I think something more creative should've been done...
They should've photoshoped a condom on the campanille. or maybe they could've even teamed up with some anti-AIDS organization and actually placed a huge condom on the campanille.
There are definitely issues in the United States that make it difficult to implement public transportation. Suburban sprawl is an example. But that doesn't mean that reform isn't possible.
And what is to say that the government shouldn't tax gas even more so that it can help develop new energy and invest in public transportation? Why is that bad? Will we all become commies then? Oh no, call McCarthy and Rand...
and an anonymous commentator lecturing us on "the right ways" of private industry... sure, because government is incredibly inefficient with coming up with new technology, right? and what incentives are you talking about? tax breaks? how about a joint program? tax breaks for projects involving new technology funded by increased taxation of oil. we can also use those taxes to develop better public transportation.
oh, wait, the government would be involved in that... i guess that means it would automatically make it incredibly inefficient...
Colbert was mocking the Democrats? Seemed to me he was mocking those who criticize the Democrats for celebrating and honoring these important landmarks (oh, and Republicans for not even wanting to recognize them in the first place).
You are even able to distort his key sentence by omitting what he says afterward: "typical of the Democrats, catering to black and female voters while ignoring the anniversaries that are important to every day Americans." And what does Colbert state those to be? UPS' founding and a Florida couple's wedding anniversary. Sure... there is absolutely no sarcasm in that sentence...
Yes, it might be exploiting the event a little bit, but that is not nearly as bad as it sounds, especially when the Democrats are the party (out of the two big ones of course) that is closer to both of those traditions (women's and civil rights), not that they do an excellent job either.
For me the jab in the commentary was at McCain, who voted against MLK Day. Yeah, cause you know, a guy like that (and the movement of which he was a centerpiece) doesn't deserve to be honored... nah, that's just pandering to blacks... right?
The issue is not where to send these people, the issue is to try to figure out a way to ensure that Israel is able to exist, without being an oppressive entity. I do not think transforming Israelis into a brand new breed of "pied noirs" is a good alternative, but the same way Algerians struggled for independence and freedom, the Palestines struggle to develop a nation and society that is free and autonomous. The question is, how far are both sides willing to go to make this effort. And I sincerely believe Israel is not going far enough, and it's policies aren't helping one bit. Jerusalem is a big issue, but not only that, Israel needs to be willing to concede more than it is right now, and change its practices.
Hamas has the destruction of Israel in its charter, the same way Israel has in its formation the establishment of a JEWISH state. However, throughout the years both sides have had the opportunity, and showed willingness to change their positions. This, of course, in a practical way, but things have to get started somewhere. Remember that Hamas unilaterally declared a ceasefire toward Israel - which Israel chose to simply ignore. And it's naive to assume that Palestine will simply disarm itself and be at mercy of Israel's powerful forces. Also, Hamas is was a relatively fringe group, which defeated Fatah mainly because it appealed to the grievances of the Palestinians in an aggressive way (even though it never advocated the destruction of Israel in its campaigns). Perhaps if Israel's attitudes toward Palestine was less violent, the Palestinians wouldn't have resorted to electing a group that is more radical. Social movements do tend to work that way. They may start peacefully, but as oppression continues they become more violent. Suicide bombing is often the only way to fight back. It is the only way to damage an enemy who exerts so much control over you. The same is true with civilian lodging - which has been done by most guerilla groups. You assume that there is a clear and distinct Palestine army, but there can't be one if it is occupied and oppressed. Liberation movements tend to be violent in a way that makes their actions morally questionable. The French Resistance killed whoever they though might of been a snitch. Also, because the dynamics function in such a way that a whole group has been displaced by another, the lines on what are civilians become blurry. Do Israeli citizens that actively support Israel's violent policies toward Palestine fall under the category of enemies? And to call the results of Israel's attacks "collateral damage" is naive and misleading. The destruction of Beirut count as collateral damage? The damage inflicted was remarkable, and of absolutely unequal parallel by what Hezbollah or Hamas has done.
Yes, the Middle East has always been an extremely complex place, but Israel has made it even more difficult. And yes, Israel's presence and actions serve to fuel more authoritarianism because that authoritarianism appeals to the people's justified grievances. Perhaps if Israel changed their attitude and tactics, less bloodshed would happen. Oppressed people rarely give in, and plenty of the Middle East leaders strives on the relationship between Israel and Palestine. They complain about Israel's policy and actions, but fail to even recognize Palestinian refugees as citizens. These regimes play a mean game of politicks, and are very much aware of that.
Letter: Constitution is alive
I think something more creative should've been done...
They should've photoshoped a condom on the campanille. or maybe they could've even teamed up with some anti-AIDS organization and actually placed a huge condom on the campanille.
that would've been awesome.
October 1, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter: War turned me into a Democrat
Yes, because we all know how dangerous those Iraqis are to our free speech...
sigh...
September 29, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thornburgh: Women should vote for the issues in November
seems like the ljworld posters have decided to come check out the kansan....
oh, and if i am pro-abortion rights i am a commie who eats baby fetuses for breakfast.
