posted
You will notice that I didn't make that assumption - "I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that" - despite the fact that she couldn't even manage to emotionally cope with the conversation here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability. ...
I admit that I didn't even know that there were two. I just assumed that Special Olympics was just an odd synonym for the Paralympics.
Doing some Googling, it seems that reason for that perception is that the Paralympics are much much more international and have a closer association with the real Olympics mirroring times, infrastructure, and host events. The Special Olympics seems to be very American-centric.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will notice that I didn't make that assumption - "I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that" - despite the fact that she couldn't even manage to emotionally cope with the conversation here.
Well, actually, saying you have 'worries' and that you have 'every hope'...that's not really the same thing as saying, "I think she's doing it." And of course things like 'couldn't even manage'.
Maybe she just didn't feel like it at that particular time? She got upset about something she read online. That's a really crappy basis to call into question someone's parenting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I neither think she is or that she isn't. I think you are reading a tone that is not intended. I don't know Mrs.M well enough to make such a personal judgement.
And, even if I did have an opinion one way or the other, it would not be her parenting in general that I was questioning, it would be one specific thing which would be the ability to teach her child not to get upset by insensitivity to people with disabilities. That Mrs.M could not do this herself on this particular occasion is not a good sign.
However, anyone can have a bad day, it is often harder to bear hurt to your children than it is to bear it for yourself, and parents can often teach their children things in which they themselves are not expert.
Given the extraordinary devotion that Mrs.M gives to her children,* I continue to have every hope that she is teaching her children what they need.
*ETA: That much I am willing to surmise.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I neither think she is or that she isn't. I think you are reading a tone that is not intended.
If you say so, I'll accept it as an accurate reflection of your feelings on the matter. Inflections of meaning are difficult to get across solely in print after all, and I know I'm misread too sometimes.
On that subject, I'll just reiterate though that saying things like 'I have worries', 'I have every hope that', and 'couldn't even manage' don't actually present (IMO) the message you meant to convey.
quote:...it would be one specific thing which would be the ability to teach her child not to get upset by insensitivity to people with disabilities. That Mrs.M could not do this herself on this particular occasion is not a good sign.
It's almost a completely inconclusive sign without any other knowledge is what my point was. If you grant that even someone who knows something can have a bad day and forget it, and that someone can know something yet forget it if a mistake is made towards a loved one, etc., then someone forgetting something they know - in and of itself - doesn't signify much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try reading "every hope" as "every expectation" plus the sentiment that the expected thing is a good thing. Thus "hoped" rather than the value neutral "expected".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability.
I don't think the level of respect given Paralympians vs. Special Olympians has the slightest bit to do with how we view physical and mental impairment. It has much more to do with the differences in the nature of the games themselves.
The Paralympics were held in Salt Lake City in 2002 following the Winter Olympics. I was living there at the time and heard many explanation about how the Paralympics were not at all like the Special Olympics. And those explanation were valid and justified giving far more respect to the athleticism of Paralympians.
The goal of the Paralympics is to recognize the strongest, fastest, most skilled physically impaired athletes in the world. In the Paralympics, the different divisions are based on different physical disabilities. So for example in down hill skiing, there is a division for people with only one leg and a division for people with no legs, there are several divisions for blind skiers depending on how severely their vision is impaired. Paralympians are without question world class athletes. The person who wins the down hill ski race in the division for people with one leg, is in fact the fastest one legged skier on the planet (at least on that day). When you go to see the Paralympics, you will see very impressive athleticism, some of the best in the world. Most of the performances you see at the Paralympics are truly impressive, even when compared to "able bodied" athletes.
But this just isn't true in the Special Olympics. Special Olympians are not, for the most part, world class athletes. The goal of the Special Olympics is not to recognize the strongest or fastest mentally impaired athletes in the world. The primary goals of the Special Olympics are to build self esteem and foster social skills. The division in the Special Olympics aren't based on the degree of disability of the competitors, they are based on the competitors performance in qualifying and preliminary rounds. Every one gets put into a division with people who are roughly at their level. In the Special Olympics, people get rewarded with Gold medals for performances that are mediocre -- even within the context of mentally impaired athletes. The Special Olympics don't honor excellent athleticism. That isn't the point of the Special Olympics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Is this true? If so, I would like to know what the Obama supporters here have to say about it.
