Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) I just watched the video piece. My favorite part is: 'if you don't speak English, you're not going to do well here or anywhere in the world'. OK dude, got it. You...mean...that's...not...true...?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) LOL. I'm sorry, but all I picture is a guy looking at that sign and since he DOESN'T SPEAK ENGLISH, proceding with his order. "Una hamburguesa, una Coca Cola, y papas fritas por favor" Holy crap, I can't believe I missed that angle.

Kim Jung Il is threatening to test-launch a missile that may or may not be capable of reaching the United States. In response, some people are worrying, Japan is considering a re-armament, and South Koreans are probably a little tense. The New York Times has a piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin but my take is different than most people's, I suspect. Let me state, momentarily, that I love Korea — both Koreas. Their history is fascinating, and I think their situation to be the most complex, worst problem in the world today. A people split by foreign powers who took different paths but ultimately need to be reunited. When the day comes that I travel the world, I want to go to Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Russia, Turkey) and then the Orient, particularly the Koreas. Now that my love for the East is stated, let me say that I’ve been following the Korean crisis for years, and that North Korea’s recent threats to launch a missile test don’t quite bother me. To be sure, it’s creepy. Kim Jung Il is the world’s biggest creep this side of John Bolton, and so it’s natural to expect this sort of behavior from him. Unless we intend to give him a lot of diplomatic assurances, money and food — or if we take the hardest road and invade — there’s little leverage that we have. Kim Jung Il is unlikely to be anything more than the Madonna of international politics — an attention whore, and not much else. If he does test his missile, I’m tempted to discount its significance. We’ve known that he can build missiles and shoot them into the Sea of Japan since 1998. What, exactly, changes? Just because he kisses Britney Spears twice doesn’t mean he’s not the same old attention whore from the late 1990s. Ultimately, the situation in Korea is one that will have to be resolved by politicians being statesmen. Provided that, if (and likely when) the Koreans test a missile again, the proper response is verbal condemnation, and that’s about it. There’s no reason for Japan to begin re-arming, no cause for American threats, no need to worry in Seoul. Kim Jung Il is creepy, not crazy. As long as the West and its Eastern Allies keep a cool head when the missile launches, everything should work out. There’s no reason to go on a warpath unless Jung assaults Korea or Japan. A test meant to show the world that he’s not a joke is something to ignore, not a reason to get your war on, and everyone should stay calm and any storm will pass.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) Silly story and situation. Hey, shut up. Don't you see they're standing up for American values?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) I suppose I could have quoted a bunch of blogs, or gone on a long dramatic rant, but there wasn't much point. You all know how I feel about this, and all you have to do is make a Google News search to see how many locals are near bankruptcy from illegals. Maybe later I'll entertain the masses... Por seguro, usted sabia que yo no mas estaba aciendo un chiste, no? Tu primer escritura fue sufficiente dramatica, gracias senor! (Surely you know I spoke in jest, no?) (Your first post was sufficiently dramatic, thanks!)

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) I'm confused, who is taking the orders if the customers don't speak English? Umm, nobody? They get no service.

I don't smile when I read news like this. I think it's petty, actually. Let's stretch it out to all sorts of situations: what about tourists? I guess they should all know how to say "I want a cheesesteak!" in English when they visit Philadelphia. And how about recent immigrants? How dare they take time to learn a new, more complex language -- learn it overnight! And what kind of people hold onto some parts of their native heritage? Sleazy immigrants, that's all. I wonder what kind of person could be a cashier at this place, have a person come up and stammer through some poor English or point to something they see on the menu, and then say, "What's that? I'm sorry, you don't speak English, go away!" I'd be ashamed to handle anything like that, perhaps because I respect other people's right to live their lives with some dignity.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) Thats probably a smart move on their part. No reason to beat themselves over the head with that type of thing during an election year.... That issue probably hurts them more than it helps them No, this is a misguided mercy killing. They killed it because a) it wouldn't have passed, and B) it was hurting them. On one side you had Bush and softer Republicans arguing for what the other wing of the Republican Party calls Amnesty By a Different Name, and the in-fighting was -- the calculation goes -- hurting the Republican Party. I think that killing the bill hurts the Republicans more, however. It opens the door for Conservative Democratic Challenges in southern places and states like Ohio to challenge Republicans on two fronts: calling them a do-nothing party, and calling for border security. But, let's ignore Conservative Democrats in rural districts. This hurts Republicans with Republicans. I'm certain that having no bill is going to depress Republican turnout this year. Republicans wanted action, and didn't get it. Hey maestro, could you give me something a little more dramatic?

