Hopefully the State Department will start fast-tracking asylum cases for Ugandans. I'd be surprised if this isn't considered as genocide under U.N. conventions, let alone as suitable reason for granting asylum to people looking to flee the country.
As much as I hate the idea of flooding third-world immigrants into other countries(because it doesn't fix the problem at home and just siphons resources from other nations) I agree with the reasoning. Though I would prefer a military intervention instead. Maybe they have some hidden oil reserves we can "free"?
Especially when compared to the alternative of sending other people's children to kill other people's children in a sovereign, democratic state, much in the same fashion that we ended the genocide in Darfur by invading Sudan (a thing which did not happen).
"America really looks like this - I was looking at the amazing 2012 election maps created by Mark Newman (Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012), and although there is a very interesting blended voting map (Most of the country is some shade of purple, a varied blend of Democrat blue and Republican red) what I really wanted was this blended map with a population density overlay. Because what really stands out is how red the nation seems to be when you do not take the voting population into account; when you do so many of those vast red mid-west blocks fade into pale pink and lavender (very low population).
So I created a new map using Mark’s blended voting map based on the actual numbers of votes for each party overlaid with population maps from Texas Tech University and other sources.
Here’s the result—what the American political voting distribution really looks like."
"Mr Hu stressed the importance of political reform, but also of continued one-party rule. The man poised to succeed him as party chief and as president next March, Xi Jinping (see article), was in charge of drafting Mr Hu’s speech. It probably reflected a commonly agreed position that will be hard for Mr Xi to change, barring an economic or political crisis that affects the balance of thinking.
In recent weeks articles warning that such a crisis might come in the next decade, and arguing for pre-emptive reform, have appeared even in the official press. People’s Tribune, a fortnightly magazine produced by the party’s mouthpiece, the People’s Daily (and sporting Jiang Zemin’s calligraphy on its cover), published one on the eve of the congress by Yuan Gang of Peking University. It put the warning starkly: 'A tightly controlled society in which people only do as they are told, are utterly subservient, and in which there is no freedom of action, will meet a rapid end.'"
"Mr Hu stressed the importance of political reform, but also of continued one-party rule. The man poised to succeed him as party chief and as president next March, Xi Jinping (see article), was in charge of drafting Mr Huís speech. It probably reflected a commonly agreed position that will be hard for Mr Xi to change, barring an economic or political crisis that affects the balance of thinking.
In recent weeks articles warning that such a crisis might come in the next decade, and arguing for pre-emptive reform, have appeared even in the official press. Peopleís Tribune, a fortnightly magazine produced by the partyís mouthpiece, the Peopleís Daily (and sporting Jiang Zeminís calligraphy on its cover), published one on the eve of the congress by Yuan Gang of Peking University. It put the warning starkly: 'A tightly controlled society in which people only do as they are told, are utterly subservient, and in which there is no freedom of action, will meet a rapid end.'"
I couldn't get my mind to stop screaming DYNASTY WARRIORS MUSOU reading that. I might have some autistic issues.
Love the statement at the end. Zhuge Liang would be so proud.
It's so weird looking back on this and seeing how shit has changed. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. Republicans don't own the national security issue anymore (a cherished bludgeon of theirs from the Bush era that they would use on anybody not beating the war drum with sufficient enthusiasm), and they're no longer the party of sound economics in the eyes of the electorate. The last 4 years have seen a slow revival of the American Left as a credible force in politics. Barack Obama was shitted on for saying he wanted to be a transformative President in the likeness of Reagan, one who could change the trajectory the country was headed towards, but it really seems that he's pulled it off (though helped largely by the fact that the previous trajectory shot us off a cliff). The fact that any Presidential candidate could win on a platform of raising taxes is a marked shift from the days of Mondale.
Anyone else getting the impression that the only reason McCain is going apeshit over Benghazi and flinging shit at Susan Rice is because he wants Obama to give the Sec of State post to John Kerry instead, so Scott Brown can then run for Kerry's vacated senate seat?
I'm sure that's what he and Brown want, but what they fail to recognize is that Scott Brown, while being an effective campaigner (at least the first time around -- his race against Warren was laughably juvenile at times), was a historical fluke that happened to run against an exceptionally weak Democratic contender. When I went to D.C. a few years ago on a trip with the political science forum on campus, we met with the office of our district's Representative, Alcee Hastings (one of the few federal judges to ever be impeached and convicted from office -- good old Florida). One of his aides was a staffer on Martha Coakley's campaign, the woman Scott Brown ran against in 2010. We talked briefly about his time on the campaign as he started leading us through our tour, and I asked him what he thought the biggest flaw of that campaign was. His answer stuck with me:
"It's probably a good idea to learn a little bit about the local sports teams."
I don't think Scott could win again in that state unless he faces another outright moron.
Masterful politicking with that gaffe right there by the Massachusetts GOP.
Last edited by Revuhlooshun; 11-16-2012 at 04:22 AM.
The last 4 years have seen a slow revival of the American Center as a credible force in politics.
Fixed. True, we're not as completely dominated by far-right loons as we've been in recent years, but it's going to take a LOT more effort to instill anything resembling a truly Liberal-with-a-capital-L influence on the country's direction, considering how long we've been shifted forcibly to the right. Seriously, a return to *gasp!* Clinton-era tax rates (which, may I remind you, were lower than Reagan-era ones) for the very richest is still treated as a serious point of contention (because, as everyone knows, the economy was a total disaster back then and rich people became an endangered species, right?); at this point I don't think most of America even knows what a truly liberal government looks like, and the right is very much counting on that fact to remain relevant.