Hamilton Saint

Come on, Saints!

Interesting parallelism of thought. It's this sort of all-or-nothing, black-and-white attitude that is part of the problem. There are extremists on both sides using religion and historical grievance as a justification to terrorise and abuse those on the other side. But, ultimately, it is primarily the Palestinians who have been dispossesed of land and property. And the religious fundamentalsim of the settlers, who believe that God gave the land to them, regardless of historical realities, is a major obstacle to peace between the two peoples.

A two-state solution seems the only conceivable option. Israel must cease to occupy the West Bank area of Jordan and abandon a large portion of the illegal settlements there. The long history of terror perpetrated by both sides has completely poisoned the region. I feel sympathy AND disgust for both sides.

Recently watched The River, directed by Jean Renoir. Filmed in Bengal in 1952. Fascinating film.

Thanks for this. I'm a big fan of radio 4 podcasts, but wasn't aware yet of this series. I'll definitely tune in to these!

I'm half-way through an excellent biography of Leonard Cohen by Sylvie Simmons. It's called I'm Your Man. A must-read if you're a fan!

Obviously, abortion is a delicate moral issue. Both parties involved in the pregnancy ought to be involved in the decision, but ultimately it is the women's right to choose - especially since she is often left alone to deal with the problems of an unwanted pregnancy (i.e., the man abandons her). Other thoughts: There needs to be a time cut-off - a stage in the pregnancy beyond which abortion, in most cases, ought not to be allowed. Abortion should also not be used as a form of gender-selection. Those who say that people use abortion as mere contraception have probably not faced the situation. Regardless of one's religious or philosophical view on the issue, getting an abortion is not a pleasant experience. People can get pregnant even though they use contraception carefully. Those who argue that life begins at conception, and that life is sacred, are bound to argue, therefore, that rape victims, or victims of incest, must be obliged to continue their pregnancies to term.

3x + 1 = 16 3x = 16 - 1 3x = 15 x = 15/3 x = 5

Smokin' at the Half Note (1965) - Wes Montgomery (guitar) with the Wynton Kelly Trio. On Verve Records.

No. I reckon he's got at least to the half-way point in the season to show a significant change in our fortunes.

There has not been a larger gap, surely, between expectation and reality than Augustin Delgado. Rudi Skacel was a major disappointment, too.

I agree that there are huge differences in domestic policy - obviously. But my point was about foreign policy. US foreign policy is not dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is not established by individual administratons - it is governed primarily by long-standing geo-political considerations. If you look at the post-war (WWII) period, US foreign policy followed the doctrinal world-view of George Kennan, who established the doctrine of "containment". This theory set the scene for the entire Cold War period - the US worked to contain the spread of communism. Didn't matter if it was a Democratic administration (Kennedy tried to invade Cuba, provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis, and escalated the War in Vietnam, etc.) or a Republican administration (Nixon used the CIA to depose the Allende regime in Chile, Reagan armed the contras in Nicaragua, etc.). Administrations of both stripes have also been staunch supporters of Israel and suppliers of arms to regimes of all sorts around the world - democratic, semi-democratic, and tyrannical (as long as they were anti-communist). Despotic regimes have been supported surreptitiously by both Democratic and Republican administrations. In the post-Cold War era, there was a brief period of opportunity to establish a "peace dividend" - but the events of 9/11 allowed the military-industrial complex, and its philosophical enablers, to use the threat of Al Qaeda-type terrorism to establish "a war between civilizations" scenario to dominate the geo-political discussion. Obama, for example, (who got a premature Nobel Peace Prize, remember) has not eliminated the un-constitutional aspects of Homeland Security. He hasn't eliminated the facilities at Guantanamo Bay. And he has escalated state-terror in the Middle East, engaging in illegal assassinations on foreign soil. What I'm saying is that there are deep layers of hidden policy and doctrine that constrain and impel presidents to pursue foreign policy goals, regardless of their own political stripe.

Hey, explain the irony.

No, it's not "more or less unanimous" that you can call someone a c*nt just because they hold to a different political opinion.

You're calling for respect, but think it's OK to call someone a cu nt because they have a strong opinion of their own on the issue - an opinion they know is going to bring them lots of grief? Can't you respect that? And you're calling for respect, but think it's OK to call someone a cu nt because they express the opinion that he has the right to hold to his own (unpopular) opinion?

Me, too - so frustrating!

Come on, Saints!

Me neither. (Except my wedding ring.)

Is Saints Player running the commentary yet? I don't hear anything! [OK. Just started at 2:40 p.m. - why so late, when it's a home game?]

Well, this whole forum is mostly useless, too. But it helps to pass the time, eh?

No - there is really no significant doctrinal difference in the way the two parties approach foreign policy. Differences in nuance and expression, perhaps. But the fundamental thrust is the same.

D. Cheney was Secretary of Defense for George H. Bush in 1991 during "Desert Storm" (first Gulf War). From 1995-2000 he was C.E.O. of Halliburton corporation. He went on to be the Vice-President in George W. Bush's administration - the guys who decided to invade Iraq. The post-invasion scene was run primarily by private enterprise, not government. Much of the security there was run not by the military but by private companies (Blackstone Group Security, for example). Eisenhower warned the public about this sort of thing way back in the late 50s, when he identified the "military-industrial complex". Much of the key industrial activity in the US is war-related. And there is a revolving door between the government and the corporate sector. None of this is new. Read Noam Chomsky, if you want to understand post-WW2 American policy,

Yeah, I read that on the first run through, but he actually wrote "he probably needs to pick up at least four points from this game and Saints' trip to play QPR next week". Both games.

That's a very reactionary attitude - similar to Mitt Romney's comment about the 47% of the electorate that he had given up on, because they were only interested in handouts. By the way, it's not governments providing "bread and circuses", it's corporations. Last time I checked sporting extravaganzas and entertainment spectaculars are run primarily by huge multinational companies.

"asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations" - what does that mean? "its closest ally"? - who do you mean? (It's Canada, by the way.) "Obama is a f**king useless public speaker" - are you crazy? He is a superb orator. Didn't you watch his speech last night? It was riveting. His debating skills are nowhere near as good, but as a "public speaker" (orator) he is hard to beat. Think about it, his rapid rise to prominence was built on one brilliant speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.