I don't know what is worse, his comments or going thru life with the name "Yong Tang".

I mean, hell, if you were to set up a "YongTang.com" you would probably have the FBI knocking on your door.

My Lord, Jack M. I dind't even think of that. That's filthy. The man should be arrested for having such an anti-PC name.

We don't need the Web site scenario; his name would cause me problems just having to work in his presence (not seriously, but if you can hammer a president of the nation's top university for saying something unpalatable to the left, then why not take it a step further by nailing someone because of their last name?).

I say, let's get some Washington Post staffers (they must be all women) and have them pull a Summers-style take-down. They'll have to really lather it on good, complete with fainting spells, the vapors, and vomiting.

"Curse your name, you anti-woman, pedophile-named chauvinist psychopath."

I would think if our favorite USC law professor and architect of the greatest political campaign in modern times, Michael Dukakis's superstar, Susan Estrich, should pack her bags, homestead in DC, and start the campaign. She could get her army of feminazis to start a relentless battle of trench warfare against the bastard. Then, all that is left is for her to take her rightful place as managing editor of the Washington Post.

My God, these journalists are all deep-seated America haters that are actually saying it. For every one of these bastards that spews this filth, there's 10 that bite their tongues but wish they could have the nerve to say it.

Off with their heads and their mangerines.

This conplexity-addled editor is hardly the the right person to "help readers understand what is happening now."

So, what's the problem then? How is he "mouthing off"? It's an interview. He answers questions. What is the problem?

What this guy knows about history and geopolitics could be inscribed on the head of a pin with room left over for the Code of Hammurabi. He can't envision one country "leading" the world, but apparently he's got no problem with, say, a group of countries with mutually exclusive ideologies working at cross purposes to undermine and defeat each other (a la the cold war), and I suppose our attempt to take the war to the terrorists fits in neatly with his fear of our hunger for "colonialism" and "imperialism". Yeah, he was just answering questions in an interview; the problem is, his answers were stupid.

So, what's the problem then? How is he "mouthing off"? It's an interview. He answers questions. What is the problem?

Three problems:

This is further proof of the press' overwhelmingly left-leaning slant that they constantly deny having.

This is also another example of a jerkoff saying something in front of a foreign audience he apparently has been too chickenshit to say to his American brethren.

And finally, there's something fundamentally wrong with an *American* who doesn't want America to have a leadership role in the world.

Not to mention how patronizing he was to his audience. The interview should have been subtitled "Phillip Bennet Instructs the Little Brown People." He sounds like nothing so much as a pre-war British sahib lecturing the "darkies" in India.

Oh I forgot. When members of the Progressive Media™ do it, it's not racism.

This guy illustrates another problem with today's journalists: He feels it's his duty to instruct rather than report. I'd have more respect for him if he just said the world's complex and he's trying to make sense of it, and just left it at that. But he obviously has sharp and very uncomplicated opinions which evidently derive from crude leftist cant about "colonialism" (why do we keep getting tarred with Europe's crimes?). Moreover, he claims he's overawed by the world's "complexity," then reduces that complexity to: America is the New Death Star. Idiot.

Nicely said.

I remember a Henrik Hertzberg article in the New Yorker in which he made the case that conservatives are so distressingly and insanely "certain" while liberals are all empirical and open-minded and such.

Although Henrik was pretty damn certain of conservatives' certainty. And of course all the other liberal dogma.

Similar deal.

And finally, there's something fundamentally wrong with an *American* who doesn't want America to have a leadership role in the world.

If you think there's something wrong with an American who thinks that, fine, but that's not what he said. He said that America should not be the leader of the world. This quite different than having a "leadership role". Especially considering this question was coming from a Chinese journalist. If a foreigner asks an American if they think America should be the leader of the world, what do you think they mean?

As for your other problems, how do you know he hasn't or wouldn't say it here? Has he been asked that question? And as far as the overwhelmingly left-biased media who constantly deny they are left leaning, well, the reason some people in the media have to constantly deny the left wing bias of the media is because they are accused of it by people with a right wing bias in the media. Constantly.

Mantis:

Are you into stating the fucking obvious and making it some kind of conclusion? Let's see here. You say:

He said that America should not be the leader of the world.

