maybe your friend decided to blame when those talks fell apart, rather than try to understand what went wrong and how it could be fixed.
that was my biggest disappointment in Bill Clinton, that he waited until there was insufficient time in his own administration to see it through. Seems lots of people went hard line after that, both against Israel and against the Palestinian people. change takes time, and negotiations need to keep going, not stop with George Bush, or anyone else.
in 1969/1970. Haven't been back since, but i stay in contact.
Here's a story. when I was there I was struck by the endless clear skies and by the increase in auto ownership. I had the bright idea of suggesting drive-in theaters. All those clear skies and little privacy, I thought the place was a natural for B movies under the stars. So, I mentioned this idea to some high flyers, and my goodness how the fur flew. Outrage galore, and i still haven't figured out what was so bad about my idea.
They often speak English, but it's not Kansas. Like much of the English speaking world.
I think they have differences, but that she supports his policies cause he won, she's a team player. He had his own guy in mind for ambassador to Japan, for one thing. I expect she was recommending the one with the most experience and knowledge, the one she would want in her philosophy of proven competence, and Barack wanted someone with a certain sensibility to a past he wants to stay active in, and she had no problem accepting his pick, cause he had his reasons.
I think she probably told him that vetting in the state department shouldn't be so intrusive, since they aren't high profile jobs that would reflect on him if some, for example, sexual scandal came to light, but mainly because the state hires professionals who expect their work record should be sufficient to show excellence, which ought to be enough. I expect he stuck with his intrusive questions because that's what he believed he promised to those who voted for him.
I suppose that she was unable to fill spots because no one wants to answer a bunch of personal questions about past love lives and whatever, and that she took that to him to request a more human scale vetting, and that with these results he'll come to see this service as public service that should have a bit of respect for the professionals who have exemplary pubic records, and what their private lives out of government computers.
They're on the same team, but they not the same person and each is well able to defend their choices, and Hillary is well able to accede to the guy who got the job.
but it isn't, and that's not how those milkers see themselves. They seem themselves as deserving, unlike the undeserving milkers. It's true, much of what is done in the name of morality is anything but. My old friend who got benefits for his terminal wife did not see himself as a milker, for him that was just, but he's against anyone else getting the benefit he already got. It's weird that people can be so blind to their own benefits, but they are, go figure.
yes, if the money had been invested rather than 'loaned' to the government, there would be plenty. But my point wasn't that, although you make a good one, my point is that someone can work for the government twenty years and get retirement, and then work a a consultant using skills learned in the government job and then qualify for social security, and get two retirements, and yet complain (not my uncle, he's sweet) about poor kids getting a free ride with health care their parents can't afford. End of lifers vote, kids and their poor parents don't. The irony is in their argument, those who already profited in oh so many ways from government and think it's fair in their cases, but not in the case of the less fortunate but just as hard working.
The diary is right about this moral outrage that lies behind the unwillingness to see health care as a human right. Scratch the surface and you'll find it, the socialism argument is a beard.
you may not like his delivery, but he's right. The back of of this movement is about wanting to slam the door for anyone else. Hey, I know a guy who's against medicare who received over a million from it, in end of life care for his injured wife. Irony isn't dead, he doesn't want to pay for 'deadbeats.' But he has no plan to reimburse for his own benefit.
if you look at photos, the settlements are green with lawns and the Palestinian villages look dry and parched. Over there water is oil. Someday that will be all of us. Sharing isn't in the cards, it's winner take all.
there is a vindictive attitude on the part of those who oppose universal health care. They can mask it by calling it socialism, but the net result is they got their helping hand, but that's cause they really deserved it, unlike .....They lack irony? Or reflection? Or, what is it they lack??? Oh, right, empathy!
I must be very unclear. My uncle is 80 and his girlfriend is 79. I didn't read up on social security benefits before I posted, so I don't know if she'll qualify, I do know my uncle gets two retirements, both government insurance. I'm okay with that, it's the rules, and if they happen to pay in favor of some far more than others, that's the way it is. But I find it ironic that those who are benefiting from government insurance that pays them far more than they contributed cause they lived so long, think they were simply harder working and more deserving - unlike poor working families who don't earn enough to qualify for much in social security and ought to accept it that they'll go without needed health care cause they don't deserve what they didn't earn. They may not have enough now, but who knows what they could earn if they could stay alive and healthy? If the logic doesn't exactly work, the sentiment certainly does. Kids? Old people? Who needs 'em?
i was unclear? I don't agree with the dentist or those health care people who ranted about 'fairness' in their anger over children's health care. They call it immoral, I say letting kids be homeless, hungry and without health care is immoral. But, you know, the godless, we don't get credited with morals.
I've had similar discussions with health care providers who have a moral issue with poor people getting health benefits paid for by taxpayers. I have an uncle who retired from the Air Force, and then worked as a private consultant, so he gets two retirements, his Air Force one and social security. If he marries his current girlfriend she'll get his benefits if he dies before he does, his benefits will live longer than he lives. That's paid for by tax payers and by social security. But health care for poor kids and their parents? We can't have that kind of welfare? I have nothing against my uncle's benefits, but I think health care is a right and a rich country like this one has enough to care for the least among us as well as those who made some smart retirement decisions. These so called moralists who don't want the less fortunate to be healthy make my head spin.
a few young soldiers have the opportunity to humiliate fellow humans, and they take it? The law is bad enough, without having the overachievers overreach. That's the consequence of leaders modeling such nastiness? Or is it part of human nature, which is why we have laws?