Currently
41°
Clear

Advertisement





Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription


Map the Valley


Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service



First Rights: Genocide Olympics: Bush’s moral blindness

When Steven Spielberg finally resigned as artistic director to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the filmmaker of "Schindler's List," and the founder of an oral history by Holocaust survivors, said: "I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual. My time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur (whose benefactor is China)."

Reporting from Beijing, The Associated Press (Feb. 13) said that Spielberg's compelling act of conscience "could be a major blow to Beijing's promotion of the Aug. 8-24 Olympics as a symbol of China's integration into mainstream global society" after that nation "has invested billions of dollars and its national prestige into what it hopes will be a glorious showcase of China's rapid development from impoverished agrarian nation to rising industrial power."

Last month, during his legacy tour of how his compassionate conservatism has indeed benefited a number of countries in Africa, George W. Bush did not include Sudan, let alone Darfur, in his schedule.

And, in response to Spielberg's refusal to help glorify the amoral nation that buys two-thirds of genocidal Sudan's oil and provides much of its arms that kill thousands of black Africans in Darfur, Bush said firmly:

"I'm going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event." This was the same person who then said in Rwanda that the genocide there "is a reminder that evil in the world must be confronted." He called on all nations to stop the killing in Darfur.

He has been a compassionate conservative in a number of respects. But his current moral blindness in giving his imprimatur by attending the Olympics (an event which, in itself, is part of China's quest for absolution for the massacre of students calling for democracy in Tiananmen Square -- and that nation's continuous, ruthless crushing of religious and political dissenters) is a permanent stain on his legacy.

Oh, he's mindful, the president says, of the suffering in Darfur where, in January, the Sudanese army and its militia from hell, the Janjaweed, burned down towns in Darfur, leaving more corpses.

"I must confess," Bush said while in Africa, "I'm a little frustrated by how slow things are moving (to get the full U.N.-African Union force into Darfur)." But he's looking forward to enjoying the grand tourneys of athletic prowess in Beijing.

Listening to his conscience, Prince Philip of England has decided not to attend the Genocide Olympics. But the British Olympics Association, over which the prince has no authority, has commanded all British athletes qualifying for the Summer Olympics to obey a clause in section 4 of the contract they'll have to sign that states: "Athletes are not to comment on any sensitive issues" while they're in Beijing.

The Daily Mail newspaper in London has reported the BOAC confirms that any athlete who refuses to sign that gag rule won't be able to travel to the Communist host of the games. And if a signer then speaks out in Beijing, he or she will be shipped back home on the next plane.

Among the competitors covered by this edict are the Queen of England's granddaughter, Zara Phillips, and marathon runner Paula Radcliffe, a world-record-holder in that sport.

Considering that the roots of some of our nation's basic civil liberties of conscience and speech originated during very hard-fought battles throughout British history, it is all the more embarrassing, to say the least, that while a member of the British Royal Family, who is also a supporter of the Dalai Lama, exiled by China, is repelled by the prospect of attending the Summer Olympics, the president of the United States does not want to miss this resplendent sporting pantheon.

During his African trip -- Bush, speaking with casual disdain of the kind of people who would use the Olympics to pressure China to get Sudan's inhuman tyrant, Gen. Omar al-Bashir, to stop the mass killing and raping -- said (Washington Post, Feb. 15), "I mean, you got the Dalai Lama crowd. You've got global-warming folks. You've got, you know, Darfur," Bush said.

Golly, who would want to be associated with such a "crowd"?

While Belgium and New Zealand are also prohibiting its athletes from expressing offensive political opinions as guests of China, Jouko Purontakanen, secretary general of the Finnish Olympic Committee, will not silence that country's athletes.

But keep in mind that Section 5 of the International Olympic Committee Charter -- which applies to all of the worldwide competitors this August -- insists there be "no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda, in the Olympics sites venues or other areas."

I am willing to bet that there are American athletes who, unlike our president, will speak directly and publicly from their conscience during the Beijing Olympics, reminding the world why these are increasingly called The Genocide Olympics.

