SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (786005)5/22/2014 6:22:09 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572503
 
why, koan calls himself a "liberal", except the "liberals" on SI are the quickest to ignore or ban anybody that call them out on their lies and hypocrisy.



To: one_less who wrote (786005)5/22/2014 7:36:49 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation

Recommended By
one_less

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572503
 
Forty some years ago you could have found me living on a hippie commune in the Pacific Northwest. That was after years of getting stoned as I protested everything going on in a corrupt establishment and living out of a backpack. I lived in a teepee for a while after that taking on reforestation work from time to time. My attitudes and conduct of that era was clearly in the range of radical left wing. Over time and with experience I have become much more conservative in life style but have remained open minded (a liberal characteristic) with regards to the mainstream status quo and issues as they arise. The mainstream establishment is no less corrupt but I manage to stay out of the street these days. Most of my complaints about an unjust world and corrupt establishment are penned rather than shouted. The pendulum has swung and the powers that be are more leftwing but no less corrupt than in the past. I have posted this previously so it shouldn’t be any surprise to those who have been posting here over the past decade or so.


Many of us who were liberal in our youth have evolved to understand that liberal extremism really doesn't function (I never lived in a teepee, though lol).

But what I see today is that a lot of liberals really don't comprehend what liberalism of that era was. Liberal extremists today are far less informed and more committed to the ideology than they are the outcomes. Unfortunately, I include in that group many who were liberals from that bygone era, who have evolved over time to support liberal causes of today without really comprehending what they mean. A lot of my extreme liberal friends come from families who were union employees and have just adopted the liberal dogma, IMO, without a lot of thought about it.



To: one_less who wrote (786005)5/22/2014 10:25:23 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572503
 
If you have the courage read the two pieces below on Condi Rice. Those two authors are among the smartest folks on earth. Take a look at their logic and let me know what you think?

Condi’s Lesson
Maureen Dowd

WASHINGTON — THERE has been much mockery of political correctness run amok on college campuses this spring, with knots of know-it-all students and teachers knifing their commencement speakers.

The Times’s Timothy Egan dubbed the protesters “commencement bigots,” and The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger christened the trend the “Bonfire of the Humanities” — a “ritualistic burning of college-commencement heretics.”

The disinvitation list has been burgeoning. Brandeis canceled human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, saying she’d made remarks critical of Islam. After protests about imperialism, Condoleezza Rice pulled out of her speech at Rutgers and Christine Lagarde, chief of the International Monetary Fund, said au revoir to Smith College.

This past week, liberal Haverford College shooed away Robert J. Birgeneau, the former chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, “the big bang of political correctness,” as Henninger dryly noted, because Berkeley police had used “force” against Occupy protesters.

Fred R. Conrad / The New York Times

For a militaristic imperialist, Rice caved awfully easily. She should have invaded Rutgers, occupied the podium and said her piece about her failures on peace. And the students shouldn’t have jumped the gun. After all, there was always a chance, a small one, admittedly, but a chance, that Condi Rice would have looked into her soul and told the story of what happens when you succumb to the temptation to sell it.

And that, dear graduates, family and friends, faculty and honored guests, would have been the most amazing and instructive commencement speech of all time.

Rice always seemed to me a particularly sad part of the tragedies of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the lovely linchpin of the moral corrosion of W.’s presidency.

“What a falling off was there,” as the ghost of Hamlet’s father said of his compromised queen.

Condi had all the qualities required to dazzle. Smart, attractive, hard-working, personable, chic. She grew up in Birmingham, Ala., in the 1960s, when segregationists bombed so much that the city became known as “Bombingham.”

Yet she sailed to success at a young age. She could stand toe-to-heel on substance with world leaders. She could speak Russian competently and talk sports expertly and play the piano and ice skate beautifully. She could authoritatively survey the troops in Wiesbaden in black leather knee-high stiletto boots and fashionably dominate a Washington banquet in a long, scarlet Oscar de la Renta gown.

Women everywhere, including my mom, were blown away by her, believing that she could be the first woman and the first black person to be president.

So how could someone named by her mother after the Italian musical notation con dolcezza, meaning “with sweetness,” end up having such a sour effect on American history? Rice was a star, but unfortunately, she cast herself in yet another production of “Faust” on the Potomac, uttering one of the most over-the-top lines of war spin ever: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

She excelled at failing better. As national security adviser for W., she ignored the intelligence report warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike inside the U.S. And she only learned about Hamas’s shocking win in the Palestinian elections in 2006 when she was on her elliptical trainer watching the TV news crawl. After verifying it with State, she returned to exercising.

As Elisabeth Bumiller wrote in her trenchant biography of Rice, “Condoleezza Rice: An American Life”: “It was obvious from Rice’s many metamorphoses that her real ideology was not idealism or realism or defending the citadels of freedom, although she displayed elements of all of them. Her real ideology was succeeding.”

And so, in order to succeed, she rejected her old mentors, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, and went along with the preposterous pre-emption plan of the old hawks who had far less respect for her: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

She knew that W. — eager to show he was not a wimp, the word Newsweek had once hung around his father’s neck — was leaning toward kicking some Arabs around. So she ignored the red flags raised publicly by Scowcroft and privately by Powell and made her Faustian deal to sell a fake war.

We’ll never know if she could have stopped W. from ruining his presidency and destroying so many lives when there was no national security stake.

We only know that when you sell your soul, it’s not like a pawnshop. Condi thought she could reclaim it after she was secretary of state and bring W. back to the light of diplomacy and common sense. But, as Russell Baker once noted, she was trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, spinning her wheels in the second term trying to undo the disasters of the first.

What a wonderful lesson she could have taught those graduates about the perils of succeeding at any cost, about how moral shortcuts never lead to the right place.

She should have said she was sorry about everything — except becoming one of the first two women permitted to join Augusta National.
mobile.nytimes.com