September 25, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Editorial: Senate should post voting record online
care to enlighten us in some of those great things?? and what is the problem with holding senate accountable?
September 24, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech
Why, what is the problem with improving Amtrack?
September 24, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech
"Americans are never........"
We'll see about that once a gallon reaches $6.
There are definitely issues in the United States that make it difficult to implement public transportation. Suburban sprawl is an example. But that doesn't mean that reform isn't possible.
And what is to say that the government shouldn't tax gas even more so that it can help develop new energy and invest in public transportation? Why is that bad? Will we all become commies then? Oh no, call McCarthy and Rand...
As the writer said. We are spoiled.
September 24, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Graham: How the United States could be the leader in green tech
and an anonymous commentator lecturing us on "the right ways" of private industry... sure, because government is incredibly inefficient with coming up with new technology, right? and what incentives are you talking about? tax breaks? how about a joint program? tax breaks for projects involving new technology funded by increased taxation of oil. we can also use those taxes to develop better public transportation.
oh, wait, the government would be involved in that... i guess that means it would automatically make it incredibly inefficient...
give me a break.
September 23, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Really...?
Colbert was mocking the Democrats? Seemed to me he was mocking those who criticize the Democrats for celebrating and honoring these important landmarks (oh, and Republicans for not even wanting to recognize them in the first place).
You are even able to distort his key sentence by omitting what he says afterward: "typical of the Democrats, catering to black and female voters while ignoring the anniversaries that are important to every day Americans." And what does Colbert state those to be? UPS' founding and a Florida couple's wedding anniversary. Sure... there is absolutely no sarcasm in that sentence...
Yes, it might be exploiting the event a little bit, but that is not nearly as bad as it sounds, especially when the Democrats are the party (out of the two big ones of course) that is closer to both of those traditions (women's and civil rights), not that they do an excellent job either.
For me the jab in the commentary was at McCain, who voted against MLK Day. Yeah, cause you know, a guy like that (and the movement of which he was a centerpiece) doesn't deserve to be honored... nah, that's just pandering to blacks... right?
August 28, 2008 at 3:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter to the Editor: Wrong label
The issue is not where to send these people, the issue is to try to figure out a way to ensure that Israel is able to exist, without being an oppressive entity. I do not think transforming Israelis into a brand new breed of "pied noirs" is a good alternative, but the same way Algerians struggled for independence and freedom, the Palestines struggle to develop a nation and society that is free and autonomous. The question is, how far are both sides willing to go to make this effort. And I sincerely believe Israel is not going far enough, and it's policies aren't helping one bit. Jerusalem is a big issue, but not only that, Israel needs to be willing to concede more than it is right now, and change its practices.
April 14, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Letter to the Editor: Wrong label
Hamas has the destruction of Israel in its charter, the same way Israel has in its formation the establishment of a JEWISH state. However, throughout the years both sides have had the opportunity, and showed willingness to change their positions. This, of course, in a practical way, but things have to get started somewhere. Remember that Hamas unilaterally declared a ceasefire toward Israel - which Israel chose to simply ignore. And it's naive to assume that Palestine will simply disarm itself and be at mercy of Israel's powerful forces. Also, Hamas is was a relatively fringe group, which defeated Fatah mainly because it appealed to the grievances of the Palestinians in an aggressive way (even though it never advocated the destruction of Israel in its campaigns). Perhaps if Israel's attitudes toward Palestine was less violent, the Palestinians wouldn't have resorted to electing a group that is more radical. Social movements do tend to work that way. They may start peacefully, but as oppression continues they become more violent.
Suicide bombing is often the only way to fight back. It is the only way to damage an enemy who exerts so much control over you. The same is true with civilian lodging - which has been done by most guerilla groups. You assume that there is a clear and distinct Palestine army, but there can't be one if it is occupied and oppressed. Liberation movements tend to be violent in a way that makes their actions morally questionable. The French Resistance killed whoever they though might of been a snitch. Also, because the dynamics function in such a way that a whole group has been displaced by another, the lines on what are civilians become blurry. Do Israeli citizens that actively support Israel's violent policies toward Palestine fall under the category of enemies? And to call the results of Israel's attacks "collateral damage" is naive and misleading. The destruction of Beirut count as collateral damage? The damage inflicted was remarkable, and of absolutely unequal parallel by what Hezbollah or Hamas has done.
Yes, the Middle East has always been an extremely complex place, but Israel has made it even more difficult. And yes, Israel's presence and actions serve to fuel more authoritarianism because that authoritarianism appeals to the people's justified grievances. Perhaps if Israel changed their attitude and tactics, less bloodshed would happen. Oppressed people rarely give in, and plenty of the Middle East leaders strives on the relationship between Israel and Palestine. They complain about Israel's policy and actions, but fail to even recognize Palestinian refugees as citizens. These regimes play a mean game of politicks, and are very much aware of that.
April 14, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )