Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.
Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
See also the US in Iraq, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Marching in and holding the land worked great in the 19th century, not so much since then.
But hey regale me with all the instances of glorious and successful military imperialism in the last 100 years or so. If this strategy "works" then it must have a long list of successes. So where are they?
Oh for ####'s sake. What do you propose be done in retaliation for this massive land grab of a peninsula that was already firmly and completely within Russia's military control, Bear? Should we fire up the ICBMs? Roll a couple of brigades of tanks into Kiev and threaten Kursk with some live fire ammo? What move would make your penis feel bigger, Bear? What would give you the stiffy for power that you can only get these days from topless pictures of Vlad on horseback?
Your delusion was that a country "has" another country if it has a naval base there.
Some typical passages:
For the sake of 19th century imperial politics, it does. Crimea was an autonomous zone within the Ukraine that did most of its business leasing naval bases to Russia. Now it's...well, it's the same thing so far, with Russia parking troops outside its naval bases while Ukraine threatens to break up and go to civil war.
Ah, the martyrdom of having to put two guys in tuxes on top of a cake.
The Dreher post was about journalism and bias, and framing the narrative. Calling it bedwetting is just ignoring his points.
That's almost as gutwrenching as being forced at gunpoint to serve a Negro a cup of coffee.
Of course not. But let US service members get killed in Kiev and see how long it takes him to start a "Mogadishu" spin off of that.
If that's addressed at me, my red line is Western Ukraine -- a European people anxious to be part of Europe. They cannot be allowed to be doomed to Putin/Russian corruption, backwardness, and authoritarianism -- the kind of thing we spent decades fighting against.
There really isn't much to be done about Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. The dilemma comes if Kiev refuses to let them go, which they probably will. In that case, we need to stand firmly behind them -- particularly since we conspired to take their nukes away. What that entails needs further deliberation. It's plainly the case that American servicemen have died for far less important goals; where that observation leaves us also requires further deliberation.
I'm happy to address his points. News stories, particularly feature stories (the piece that Dreher links to is a human-interest feature about gay couples), are necessarily about something or somebody. The nature of a text being about something is that it's not about its opposite. Every time astronomers discover a new planet, you do not have to go out and give equal time to somebody who thinks that the night sky is a stage curtain with pinholes cut in it.
Now, I have no doubt that the author of the Star-Tribune piece is pretty cool with gay marriage, but what of it? People who write about swimsuit fashions are cool with half-clad people on beaches. People who write about civil-rights veterans are OK with black people voting. Some people aren't. Do we need to devote half of every such feature story to them?
And would Dreher object to a story about beleaguered bakers, if the story didn't contain 50% material on happy couples admiring their cakes?
The whole argument in the article was an ode to the Fallacy of The Midpoint.
McCarthyism anyone?
Send in the Black Panthers. Those thugs would kick Putin's ass halfway to Vladivostok.
You wouldn't even need the Black Panthers. Just send it the most intimidating organization of them all: ACORN. If they can make Andrew Breitbart drop dead of a heart attack, a lesser clown like Putin should be a piece of cake.
Bingo. The Crimea is and always has been Russia. Placing it administratively in Ukraine in 1954 did not change that. Ukrainian independence did not change that.
It reminds me of that scene in Lion in Winter:
Nobody was ever going to pry the Russia's Black Sea Naval Base out of Russian hands. To think so was foolish. Putin has simply made that fact more open and apparent.
The question is -- does he stop there, or does he slice off some more pieces of Ukraine, simply because he can?
McCarthyism anyone?
Or Affirmative Action? Or Ollie's Barbeque?
Or any number of issues involving an individual's rights versus government power to enforce collective will. It's a real dilemma, and denigrating the essential issue with a caricature of the principle involved advances nothing except conflict and controversy.
It's a made-up dilemma. Actual religious groups carrying out their religious beliefs in religious settings have all kinds of latitude to discriminate. The Catholic Church doesn't have to ordain women priests; First Baptist doesn't have to hire a well-qualified rabbi as pastor; the LDS did not have to allow black priests and bishops after 1964 (though they eventually changed that policy).
In secular business, though, if everyone can make up his or her mind about who to discriminate against based on personal conscience, you soon have no anti-discrimination protections and no area of life that is not subject to (usually someone else's) religion.
It's a made-up dilemma.
I fail to grasp why religious beliefs get some sort of special status over every other kind in the first place, given that one's religion can entail whatever anyone says it does in the first place.
