2010 World Issues and current affairs thread

[Mills]

Feel free to share any real life issues that have caught your eye this year that the rest of us may, may not know about. Ps, no f**king talk about gaming related issues posted here unless the story is directly connected to something real ie;The 14 work related suicides at Foxconn plant in china where they make Apple's I-Pad.

[sven666]

i hear theres somethin fishy goin un in north korea...

..oh and israel made it almost ok to hate jews again!

good times

[Mills]

Oh yeah i forgot about North Korea threatening to go to war against the South. Despite all the secrecy of what is really going on there and the submarine attack, i don't think N.Korea have enough firepower muscle to throw their political weight around especially if the rest of the world gets involved in this, not that we can afford to get involved anyway with the financial mess the rest of the world is trying to recover from.

[Ganelon]

Or it's a plot against the North, which is almost equally likely at this point based on the bizarre lack of evidence produced. I've mentioned elsewhere that this link provides a comprehensive and balanced start on the various views on the Cheonan incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_p ... 154787.stm

But there is a double standard here. If Israel's army ends up killing Palestinians or Palestine's suicide bombers kill Israelis, people look the other way (although in western media, there's normally something negative said about the PNA after the latter). When an incident in Korea occurs, suddenly the US and Euro powers are interested in getting involved? Dictatorial states suck but at least they don't pretend to be angels...

EDIT: Fixed link

[Dragoforce]

..oh and israel made it almost ok to hate jews again!

good times

Judging from the pictures on your computer and your hat I understand the joy you must feel

[Ed Oscuro]

Mills, no thread can ever contain even a fragment of any topic. There could be a thread about just Kim Jong Un's choice of double- or single-breasted suits (I don't know the tally myself yet, but he doesn't seem to care for the old uniform or Mao suit).

Congrats on your first foray into the wild wooly wilderness of OT!

[antron]

like, a long time ago.. some poison came out of some factory somewhere, and killed like 20,000 people. the button to realese the poison was pushed by someone in the USA, so he got away with it.

[antron]

This is also a true story:

[Ed Oscuro]

and that was the best current affairs thread of all time

I'll remember you always!

[Skykid]

The 14 work related suicides at Foxconn plant in china where they make Apple's I-Pad.

One more cheer for the virtues of capitalism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_p ... 182824.stm

[Never_Scurred]

1-BP buys Google ads for search term "oil spill"

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOil ... 5120100609

[neorichieb1971]

[url]mms://a246.l9789246566.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/246/97892/v0001/reflector:46566[/url]

[url]mms://a214.l9789245685.c97892.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/214/97892/v0001/reflector:45685[/url]

Live feeds from under the Gulf. EEk.

[The Expanding Man]

Sanctions against North Korea have really hurt.

They have worked out how to balance their budget - shoot off a few missiles, the US negotiates an aid package for $500 million to get them to pull their heads in, repeat every 18 months.

[Mills]

Damn this thread is getting heavy with some the contributions from other members so far, keep it going people. I've often wondered if there is any real evidence to support the submarine attack that we the public can actually see for ourselves and make up our own minds, because it just seems like another propaganda tool to target North Korea again because the rest of world where getting nowhere with enrichment of uranium scandal.

[Super Laydock]

*waiting for someone to blow up either Vatican or that black stone in Mecca...*

Either that or the total collapse of the capitalist system....

[Acid King]

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

[Ganelon]

It's sad that the idealists won over. But in today's political environment, I can't say I'm surprised. The health care bill was a referendum on whether Axelrod or Emanuel would be forced out and it's unfortunate yet another moderate has been cast out. The only good thing is that money nowadays is at least wasted on American people instead of big corporations and foreign interests.

[Acid King]

It's sad that the idealists won over. But in today's political environment, I can't say I'm surprised. The health care bill was a referendum on whether Axelrod or Emanuel would be forced out and it's unfortunate yet another moderate has been cast out. The only good thing is that money nowadays is at least wasted on American people instead of big corporations and foreign interests.

It's a bit early to say really why he's leaving, if he's leaving, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the legislature and if it affects their strategy at all.

[BulletMagnet]

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the "idealism" of Barack Obama's inner circle. Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.