This is not a conclusion, it's a truism. America is the leader of the world by almost any measure. I'm specifically using the word "leader' to mean best/biggest/most powerful, not mentoring. Here's where America is THE FUCKING LEADER:

1) Economic size (20% of the world's economy);
2) Economic influence (the ripple effect of our size perforce means that our economic success or failure influences smaller countries around the world, directly and indirectly);
3) Military power. We're tops;
4) Cultural impact in other countries. American culture permeates every outpost of the world (or almost every one); and,
5) Language influence. American English is the universal language of everything from science to traffic control to pop-culture.

It's not America's fault that this is so; that's just the way it fucking is. In other words, we are the dominant player on the world's geopolitical scene.

So there's no debating that America is the leader. What this wanker did was LAMENT this fact. That you cannot have a debate about, since it's emotional bullshit. But you said that his words were that America should not be the (sole) leader of the world. In other words, the guy's living in a fantasy world. He's also talking about playing God.

Here's why: He's clearly saying that he doesn't like that America has this singular leadership position, and in his mind America should not have it. In other words, here's the state of affairs, I believe it's unfair, and if I were king, I'd change it.

That's the problem. You can spin this all you want, trying to take his words in context and such to make your point, but the question still recurs: "Why does this many not want America to be the only leader of the world?"

To see the insanity of this man's comments, you'd have to ask yourself how you'd go about undoing facts 1-5 above. To do that would take a lot of effort. This fucker wants to do just that, or wishes he could.

Now here's the frightening part. There are millions of people that do not like 1-5, so they try different means to change it. They wage mental wars in the media through spin, they try to hook us in to treaties that would hurt our country's interests and help theirs. They do things all aimed at underminnig our leadership position. That's mighty nasty stuff. When they say "You Americans need to be more collaborative," what they really mean is "You Americans should be beholden to us before you act in your self-interest."

Take the treaty example. We are one of the only nations on the planet wherein any treaty we sign and is approved by the Senate becomes PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. No other major power has this clause. So they can freely back out of treaties if they are no longer to their liking but we can't (unless we design the treaty with an escape clause). This is why America is so reluctant to sign treaties.

This Washington Post Managing Editor is wishing for the impossible. He's saying "I wish America weren't the only leader of the world, and if I could, I'd change it."

The guy's a cocksucker. He should be fired over this.

Think I'm crazy? Why don't you go to work tomorrow and tell your boss that you think your company is a source of bad things and shouldn't try to be the leader in its industry. Let's say you work for a company that is an industry leader. Then go do what I suggested. See how long you'd keep your job.

The purpose of the US is the same as any other: To reach the best that it can become.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Now, if you want to debate the mentoring part of our leadership position, then let's have at it. That's fair grounds for debate. But this guy clearly wasn't. He's wishing that reality wern't and fantasy were.

Thing is, I used to consider myself one of those "uncertain" liberals that Herzberg talks about. Then 9-11 happened. What to do? Well in my estimation it was a tough call. Certainly the status quo was no longer viable; but going on the war path is also serious business -- especially if you're on the business end of it.

So I expected there would be a serious debate. Ha. It was all "this is why we need to go to war" on the one side, and "this is why America is terrible and deserves to take it on the chin" on the other. And when it came to Iraq, it was all the same thing, except this time there was this curious lack of understanding that America actually has enemies in the world -- and Iraq happened to be one of them.

Always America is wrong and other countries have the best of intentions. Guinea-Bissau doesn't want us to go to war? Hmm... very interesting. I wonder what Andorra thinks. And of course the Europeans, who have never, ever done anything wicked and have always held America in the highest esteem, from their earliest days of kidnapping our seamen, slandering Abe Lincoln, supporting Southern secession, and enslaving Cuba, to our more modern respect-filled relationship wherein we generously donate generation after generation of dead soldiers and they... well, I haven't quite figured out what their end of the bargin is.

I'm specifically using the word "leader' to mean best/biggest/most powerful, not mentoring.....He's clearly saying that he doesn't like that America has this singular leadership position, and in his mind America should not have it.

