Saturday, July 5, 2008

Both Left and Right Hate Obama's Move to the Center

ARIANA HUFFINGTON of the Huffington Post writes (and you can hear her chalk-grating-on-a-blackboard voice even without moving your own lips) in a Memo to Obama: Moving to the Center is for Losers. She's very unhappy and wags her long manicured finger at the presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate for his recent positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA? In something as a rare as a planetary conjunction, Fox News Opinion pundits Dick Morris and Eileen Gann wholeheartedly agree and lay out a whole new winning strategy for John McCain, saying that "McCain can do much to force Obama back to the left and cast doubt on his efforts to move to the middle." So the extreme Left wants Obama to stay on the Left, and it seems, so does the extreme Right! Hmm...lucky for both the Democrat and Republican parties none of these prodigious geniuses happen to be their Candidate for President. Now if Barack Obama is Mr. Flip Flop on the above named issues, John McCain is Mr. Flop Flip and has a lot of explaining to do too on the issues of GWB's tax cuts, oil drilling and immigration.

Haha! Let the Games begin! Happy Fourth of July, y'all!

PLDT Chair Manny Pangilinan told an audience in Chicago today that "Ethics and Morality are good for business." So, I wonder when PLDT/Smart will quit paying the New People's Army extortion money not to bomb his cell phone towers, a protection racket that seems to have been imitated now by Muslim separatists down south and even the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I think the 1987 Philippine Constitution speaks loudly and clearly for itself on the matter of nuclear weapons:
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

On the other hand, Miriam Coronel Ferrer in her opinion piece today decrying the generous help extended to thousands of Filipinos by the crew and officers of the USS Ronald Reagan, was really talking loudly and clearly for the CPP-NPA, who are high and dry in the Netherlands as their leader continues to face a murder investigation by the Dutch. But he does not lack for surrogates willing to make the silliest arguments against our national interests.


Equalizer said...

The EQualizer supports Obama but hope we don't see "Seasonal Principles" from him.

On the other hand,we also do now want the stupid stubbornness of George Dubya.

Equalizer said...

Seasons change and so do the tools for the yard work... lol

manuelbuencamino said...

Do you think it's consistent with the national interest, to allow nuclear weapons in our territpry?

DJB Rizalist said...

what nuclear weapons, mb?

sparks said...

manong djb,

just read my former prof's article. how is it "really talking loudly and clearly for the CPP-NPA" ???

DJB Rizalist said...

check out all the usual cpp npa ndf sites on this and any occasion that involves us assistance to the philippines, whether balikatan or disasters like guinsaugon, albay and now romblon.

you will find "dukakis moments" in which the humanitarian and mutual defense interests are roundly ignored, and what emerges is pure anti colonialism.

but the cpp npa is so discredited with the public that they have to turn to fronts and surrogates to make take these positions.

I frankly can't see what "nuclear weapons" have to do with the human tragedy around Princess of the Stars.

Just put yourself in the shoes of those poor suffering relatives and ask how you would feel reading such an opinion piece.

AdB said...

Re: "mb,
what nuclear weapons, mb?"

There is a provision in the Constitution that prohibits nuclear armed vessels from entering Phil territory -- is this so or not?

Don't put your hand in the sand Dean -- if you really want to know, my husband (who was a UK nuke sub commander had visited USS RR) says USS RR carries a warhead and there is no reason to believe that she would fhave dumped it prior to entering RP waters. That the US neither denies nor confirms is neither here nor there either.

Just to set the record straight, you who are a firm believer and advocate of the Rule of Law should understand why some people are wary of RR's presence in the Philippines, i.e., could be because her presence on Philippine seas may be violating Philippine charter.

That said, for those who worry about the presence of a nuclear warship in the Philippines because of the N word -- I am inclined to believe that USS RR is safe, safer, truly truly much safer than Philippine commercial vessels and Philippine Navy ships. (Except of course if USS RR purposely spews toxic waste in Philippine waters just like what happened in Subic during the US bases years there.)

AdB said...

Ooops, ... Don't put your HEAD in the sand Dean...

DJB Rizalist said...

I won't put my head in the sand, if you put yourself in the place of the tens of thousands of victims of typhoon Frank, not all of whom drowned in the Princess, but could certainly have been helped much more without the transparent legalism of the Left.