Are you upset that John Adams rehearsed the very complicated procedure for approaching King George III? It was a maneuver that involved bowing several times and reverencing the king while drawing closer. Bear in mind this was the very king we were revolting against, does it bring Mr. Adams patriotism into question?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But official ambassador is not POTUS.
You're hurting my head Porter. I'm just saying as chief ambassador there is no impropriety with the President using a token of great respect that another culture prefers. If down the road they become friends and kiss each other on the cheek that won't bother me either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are likely some things that would be appropriate for an US ambassador to do that would not be appropriate for the POTUS, even in his role as chief ambassador, to do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think there are likely some things that would be appropriate for an US ambassador to do that would not be appropriate for the POTUS, even in his role as chief ambassador, to do.
Perhaps. Do you think Obamas' bow to the king of Saudi Arabia was one of those things?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Americans do not bow to any earthly monarch. That is what America means NOW. Anyone who does not affirm this, is not worthy of calling himself an American.
At the 1908 Olympics in London, where countries were asked to dip their flag to King Edward VII of the United Kingdom as they passed by the king's review stand, the American team captain Martin Sheridan refused, famously proclaiming that "this flag dips to no earthly king.")
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Is this true? If so, I would like to know what the Obama supporters here have to say about it.
Why should I have anything to say about it? Why should anyone care?
The US President treats foreign leader with respect -- what's wrong with that? Why does it bother you?
Now if he starts letting the King of Saudia Arabia dictate US policy, that would bother me. If he exempted the King of Saudia Arabia from US security regulations or prosecution for crimes committed that would bother me -- but bowing??
Get real, find something real to complain about.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The US President treats foreign leader with respect -- what's wrong with that? Why does it bother you?
It's bothersome because of the association of such bowing in this culture not with the showing of respect, but of obeisance.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even convinced it was a bow. It looked to me like he reached for something with his left hand at an awkward moment.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yea obviously he just saw a penny on the ground and reached down to pick it up then decided it wasn't the right place to do so. The fact that his left hand actually never moves in no way contradicts this theory.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looked like a gesture of politeness rather than of deference.
It might irk me on a basic level, as I don't think heads of state should really bow to one another, at least, not without reciprocation, but I don't think he insulted America or anything by doing so. Is is really that much different than Bush holding hands with him?
Like Rabbit said, a bow is one thing, but letting him actually dictate policy is where I'd jump in. But then, that's really just a surface issue.
Saudis have been controlling many US policies for decades. Ironically, Obama is more likely than Bush or any previous president since Carter to enact policy that will LIMIT Saudi influence on American policy, and yet Ron is worried about a bow. Oy. Dig a little deeper buddy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saudis have been controlling many US policies for decades.
That's a bit incomplete, Lyrhawn. Or do you imagine with the metric sh@#-tons of money flowing from us to them there isn't control of them as well as from them, too?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not nearly enough to even pretend that it's equal. It's not as if we're paying from control, it's more like they're extracting money from us.
The intel we get from them is valuable, but they certainly get money for that value. They manipulate our energy policy by flooding the world with cheap oil (low grade sure, but it's still in high volumes), then through OPEC they turn off the spigots to drive up the price and collect, but then deliver a one-two combo that ensures we'll never invest in the money necessary to break their hold over our energy needs. They give large amounts of money to congressional campaigns from both parties, and hire dozens of lobbyists to represent their interests. And there's that market flooding thing. They attack an ignorant short sighted populace with cheap prices, and they attack the people representing them with the money the population just gave them because of high oil prices! It's an almost hilarious cycle that has them bribing Congress with constituent funding.
To say nothing of the fact that thanks to us, they have one of the best trained, best equipped armies in the region, if not the actual most powerful. We can say, well gee, the fact that Iran is their most likely enemy in the region and that also happens to be OUR most likely enemy as well does nothing to detract from the fact that the money we send over there (and the money they have in general) is used to fund schools that preach anti-Western rhetoric, which is ensuring that this cycle of west/east violence won't end this or the next generation.
In other words, yes, the relationship is give take, but nothing they are doing is harming them long term. They're getting everything they want for a pretty good price. We're making a devil's bargain, trading away future safety and giving up a measure of autonomy for an extremely high price. Yes, there's more to the story than that, but I think it's pretty telling that every time Bush asked for a public favor during his presidency he was flatly rejected. Just because they serve as an anti-Iran bulwark and do our torturing for us, it doesn't mean we're controlling them. It means we're sharing in the benefits of things they'd do whether we asked them or not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree they're getting a pretty good deal.