Ummm, no. You're the one who has no pride or patriotism; I do. You're the one who subscribes to the "weakness is strength" philosophy and loves seeing America be diminished on the international stage; I hate it.
And we all know full well that Obama is doing this on purpose, and that things are only going to continue to get worse over the next three years as he goes full steam ahead with his effort and rogue states continue to take advantage.
But, really, this gets to my point about Obama haters losing their minds to the point they can't stick to a narrative. Either he's an in-over-his-head community organizer, or he's an agent of Islam deviously slipping Sharia law into America - pick one.
Because he hates America. Because he's a Kenyan socialist. Stepping up with the Birther angle like we all knew he would. You're precious, Joey baby. Just precious. Try not to wet yourself in fear of the big bad Obama if you go outside.
Thank you, I appreciate the response.
For what it's worth I agree with you about Western Ukraine, there's no way Putin can be allowed to invade and subjugate a people that obviously want nothing to do with him. If that becomes the case then the US needs to get NATO moving to act in their defense (I know Ukraine isn't actually covered by the NATO treaty but this kind of stuff clearly falls under what the treaty was signed for in the first place and they should be willing to act)
and his conclusion:
he's complaining that a story about the ways that same sex marriage has affected same sex couples doesn't include enough complaints from people who aren't in same sex marriages. it's horseshit.
Well, "always" except for all that time it spent being part of the Ottoman Empire. The Russification of the population since the Crimean War of the 1850's was probably a conscious policy of the tsars, emphasized later by Stalin exiling all the Tatars to regions further east. In recent years, the Crimean Tatars have been trickling back. For the most part, I don't imagine that they're big fans of the Russian Empire.
Eh, it's a little bit of this and a little bit of that. But mostly it's just a lot of the other, which pretty much represents the Joey mentality in a nutshell.
Actually, you're asking him to sign up to fight and die for someone else's country (Ukraine).
So WTF are we arguing about, exactly? We're not nearly at that point yet. And if we do get there, and Europe is as angry as we are about it, then I bet we don't even have much of a controversy. If Europe isn't willing, then we'll have a Syria-like "controversy" where, although hawks will insist on going it alone, there will be no sensible option other than the US acknowledging that it can't put troops on the ground and trying to figure something else out.
BTW, although I don't exactly expect any bombshells to come from the Clinton Library doc dump, I do have to admit this was amusing.
Some people insinuated very obliquely that Barack Obama isn't perfect, which brought forth the usual suspects and the usual suspicions.
What would it take for people prejudiced against Obama in analogous ways to admit that they were wrong? Has there been some sort of international anti-American realignment that I've missed? Am I actually typing this in French right now, or something? :)
Of course, one can always answer, yeah, we've had 5 years of relative international stability and security despite tons of potential problems, but the wily Obama is just setting us up for utter capitulation, which is always fixing to happen next year.
What an oblique insinuation of imperfection might look like:
Obama is obviously in way over his head.
Subtle. F***ing subtle.
Oh ... wait.
kicked some assThe key is, people need a face-saving way off the bus. I learned this during Hurricane Katrina and the fallout for Bush. By mid-2005, it was obvious the war in Iraq wasn't going well - but the people who had supported the war couldn't simply dump Bush then because that would mean admitting they were wrong in following him. But when the administration so completely bungled Katrina, that was an opportunity for people to jump ship. And they did.
Subtle. F***ing subtle.
On Putin and Russia's intentions and aims, he is.
Though the appeasement has been bipartisan, as with Bush II and Georgia.
Is this supposed to be a serious comment, or is it a joke I didn't quite get?
Wrong about what? He hasn't done anything special internationally. He certainly doesn't vigorously espouse and support American interests, properly defined.
It had to have been a joke. I laughed, anyway.
International stability? The last 5 years? Huh?
Obama has yet to demonstrate he can even match Jimmy Carter's willingness to stand up to the former USSR, although he still has time to do so. Allowing Russia a pass on Crimea, puts the Baltics and all unwilling subjects of the Soviet & Russian empires at risk.
That's because it's silly.
Y'all may want an adventurer. Or y'all may simply want a Republican :-D
Stability in the world can recede even if the American president isn't an "adventurer."
The Middle East and Russia's so-called near abroad have been anything but "stable" since January 20, 2009.
And I'm still waiting to hear from Joey or SugarBear how that Soviet conquest of Kabul in 1979 "worked" after the first 48 hours of Brezhnev's Mission Accomplished, and what exactly they would do in Obama's place today. Boycott? Blockade? Unilateral or multi-lateral? Call up the reserves to show Putin we're serious?
