Like this one.
America cannot be the world’s police, but we have a unique moral obligation to prevent atrocities. It’s true there are many such events around the world. But Libya is different.
Why? The “international community” made it convenient. America will live up its high ideals when it is easy and popular.
I also thought it was striking and unsettling when I heard it that he said, “as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” He refused to wait for the bad press? Very odd terminology I would never have written for my former boss. We are talking about real, live people. Not images. Here’s the passage:
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
According to Steve and Cokie Roberts, Tea Partiers who are challenging long serving, Indiana Senator Dick Lugar are waging “jihad.” But what could possibly be motivating that young man who opened fire on American servicemen in Germany? That, for many in the media this week, was a puzzling head scratcher.
Interesting liberal priorities. Harvard lifts it’s 41-year, Vietnam-era, campus ban on ROTC because the military drops Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Of course, Harvard didn’t kick ROTC off campus back in the 70′s because gay men and women weren’t allowed to serve openly in Vietnam or anywhere else. The military’s policy concerning homosexuality simply served as a neat pretext in later years for the Cambridge campus to disdain the armed services and carry on their hippy-era, anti-ROTC tradition.
But wait. The military still discriminates when it comes to gender. After all, women are still not allowed to officially serve in combat roles. Hmmm… It seems that in the new millennium gay rights have eclipsed feminism. What to make of this discrepancy, this oversight on the part of Harvard’s impeccably liberal elites? Why aren’t they holding the feminist line? Could it be because feminism is over? So “pre-Bill Clinton” and whatever the meaning of “is” is?
Just a thought.
The A-list actor, Oscar winner, and two time Golden Globe winner, explained to John McCaslin and Amy Holmes that when it comes to celebrity crack ups, “A lot lies in delusion, and life not being able to live up to the expectations that the delusion tells you you ought to live up to.” Kingsley, who has played such luminaries as Gandhi and Moses, and famously starred in the Holocaust drama “Schindler’s List,” suggested that, “if a young actor fully understands his or her role as a story teller in society, rather than a celebrity, they’d be much more grounded.”
Are you listening, Lindsay? Dina? Michael?
While Sir Kinglsey hasn’t watched the very public unraveling of the “Two and Half Men” star — he says, “it’s like looking through a peephole. It’s too personal, too private” — he does wish the actor well. And he offers the sympathetic words that, “We all have our demons. We all struggle with them.”
Now, if only Charlie Sheen would accept that his “epic” meltdown is not, in fact, “winning.”
See sound attached and transcript below. Please credit Talk Radio Network’s “America’s Morning News.”
America’s Morning News
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
co-hosted by John McCaslin and Amy Holmes
Holmes: Well, Mr. Kingsley, before you go, we do have to ask you: Have you been watching Charlie Sheen and what seems to be an unraveling personality?
Kingsley: No. No, I have not.
Holmes: You haven’t watched any of it? Because, I think of Anthony Hopkins who said recently that he thinks that superstar… that human beings are not built to withstand superstar fame. Do you agree with that?
Kingsley: Well, Sir Anthony’s right and he has had his struggles. And I respect him deeply. And my only theory is that if a young actor is trained in theater and if a young actor fully understands his or her role as a story teller in society rather than a celebrity, they’d be much more grounded. I think that a lot lies in delusion, and life not being able to live up to the expectations that the delusion tells you you ought to live up to. So, Sir Anthony put it beautifully, and I think he’s a lovely clever man.
We all have our demons, we all struggle with them. I have not watched Mr. Sheen’s struggle. To me, it’s like looking through a peephole. It’s too personal, too private. I wish him well.
Oil hits all time high since August 2008 at $120/barrel. We could be facing a double dip recession. Why aren’t we talking about ANWR? Open that baby up! Republicans: You heard it here!
This morning, on Talk Radio Networks’ nationally syndicated “America’s Morning News,” Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown offered some heartfelt advice for the accused shoplifter and former child star, Lindsay Lohan.
He told co-hosts John McCaslin and Amy Holmes that he thinks about her “a lot” and wishes he could have “ten minutes with her and just sit her down” and tell her “you can do better and be better.”
The senator, who had his own brushes with the law for shoplifting as a teen, said, “I kinda look at her like almost I would say the same thing to my daughter.”
Somebody get these two together on the phone!
Here is the audio. See transcript below.
Holmes: So I want to ask you — this may seem like a bit of an off the wall question. But in your memoir you talk about how you were a serial shoplifter in your teen years. You might have become a juvenile delinquent if not for a judge who, quote, “verbally kick your butt.” Well, we have a very famous young woman who’s in the headlines, Lindsay Lohan. Do you have any advice for her?
Brown: It’s funny you mention that. I think about her a lot. And I often say: You know what? I wish I could have, like, ten minutes with her and just sit her down and talk to her and say… You know, ‘cuz who doesn’t remember her in “The Parent Trap”? This incredible movie, this bright young actress with this bright young life? And now all of things you read about her, you feel badly. You just want to kinda go out and just talk to her and say, you know, you can do better and be better.
“So, I would hope that she would start to get some real guidance from some people that care about her and not looking for headlines or purse strings attached it.”
“I kinda look at her like almost I would say the same thing to my daughter. So, I guess it reflects my age.”
Funny that Hollywood gets more dressed up for a fashion show than for the president. Check out the impeccable suits, polished shoes, and freshly buzzed locks. What does Calvin Klein inspire that the president doesn’t?
This morning on the nationally syndicated radio show “America’s Morning News” co-hosted by John McCaslin and Amy Holmes, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) declared his opposition to mixed party seating tonight at the State of the Union. In contrast to his Oklahoma colleague Tom Coburn, who plans to sit next to New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Senator Inhofe has no mixed feelings that mixed seating tonight “is a mistake!”
Here are the transcript and sound clip from the show.
Holmes: …Do you have plans to sit next to a member of the opposing party?
Inhofe: No, I think it’s a mistake by the Republicans, and it’s ingenious for Democrats to try to intermingle, get the Republicans and the Democrats together. Because when they stand and cheer for some of the liberal doctrines the the president’s going to come out with, it’s obvious to the people in America that only the Democrats are cheering and the Republicans are not. But moving them all in there together, you won’t be able to distinguish the Republicans from Democrats.
I think it’s a mistake and the answer is, “no.”
I received a nice invitation to sit next to couple of the Democrats.
Which he rightly rejected.