Though I wonder what you'd be willing to do about it should the painful and lengthy but necessary process of conservation and alternative energy switching prove insufficient.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
I sometimes wonder if *you* know what any of those words mean Ron. Sometimes, the measure of a person is not what they believe but how they think of those who believe differently. I understand that you are angry at the world and I understand that you believe our little experiment in our new President is an absolute nightmare, but I think the hatred you embrace is antithetical to all that you seek to defend.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree they're getting a pretty good deal.
Though I wonder what you'd be willing to do about it should the painful and lengthy but necessary process of conservation and alternative energy switching prove insufficient.
I don't think we'll totally cut off relations with them. I think the intelligence they provide is important, though I think we should recognize the ways with which they attain it. And I think they could be a sort of enemy of my enemy is my friend type of ally in the region. But they aren't our friends, and they aren't really our allies.
Frankly I don't really think that those efforts will prove insufficient. I agree it'll be a long and painful process, but between domestic sources, Canadian and Mexican oil, and the changes we'll make, I don't think it's at all unrealistic to expect that in the mid distant future, getting off Saudi or even all OPEC oil will happen.
Besides, some of Saudi Arabia's largest oil fields are starting to either run try, or produce drastically more water than oil per barrel pumped. 20 years from now we'll be getting more oil from Brazil than Saudi Arabia anyway, which makes the point somewhat moot, but the faster we can switch away, the freer our foreign policy and energy related policy can be to serve OUR needs, both long and short term, rather than theirs in their terms.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is is really that much different than Bush holding hands with him?
Does bowing send a different message than holding hands? Yes, it definitely does.
Substantively, specific to this instance, I disagree.
Generally, you might be right, but I think there's a vast gray area in which these two behaviors overlap and put themselves on opposite sides of the spectrum at the same time. He wasn't kowtowing before him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holding hands is inherently reciprocal. Bowing, both in general and in this specific case, is not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
What??? Because it doesn't bother me that the US President shows deference to the customs of other countries and respect for their leaders, I don't know or understand the ideal of democracy as something to defend.
[ April 08, 2009, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me about the incident is this: Obama, as far as I can tell, either has complete incompetents working for him at State or is being deliberately sabotaged by them. His highest-profile, legitimate missteps have all so far been on issues of protocol -- which is to some extent to be expected, given his situation, but which is also something that the State Department is supposed to have a whole herd of people to ensure doesn't happen.
Americans have never been particularly good at protocol -- Bush's neckrubs always made me cringe -- but Obama gives the impression that there isn't anybody out there taking him to one side and saying, "Now this is what you're supposed to do when..." I can't believe Clinton still has her job.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
To be fair, the queen hugged Michelle first.
But on the whole, I agree that we certainly are looking amateurish, but then again, we do have a new administration. I'd hope that the folks are learning very quickly from these mistakes and they won't repeat them in the future. I almost imagine the Aaron Sorkin West Wingesque dialogue going on during these incidents.
(President Obama approaches the King and bows. Two staffers start to say no, and wave their hands in hopes of catching his attention in time but to no avail.) "The President just bowed." "Think anyone noticed?" "I don't know... there's a camera over there." "We're screwed." "Well, you are at least. It was your job to teach the President protocol." "I better go pack my desk up." "Dude, we're out of country." "...Oh... Right."
(Rahm Emanuel sees the Clinton gaff on his television in his office.)
"DONNA!"
When I think of the gaffes in that light with poor helpless staffers feeling the pain, I'm entertained by them like I was with the show. I really probably shouldn't be, but its better than being angry with something I have no control over.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Obama administration is “invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program” against a lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who claim “federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.” Justice Department lawyers yesterday demanded dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against Bush officials, arguing that the information constitutes privileged “state secrets.”
I'm so disappointed. Obama is going to lose a lot of his progressive and grassroots support with more decisions like this. And the republicans will continue to not vote for his agenda. I don't understand who this will help.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
I don't know which is worse: your cluelessness in regards to the notions of patriotism that you cloak yourself in, or your arrogant callousness towards people who (thankfully) keep your wild notions in check.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I think of the gaffes in that light with poor helpless staffers feeling the pain, I'm entertained by them like I was with the show. I really probably shouldn't be, but its better than being angry with something I have no control over.
