Replies to post #4846 on Distributed Digital Property Board

[AppalachianArchitect]

WOW!!! I think I just got "upstaged." LOL

Snack's, I know that wasn't your intent. I had just spent time this morning studying Danbury and comprising (composing, that is - comprised is an interesting word, Alea) a some questions I had to post.

And boom, I was pleased to see you were on the board at the same time. I haven't read all of your post yet, so I can't respond to it. But I will read it.

Best Regards,
AA

[goin fishn]

Hi Snackman

Ed Lasky hardly represents the mainstream press. He is not a shining example of journalistic integrity. He is the editor of the website "American Thinker," an ultra conservative site that regularly endorses viewpoints of people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. It is no surprise that Lasky tears into Obama, as he is now the front runner for the hated Liberals.

Lasky, Limbaugh, Savage, and others like them are a dying breed. People clearly want to move away from this type of attack politics, a sentiment that Obama has tapped. Obama's opponents just can't seem to wrap their minds around this concept. They would do well to consider what happened when Bill Clinton undertook a campaign of attack style politics against Obama. Obama's response was a simple "This is just more of the same old failed tactics." He did it to the Clintons, and he will do it to the Republicans.

[aleajactaest]

(edit) Hi Snackman,
On a personal basis, I have a great deal of time for the contributions of both Israelis and Arabs to the world over the millenia. There would be no Western idea of freedom without the likes of Harun al-Raschid, who helped preserve Greek philosophy and develop Arab science and architecture, and the Judaic thinkers who founded the moral architecture which still prevails in the West, and Jewish artists and scientists who have contributed so consistently to Western culture.

Indeed, in the Middle Ages, the culture which tolerated Judaism and within which it thrived was, in fact, Islam!!!

So I'm a partisan for creating a sustainable peace between these remarkable and important peoples, rather than for thinking that the important thing is to preserve the US-Israeli status quo. Whatever works and whatever harms the process of reconciliation interests me.

I also think that, if only for political reasons, it is in the US' interest to help deliver a peace in that region.

Maybe the process of employing the EU as the arbiter is the right answer to all that ails Israel, with Russia and the US as antagonists alongside the Israelis and Palestinians, respectively. But my guess is that it may be worth an experiment to see if Israel has a chance for peace when there's an American president who is seen to be even-handed, rather than to favour Israel over its neighbours.

I could be wrong.

Intrinsically, I don't think it is the US' duty to be pro-Israel, just as I don't think it is in the US' interest to be against it. At the international level, these are two different countries and there is no obvious reason I can think of why the US is quite so obsessive about Israel's problems. But there is a coherent place in principle where the US is friendly with Israel as a democratic and business partner, but neither takes its side in a knee-jerk fashion, nor sides against it. And I suspect that is what Obama is reaching for.

[orda]

What a screed.


If Barak's against PNAC and AIPAC, good.