No it doesn't.
That's really been the crux of the problem for the last 6 years - they can't. Ever. Not one little bit.
I don't know if it's special or not but by nullifying the Bush Doctrine he's convinced the rest of NATO that America is no longer insane. They even gave him the Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Winning a Nobel is kind of special, isn't it?
TYC, they key phrases are "conservative hawks" and liberal interventionists".
This though, is true. Putin sees Ukraine as an essential Russian interest that the US, or the EU for that matter, has any business meddling in. It could backfire on him though, if he overreaches and a genuine insurgency starts. I can see that happening, considering how the Kiev crowds kept showing up even after some of them got shot by snipers.
When was the last time the Middle East was stable? The 16th century? The 9th? This is Obama's fault? Was the instability of the "Arab Spring" a negative thing on the whole? (Leaving aside whether Obama had anything to do with that, and could have done anything about it.)
As for the stability of the margins of Russia, they were pretty stable in the 1970s. You want Brezhnev back? In fact, isn't the whole recent history of the Ukraine one of a positive and very promising instability? Again, leaving aside whether the Ukrainians give two hoots about Barack Obama, or that he could influence thing one that goes on there.
Seriously, you might as well fault Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Iraq War. Or Franklin Pierce for the Crimean War, speaking of which.
The narrative that the world fell apart because of a power vacuum left by the electoral defeat of John McCain exists entirely in the minds of its tellers.
Add Clappy McClapperson to the list and sit back and wait. They'll get you that right after they deliver the conservative alternative to Obamacare. If the GOP and it's lackeys have learned anything since 2008, it's that sitting back and complaining loudly while offering absolutely no alternative or plan is a perfectly feasible tactic for domestic politics. And none of them care anything about anything other than domestic politics. All Clapper is concerned with is how this might impact Obama's polling.
This business could backfire in a ton of ways, an insurgency in Ukraine being one of them. There are serious doubts about the Russian level of military preparedness, and this could easily wind up not only exposing this, but actually causing a withdrawal. It's still a corrupt force heavily reliant on conscripts with a dodgy NCO corps, a political officer corps, and a bunch of crap gear (AKs excluded). They have a crap-ton of bodies, and crappy nukes but nukes nonetheless. Not exactly a "project your power abroad" kinda force - a lot more paper than tiger.
Everything was so much more stable and we were so much more respected internationally when we were dropping bombs on other people all the time.
Never. There have always been divisions within, even at the height of the Empire. It's too diverse and surrounded by threats to be anything but unstable.
Too bad it's too late to boycott the Olympics.
Try as you might -- and oh you try -- you're not going to drag me into these provincial red/blue squabbles. Just as I'm not going to laud W Bush's policies because he has an R next to his name, I'm not going to pretend Barack Obama is some kind of foreign policy genius because he has a D next to his name. "Things were worse under W" isn't an answer to anything for me.
And I'm still waiting to hear from Joey or SugarBear how that Soviet conquest of Kabul in 1979 "worked" after the first 48 hours of Brezhnev's Mission Accomplished, and what exactly they would do in Obama's place today. Boycott? Blockade? Unilateral or multi-lateral? Call up the reserves to show Putin we're serious?
Asked and answered. (Other than your Kabul gambit, which isn't remotely the "gotcha" you think it is.)
What I would do in Obama's place is more vocally espouse and defend American and Western interests. We have a national interest in the Europeanization and non-Russification of (at least) Western Ukraine. The United States has that interest. Not the "international community" or "Europe" -- the United States. Has Obama even said so? We fought the Cold War so areas like Western Ukraine would be free of Soviet/Russian control.
Actually the Paralympics begin on Friday in Sochi, but I don't think that we're going to be boycotting that.
Asked and answered. (Other than your Kabul gambit, which isn't remotely the "gotcha" you think it is.)
I can see why you don't even bother to explain why you don't think it has any relevance, though I wasn't intending it as any sort of topographical comparison.
What I would do in Obama's place is more vocally espouse and defend American and Western interests. We have a national interest in the Europeanization and non-Russification of (at least) Western Ukraine.
Move over, you pink tea sipping wimp Obama, and make way for Espouserman!
The United States has that interest. Not the "international community" or "Europe" -- the United States.
And why would Europe's interest diverge from ours? Is is because we have so many Ukrainians living in the Rust Belt?
Has Obama even said so? We fought the Cold War so areas like Western Ukraine would be free of Soviet/Russian control.