(March 5, 2008)

POST A COMMENT

 

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

 


Please log in to post comments
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

ALEJANDRO wrote on Mar 5, 2008 2:09 PM:

" Perhaps jazz reviewer and novelist Hentoff could refresh us on Bill Clinton's refusal to assist in preventing the Rwanda genocide. In 1994, between one million to 1,700,000 people were killed in that African country under Clinton's watch and he did absolutely nothing! And, since Hillary is taking credit for these years also, she did nothing as well.

One could surmise that the president was informed by his staff thusly:
‘Mr. President, there is genocide going on in Rwanda.'

Well, he always did have a problem with what the definition if ‘is' really is,' eh?
"

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 5, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Dear Alejandro, Instead of beating a dead horse ("perhaps jazz reviewer and novelist..."), PERHAPS you should do some simple online research to find out that Hentoff has ALREADY addressed and criticized Clinton's lack of actions regarding the genocide which took place in Rwanda. Hentoff is not defending Clinton's past inactions in his article, instead he is highlighting Bush's hypocrisy regarding a tragedy that is taking place today. Rather than politicize the issue like you have, he is simply trying to draw attention to injustices that are currently taking place. And I am sure he would do the same if the President's name wasn't Bush. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Mar 5, 2008 4:43 PM:

" When has the US government ever been successful at pressuring China to do anything? Don't they usually tell us where to go in disagreements? I remember a certain E-2 being forced to land after it brazenly swerved to run into a small, agile fighter jet...
But the author has a point: I'm increasingly mad at Denmark for not forcing Tibet to give ultimatums to Brazil over what Australia should be doing in Wales. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Mar 5, 2008 7:24 PM:

" I simply stated facts, Scott. And you would like to conveniently forget the past, wouldn't you? Beating a dead horse? I see . . .

What did I say that was not true and should not be placed in modern context?

Jazz reviewer and novelist is what Hentoff really is if you take the time to research him as I did. He consistently makes political statements and needs to be challenged every time he forgets to mention things such as how the world historically avoids mass killings and other genocides.

Not just this President, Scott.

The world, Scott.
"

jeff wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Alejandro, what is wrong with you already? You have real issues that need to be addressed. What is your point exactly? If everyone followed your logic nothing would ever be done in any regard because at some point in the past nothing was done. For example cave men didn’t build buildings so why should we build them now? We are so conveniently leaving out the historical fact that cave men never knew or cared how to mix concrete yet we so brazenly do it today as if it’s always been done. See how ridiculous you sound now? "

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 6, 2008 3:33 PM:

" I guess the next time Hentoff writes an article concerning Bush and Darfur, he should preface it with a 1000-page report on all genocidal campaigns and tragedies that have ever taken place and the names of all presidents, dictators, first ladies, ambassadors, secretaries, etc. whose actions or inactions can somehow be linked to those events. I am not ignoring the past, Alejandro, I just don't see how the people of Darfur, while fighting for their lives, could care at all about what Clinton did or did not do in Rwanda, what Wilson did or did not do in Armenia, what Jackson did or not do in the American West, but you somehow think that American politics of the past should somehow matter to them. They are fighting for their lives TODAY, and Bush is the CURRENT President of the most powerful and influential nation currently on the planet. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Scott, the Olympics were designed to be non-political and were to be a unifying force, open and free to all of the world's nations. A celebration of multiculturalism and diversity through human physical achievement and competition. I know you support that, Scott.

Historically, the Olympics were interrupted a relatively few times, and inappropriately so, by both small and large disruptions that are etched in history, such as the

Infamous ‘black power' salute given by disgruntled black athletes (1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City), or the

Eleven Israeli athletes and coaches kidnaped and butchered by the PLO (1972 Summer Olympics in Munich), or

President Jimmy Carter successfully calling for a boycott of the Moscow Summer Olympic Games due to Soviet aggression in Afghanistan (which the Soviets/Communists paid us back for in the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles).

Hentoff unfairly criticizes President Bush for not boycotting perhaps the only worldwide social-international event that was designed from the ground up to unify humanity.