I don't quite understand how he is clearly disputing the position of the US as leader by your definition of leader. Nowhere in that answer leads me to believe he is lamenting the facts that the US has the largest economy or strongest military. It seems what he's talking about is the tendency of the strongest state(s) to dominate weaker states, and how that should be avoided.

You can spin this all you want, trying to take his words in context and such to make your point, but the question still recurs: "Why does this many not want America to be the only leader of the world?"

First, it's hilarious that you consider taking people's words in context as spinning. I suppose that whole context thing is annoying when you're busy beating a straw man. Second, in answer to your question, maybe they believe things will work out better if there isn't only one nation "leading", but rather many nations. Or maybe they're worried about the old blowback problem.

To see the insanity of this man's comments, you'd have to ask yourself how you'd go about undoing facts 1-5 above.

No, wanting other countries to step up and lead in certain areas of the world, and wanting the US to work in more collaboration with other nations would not require undoing your 5 points of US "leadership".

When they say "You Americans need to be more collaborative," what they really mean is "You Americans should be beholden to us before you act in your self-interest."

Some of them might mean "you Americans should not ignore us before you act in your own self-interest, in matters that affect us and/or the entire world."

The guy's a cocksucker. He should be fired over this.

Well, I guess it's too bad you don't own WaPo. You could fire all the "cocksuckers" you want.

Why don't you go to work tomorrow and tell your boss that you think your company is a source of bad things and shouldn't try to be the leader in its industry.

Bad analogy. Journalists do not work for the US. Ok, correction, most journalists don't work for the US, excepting the ones on the Bush admin's payroll. You seem to think any journalist who questions or even analyzes the role of the US in the world is betraying his/her country.

The purpose of the US is the same as any other: To reach the best that it can become.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Nothing. However success economically or militarily does not necessarily mean global dominance, which some people view as a dangerous and unsustainable position.

Damned imperialists, going around brutally forcing a highter standard of living on innocent people.

Everybody have fun tonight
Everybody Yong Tang tonight.

OK, that does it! Now I'm questioning their patriotism!

I have a question that I hope someone can answer. Over the weekend the newscasters/Democrats were saying that to fund the war and the social security "scheme", Bush was borrowing money from China and thereby giving them power over the value of our dollar and,eventually, our economy. Is this true?

"Bush administration wants to act unilaterally in the world, outside of alliance that traditionally governed"

What a fucking horse's asshole! How typically Liberal to think that all we need to do is to "consult" our "allies," just speak nice to them, and they'll get on board with us. They'll never, ever get on board with us because they know that we'll protect the world, so why should they spend their blood and treasure when we'll do it for them? After 60 years of us protecting them, they expect that big daddy will take care of the world so they don't have too. They've grown cowardly and treacherous, (in other words Liberal) and have decided to profit from the instability in the world by buying embargoed oil cheap, selling arms, nuclear technology and anything else they can to rogue nations while calling us the bad guys! They are hoping that if they talk shit about us loud enough, the terrorists will leave them alone, while we take the pain to save the world and their rotten asses!

God I hate Liberals!

Our Wapo weenie sounds more like Boy George than Boy Howdy.

Hey Mantis:

Spin is not generally defined as taking words out of context. That trick is usually called taking words out of context.

Spin is taking someone's words or facts in an event and interpreting them in a way that fits your agenda. What I did wasn't spin. I used deduction. You spun.

What you did was take what he said and posit why he said what he said, implying his words were constructive. In other words, you looked into his mind by reading what he said and interpreted what he meant. That's spin. I guess, spin with the added bonus of "Mantis the Mind Reader."

What I did was take the words that were quoted and deduced what he meant from those words used.

There are two important parts in that quote you used and put emphasis on the word "the." I don't know if you heard the tape, so I suppose that was your emphasis.

He said that he doesn't think that the US should be the (sole) leader of the world. In other words, he was telegraphing his desire or wish. That's open to interpretation. The statement implies that the US is the leader of the world. That's why I rattled off 5 areas where I believe the US is the leader of the world.

I then suggested that if one lamented this fact, and wished it weren't so, then there were only a few routes one could take to change the situation.

You seem to think that everyone around the world that hates the fact that the US is the leader would be satisfied if we only consulted with them. Sort of like the captain Piccard version of management as opposed to the Captain Kirk approach.

