by Pravin, Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:30:20 PM EST
What do people think of the rush to execute Saddam? I personally have no problem with seeing him die as I am not against Capital Punishment and he was responsible for much cruelty.
However, what is the rush? It is not like that the world rushes to punish every dictator out there. Worse leaders like Idi Amin and some of the South African white leaders have lived the rest of their lives in comfort. Saddam is surely not going to have the same comfortable fate.
by Pravin, Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:15:32 AM EST
I read your diary on Dkos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14
Tim, regardless of the outcome, please convey to the powers that be, what a great job everyone did. Sure, it was not a perfect campaign in the post primary period, but how many campaigns are great. But I did notice your comment about exhaustion probably setting in. I can empathise as it was frustrating for me to debunk again and again repeated misinformed comments about the race. So I can only imagine how much harder it was for people like you out there working in the field.
The Lamont campaign achieved the improbable - some would say the near impossible - by beating Lieberman in the primary. While others and I had some constructive criticisms, I did think that some people were too harsh judging Lamont's eligibility to be a deserving senator based on the campaign's failure to convert enough voters when you could downgrade almost every politician on that basis since most campaigns are not perfect, including Lieberman's.
by Pravin, Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:13:02 PM EDT
While I still have some hope for Lamont to pull this off, it does look like Lieberman is the strong favorite to win. I put this comment months ago right after the euphoria surrounding Lamont's primary win:
Here is my comment dated August 10
by Pravin, Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:42:32 AM EDT
We have been understandably worried about Lamont's lack of real momentum since the primary. However, Lamont has a chance to change that with the debates. But Lamont has to take advantage of EVERY SINGLE opening Lieberman is going to give him in that debate. We can predict some of the stuff Lieberman will bring up. What I want to know is : What is the Lamont campaign doing to prepare for these debates? Lamont was decent in the last debate. But I don't think Lieberman will be as flustered as he was last time. Thanks to Lamont's stalled momentum, Liebermaan, despite all his gaffes, will have a more composed demeanor.
What I hope to see in some of your comments is the following format: Roleplay a Lieberman comment, answer, or query to Lamont. Then offer your suggestion on how Lamont should counter that.
by Pravin, Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 01:20:38 PM EDT
Two things have caught my attention in recent days. One was the link above. Some lady put a diary on Daily Kos about her husband unwilling to vote for Lamont because he just can't be sure of Lamont despite the fact that he is sure Lieberman hasn't done a very good job. Also the husband considered the Iraq war to be just a one issue problem.
The other thing that caught my attention was a similar account by one of our fellow posters reagarding his parents. His dad wanted Lamont to prove himself despite the fact he disliked Lieberman. I thought to myself - isn't a zero better than a negative number?
In the past, didn't a lot of the country hold it against challengers whenever they would be "questionable" on a single issue like our national security or the Iraq war(remember how Dean got attacked by lieberman himself over a SINGLE issue during the 2004 primaries). Meanwhile, a lot of people seem to give incumbents a pass on a single issue even if that issue is as big as the Iraq war. I see a double standard here. When the conventional wisdom was that it was better to be for the war than against it, weren't they saying "the election is about national security, dummy". Now they want to change the argument? If a Lieberman supporter wants us to give him a pass over this one issue, remind him of Lieberman's intolerance of anti Iraq war democrats in the past.
by Pravin, Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:25:39 PM EDT
I have been observing with bemusement the whole recent Pope controversy where he made some reference to Islam, muhammad and evil in the same speech. I could care less what he said. I am agnostic. Besides, I am from a Hindu family. So there is no side for me to pick as my side.
I just find it hypocritical for muslims to keep demanding apologies whenever they get slighted by anyone despite the fact that none of their religious leaders ever apologize. When Iran put out that fatwa on Rushdie, did its religious looney leaders apologize? When Osama made his fanatical statements, did he apologize later? Oh, we can go on and on. For a group whose leaders have no problem wishing death on others, they sure are a sensitive bunch.
This pope seems to be a little bit of a troublemaker and seems to have issues that have been festering in his mind for a long time. At least we get his rhetoric out in the open. I will not think less of him if he does apologise as long as he does it for the strategic purpose of avoiding any religious riots similar to the overblown cartoon issue. But I will not be foolish to think his apology is heartfelt. I find his statement saying he was citing an emperor's statements to be disingenuous. It is politics as played by both sides of this religious war.
I just hope that politicians won't get sucked into wasting their political capital on a cause like this.
by Pravin, Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:56:15 AM EDT
What a pitiful speech. Disingenuous to the hilt. Wallowing in self righteousness and self pity. For those wondering, why he clamped down on activity on the final day, I doubt it was because he gave up. He needed the time to rehearse this speech.