Perhaps he should stick to reviewing jazz and writing novels. "

Bobb wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:28 PM:

" I am no fan of Bush, but if he ordered troops into Darfur what would be the American peoples respose. In Afganastan and Iraq most now say that we should have waited for the UN to act. Hussain killed thousands of Kurds weather or not he had weapons of mass destruction. That was genocide also. Waiting for the UN and it's corrupt leaders is a joke. The United States does not have the manpower or financial assets to be a world police force even though most Politicians think they do. Bush is a lame duck and he is damned if he reacts or damned if he does not. If we need to boycot, hit them where it hurts--DO NOT BUY CHINEESE PRODUCTS. "

SJT wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:10 AM:

" Noteworthy tidbits: It was an EP-3, not an E-2. Lemoore High's Tommie Smith is the "disgruntled" black athlete (gold medalist) during the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. "

Con Carne wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:18 PM:

" I think Bobb put it best, don't buy Chinese products. Of course that would be 90% of whats on the shelves at the local SWM. "

Sid wrote on Mar 8, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Scott,

Why do you always assume the USA can exert "leadership" over Communist China? What makes you think the Chinese even want to follow our "lead"? How could the US even "lead" China as you opine?

As they are obviously a socialist nation to be admired by some (like yourself perhaps?), perhaps we should follow their lead?

Your always wanting the US to "lead" especially a nation such as China is logically bankrupt. Nations will always do what is in their own self interests.

Now if you can get your socialist bretheren in China to reduce their "world leadership" in CO2 emmissions and reduce global warming, I'll think your mindset has credibility... "

jeff wrote on Mar 10, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Sid, if you really follow that logic why aren’t you out killing, robbing or committing any other illegal offenses? There are other people in our country that are criminals, using your logic everyone else might as well be criminals too. Let me guess because you personally feel that homicide and burglary are immoral and probably against your religious beliefs? So why is it ok to make a decision to go against the ‘grain’ on these issues but not on the issue of global ecology? It doesn’t matter what we can or can’t make China do it should be a matter of what can we do to make life better, period. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Mar 10, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Thanks, SJT. I really irritated myself by not double-checking what type of plane it was when I wrote it; should have listened to myself. I'll try not to let it happen again. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Mar 10, 2008 6:55 PM:

" Well, 'my bad' in describing local olympic athlete and 'Black Power' activist Tommie Smith as 'disgruntled.'

Please change that word to 'heroic.'

I didn't know we had a local individual ot that magnitude. "

O. G. wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:22 PM:

" China’s military ("The People’s Liberation Army) buildup has begun to have serious implications. China reportedly has between 650-730 mobile ballistic missiles, a fleet of submarines, is working on in-flight refueling, and development of high-end, supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles already on its new destroyers.
"General Zhu Chenghu, dean of China’s National Defense University, not so subtly reminded American visitors recently: Should the United States intervene in a conflict between China and Taiwan, ‘the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of [their] cities will be destroyed by the Chinese’ nuclear weapons."
Communist China is desiring to control space and has demonstrated it's stolen technology to shoot down satellites.
China has always claimed Taiwan belongs to the mainland and says that the democratic government there is a renegade government. China refused the US fleet to dock in Hong Kong and held a standoff with the same Carrier group in the Taiwan Straight. Bill Clinton was supported by illegal donations to his Presidential campaign by the Chinese who slept in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House. Clinton awarded China "Most Favored Nation Status." Chinese spying prospered under the Clinton Administration.
"

Sid wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:34 PM:

" I don't know O.G., you make it sound like China would not be receptive to any US "leadership" as Scott alludes that they would... "

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:00 AM:

" I fail to see any allusions in my comments above regarding China's reception of US leadership. Sid, you have mentioned on several occasions that this small print makes it hard for you to read the text. Could this be another case of poor eyesight? "

Sid wrote on Mar 14, 2008 1:23 PM:

" Scott,

Do you deny that you have expounded in the Sentinel blogs that US "leadership" can influence China? Yes or No.

Did you repond to the question of what are Hillarys qualifications/experience to be president with only, "she is an American Citizen and over 35", rather than flesh out ONE THING in her resume to support her candidacy? What has she DONE? Dodging the question altogether again Scott?

