The Boring News Channel

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

As we sometimes don't devote too much time on the 'headline news' I was thinking that we could add our comments on such in this thread. True, sometimes there is not much to say with those but it may spark a bit of debate.
---
To start, the Russian invasion of Georgia. I was checking on cursor and that led me to this interesting article in the Financial Times:

Indeed, most of the world is bemused by western moralising on Georgia. America would not tolerate Russia intruding into its geopolitical sphere in Latin America. Hence Latin Americans see American double standards clearly. So do all the Muslim commentaries that note that the US invaded Iraq illegally, too. Neither India nor China is moved to protest against Russia. It shows how isolated is the western view on Georgia: that the world should support the underdog, Georgia, against Russia. In reality, most support Russia against the bullying west. The gap between the western narrative and the rest of the world could not be greater.

I for one philosophically blame the US on the whole affair, first by giving a terrible example on the misuse of power on Irak, and then by taunting the Russians with NATO offerings to their neighbors (including the missile plans). It has become an idiotic way to escalate things that I can't see as beneficial to anyone.

As a note, I don't personally condone the actions of the Russians in Georgia, but I do see the double standard of the US/NATO in all its glorious detail on this issue.

[Swatopluk]

I wonder, whether Rice,Son of Cain*&Co simply suffer from late stage cognitive dissonance or train for the hyprocrite olympics.
They actually condemn their own acts (as reasonable people have done for years) but project all of it on Russia (and to a degree China).
What will they say, should Putin sign a treaty with Cuba for a Russian missile defense shield stationed on the island?

*who also claims that it is the first serious crisis of the 21st century (you old and rotten pre-9/11 mindsetter you )

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

More 'boring' news: McCain chose a woman as his VP. The reason is obvious, the question is will it work?

[Aggie]

Hmm... might backfire, might pull over a few of the Hillary-hardcores*.  From the little I've read on her, I don't think she'll alienate too many of the party faithful.

*or perhaps they will be motivated to get a woman president by direct action should the Repugs win.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well, she's currently under ethics violation investigation.

Nice.  Breaking the law BEFORE getting into office..... it is SO republican!  ^{_{makes me wanna cry *sniff*}}

Washington post

And, apparently, she's strongly anti-abortion, but it's hard finding confirmation of that.

[Swatopluk]

Also an active creationist and, I heard, a climate change denier in ALASKAl
I assure you, Hy-Brasil is not sinki-blu-blub-blub *

Hey, they need an "explanation" when the Son of Cain is declared winner despite exit polls giving Obama a >10% lead. It's all those  disappointed Clinton supporters being lured by the female GOP VP (don't look at that Diebold and his merry purgers behind the curtain!).

*OK that's Terry Jones not Palin

[Sibling Chatty]

She'll bring in NO Hillary supporters, ONLY "I want a woman in NOW" supporters.

A total moron move, but McCain wanted Lieberman, and the party wouldn't have it...

[Swatopluk]

There is ample speculation that it is a short term headline grabbing stunt to minimze the damage that the Dem convention has done to them and that Mrs.Palin will go the way of Miers shortly.
We can still hope for senator Palpatine

[Aggie]

She'll bring in NO Hillary supporters, ONLY "I want a woman in NOW" supporters.

I counted a few of those in Hillary's camp during the primaries. I doubt there are any real Democrats that would cross the line simply for that reason, though.

[Sibling Chatty]

Some credentialed blogger tried at the convention. They found two, one of whom was replaced by an alternate in her state's delegation, the other of whom was just sent home, no replacement.

Evidently Hillary even talked to one of them, and was appalled, and more than happy for them to get her out of the delegation.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

More boring news, Jon Stewart almost had Tony Blair for dinner on the Daily Show*.

Stewart started easy on him but at the end Blair was visibly uncomfortable with the questions.

* I don't know if the daily show episodes are 'available in other markets' (like the SNL site) but I can tell you that the full episode will not be available at the times of the broadcast today.

[pieces o nine]

It was a good episode! 

I liked that Blair actually came on the show and gave a good semblance of answering questions. He was hard-pressed to defend his white house pal, though...

Ahhh,  it *is* up on YouTube. I'll take a stab at embedding:

Fit the First:
[youtube=425,350]SZdSD8ubntY[/youtube]

Fit the Second:
[youtube=425,350]bpBkrbX0KP4[/youtube]

[beagle]

He was hard-pressed to defend his white house pal, though...

No (ex) PM could give the honest answer. Our choice of allies in the World are:

America run by Bush
The EU run by the French for the French
Russia run by Putin
China run by who knows.

It would be hard for *any* American president to lose that popularity contest.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Every time you talk naughty about the French I get the impression that the UK doesn't know on which side of the Atlantic is.

Seriuosly though, what was in it for the UK to get into Iraq without qualms or questions?

[beagle]

Every time you talk naughty about the French I get the impression that the UK doesn't know on which side of the Atlantic is.

The side that pays a fortune subsidising inefficient French farmers .

Seriuosly though, what was in it for the UK to get into Iraq without qualms or questions?

Our politicians like to strut about on the World stage like the old imperial days, however they don't want to spend the money on the defence budget that would give them any significance independently (the navy is now smaller than India's, for instance).  The price of basing your foreign policy on keeping a superpower happy, and living under their defence umbrella, is that you have to walk in lockstep with them.

Since Suez the British public has been well aware that the British government can't act anywhere in the World without the acquiescence of the U.S. . It's just taken as read that the U.S. will do what it wants, and that we might as well go along with it as the least worst option.