Well, that's foolish. When the US has tried the consensus approach, we've been bashed for that. When the US takes the unilateral approach, people whine about that. There is only one possible explanation for why this phenomenon happens:

Nothing will satisfy our critics unless we lose our leadership dominance in those five areas I mentioned (and probably others, too).

Evidence abounds for this. Just look at any comment made about the US, from Canada to Europe to Asia to the Middle East, all have a particualr axe to grind, and that is they want to see the US lose their leadership position.

That's what the WaPo asshole did, and that's where you are living in a fantasy world if you think that's acceptable behavior for a managing editor of one of the nation's largest newspapers.

I would hope people of this country are Americans first and partisans second. WaPo A-Hole was partisan first American second. This is the running theme from the left. And then they turn around and say "The most patriotic thing an American can do is criticize the government." There's a kernal of truth in that. But it's not the most patriotic thing, but it can be a patriotic thing. But WaPo-A-Hole didn't criticize his government. He implied that he'd like to see us lose our leadership position in those areas. That's wishing for your country's downfall, not criticism. And for that, he should be fired.

This from Freeper: "Clark Clifford, ... once called President Reagan "an amiable dunce". That was pretty much the Left's take on the Gipper throughout his eight years in the White House. They cringed at his depiction of the Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire". They smiled at his naïveté when he stood in Berlin and forcefully said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" They gnashed their teeth when he ignored large European demonstrations and began deployment of Pershing II and Cruise missiles on that continent."

"Yet, somehow, the Dunce prevailed. The Evil Empire imploded and Mr. Gorbachev did tear down that wall. (Actually, others tore it down for him as he turned his attention to signing Western book deals.) The really smart people saw through all this and announced that the Empire had crumbled of its own accord, not because of, but in spite of, the intellectual lightweight who predicted all of that would happen. Of course, these were the same people who preached co-existence with this "superpower" just a few years before."

Boy George at WaPo wrote:

"What is happening now is very difficult to understand."

Only to Liberals!

"The world is very complex."

No it isn't! Only Liberals think it so because they are mentally deranged and they don't want to believe the world is as nasty as it really is because they can't handle the truth.

"I don't think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can't imagine that could happen."

What the fuck does this Goddamned, stupid motherfucker think is happening right now?

"I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don't want to be led by foreign countries."

Bullshit! Of course they want us to lead the way and be the world's policeman, e.g., before the Iraq war, while the Arabs were all publicly for Saddam, they were privately begging us to oust him, and soon! And though Euroweenis talk shit about us in the hope that terrorists will spare them, they are still glad that we bite the bullet so they don't have to.

And this asshole writes from a major newspaper? Even after decades, I am still surprised at how deluded, immature, superficial, cowardly and treacherous Liberals really are. They must all be eradicated from public life!

Mantis:

Let me try to put some teeth into what I am trying to explain.

1) Throughout most of history, there have been rare periods wherein one single government was the undisputed leader. Now, that is the US.
2) Nations always act in their own self-interest first, and hopefully act in the interest of others as well.
3) When there were 2 super-powers, the USSR and the USA, we were the good guys and the Soviets were the bad guys. Well, the Cold War is over, and we have new enemies. But the US is the single dominant power, nonetheless.
4) Countries that loathe our leadership position are not asking for us to take a more consensus-building approach to our foreign policy. They may say that they are, but their actions reflect otherwise.
5) That's what is behind the EU, Venezuala trying to sell its oil to China, Canada doing the same, asshole comments from the UN, and on and on.
6) Those that do not want to have the US remain the leader are actively trying to undermine our leadership role. Some are trying to destroy our Economy (al Quaeda). Others are trying to clamp down on us using the UN, making us subordinate to the will of that body. Others have been producing hate speech about our country for years, in their media, their school texts and everything else.
7) I would argue that item number six above leads to violence. If you teach your population year after year that the US is the source of all evil in the world, that incites some to commit acts to remove that evil.
8) What the WaPo A-Hole did was in line with the others in item #6. If you think he was simply wishing for more consensus building, so be it. But words are pretty clear, and it's easier to file his words under the category "hate America."