Whaa? All that Obama and the Dems have done since entering office is water down and compromise with those who insist that the Bush years were a resounding success (and they were...to the top 1 percent of the wealth scale, while everyone else got royally ass-raped) - seriously, when you're willing to kowtow to a bunch of self-interested loons screaming "Socialism" and "death panels" instead of telling them "what you're saying is a bald-faced lie, you've presented no real ideas to move things forward, and if you still honestly think you deserve a place at the negotiating table, screw you", how much meeker can anyone expect you to be? News flash, to Rahm and anyone else in his camp - "compromise" does NOT mean allowing the proponents of proven, unrepentant, disastrous failures to continue to do their thing. If only one side shows up with any serious intention of getting anything done, as opposed to simply haranguing anyone who doesn't give them absolutely everything they want, there's no compromise to be had, and nobody should pretend to search for one.

All I know is that liberals who tried to voice their concerns during the Bush era didn't merit so much as an iota of the attention and influence that conservatives are getting now, and the latter STILL insist that they're being picked on by those big meanie libs, after they were allowed to dispel any debate simply by calling us terrorists and traitors for more than half a decade. Why they feel they deserve better treatment from us, and moreover why we're giving it to them, is a question I've yet to see answered, or even addressed.

[JoshF]

It's sad that the idealists won over. But in today's political environment, I can't say I'm surprised.

This statement is mind-blowing to me. This pussy of an administration can barely pull off a don't ask don't tell repeal, in a couple years, and only because it doesn't affect their corporate funders, and they're too idealist? Also, when a right-winger like Rahm can be called a "moderate" without any eyebrows being raise, it's good proof that huge corporations and the resulting oligarchy are the real worry when it comes to social engineering, not a fictitious liberal media or BIIIIIIIIIIG "1% of the workforce" LABOR.

[Acid King]

Whaa? All that Obama and the Dems have done since entering office is water down and compromise with those who insist that the Bush years were a resounding success (and they were...to the top 1 percent of the wealth scale, while everyone else got royally ass-raped) - seriously, when you're willing to kowtow to a bunch of self-interested loons screaming "Socialism" and "death panels" instead of telling them "what you're saying is a bald-faced lie, you've presented no real ideas to move things forward, and if you still honestly think you deserve a place at the negotiating table, screw you", how much meeker can anyone expect you to be? News flash, to Rahm and anyone else in his camp - "compromise" does NOT mean allowing the proponents of proven, unrepentant, disastrous failures to continue to do their thing. If only one side shows up with any serious intention of getting anything done, as opposed to simply haranguing anyone who doesn't give them absolutely everything they want, there's no compromise to be had, and nobody should pretend to search for one.

All I know is that liberals who tried to voice their concerns during the Bush era didn't merit so much as an iota of the attention and influence that conservatives are getting now, and the latter STILL insist that they're being picked on by those big meanie libs, after they were allowed to dispel any debate simply by calling us terrorists and traitors for more than half a decade. Why they feel they deserve better treatment from us, and moreover why we're giving it to them, is a question I've yet to see answered, or even addressed.

I think the inference is not that they were unwilling to compromise and work with the Republicans, rather they were unwilling to compromise and work with moderate-conservative Democrats to keep their voting block solid. The quote from the unnamed consultant suggests that as well...

"Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm's job."

[BulletMagnet]

I think the inference is not that they were unwilling to compromise and work with the Republicans, rather they were unwilling to compromise and work with moderate-conservative Democrats to keep their voting block solid.

I don't have a rundown of every Dem in Congress in front of me, but I'd be very curious to know how many of them could be honestly classified as "liberal" Democrats as opposed to "moderate" or "conservative" ones. One always hears talk about "all those dangerous radicals" in the party, but considering how easily even the tiniest proposed move leftward on ANY issue is either killed or whittled down to a shadow of itself (again, often by accusations with zero basis in fact), it would seem that they have about as much pull as "moderate" Republicans did during the Bush era - as you infer, back then almost everyone was more than willing to march in lock-step behind the most Draconian, and frankly anti-conservative actions he could come up with (seriously, where the hell were all the deficit hawks when Bush was in office? Or his father? Or Saint Ronnie?), no matter how ill-conceived. Obama and his cabinet are many things, but they are NOT hard-headed "super-liberals". Not even close. As I said, they've compromised on almost EVERYthing to appease the Reps, the Tea Partiers, and the more conservative factions of their own party - I don't know how much else anyone expects him to do short of turning the White House into a subsidiary of Halliburton.

