All Posts Tagged With: "But"
Georgian Fighting Over But Consequences Have Just Begun
“…(T)he collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century, ” Russian Prime Minister Putin.
Last week, South Ossetian separatists - supported by Moscow - poured machine gun and mortar fire into neighboring Georgian villages. Georgia retaliated by attacking the separatist capital Tskhinvali with artillery, providing the pretext for Moscow’s invasion of Georgia.
Stanford University’s Russia scholar Michael McFaul sums up the use of overwhelming force by Russia in Georgia this week as nothing less than “a signal to everyone that Russia is back - and Russia is going to try and dominate this region of the world,” according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.
Fighting has ended, for now, in the Russo-Georgian War but scholars and pundits alike are resurrecting such iconic terms as “Cold War,” “Iron Curtain,” and “spheres of influence.” Make no mistake that Putin’s Russia has no intention of allowing a pro-western government within what he views as Russia’s domain, and is more than willing to kill a few thousand people to prove it.
“Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia’s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory…,” says Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in a Washington Post column.
Burnishing his enormous egotism and ambition t be greater than even Stalin Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who raced back from the Bejing Olympics to take command, charged that the U.S. has displayed a “Cold War mentality” in its friendship with leaders in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, according to The Times. Left wing sources chimed in to blame the U. S. even claiming it actually started the conflict.
Polemics aside, think-tankers has been burning the midnight oil analyzing just what Mr. Putin is up to. It seems to me simplistically easy given Putin decree that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.” Sensing an opportunity with a potential new liberal, Eurocentric naïve, inexperienced U. S. administration the last few days then are the beginning of what Putin is designing as a Russian renaissance.
“Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world’s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move,” Kagan says.
Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at The Heritage Foundation, has ferreted out what he believes to be the Putin strategy including:
- expulsion of Georgian troops and termination of Georgian sovereignty in South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
- “regime change” by bringing down President Mikheil Saakashvili and installing a more pro-Russian leadership in Tbilisi;
- preventing Georgia from joining NATO and sending a strong message to Ukraine that its insistence on NATO membership may lead to war and/or its dismemberment;
- Shifting control of the Caucasus, and especially over strategic energy pipelines, by controlling Georgia; and
- recreating a 19th-century-style sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union, by the use of force if necessary.
More importantly, in my opinion, Putin wants to demonstrate that he can sabotage at will American and European Union (EU) declarations about integrating Commonwealth of Independent States members into Western structures such as NATO.
There Is No Gravity, But How About Levity?
A few years ago, when I was involved in a humor writers’ workshop, I noticed that my submissions were getting fewer and fewer laughs from the other participants and the director.
The puzzling part was that my friends outside the workshop, who often figured in the stories I was writing, were laughing themselves senseless over them. Finally the director told me I’d never make it as a humor writer because I hadn’t had the bitter, crushing experiences that the other members of the group had been through. Essentially he told me to give up.
Then I noticed that I could watch the Humor Channel for a half hour and not even smile. I wondered what the audience thought was so funny: “When I want to get rid of a guy I’m dating, I just tell him, ‘You know, I
really, really love you, and I want to marry you and settle down and have your children.’ Sometimes they leave skid marks.” I noticed that one film that was reputed to be falling-down hilarious featured, shall we say, a flatulence contest, with one contestant having to leave the room because he has soiled himself. Then I noticed the frequency with which toilets were appearing in children’s cartoons, along with kids getting covered with green mucus shot from some sort of monster’s nostrils.
Around the same time, I asked one of the world’s greatest humorists whether he knew another comedian who lived in the Santa Barbara area. He told me he had met him once, at a party, and when my friend began wisecracking with him, the response was a snotty, “Are you auditioning for me, _____?”
I mentioned that incident to my brother, who replied, “You have to realize that all comedians have their demons.”
My humorist friend told me that after his first performance at a Las Vegas casino the owner had entered his dressing room and informed him that he needed to put some dirty jokes into his routine. Everyone else was doing it, he said, and a clean routine just wasn’t going to make it. My friend told him, “Look, I’ve never operated that way and I’m not going to start now. You can break my contract if you want, but I won’t do it.” The owner kept him on, but only grudgingly.