The cutesy-cocky liberal/socialist conversations you have don't hold up to close scrutiny very well.

Your making an issue of my self-admitted poor eyesight: Is it an attempt to ridicule those of either advanced age or limited eyesight? If so, that would illustrate the lack of tolerance of your politics for those with age or physical disabilities in obvious conflict with your politics "inclusiveness"..

The introduction of China in this blog is a natural occurance for those, including yourself, who participate often in this blog medium. We remember your points and positions, and hold you to them until changed, OK?

"

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 14, 2008 3:44 PM:

" What I've said is that the US should do right, because it's the right thing to do. We shouldn't refrain from doing the right thing, because the other kids don't want to play along. If you want to interpret that as a call for "leadership" which other nations should follow, then, the answer to your first question is yes. How can the US "lead" China? Perhaps by not spying on its citizens, by respecting human rights and not condoning torture. Actually, it seems that Bush has been following China's lead.

I have never once said that I support Hillary Clinton for the office of President. I only factually answered the question that everyone kept asking, which was what are the qualifications needed in order to become President. Why must I be the one to defend a candidate that I have not (yet) given my support to? If you want to know what she has done, read some books, do some research. Must I always be your source for valid information?

My comments have nothing to do with elderly people or persons with poor eyesight. I don't ridicule people unless they are deserving of ridicule.

"

Sid wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:43 AM:

" Scott,

You've confirmed::

1. You consistantly bash your own nation when there are plenty that are a lot worse. We are not perfect by no means, but their are other nations more deserving of your negativity. You in the past bashed the US for not signing Kyoto (not showing "leadership"), but China's "exemption" from said treaty allows it to produce MORE C02 greenhouse gasses than ANYONE ELSE. Where is your consistancy of logic?

2. Recall (you apparently don't wish to) the discussion concerning Hillary earlier was what has she done or accomplished to make her a serious candidate for President and name ONE THING specifically. Your "35 and a US citizen" comment was merely a flip answer as you obviously cannot supply a substantive one, further establishing the point. You could have chosen to be mute on this issue as well, but did not, hence the attention your getting.

We can be critical of our nation and you often bring up good points. But the majority of your positions are negative towards your own country. You empty mockings ala the Hillary subject degrade your credibility of positions in other areas.



"

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 15, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Sid, let me explain to you (again): The USA is MY country. It is the only country where I can vote and where my vote can affect change, so when I see something wrong about the policies that MY country follows, I will voice my opinion about it. There are innumerable good things about the USA and if you want, I can write you a short essay highlighting those positive aspects. However, it's the bad things that I want to change. I do not, as you call it, bash MY country. I offer constructive criticism and hope fellow citizens will be influenced by it.

Are there other nations whose policies I do not agree with? Yes, there are many and I can write you another short essay highlighting those nations' bad policies. However, my vote ONLY counts in the United States, so that is why I, as a US citizen, legitimately voice my criticism in this forum.

Let me re-use an analogy: When your kid does wrong, do you blame the neighbor's kid instead? Yes, I can badmouth other nations, but how will that affect change in MY nation?

Where is YOUR consistancy of logic? "

Deveil's Advocate wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Scott, when the neighbor's kid does wrong, to you blame your kid for not using peer pressure to make them behave? Do you blame your kid's parents for the actions of the neighbor's kid? "

Sid wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Scott,

I look forward in anticipation those essays you mention.

Will you also addess the SPECIFIC questions you either refuse to answer or cannot address about Kyoto and Hillary as mentioned here earlier? Or not? (again).

Those were my points. The aggregate of your comments are negative towards the US whereas you don't apply those same standards to others. That may be your "constructive criticism" but again the aggregate of your negative messages are targeted specifically at our country. That aggregate amont passed the "constructive criticism" threshold a long time ago. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but often readers comment on it.

Sure, your points about fixing your country, etc. are germain. Your technique as I have described it is both divisive and often flawed in its application or logic. Not a good way to convince others of your views.

But, that is just my opinion...