Which is why we were so quick to do something about the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, not to mention the Stalinization of Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII.
Rear Admiral Denys Berezovsky was only made head of the navy on Saturday, as the government in Kiev reacted to the threat of Russian invasion.
Ukraine's interim leaders have put him under investigation for treason.
quislings, ukraine version
I suppose that's why you vet people.
What the hell relevance does a Soviet adventure outside the typical Russian sphere of influence have to the Crimea and Ukraine? None.
And why would Europe's interest diverge from ours? Is is because we have so many Ukrainians living in the Rust Belt?
Is Barack Obama the head of the EU?
In other words, no idea on what you'd do.
Joey sounds like he's angling to play Robin to Sugar Bear's Espouserman. They'd make the greatest pair of Espousers since The Ev and Charlie Show.
While Ukraine is certainly closer to home for Russia, I'm not sure if Afghanistan can be described as outside the typical Russian sphere of influence. The Russians have had their finger in that geo-political pie since the 1830s at least.
Andy's never come across an international thug he hasn't wanted to appease.
sure putin could move the goalposts but it would force him to be a jack8ss on a public stage which he hates to do
that's his weakness you know. his vanity.
not trying to tell the state dept how to do its job but that flaw is staring everyone in the face
he's smaug with the bald spot on his chest
That sounds like a claim that Ukraine has the right to defend its sovereignty.
putin rationalizes all of his behaviors.
Andy's never come across an international thug he hasn't wanted to appease.
Little Brown Diaper Doper Joey, Yapper-in-Chief. Cartoon villains tremble at the very thought of him.
Not seeing any real indication that Obama is willing to put the squeeze on Putin for the long haul, but perhaps he'll surprise us. Economic sanctions against Russia coupled with efforts to encourage development of alternatives to Russian oil & natural gas would raise the short-term & long-term costs to Putin.
Except that's nowhere to be found in the statement.
Does Barack Obama support the fundamental right of the Ukrainians to use military force to regain the territory invaded and occupied by Russia? (*)
That's the big question. It's yet unanswered.
Any suggestion by the United States that the Ukrainians refrain from taking military action is appeasement in its purest, most ignoble form.
(*) By at least 6,000 troops as reported most recently.
true, but Russia is fairly energy independent plus putin is not that concerned with inconveniencing his citizens
it would take quite some time or him to be influenced by such things I suspect
That wasn't Joey, it was me.
We're already seeing the outlines of the lefty defense of the appeasement likely to come, in the absurd suggestion that the Crimea is "really just Russia's anyway."
serious question.
while there is a historical basis to this statement it is not justification for this 1938 Czech like maneuver in carving off a section of a sovereign nation.
Of course.
Crimea has been part of Ukraine for 60 years.
What if the Germans decided they wanted Alsace-Lorraine back? Hey, no problem -- it was there's, so it's "really" there's.
And 1938's a very good analogy. If Russia is allowed to keep Crimea by some kind of agreement, it won't be materially different than Chamberlain, et al., selling out the Sudetenland.
That wasn't Joey, it was me.
Not surprising, given that the tone of your posts is interchangeable, not to mention your fondness for Espousing over anything else while at the same time claiming Obama is somehow not Espousing up to your standards, whatever standards those might be.
-----------------------------------------------------
what type of donation would it take to bbtf to get rid of the half naked gamer ads?
serious question.
Good question, but when I think about it, I haven't noticed those neo-BALCO ads for quack "supplements" in quite some time. Maybe the best way to stop the neo-porno ads is simply not ever to click on them.
that's insulting. I have never clicked on any ad on any website much less a gamer ad
go pound sand
Quite possibly, but the United States shouldn't shrink from the task just because it may be difficult and/or take time. Russia needs to sell oil & gas abroad at a fairly high price to earn foreign exchange and subsidize prices within Russia. It's in our national interest to help Europe develop alternative energy sources, as well as continuing to do so ourselves.
that pales in comparison to the heritage that exists tied to Russia proper
look, not saying it's OK to have this nonsense happen
but it's life and death to putin to KEEP crimea. if Russia loses crimea it's ability to project power is greatly diminished
the only desperate people in this situation are the Russians. that makes them very dangerous. they are likely viewing this situation as a seminal moment in their ability to remain a global power.
meaning those outside of the Ukraine.
just pointing out that the eu, nato and the u.s. are not DESPERATE to keep the crimea with the Ukraine. Russia is desperate to keep crimea
this gives Russia an advantage. they have focus
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main