In response to a recommended diary which suggests that "just-in-time" inventory control is another idea which is toxic, and will lead to a further crisis, I felt the need to leave a rather long comment. That comment is now this diary, and the point, to be brief, is that "just-in-time" is simply a management idea. That idea has some useful applications. But, like any other idea in any other realm, that idea can also have potential dreadful consequences when it is applied indiscriminately or inappropriately. My problem with that diary is that it seeks to make an idea responsible for the results of bad behavior and lack of judgment. It is on a par with blaming the theory of evolution for social changes one rejects.
I wanted to get a diary in while the furor over Joementum's lack of sanction continues. BTW, I fully expect that some kind of sanction has been demanded by the Dem leadership... I just don't believe that it's a meaningful sanction, or, for that matter, that Joe L seriously intends to behave at all differently.
Still, I am appalled at many of our community's members being unable to separate reasoned appeals for a new Chair at Homeland Security and reasoned appeals for a meaningful sanction upon a rogue Senator who routinely gives the finger to his Senate colleagues, his party, his constituents and the majority of the electorate in this country. Moreover, it's both simplistic and wrongheaded to treat the locus of these two things as nothing more than a desire for "vengeance". True, many who support strong sanctions do so out of heartily admitted vindictiveness. But the fact that a strong sanction achieves the goal of revenge for some does not make it wrong by that fact. Here's why: (over the cliff below)
I have been as annoyed by Tom Friedman (he of Friedman Unit fame) as many of us, in part I think because he is in many cases intelligent and reasonable, but simply cannot face those instances when he has been wrong, or at least can't admit it.
Well, his column on Tuesday(yeah, I know I'm late to the party--sue me, or better yet tell me that this is a wasted diary which has already been diaried before) is the single best thing I've read by him. He begins with a simple criticism of Sarah Palin's assertion that paying taxes is NOT patriotic (and, by implication, that not paying taxes is part of her patriotism).
First shameful admission: I watch television. This despite a lack of faith in it's ability to provide uplifting, satisfying, edifying entertainment. The odd exceptions do not add up to a rule.
Second shameful admission: I watch Survivor. I have plenty of rationalizations to throw your way if you're interested, but I personally don't believe there's much good about it. I am entertained passively for an hour, which, coming as it does after the end of a long working day, dinner, clean up, kids' homework, kids' whining, kids' fights and so on, and before the next couple of hours of work before bed, that is all I want. See? I told you I had rationalizations! But did you see Hillary on it last night...? (MORE)
"This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance"
- John Lennon
I was reminded of this line by a fellow Kossack who wondered "what's wrong the term 'Zionist'?" It took place in an extremely unwise diary which has since been deleted. Our conversation ranged from the seemingly reasonable, to the deeply frustrating. In the end, there wasn't much to say.
So what's wrong with ___ism? Well, everything, so long as it's just a label.
No. Hillary is not actively losing the battle for the nomination. Rather, Obama is actively winning it. And believe it or not, I think there is an important difference which supporters of either candidate should note. [This diary is the reformulation of a comment in RenaRF's earlier diary, per a suggestion by TrueBlueMajority. I apologize for being too lazy to add much more to it.]
Why does it matter? Well, in part because I agree with the notion that under another set of circumstances, Hillary Clinton would be quite a good candidate. I also feel that there is a reason that Obama is deserving of both the nomination and the Presidency, and that the Hillary camp's decision to portray him as unelectable, or worse (and most ridiculously, given the current occupant of the White House) incapable of being President is both unfair, stupid and missing the point--Obama is winning because he is absolutely capable and the one candidate who represents the change most Americans crave.
I am happy to support individual Democrats, but the party is for all intents and purposes, as dead to me as the GOP. Those of you anti-Naderites who still nurse a grudge based on the childish notion that Nader's ego torpedoed Gore's presidency, well, feel free to say that I am claiming the GOP and Dems are equivalent. I'm not, but feel free to say it.
President Bush today lashed out at the grilling Mukasey is receiving. According to Reutershe said this:
"I believe the questions he's been asked are unfair," Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. "He's been asked to give opinions on a program -- or techniques of a program -- on which he has not been briefed."
Now, here's the thing. This is an out and out lie. (Of course)
The Royal Society (UK) has made available a short little booklet utterly debunking most of the pseudo-scientific claims skeptics use to torpedo climate change arguments.
Here's one example (over the fold):
This is a short diary that I felt motivated to write because another diary on here may mislead many about what Ignatieff wrote for tomorrow's NYT Magazine.
The diarist here seems to feel that this apology is too mealy-mouthed, too self-serving, too dismissive of those Ignatieff disagreed with, and not nearly contrite enough. Well, there is some of that, to be sure. Mr. Ignatieff still has a healthy ego, and I think his potshots at those who opposed Iraq for "ideological reasons" are reflections of that ego.
But there is so much more in the article worth reading. In fact, I think it's the best mea culpa yet, in that it really fingers the problems with the Bush approach, and with Bush himself. (More...)
I hadn't seen any posts here linking to this (doesn't mean there weren't any!), so I thought I'd post a link to something I think everyone needs to see.
Max Blumenthal, a regular contributor to HuffPo, has put together a terrific video he took at the Christians United for Israel "get-together" last week. It's chilling stuff, given that it really shows that (unless you suffer from the same madness) a large number of folks are ready to pursue an absolutely insane course of action--all in order to get to the Rapture.
Get ready for Hell on Earth, Kossacks! (More...)
I haven't seen this diaried elsewhere so...
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — Charges against Omar Khadr were dismissed Monday by a military judge who ruled that his tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the alleged terrorist because the government had failed to designate him an "unlawful enemy combatant.''
"Charges are dismissed without prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback ruled.
From the Globe and Mail website (updated from 12:27 story which read "with prejudice"): U.S. case against Khadr collapses
The article (which is short) goes on to indicate that Mr. Khadr, who is now just 20 years old and has been a long-term "guest" in the no-mans-land known as Guantanamo since he was barely 16, had been declared an enemy combatant by a military panel in 2004. How this will affect Mr. Khadr's immediate future or other "guests" is unknown at this point.
More on the Khadrs over the fold...