Now, I have two questions for you:

1) If you assume that it is a given that the US will never subordinate its own interest for those of others, and also assume that we will consult others if that's in our interest, what would you like to see us do as a country that would please our critics?
2) What country would you like to see have the leadership role in the world if not the US, and would that country do the things that you wish for in number 1 above?

For number 2, you cannot say that you'd like to see multiple power centers. That's changing the debate. America is the sole leader of the world, and that's the source of contention, so stick another country in there besides the US.

72Virgins:

Brilliant. The collective hive of beauties are certainly gathering their intellect and focusing it to great effect. Thank you.

Now, let's finish the job:

1) Every single entity that hates America's dominance in the world is actively trying to do something about it by subordinating one or more of America's leadership positions.
2) Greenpeace, the moonbat author of "The Silent Spring," and the massive array of enviornmental activists have shoe-horned environmental issues onto Marixts philosophy. This is their new, collective paradigm and intellectual underpinning. These groups want to take as much private property away from the US as possible, and also try to force the US and other wealthy nations to pay for the environmental havoc they've caused to the soi-disant victims in third world nations.
3) Environmental activism is a threat to America's way of life, and it is just as severe as the threat from terrorism from fundamentalists Islamofascists. That is, if the enviornmental activists had their way. They would do this by threatening one of our most fundamental freedoms, our property rights.
4) Environmental activists have caused as much suffering on this planet as Marxism. One look at the DDT ban and the malaria deaths can prove that.
5) Dictators of secular states actively try to subordinate America's military strength by blaming us as a threat to their safety, thereby deflecting attention away from themselves and turning their angry populace against us.
6) The EU is trying to undermine America's geopolitical dominance through the UN and through taking the lead on their own and without the US in diplomatic moves that attempt to strike deals with countries that America is trying to contain or turn to democracy. This is the French Waltz of diplomacy. They don't give a stinking shit about consensus building or any other such nonsense; they clearly want the US subordinated, and will deal with the devil to do so. Also, self-interest motivates them.
7) No one that hates US dominance is taking a consensus approach to the US, but they demand it from the US.
8) These people are using consensus as a distraction device to sound noble, when what they really want is to see the US taken down a peg or five.

If there is to be on signle nation that is the world's dominate superpower, I'm glad it is the USA. I am certainly glad that is not France, not China, not Russia and not Germany.

Pix of three of THE VIRGINS may be found at:

http://news.yahoo.com/

Throughout most of history, there have been rare periods wherein one single government was the undisputed leader. Now, that is the US.

Well, first of all these were not rare periods, human history is rife with single states dominating. They're called empires, and that was what Bennet was saying the US should not become.

Nations always act in their own self-interest first, and hopefully act in the interest of others as well.

Hopefully, but not normally.

Countries that loathe our leadership position are not asking for us to take a more consensus-building approach to our foreign policy. They may say that they are, but their actions reflect otherwise.

How so?

What the WaPo A-Hole did was in line with the others in item #6. If you think he was simply wishing for more consensus building, so be it. But words are pretty clear, and it's easier to file his words under the category "hate America."

I understand that you feel everyone who is even mildly critical of the US role in the world is an "america hater", but that is just an excuse not to engage in any real discussion. You can dismiss all detractors as traitors or terrorists, but what is next? By your estimation I hate America. I don't, but that doesn't matter much does it? What should be done with me? Should I be fired from my job?

If you assume that it is a given that the US will never subordinate its own interest for those of others, and also assume that we will consult others if that's in our interest, what would you like to see us do as a country that would please our critics?

I don't think we should do things just to please critics. However I would recognize that many of those critics are in fact Americans, and many of the rest are of foreign nations that are our allies, and to disregard our own citizens and allies in the pursuit of our own interests is a dangerous move. Besides, I never said we shouldn't act in our own interests, I'm saying that those shouldn't be the only interests we consider.

What country would you like to see have the leadership role in the world if not the US, and would that country do the things that you wish for in number 1 above?

Again with the leadership role. Why must it be only one? I believe the Bush admin. is now working with the EU regarding the Iran situation. By your estimation this must be wrong to do.