I admit I do this too. When I hear about news or things I can just see the President and the staffers in their roles running around doing stuff, making phone calls.
Re: The Queen incident.
Americans get away with a lot when it comes to royalty. And I think they are "allowed" to get away with it when it comes to the British monarchy because of their history and because they don't buy into any of this ridiculous formality stuff.
When the British PM makes a gaffe though (which, according to the movie The Queen, Tony Blair did) it's a different kettle of fish.
I do not think the queen needs the kind of reverence when it comes to protocol that people seem to give to her. She's just a person wearing a sparkly hat. She was probably charmed by the spontaneity of the visiting Americans.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly I don't really think that those efforts will prove insufficient.
I hope you're right.
It'd be a helluva gamble, though.
There's a lot to be hopeful about. I don't think it's so much a gamble as it is a matter of will. We know what levels of technology are feasible for fuel efficiency in cars, we know that mass transit and alternative zoning reduces the overall need for driving and we already have a certain amount of oil from domestic as well as friendly allied sources.
The only real question I see is how quickly biofuels will come into their own. Corn ethanol is crap, we all know that (and thankfully the Secretary of Energy agrees), but there are a ton of different non food source crops that show a great deal of potential. They're only now getting significant investment and attention, and finally, federal attention as well as private. A lot of them are at the point of fine tuning and figuring out how to scale them up to commercial numbers.
We'll keep the status quo for now, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't be Saudi free in five or ten years. OPEC free? No, but Saudi Arabia is just one piece of a large network of suppliers, and in five or ten years, a great deal of new production will have come online, and none of that new production will be from Saudi Arabia. South America (Brazil) and Africa are the new emerging oil markets, not the Middle East.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Obama administration is “invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program” against a lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who claim “federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.” Justice Department lawyers yesterday demanded dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against Bush officials, arguing that the information constitutes privileged “state secrets.”
I'm so disappointed. Obama is going to lose a lot of his progressive and grassroots support with more decisions like this. And the republicans will continue to not vote for his agenda. I don't understand who this will help.
He probably got into office and found out a lot of the reasons for what Bush did and agreed with him. You probably would too if you knew what they know. Secret is not always bad you know.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually have to agree with lobo here. I'd have to know more particulars of this case before I decide how I feel here. Bush was wrong for doing wiretaps without warrants. But there's still perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants and maintaining a degree of secrecy about it so criminals/terrorists can't work around our strategies to stop them.
Yes, a law was broken. Perhaps some (maybe even most) of the individuals who were spied on were perfectly harmless, but there are still those were, in fact, terrorists, and even offering a flat "settle out of court" payment to anyone who was wiretapped would give away which people the government was watching. Yes, I could see that as a threat to national security.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing Raymond, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants, but these are warrantless wiretaps we're talking about.
I agree, he might very well have gotten in and become privy to information that made him think these things should continue. I understand that. But fine, sell the idea to the American public. Convince us it's in our best interest to get behind you on this. Don't rally against it, campaign against it, and then slip this in without informing your supporters of why you're doing it.
I'm still part of the grassroots group that started way back last winter to support Obama, we're 180 people strong in our community and still highly active. Most of the members are fuming right now. We stayed together because of a direct request from Obama to maintain the group, continue to be active in our community and keep a two way communication going with the administration, and hold him accountable(his words). We're currently deciding the best way to voice our displeasure and we hope the two way part of this communication was truly meant.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm unclear on whether he was saying the policy of wiretaps without warrants would continue (I would highly disagree with that). My understanding was they were calling to dismiss a lawsuit on the ones that had already happened.
As I said, I'd have to know more particulars to make a final judgment call here. But if my current understanding is correct I can see why a settlement (let alone trial) on those wiretaps could compromise security.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, the DOJ claims the Patriot Act bars lawsuits against “illegal government surveillance unless there is ‘willful disclosure’ of the illegally intercepted communications.”
I don't like the implications of that. I have to be fair here, cause if I read this coming from Bush's whitehouse I would have been livid.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
And some of us have served, and come from highly decorated families, yet STILL do not agree with you.
YOU don't get to decide what being an American means to ME....that's what we are today, and hopefully will be always.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