Perhaps one of your essays can discuss the one world body of the UN, how it had 17 resolutions against Saddam's Iraq but wouldn't enforce them due to the selfishness of France, Russia, China and Germany wanting to protect their financial "high ground". Some idealism shown there, no? "

jeff wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Sid, why is it you find fault with someone else who doesn’t address as you say issues you bring up when you don’t address issues brought up to you? You still have yet to explain why it is you feel America should no nothing on this subject just because another country chooses to do nothing. I (And I could be mistaken here I admit) haven’t heard anything viable from you as to what doesn’t make Hillary a serious candidate. His answer is perfectly valid. In the eyes of our government, 35 and citizenship is all it takes. How is that not a valid answer? Even if you want to take it further what exactly does she lack that our current President has? She has served in the public sector for quite some time more than many Presidents in the past. You seem to be under the impression that if anyone says anything negative against a Republican politician that the individual is bashing our country yet when Republican pundits or other bloggers bash Democrats this is perfectly fine in your eyes. "

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Sid: Some info regarding Hillary Clinton from Wikipedia, since you are not able to do your own homework and must depend on me to do it for you: US Senator since January 2001. Former First Lady from 1993-2001. Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School. Congressional counsel. Former First Lady of Arkansas. Wesley College Alumnus, majoring in political science. Served on Senate Committee on Budget, Committee on Armed Services, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and Special Committee on Aging. Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. And because you like comparisons so much (waa-waa, China and India do it, too! waa waa), let me just say that her public service record greatly outshines the current President's public service record before he took office.

As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I criticize MY country, because it is MY country, and currently there are many things to be critical of concerning MY nation's policies. You don't like your taxes being used to support poor foreign-born children, and have on numerous occasions criticized your elected officials. I don't like torture, so I criticize mine. "

Sid wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:38 PM:

" Scott,

Bush isn't running for president, Hillary is. (Funny, you would think with her Hillary-speak she IS running against Bush...)

Had to go to Wikpedia to find your Hillary "accomplishments"? Recall the questions on Hillary were asked a couple of months back. You gave a flip, not substantive answer then. Now you have to look something up to put a good spin on her...and your flippant answer in the past, too.

Is being First Lady an "accomplishment" or even of her own making?

On various Committees? So are lots of other politicians.

Can you name any legislation she authored or got passed while in the Senate?

McCain: Volunteer Navy pilot, shot down and POW in North Vietnam for years. LONG serving elected official from Arizona. As of late co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, two things I'm not in favor of...

Whereas you couldn't mention a thing about Hillary in the past except your belated look at Wikpedia now.

You did "defend" her with your flippancy. Which isn't buttressed by any knowlege of her accomplishments. Perhaps as she doesn't have any?

Do you teach or indoctrinate with history?

"

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:46 AM:

" Sid, If you hadn't noticed by now, my flippant remarks are only in response to impertinent comments. Again, I answered your question accordingly. Why do you insist that I be your Hillary expert? Do you really value my opinion that much? Really, you flatter me.

Ah yes, I have forgotten, being forced to live as a prisoner in the jungle makes a person "qualified" for the office of President. I am not making light of Senator McCain's suffering, but rather am poking fun at what you think are good qualifications. I know perfectly well that Bush isn't running for President (and we are all thankful for that), but you seem to think that experience and accomplishments are important factors for determining electability, and yet our current president had (has) neither. Again, I ask you, Sid, where IS your sense of logic?

How about Senate Bill S.1283 re: the Public Health Service Act. Signed by Bush on 21 Dec 2006. Does that count as a piece of legislation that Senator Clinton authored and passed while in the Senate? Or is that STILL not good enough for ya?

I teach. Indoctrinate is what conservatives do. "

Sid wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Scott,

I have to beat a dead horse/point you are avoiding.

The FIRST question on Hillary's qualifications was "answered" by you with "flippancy", not dialog. You were the start of an "impertinent" dialog on this subject, not others, not me...

Clear enough?

You looked up Hillary's ONE accomplishment after "35 years of experience". You are one of the few, if any, who know of ONE!