BTW spin often entails taking people's words out of context. If you're confused about this I recommend watching Fox for a few hours.

Mantis:

1) Name me the periods where the entire known civilized world was dominated by one superpower. Name them. Aggregate them over time and show me that they are the norm and not the exception. Here I note that you use the word "Empires." Well, let's just see your examples. I am rather curious.

2) How convenient that you've made a generalization about my opinion towards you. I gave examples of what I defined as America-hating. I made no blanket assumptions of EVERYONE, and certainly made no blanket statements of you. Reasonable people can disagree, but we weren't engaging each other. We were discussing a third party. How would I know what you think of your country? If I did imply or state that I thought you hated your country, I appologize here and now for having done so.

My first assumption would always be that you do love your country. I'd have to get to know you to determine otherwise. The discussion at hand was speculation of the words used by the managing editor of the Washington Post. You speculated, I speculated. Speculation necessitates one making assumptions of one's character.

3) I would happily engage you in a discussion of your outlook on America and what we do wrong or right. You'll notice in my commments that I did say that critcizing one's country CAN be a patriotic act. Remember that? You strike me as someone who loves his country but wishes things could be better. There's nothing but goodness to be found in that characteristic, if my assumption is accurate.

4) As far as self-interest, nation's are like individual human beings, with proportions of goodness and selfishness, in varying proportions. But the primary directive of any government is to protect and preserve itself.

5) I am in your corner in this specific area:

I hope that when the US makes foreign policy decisions, it does so in its own best interest and those interests are similar to those of our allies.

But I realistically know that these situations are rare, but they do occur.

But what about the opposite scenario? Consider:

What if America is lead to believe that doing action X, it will be in its own interest and in the interests of allies Y and Z? However, deception and sneaky games have been played by allies Y and Z, and we have stepped into an arrangement that is NOT in our self-interest. What are the consequences of that? I'd aver that this happens often, and this is why our supposed allies at different times in history have become our enemies in the future. Think Stalin.

Futhermore, I view geopolitical issues the exact same way I view bargaining at the negotiating table between two trading partners in the private sector.

Pretend you and I own a compay that is involved with negotiating a contract with a Japanese company, where we are to be their master distributor for the US. Have you ever had to sit through negotiations of this type? I have, and the Japanese are ruthless, and they will eat you alive if you aren't ready for them.

Negotiations between governments, allies and foes alike, are of similar nature. Just look at agreements we have with Canada to get a taste of what I'm talking about.

6) Moving on: Again, I believe that you've missed the root point. America is the dominant power on this earth, unrivaled in the 5 areas I mentioned. That's what the point of the discussion was about in the first place. You even went as far as emphasizing the word "the" superpower. That was a given in the man's statement. Now, it being the only superpower gives rise to responsibilities of great burden, and it is here where honest people can disagree about how this power should be wielded for the betterment of all. It could mean consulting with friends or going it alone, or somewhere in between. Let's talk if you want to discuss a specific issue.

7) Finally: You were the one who made a sarcastic comment about spin, not me. I stated that spin doesn't necessitate taking people's words out of context or in context. Spin is interpreting facts, statements or whatever in a story to put your opinion on what this stuff all means. Spin isn't necessarily good or bad; it's merely a given.

As to Fox News, It's on in my house almost every night. You don't like Fox? Then watch CNN. I don't really care what news you watch, you'll always get spin.

But I would aver that spin and taking words in or out of context to make a point are not the same thing. I get interviewed by the media about once per month, and about 75% of the time my words are taken out of context. Is that spin? Usually not. It more often has to do with space in the paper. When taking words out of context is done with malice, that rises to the level of propaganda and slander; spin's far behind in the hierarchy of ethics.

Best regards.

Happy to oblige, Ace.

First I didn't know what you were saying "you're obliged" for.

And then I realized.

Thank you! Love it!

This guy was making these comments to an employee of the Communist Chinese regime. (There is no such thing as an independent journalist in Communist China)

Said regime will be using these comments for propaganda purposes. He even uses the words, "colonialism" and "imperialism" that communists use in their propaganda screeds. What's the matter, couldn't Bennet pronounce the word "hegemony?" That would have gotten him even more Brownie points from the Chicoms.