerant. In such cases, Canadians -- or, to be specific, the Canadian justice system -- firmly defaults to its liberal democratic roots. It prioritizes individual rights over the community in question's right to force its values onto one of their own. But such clear stand-offs between specific rights do not themselves reveal a nascent national identity. Canadians are still left with a vague sense of collective self that is largely held together by a spirit of respecting differences.
This spirit as the main ingredient in the national consciousness is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it promotes a self-reflexive sense of political identity that inhibits the ugliest elements of nationalism. It is difficult to rouse much Us vs. Them fervour when a) there is no clear Us and b) respecting differences is the one value respected by most. On the other hand, it inhibits a feeling of collective pride and care for each other with the capacity to stretch across the entire country.
There is much to be said for such a feeling. A deep sense of national belonging motivates not just the soldier, but the engineer designing bridges, the civil servant writing briefing notes, the small business serving customers, and the politician running for office, to name but a few. Collective identity, curbed before it escalates into ugly nationalism, can fuse civic purpose into all we do in the public sphere. And public actions couched in civic purpose can be the most rewarding societal acknowledgement that Canadians are responsible to, and benefit from, one another.
How can we achieve such a sense of collectiveness in a country so big and diverse? It may be simpler than it appears. We cannot rely on any one cultural marker, because a.) we're too diverse and b.) we know that such markers -- especially ethnic, racial, or religious ones -- as sparkers for national pride can be dangerous. We can, however, invigorate our loyalty to and affection for those Canadian political institutions that keep us accountable to one another; the ones that have stood the test of time even while demonstrating an ability to mould with the ages.
The celebration of difference in Canada is encouraging. A country with an immigration rate over twice that of the US and a multiethnic, multiracial democracy that functions better than ours does. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares multiculturalism to be a constitutionally protected value.
Our right loves to rail against multiculturalism. It is small wonder that Canada holds little appeal for them. They base much of their appeal in the US on generating fear in the "us vs. them" paradigm that is much harder to sell in Canada.
It is difficult to rouse much Us vs. Them fervour when a) there is no clear Us ...
Posted by pampango | Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:46 AM (0 replies)