Ozzie Guillen has always struck me as the kind of guy who would take a s*** and throw it at someone. Like a chimp. As long as we keep winning ballgames, I can accept the fact that he's got the self-control of a five year old. He's not going to change that facet of his personality, although I wish he would.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 03:21 AM) Now that you've all taken your shots at the original post in this in this thread, I want to thank minors for posting it. I love the quote by Anne Graham and totally agree with her. I also believe this nation was founded based on Christian morals and law, but not necessarily as a "Christian nation". Please tell me how that works when the men who were most notable for the Constitution were either Atheists or Deists, because as it reads, I don't buy that. Last time I checked, the Constitution was written based on the teachings of Locke and Rousseau and not Christ.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2006 -> 07:05 AM) Really? I hadn't noticed. To be honest I quit reading when you referred to them as "Frogs" To each his own. I thought the, ah, nature of the title showed how little love I have for their empire.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) No, we wouldn't. Ortiz would win because he's Papi, dammit. Vote for Pudge at this point behind the plate, as well as ichiro. Two less teams that need to be repped on the bench. We'll agree to disagree. Because you're wrong as hell.

Can I recommend Harlan Coben? Or The One Percent Doctrine, by Suskind? I can. And I do.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) Pretty much. As long as Count, Dye and Thome are there, I don't care and I know all 3 will be there. Yeah, count those as my Must Haves for this year's game.

It's a real shame that Thome isn't eligible for votes as a DH. I think that'd be one hell of a matchup: Thome v. Ortiz for most votes. I think then we'd have the realest chance we've had in ages for a White Sox starter who isn't a pitcher.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) "Just think somewhere in this state right now Jeb Bush is eating a live puppy." - Stewie Griffin (Link) Ooooh, don't remind me!

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...alph_peters.htm I had quite a bit of derision for the French in my blog entry on this, but let me just say: I loathe France.

Suskind's known for writing "The Price of Loyalty" in which he chronicled the former Treasury Secretary's plagued tenure with the Bush White House. It was the most insightful book about Bush that I've read, and I've read quite a few. Needless to say, O'Neill and Suskind didn't leave him looking very good. Now he's written a new one, "The One Percent Doctrine," and I'll be picking it up later. For now, I've read the excerpt and recommend this book and excerpt to you. Absolutely. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1205478,00.html I think I may enjoy this one more than the Price, simply because I am a man who loves his CIA and this book is said to have been written with much access to George Tenet.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) Um, maybe. Yea. Oops.