Early in the last century, Max Eastman said that laughter results when something that would otherwise be unpleasant is placed in a “play frame.” Sixty years ago that meant Mollie, of Fibber
McGee and Mollie, read a newspaper report of a PTA meeting and said, “That meeting must have been a disgraceful, drunken affair. It says Mr. _____ made a motion from the floor, and the chairman didn’t even recognize him.” Drunkenness at a PTA meeting would be very disturbing, but the play frame consists of Mollie’s misunderstanding of Robert’s Rules of Order, and her comment is funny without any bitterness or cynicism in it. In the case of the female comedian I’ve quoted above, though, the humor lies in the double entendre of the skid marks, which places a play frame around a truly bitter experience that is common in this generation.
A large percentage of people today walk around with a glum, humorless expression on their faces, and when they do laugh it tends to be a bitter, cynical kind of laughter. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think many of these are the kids who were raised to believe the world revolved around them; they were a pampered, spoiled generation, but when confronted with the reality of a cruel world they reacted with exacerbated paranoia. I saw a graffito that read, “There is no gravity. The earth sucks.”
This is reflected much of today’s music as well. The music of “the greatest generation” was full of humor, as was early rock and roll. Think of the big band number that proclaims, “I’ve got a gal in Kalamazoo, zoo, zoo,
zoo, zoo,” or Silhouettes on the Shade. It was a light, playful kind of humor, suited to kids who were enjoying what was good in their adolescence, while a large part of the music that is produced today is characterized by what a writer in the Atlantic magazine calls “apocalyptic nihilism.” He found that a considerable percentage of the young people he was dealing with had given up on the future, not only for themselves but for the world itself, so there was nothing left to strive for; there were no values worth upholding. Is that what we see reflected in those dull, lifeless faces?
It was no coincidence that our fascist enemies in World War II were a particularly humorless lot, as was our communist enemy in the Cold War. It was disconcerting to them that we could be faced with incredibly grim circumstances and still laugh uproariously at them and ourselves. Even with the inhumanly heavy burden that was on his shoulders, Winston Churchill reacted to some young officer’s criticism of his ending a sentence with a preposition by retorting, “This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.”
Neither is it a coincidence that the preponderance of great comedians of the 20th century were Jewish. The Jews have faced inconceivable hardships throughout many centuries, and the survivors have made it in large measure because they knew how to laugh in the midst of otherwise hopeless circumstances. An old friend of mine, Kurt Rosenbalm, who lost his entire family at Auschwitz, once watched me cross a four-lane street full of heavy traffic without breaking stride. In his Henry Kissinger accent, he deadpanned, “Let me see you do that again.” That is perfect humor; he pretended that I was implying I had supernatural powers. Our society is not in any Holocaust, at least not yet, and it might be a good time to evaluate what sort of attitude towards life will allow us a good bellylaugh once in a while.
Obama Outspends Clinton But She’s Still Better Against McCain - Maybe
Obama and Clinton have spent a combined $110 million on TV ads up to now in their nearly year long and still in conclusive campaigns for the Democrat presidential nomination. Obama has shelled out nearly $70 million of the total spent so far, Still, it hasn’t necessarily worked in Texas, Ohio and then Pennsylvania. Obama outspent Chinton two to one or more in Pennsylvania and is expected to do the same in next weeks lead up in North Carolina and Indiana. Evan Tracey of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group adds: “Clinton doesn’t have as much money … but if she’s allowed to dictate the tempo, she can make up for that lack of spending.” John Kerry spent a then record $20 million in his failed campaign four years ago.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday apparently reflecting a “bounce” after her big win in Pennsylvania and repeated revelations about Obama. In a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
Rasmussen polling has Obama and McCain tied but McCain leading Clinton 47-44%. 37% of Republican voters nationwide now believe the Democratic frontrunner would be the tougher candidate against John McCain. That’s down from 54% earlier this month. An essentially equal number, 35%, now believe Hillary Clinton would be the stronger Democrat in November. That’s up from 20%.Unaffiliated voters are also evenly divided on this question. Forty percent (40%) see Obama as the most electable Democrat while 36% say the same about Clinton. Earlier in April, unaffiliated voters saw Obama as the bigger challenge to McCain.
“Change” Is Political Favorite But, Be Careful What You Get.
“Change” has been a mantra in political campaigns since ancient times. Change does not necessarily mean better - only different.
Chuck Muth reminds us that Americans voted for change in November 2006 and got it by electing a Democrat Congress: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) The cost of regular gasoline has soared to over $4 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
The only thing that has fallen farther and faster is America’s job approval rating of Congress itself — only 13% rate Congress as good or excellent.

































