Friday News Roundup - Hour 2
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-03/friday-news-roundup-hour-2
Syrian forces killed at least 70 people this week in its crackdown on demonstrators. The U.S. urged China, Russia and the Arab world to join in condemning the violence. Dozens died in Yemen in clashes between forces loyal to the government and tribal fighters allied with protesters. NATO extended its mission in Libya. The Taliban waged battles along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. Germany announced plans to shut down its nuclear power program. And a serious outbreak of E. coli throughout Europe claimed the lives of 18 and sickened more than 1,600. A panel of journalists joins guest host Terence Smith for analysis of the week's top international news stories.
Guests
Tom Gjelten
correspondent, NPR, and author of "Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause."
Elise Labott
senior State Department producer for CNN.
Abderrahim Foukara
Washington bureau chief of Al Jazeera Arabic.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The media has just gone bonkers for the so called "Arab Spring". "Arab Spring", a media creation that portends positive change. This movement can go anywhere at this point but I would have to think because of the Muslim thought process of mingling religion and government it will only lead to another strong man in all these affected countries.
Monte, I tend to agree whole heartly. The Arabs countries some with a great deal of wealth are still very backward cultures.
To think they could learn something from Israel, one of the most prosperus country's in the world.
monte on June 3, 2011 @ 11:46 am wrote: “ ‘Arab Spring’, . . . . This movement can go anywhere at this point but I would have to think because of the Muslim thought process of mingling religion and government it will only lead to another strong man in all these affected countries.”
As a wise saying goes: look for the best, expect the worst. I see nothing wrong with hoping matters will improve in at least some of the lands in question. And I certainly think we should do what we can to encourage that improvement.
What’s the point of blathering about “American Exceptionalism”, calling us “a shining city on a hill”, or talking about “regime change” and “promoting democracy”, when we’re not willing to do a little bit to help those who’ve decided to do the changing themselves?! Unless you can honestly tell me you opposed Bush the Second’s policies, and invasion of Iraq, you’re just being mindlessly partisan.
(By the way, I did oppose that invasion, though not the invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, one of the reasons for my opposition was that I felt it diverted attention and resources from the fight we needed to win: in Afghanistan!)
Oh, and given how much the Republican Party loves to mingle religion and government (including having candidates who tell us we should vote for them because of their religious beliefs), does that mean it’s filled with “Muslim thought process”?
meangreen on June 3, 2011 @ 10:41 pm wrote: "To think they could learn something from Israel, one of the most prosperus country's in the world."
On that point, we agree.
Just don't forget, Israel is also the most democratic country in the Middle East. (Some might say, it's the only one!) That's another thing I hope the Arabs learn.
Etaoin
I'm not a republican, I am not religious in fact I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena of any kind.
P.J. O'Rourke says he is a republican because they have less ideas. I vote republican for the same reason, if there was a real electable alternative I would vote for them. But I am lost in a tide of superficial thinkers who are looking for a buddy instead of a leader. As far as republicans and religion, which also disgusts me, democrats are pretty much the same both sides would be running for the hills from an admitted atheist. You just cannot compare a Muslim country to the republican party as a whole, not even close.
No I did not support the Iraq war and further I thought Afghanistan should have been handled on a small scale special forces mission to seek out and capture or kill OBL and his henchman. I did vote for Bush 2 both times and the only positive see from his presidency was the sunset of the assault weapons ban and his supreme court appointments. I truly despise the living constitutionalists on the left.
monte on June 4, 2011 @ 11:03 am wrote: “I'm not a republican, I am not religious in fact I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena of any kind.”
PART ONE
And I never said you were any of those things, so stop avoiding the issue with “straw man” arguments.
The point of my prior Comment, of course, was to respond to your dismissive attitude towards what you termed the “Muslim thought process” by pointing out that the desire to “mingle religion and government” is not exclusive either to that religion, or to Arabs.
However, given how uncannily your Comments tend to parallel, if not parrot (or plagiarize), Republican talking points and ideology, I question your first claim. Being “Republican” is about more than party registration, and voting habits; ditto for being Democratic. The current GOP is composed mainly of, and is certainly led by, right-wing ideological purists, and that description certainly fits most of what you write!
“But I am lost in a tide of superficial thinkers who are looking for a buddy instead of a leader.”
- You mean like the people who voted for Bush the Second based on how they’d like to have a beer with him? I’d call that the very definition of “superficial”, and I certainly wouldn’t call that “thinking”! Also, please see my Comments to the other hour about Mr. Cain. There’s an epitome’ of a superficial non-thinker! And which party (and which side of the political spectrum) is trying to foist him on the nation?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“As far as republicans and religion, which also disgusts me, democrats are pretty much the same both sides would be running for the hills from an admitted atheist.”
- Oh, you mean like Pete Stark, Democratic member of Congress since 1973, who admitted he was an atheist in 2007? He was then re-elected in 2008 with 76.5% of the vote, and in 2010 with 72%. Yup, looks like those Democratic voters ran real hard and fast - to the voting booth! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark#Atheism)
“You just cannot compare a Muslim country to the republican party as a whole, not even close.”
- I didn’t. I simply pointed out that if we are discussing those who want to “mingle religion and government”, that also describes the Republican Party. It’s in the platforms, and their candidates run on how “religiously correct” they are. The point, of course, is that since the GOP is hardly composed of Muslims, that “thought process” is not exclusive to Islam. But, clearly, you are prepared to ignore that fact (as you do so many others) when the religion in question is one you’re more comfortable with.
In contrast, I am just as opposed to the government controlling us based on Canon Law as I am to Sharia Law.
“No I did not support the Iraq war and further I thought Afghanistan should have been handled on a small scale special forces mission to seek out and capture or kill OBL and his henchman.”
- Good, there’s something we agree on, at least partly. I’m not sure your “small scale” strategy would have worked better, but we’ll never know (thanks to the man you supported).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
“I did vote for Bush 2 both times and the only positive see from his presidency was the sunset of the assault weapons ban and his supreme court appointments. I truly despise the living constitutionalists on the left.”
- And I, of course, see that as two of the negative things from his presidency. Funny, though, how for a “non-Republican”, you managed to vote for a Republican President twice! I wonder how many Democratic Presidents (or presidential candidates) you ever voted for?
As for the “living constitution”? You mean, like the way the so-called “conservatives” have been busy overturning long standing precedents every chance they get? Or the way Scalia (Mr. “original intent”) decided he could declare part of the Constitution (the first 13 words of the Second Amendment) meaningless and of no force and effect?
I subscribe to neither a “living” or a “dead” constitution. I believe the document is to be interpreted as it is written! That must be both the starting point for any decision, and the touchstone for the correctness of that decision. If you have to “re-write” the document (such as “rubbing out” the start of the Second Amendment), then the decision is probably wrong. If, on the other hand, the principle you invoke can fit within the text as it exists, then the decision is probably correct. (For example, the power to spend money for Social Security and Medicare clearly falls within the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 - which gives Congress the power to ‘tax and spend’ for the “general welfare”.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
True, the application of its principles must change over time (unless you care to believe the “right to bear arms” is limited to the weapons of 1791), but the principles themselves should be timeless.
The fact is, as in so many other areas, conservatives are hypocrites about this. They claim to believe in “judicial restraint”, but they abandon it as soon as they have the power. (Besides, what they term “restraint” I call abdication. It is not the business of the courts to rubber-stamp anything the government does, and certainly not to do whatever happens to be popular.)