The Party in Power, and Supporters of a War, will from now on always have to deal with the fact that the press doesn't like ANY war. Just about every War, pre-World Wars, had a ton of negative coverage except for the Spanish American War (which very much fueled that war with their "Remember the Maine!" chants). When the Government began their Propaganda offices in earnest during those wars, it was an exception rather than a rule. Clinton's Kosovo, Bosnia? Talks of Quagmire. "How soon is too soon to pull out? When will we pull out?" Clinton cracked a few jokes about it years later at his Correspondents dinner. A visceral distaste for War and a willingness to criticize and run bad news front cover has been the media's modus operandi for hundreds of years with a minor break in the 1900s. Get over it if you're a Republican now. Deal with it when Hillary Clinton decides to invade Peru. This -- the manner with which the media covers Iraq -- is nothing new. Nothing new at all. It's completely consistent with history and, I suspect, with the future of War, too.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) Um, maybe. Umm, was that a response to Rex?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Those terms alone are not slander, and neither is "liberal". But they get used as an insult everyday in some way, shape, or form. To call it a "republician" rule is misleading, and that's why I threw those two terms out there. To call it a "Republican Rule" is dishonest, to be sure. I was merely pointing out that both those phrases have origins in ideology, but you're right that they're abused by cranks and twisted. I think that's an awful thing for people to do, and I'm sorry to hear that your mother had to experience that. I will say this, though: tastelessness is bipartisan. Just talk to Fred Phelps about that. I think his problem with Sheehan has to do with the fact that she's speaking for her son who, by all accounts, supportered the War. I'm not sure, however, as he seems to have a reactionary hatred for anything liberal. Scratch that -- he DOES have it, by his own admission, which is fine enough. To each his own.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Hey Ben, stick to writing the Nixon speeches. Ben Stein is a political hack -- a cuter Pat Buchanan, if you will, except that nobody ever thought of Stein as a realistic Deep Throat! I was discussing with a teacher the other day, and told him that, in my opinion, shootings and murders and the types of things that go on in our society are the inevitable result of having a free society. In a society such as ours, it's inevitable that someone will burn down a school as a means of "expression"; that someone will shoot someone at work or at school. Etc. etc. The trick is to contain them, and to promote as much as possible a healthy society, which ultimately leads to families -- not necessarily nuclear, either -- being good families. It doesn't have much to do with Religion, or it doesn't have to. He and I then started talking about gun crime, and he told me about Colombine, and that the killers violated dozens of gun laws. Then he cracked a joke or two about how "Liberals wanted MORE gun laws! They'd already violated dozens -- I guess one more would've done the trick!" He's a little too hard Right for my taste, but he's a funny fellow. I think it's clear that I don't believe in a theocracy or anything, and that I'm not a religious fire-breather or anything. I just wanted to say that I find this entire debate about "ARE WE A CHRISTIAN NATION!?!?!" to be both humorous and interesting. You know, for every bit of proof that says Washington wasn't a Christian, Jefferson an Atheist and Adams a cynic with Christian leanings (sometimes), people will point to the Puritans or to the fact that Madison was on a committee that approved Chaplains at the Congress for a prayer. I think it's apparent that we weren't founded as a "Christian Nation" (read: Theocracy). But I think it's interesting to watch others hash it out.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) No, there won't. Not from the federal government. Because unlike Louisiana, we can handle it, thank you. That's how it should be. The state's should be responsible for disaster relief, for the most part. For port-purposes. And because that's the way it's always been. I think it should stay where it's at, personally, but I think decisions like that should be left to the city and state.

Oh, come on -- that's rule number one in politics, not just in the Republican playbook. In an adversarial political system (which is what we have, what with checks and balances and two parties), that's the way it goes. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) "Neo-con" "Christian right" I'm not so sure that those are insults, mate. They may have connotations amongst certain segments of the populace, but they are very much ideologies and fair titles of political philosophy. Neoconservatism is a very well segment of the Republican Party, formerly having been in the Democratic Party, started up by Norman Podhoretz and his friends at Commentary Magazine. "Neocon" isn't an insult -- it's an ideology. Also: I think "Christian Right" might have a negative connotation in Liberal circles, but it very well is an accurate representation of what Pat Robertson and James Dobson do: they are on the Right side of the political spectrum; they focus on Biblical and moral policy. Christian Right an insult? QUOTE(minors @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) Again I came up from a military family my uncle was sent to Vietnam just 2 months after joining the military to be a mechanic but that Liberal son-of a b**** Johnson needed extra troops so the higher ups rigged a Generals jeep so the breaks wouldn't work he took it out on the course he crashed it so his sentence was to serve in Vietnam and get 6 months training. Well Johnson cuts his training to 10 days. He goes over to Vietnam and while coming back from a mission he noticed 5 snipers ready to take out the entire platoon and shoots the snipers they were able to fire one bullet which killed him. And all my mom and her family got back was him in a box with some f***ing liberal hippies calling him a pig oh and a purple heart and a I am sorry letter from that bastard Johnson. Now that is unfair but they didn't go out protesting there are other ways to express themselves without doing it for there own self gain. That mother f***ing Lyndon Johnson! George Bush is nothing like him. Seriously, dude, do you have any objectivity in your body, or is everything a cause for reactionarynessnessness?