[Ganelon]

Well, Emanuel denied the rumor. It's hard to tell for sure though since the same folks who mentioned that have said he's planning to run for Chicago mayor, which seems to be common knowledge now.

Anyway, passing the health care was a huge showing of principles over compromise. It's true Obama is by no means worse than Bush but what has he seen fit to compromise? A moderate (if not terribly clear) Supreme Court justice nomination is a good offering though. Nobody expected Bush to compromise and he didn't (and the republican era just past was an awful display of partisanship for the most part). But if you expect to run on compromise and a change in governance, I expect you to hold true and rise above the rabble.

[Acid King]

some stuff

Clearly you don't think they should compromise on anything because of your policy preferences but part of being president is leading your party and leading the agenda. Whether or not those Dems who vote against Democratic legislation are really liberal or not is irrelevant because regardless of whether or not they fit into the liberal Democrat mold, they are still members of the party who vote on legislation. If members of your party aren't on board, you're going to have trouble getting anything through, especially when you're facing a cohesive opposition party who vote as a block. In that situation, you'd better be able to pull your team together as a unit because any fracture can mean defeat. The fact that they took so long to get healthcare reform through, whether or not you believe what got passed was a compromise, is evidence of that.

[szycag]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and ... 372309.stm

lololol!

[Acid King]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and ... 372309.stm

lololol!

Priceless.

[BryanM]

Old kind of news is kind of old. Stuff like that contractor talking about building a bridge, collecting the money, giving a cut to the guy, then the guy exploding a bridge is years old.

Warlords also get top notch free healthcare for their families from us so um... Become a warlord and your life will be more awesome?

[BulletMagnet]

Anyway, passing the health care was a huge showing of principles over compromise. It's true Obama is by no means worse than Bush but what has he seen fit to compromise?

First and foremost, where's my public option, or ANY true alternative to the private companies which have been fleecing us blind for years (and again, nobody's ever explained to me why insurance companies who insist that private enterprise always wins out over public institutions were allowed to bellyache about how a government alternative would surely put them all out of business)? On a separate front, where are the strings that should be attached to the huge amount of taxpayer money the banks got, so as to ensure they don't do the exact same thing to the economy all over again (granted, half of that mess is Bush's fault, though his role in the bailout has been all but completely disappeared)? Those two come most immediately to mind, though there are plenty of other areas (tax cuts for the rich, the Mideast wars, investigating the previous administration's criminal acts, environmental issues, etc.) where Obama has either toned things down or stepped back completely at the request of conservatives - honestly, I challenge you to find an issue where he HASN'T backed down in some fashion, and openly indulged his more liberal supporters.

the republican era just past was an awful display of partisanship for the most part

The thing is, when conservatives band together on ideological grounds, they get to call it "strength" or "solidarity" or "sticking to their principles" (they still do, and still get away with it, just as much as they did under Bush). Liberals don't get that luxury - they "stonewall" and "gum up the works" and "display blatant hyper-partisanship". Feel free to offer any examples you can think of where an openly malicious Republican blockade of any sort was interpreted as anything but "good news for the party".

Clearly you don't think they should compromise on anything because of your policy preferences but part of being president is leading your party and leading the agenda.

Then why is it that only liberal Presidents seem to be expected to compromise? Bush basically told anyone who didn't agree with him to go die in a fire, and especially when conservatives also had control of Congress and the Court they simply did whatever they wanted - two wars, plus tax cuts for the rich? Screw the deficit, we're on it! Wiretapping citizens without a warrant and sending them overseas to be tortured? Hey, national security beats "keeping government out of people's lives" every time, right? Should Enron have taught us something? Yeah, that we need LESS corporate regulation, not more - seriously, it's not like there'll be a fraud-ridden recession that lots of experts warned us about or anything! Honestly, about the only thing I can remember Bush backing off of was his effort to partially privatize Social Security, and that one had nothing to do with "compromise", as opposed to "the public basically threatened to revolt". I know you're not a Republican, but I really hope you're able to acknowledge the double standard at work, especially over the last decade, when it comes to expectations for "compromise" out of liberals versus conservatives.

whether or not you believe what got passed was a compromise

Sorry, but there's no "if you believe" to be attached to that one - the delivery of millions of new customers to private insurance companies with a few piddling, loophole-ridden caveats tacked on is a MAJOR compromise for anybody even remotely liberal. If anything it's halfway to defeat if this is the best we can get, while the rest of the civilized world simply shake their heads in disbelief.