Are you not perhaps having a Mike Dukakis moment here, ADB?

Besides, I don't think the matter of the nuclear provision is completely understood or adjudicated.

WHO for example decides upon the meaning applicability of the crucial phrase in the nuclear free provision that the policy must be applied consistent with the national interest?

sparks said...


prof. ferrer will faint if she reads this blog post!

i do not think the article is "decrying the generous help" of the US. having just read the article again, i think these are the main points:

1. defending the country's sovereignty (i.e. that we ultimately should have a say on what goes on in our country)

- "But the main problem is and always has been that we have had to rely on the US’s word – or silence -- on the matter."

2. And the second main point is her critique of the militarisation of 'humanitarian' aid:

- "we can’t be blind to the dangers in the militarization of humanitarian aid, a global trend where military buildup is increasingly twinned with humanitarian goals, with the end result of more resources going to defense."

- "Finally, there is a subliminal, discomfiting message being sent when warships are glorified beyond their real purpose. Military objects and symbols are deceptively juxtaposed with humanitarianism. The USS Ronald Reagan’s insignia comes with the words "Peace through strength" because Reagan believed that America won the Cold War by virtue of being strong."

manong naman eh. you shouldn't discredit people whose opinions run contrary to yours by simply calling them communists. are you getting lazy?

AdB said...


You are incorrigible -- what you are effectively saying now with your gobbledygookings is you are willing to shit on Philippine charter provisions so long as you defend US rights to shit on Phil waters. How can you frigging convince people that what you are saying is right?

OK, nuff!

Read my post you nig nog -- it was basically a reply to your question to Manuel Buecamino, you turd!

Re: "mb,
what nuclear weapons, mb?"

The rest of the comment had nothing to do with legally defending your hated left.

DJB Rizalist said...

sparks, adb,

How would you guyz compare the reaction to the USS Ronald Reagan with the Myanmar military junta's reaction to offers of international aid?

What exactly is the difference, pray tell?

Lookit, the Americans could've refloated the Princess of the Stars last week, but nooo...and what of the tens of thousands of people still isolated in flooded out areas, waiting for help.

Do we nuclear-powered brains even know the extent of the damage all over the archipelago. Does Miriam Ferrer?

C'mon, you guys know it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or the Constitution, but anti-Americanism, pure and simple

If that was a French warship, do you think the leftists would be reacting the same way. I doubt it!

Richard said...

"USS RR carries a warhead and there is no reason to believe that she would have dumped it prior to entering RP waters."

I don't believe you. I don't believe that they would have confirmed to him the presence of a nuclear weapon aboard ship, even if he was an Allied sub captain.

"you nig nog"..."you turd!"

Might want to wipe the foaming flecks of spittle from you computer screen, while you are at it. Typical 2 year old leftist behaviour, BTW. Name calling and ad-hominem attacks always enhance your arguments and give them so much more gravitas.



I don't give a shit whether you believe or not -- are you a submariner?

Better to be typical 2 year old leftist behaviour than a human piece of shit like you.



The thing to know about an AC, e.g, the Nimitz class, as in the case of the USS RR, is that sometimes she carries a nuke weapon and sometimes she doesn't -- agree ACs don't always carry nuke weapons; it is however not difficult to assume that a major warship is carrying a weapon when you are well versed with AC operations or depending on the circumstances; that said, ACs don't go around announcing that they're carrying nuke weapons -- highly unlikely that they would ever tell Philippine authorities even if they become blue in the face; whether the USS RR may be carrying one for this particular mission in the Asia Pacific region (with a call on the port of HK) is a different matter altogether.

I'm inclined to believe that USS RR isn't carrying nuke weapons knowing that she's arrived from HK where I believe they prohibit nuke carrying vessels (not absolutely sure though if this is indeed policy in HK), in other words, expect USS RR to respect protocol.

Richard said...

"I don't give a shit whether you believe or not -- are you a submariner?"

What does being a submariner have to do with knowing whether nukes are on the USS RR? Exactly...nothing.

Richard said...

"Better to be typical 2 year old leftist behaviour than a human piece of shit like you."

I would have thought a true-blue English Submariner (and Anti-American) like you would be able to speak his own language better than that...but I learn new things every day...thanks for the lesson, Old Chap!