(Yep, I'm being flippant myself).

McCain was not a prisoner in "the jungle", but in a city prison near/in Hanoi (I would have to look it up if it was THE Hanoi Hilton itself. You a history teacher, do you know where he was in prison on behalf of his country? Was that a tougher job than being First Lady by marriage?)

Yes, I SEEM (do) think experience and acomplishments are good yardsticks to measure our possible leadership on and to compare one candidate verses the other. Differences come from the weight of value we place on said experiences, and unfortunately the brand of kool aid that is introduced at times.

Example" POW verses First Lady? Pumkin soup vs the cocktail circut...

"

Scott Tucker wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:30 AM:

" My answer to the first question re: Senator Clinton's qualifications was accurate and to the point. Many people were debating what qualifactions are needed in order to become President. I gave the answer that is provided to us in the Constitution. You interpreted my answer as a sign of flippancy, when all I wanted to do was to show that Senator Clinton meets the requirements demanded by our Consititution. Yes, I gave you ONE of Senator Clinton's legislative requirements, because, as I recall, that is all you asked for. You see, in English, one does not mean "zero" and it does not mean "two". You should get out more often and talk to people who know more than you, and you will see that there are many people who know more than one of Senator Clinton's accoplishments. Just because you and your crowd can't think in double digits, doesn't mean the rest of the population can't.

You are right, McCain was held prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton. Yes, I am sure being a soldier is a tougher job than being First Lady. As for pumpkin soup, I quite like it, especially with curry and coconut milk. "

jeff wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:51 PM:

" I Googled ‘Hillary Clinton's accomplishments’ and found this. First she graduated law school and became a lawyer, she then chaired the Children’s Defense Fund, First Lady for over 30 years (I realize some don’t consider this a qualification) and is a New York Senator. So there’s 4 or 3 depending on how you look at it. I did Google this but none of it was new information. Here is what I know about McCain without doing any Googling. He helped Charles Keating commit fraud, he was a prisoner of war (Not sure if this is anymore of a qualification to be President or not but certainly takes a strong individual which is a nice quality for a President to have), may or may not have cheated on his wife with a lobbyist and failed at enacting his immigration reform plan. That said I realize he and she have accomplished much more. I fail to see the reasoning of saying Hillary is not qualified to run for President much less qualified to be President based on experience and I’m not a Hillary supporter. There are many other logical reasons to not like her than making up non-issues. "

Sid wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Scott,

Appreciate the dialog...

McCain wasn't a soldier, but a sailor, a Naval Aviator to be exact. Pumkin soup was the ONLY thing POWs got as a "steady diet".

The specific question IRT Hillary was what ONE thing she has accomplished to set her above/in competition with other candidates. It took two months to look one up after you knee-jerk flippancy answer.

Point was for those who would seroiusly consider her candidacy to supply knowlege of her accomplshments. None were offered, not even by you as her only "defender" at the time.

Other point is how terrible we talk with each other: A real question was not answered but replied to with "flippancy" in this case. We ALL do it, our "crowds" as you stated, BUT this time I ment it seriously as an attempt at serious/straight dialog, not sound bites or sarcasm.

Why? Because my position is logically superior on her qualifications using straight talk! (In my opinion). Replies of no serious substance bolster my position.

Of course, the assumption is we CAN have straight talk, once in a while anyway (sound bites are fun), to get down to brass tacks... "




Advertisement


HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics


MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:



    PHOTO GALLERIES

    "More Photos

    Sentinel Photos (120) Albums

    Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo
    Hanford High vs. Lemoore High Water Polo
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (14) Photos
    Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball
    Tigers vs. Bullpups Volleyball
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (22) Photos
    Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football
    Hanford West vs. Redwood High Football
    Friday, November, 6 2009
    (13) Photos

    Reader Submitted (7) Albums

    Vintage Hanford
    Vintage Hanford
    Monday, December, 15 2008
    (1) Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (35) Photos
    Events
    Events
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (38) Photos

    More



    EMAIL UPDATES

    Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.
    E-Mail:
    Daily News Updates
    Breaking News Alerts