Daily Archives: March 3, 2012


China issues framework for settling Syrian crisis

CNN has the article China issues framework for settling Syrian crisis.

China is calling on the Syrian government and others involved to “immediately” stop violence, particularly against innocent civilians, and pursue a political solution to the Middle East nation’s grim and bloody yearlong crisis.

The position is one part of a six-point framework “for realizing a political solution” issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry early Sunday.

“It is deeply worrying that the situation in Syria remains grave,” the statement said. “China follows closely the developments of the situation in Syria, firmly maintains that the current crisis should be resolved through political dialogue in a peaceful and appropriate manner, and has made unremitting efforts to this end.”

As I read this, I kept thinking how refreshing it would have been for Obama to have made this statement.  It is quite startling to have my preconceptions so thoroughly shaken.  China and Russia are the peacemakers and the U.S. is the leading warmonger.

Why does Obama have to go right to the war and regime change demand?  We might like to see regime change, but it is not our call as I feebly understand international law.  I would think that is up to the Syrians to decide.

How would we like it if Syria decided that the Libertarians should have power in the United States and talked about sanctions against us until we complied?  They might decide to start arming the libertarians if we refuse.  I know this is a rather absurd example, but  we need something that will get us out of our war mongering attitude.

Stopping the violence is something all the world except perhaps for Assad can agree to.  Whoever thought that the U.S. really is the imperialist nation interfering in other country’s internal affairs, and China is the one to call for calming down and handling things with diplomacy.

I know that the fact that I am so surprised is more an indication of the environment I am steeped in. What I am realizing is not something that has only become true very recently.  Of course, I have long known of the U.S.’s imperialist policy.  I guess the real surprise to me is China’s quite reasonable stance in comparison to ours.

For those who still find it impossible to think of the Chinese government  in a positive light, pretend that you didn’t know this position came from China, and ask yourself if this doesn’t sound quite rational.

From Greenberg’s Law of Inexplicable BehaviorWhen the media report on the existence of some seemingly inexplicable behavior, they owe us a report on what are the reasons that the actor uses to justify this behavior. Until you are able to read such an explanation, you have to realize that the media is not reporting the whole story – you had to know that prior reports of Russia and China vetoing the UN resolution were incomplete.  Using some of Greenberg’s laws is how I detect that the media is not telling me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


Rachel Maddow Explains What Rush Limbaugh Does Not Understand About Sex

It takes a little less than 20 minutes for Rachel Maddow to get around to explaining exactly what Rush Limbaugh fails to understand about sex.

Now, I am a guy, too, if you hadn’t noticed, but I knew exactly the mistake Limbaugh made as soon as he started spouting off about it. Maybe nerd engineers know more about female biology than most people give them credit for. How many guys are going to be embarrassed if they have female significant others or have sisters or mothers who have to explain the birds and the bees to them?


Watch the whole thing to see what Mitt Romney, with all his children, doesn’t seem to know either. I guess it is like driving a car. You don’t really need to know how cars work to be able to drive one.

Do you suppose there are many guys in Limbaugh’s audience that understand the gaffe that he made without Rachel Maddow having to explain it to them? Maybe there are even some women in his audience that don’t know how to take a birth control pill either. And some people say we don’t need the Planned Parenthood organization to explain stuff like this.


How Will The Warren Campaign Compete With Scott Brown’s Money? 1

In a “conversation” with a “pro” Elizabeth Warren troll on her Facebook page, the troll asked the question:

How exactly do you expect the campaign to compete with a candidate that has twice as much money already on hand?

Now, that is a very good question that should merit a lot of strategic thinking among the top leaders of the Warren campaign.  I can think of some do’s and dont’s. (I bet you can come up with ideas to add to these lists.)

Dont’s

  • Expect to raise money among the middle-class to compete against the likes of billionaires such as the Koch brothers and the Wall Street crowd
  • Try to raise money at the expense of attracting adherents, volunteers, and voters.
  • Run a campaign that depends on outspending your rival. As a manager I once worked for said, “That is not a business plan, that is a going out of business plan.”

Do’s

  • Improve efforts to raise the connection in voters’ minds between the name Elizabeth Warren, her photograph, and the office she is seeking.
    • Change the logo on all bumper stickers, web sites, social media sites, and printed material to say “Elizabeth Warren for U.S. Senator” instead of saying “Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts”
    • Use every opportunity to put her name next to her photo and the office she is seeking.
  • Do not duck controversy, but head it off before it takes on a life of its own. See my post Elizabeth Warren Explains the Intellectual Foundation She Provided for more details on the ad prototype below.
    
    
  • Work smarter, not harder
  • Use lower cost guerilla marketing techniques. This is something your volunteers can help you with that won’t extract their hard earned money from them.
  • Fire campaign workers that do not seem to be working in the best interest of the candidate and the voters of Massachusetts

If something doesn’t change in this campaign, I have this worry that Sharon expressed to me:

What if Warren wakes up the day after the election and has to think, “I worked my a** off. What the he** happened?”

Or maybe worse if Warren wakes up and has to say:

I won, but now I owe my soul to the very forces I pledged to fight. How can I face the middle-class voters that expect me to fight for them? Did I let my desire to win overwhelm my desire to govern?

I believe the question for Elizabeth Warren is not, “Do I win, or do I stick to my principles?”. A better question is “How do I win while sticking to my principles?” She could even openly engage the citizens of Massachusetts in this conundrum. After all, she needs their help in accomplishing this.

If Elizabeth Warren sees no way of winning and sticking to her principles, then she has gotten herself into the wrong business. Instead she should just get behind another candidate that wants to try. There is such a candidate, but I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out who that is. (if you cannot figure out who that is, then you see the problem that other candidate has.)