UPDATE: Watching Lieberman on CNN's American Morning. Soledad actually asked him some decent questions. Just a day after he said there was a lot of demonization in DC, he goes on making Lamont to be some kind of extremist. Soledad actually called him on that and he waffles a tad saying he meant the whole spectrum of the campaign and not just Lamont. Wait, so name calling of your voting segment is OK? Also Lieberman brought up Maxine Waters as an example of a typical Lamont supporter while he saw nothing wrong with the likes of Hannity supporting him. Soledad also brought up about the definition of extremist and said the majority of Americans seem to share Lamont's view on the war. Lieberman did a shameless dance around the subject by talking about the withdrawal phase instead of justifying why he made such a blunder and why he wouldn't make such a blunder in the future with other countries. He also shameless repeated the misleading Lamont had a lot of money to spend mantra as if Lieberman is poor and does not have access to lobbyist funds.
OK. ENd of my Update. And back to my original diary.
OK here is a partial transcript and my comments which captures pretty much most of his speech.
by Pravin, Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 02:39:42 AM EDT
I saw the caricature of Lieberman in blackface over on slate.
The only crime I saw was the lack of filter in Jane's mind when she put that on the blog. There is absolutely nothing in the ad which makes fun of blacks. It is obvious that the theme of the ad is the Lieberman campaign's pandering to the black community. I assume, in Hamsher's mind, historically, some performers in blackface in the 30s thought they were actually paying tribute to black performers when they were probably indirectly helping perpetuate certain stereotypes and not really helping the black entertainer's cause at all. I am guessing this is similar to what Hamsher was trying to point.
Lieberman with Clinton on his side was trying to associate himself with the white President whose lingering image was the Arsenio Hall show appearance and pronouncement by a black supporter that he is the first black President.
In any case, even if you do not accept the rationale of the satire, she did apologize and no one can deny that in the worst case scenario, the only target of this ad was Lieberman and the perpetuating of a stereotype was not part of the joke.
by Pravin, Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 11:36:21 AM EDT
I am not even that liberal, yet I feel outraged whenever I see a politician express indignation that people in the south, or christian folk, or conservatives in general, or moderates(if you are a democratic politician) are not given enough respect. Howard Dean makes a comment about republicans and gets vilified.
Meanwhile, you got Bush and Cheney making fun of Massachussetts liberals during a presidential race. It's one thing to be frank and say you do not agree with them. But when you denigrate an entire group of voters while pandering to pretty much everyone else in the country at the same time, I get mad because the only reason they pick on that group is because they know they wont suffer the consequences. That's the reason why they will pander to the moderates even when they don't respect them as much either.
The latest incident is the Lamont-Lieberman debate. Lieberman's staff has consistently bashed Lamont voters while Lamont has never bashed Lieberman voters. Lamont is trying to appeal to everyone without pandering to the Lieberman loyalists. Lieberman does not have to pander to the left, but can he at least refrain from bashing a big segment of the democratic base during a primary if he expects them to respect him in return? Having Lamont's followers branded as being terroristic or looney is ridiculous. When Lieberman went after Lamont's supporters in the debate with a dismissive comment, Lamont should have countered with the fact that he never treated an entire section of the electorate even if they disagreed with him with the same contempt Lieberman is treating his supporters. Lamont could have added that despite not being a far lefty himself, maybe he is attracting a lot of the left because he is willing to listen to all segments of the population. And maybe this is why Lieberman is confused when he keeps calling Lamont a far lefty on one day and a republican on the other. Lieberman would not have lost his liberal base to this extent if he treated the war dissenters with respect instead of being rude and contemptuous of them all along.
by Pravin, Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:41:31 PM EDT
and other stories on the site have the news about Steelers QB Big Ben's accident.
While I am indifferent about the helmet law - the libertarian side of me say "Hell no, Big Ben has the right to mess up his career" while the other side of me says - "yeah, but then it is as important as the seat belt law"- it's the way other traffic laws are enforced that bugs me.
Frequently cops and the laws put a priority on catching speeders where they wait like snakes hidden away with a laser device without taking into account traffic patterns. A person speeding by 20 in a 55 gets the same points as someone speeding by 20 in a residential 35 and further weaves between lanes. A person speeding BY 20 OR 30 on an empty highway gets more points than a person engaged in a more dangerous improper lane change or tailgating another car. A person speeding on an empty highway could get more points than a person (says Ms Idiot A) who takes a hasty left turn on a green light putting the person(Mr. B) coming in the opposite direction in jeopardy. And in today's case, that person Mr B happens to be Big Ben, the QB of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Now today you will hear countless reports of what a dumbass Big Ben is - using more polite language - for ignoring the Kellen Winslow debacle from a couple of years ago where all he did was hit a curb but ended up missing a year plus. He ignored Cowher. He got mad at Terry Bradshaw.
News can be found at www.wtae.com, www.postgazette.com, www.profootballtalk.com other than the usual national sites.