[Acid King]

Then why is it that only liberal Presidents seem to be expected to compromise? Bush basically told anyone who didn't agree with him to go die in a fire, and especially when conservatives also had control of Congress and the Court they simply did whatever they wanted - two wars, plus tax cuts for the rich? Screw the deficit, we're on it! Wiretapping citizens without a warrant and sending them overseas to be tortured? Hey, national security beats "keeping government out of people's lives" every time, right? Should Enron have taught us something? Yeah, that we need LESS corporate regulation, not more - seriously, it's not like there'll be a fraud-ridden recession that lots of experts warned us about or anything! Honestly, about the only thing I can remember Bush backing off of was his effort to partially privatize Social Security, and that one had nothing to do with "compromise", as opposed to "the public basically threatened to revolt". I know you're not a Republican, but I really hope you're able to acknowledge the double standard at work, especially over the last decade, when it comes to expectations for "compromise" out of liberals versus conservatives.

Honestly, I don't care to comment on whether there is or is not a double standard for compromise considering I was 11 when Clinton was first elected and didn't start paying attention to politics until I was in college. Clinton had 6 years of divided government and had to compromise to get anything done so the situations are not comparable, except maybe his first two years (which, incidentally, also was hung on healthcare legislation). Regardless, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not making any value judgements or expressing any policy preferences or saying one way is better than or preferable to another, just commenting on Obama as the political head of his party and the actual process of getting legislation passed.

Bush didn't have to compromise because he lead his party effectively and managed to get his votes in line. That's why he was so effective at pushing through legislation. Obama has not been able to do that so far and that's why they've had a hard time getting legislation through Congress. That's why it seems that so many liberals are so pissed at the party, especially on healthcare. If they acted and voted as a party, they wouldn't have to compromise and they could ram through anything they wanted. If you're not voting as a block and you have factions within the party that could potentially derail or block passage of a piece of legislation, simply put, you're not going to get anything passed without some kind of compromise. Hence my comment about it being interesting to see how their strategy changes if Rahm were to leave.

[BulletMagnet]

Honestly, I don't care to comment on whether there is or is not a double standard for compromise...

I wish you would, as it goes to the center of the "why can't Obama unify the party" question. You say that Bush was able to do whatever he wanted because he "led his party effectively" - out of curiosity, what specifically did he do so much better than Obama does in this area (it sure as anything wasn't his way with words or intellectual curiosity)? Why was Bush able to start a war that most of the country didn't want, and aim to please only a very small (and rich) constituency, while Obama can't pass popular initiatives (real health care reform, repealing DADT, making corporations clean up their own messes, etc.) that a majority of Americans support, and would directly benefit from? Why did Republicans rally behind their President even in the face of public opinion, while the Dems scatter as soon as Sarah Palin opens her mouth and says something incendiary and idiotic (but I repeat myself)?

Is it truly something inherent in the way Bush did things versus Obama's style, or is it because conservatives are not demonized the same way liberals are when they rally along ideological lines? Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if a united bloc of five liberal SC justices decided to give Gore the 2000 election and deny Bush a recount? Would Bush's Republicans have marched in such close formation so consistently if they had to fear the same sort of labeling and mockery ("ideologues", "bought and paid for", "whipped", "robotic", "goose-stepping", "out of touch", "closed-minded", "union lackeys", etc. etc.) that Obama's Dems do the second they unite along any front whatsoever? Would liberals of all stripes be so afraid to "stand for anything" together if they were deemed as free to do it as conservatives are? Do all these "factions" exist within the party because Obama chooses to let them, or because he has to let them, or else be shouted down as "dictatorial"? As far as I'm concerned this issue goes far beyond the two guys most recently in the oval office - if you can come up with a more sensible explanation, I'm all ears.