Archive - Feb 15, 2008 - topic

Date
Type
The Associated Press

Missile away.

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 4 days ago

Should America have weapons to destroy enemy satellites?

Last year, China showed the world -- and the United States in particular -- that it could blast a satellite out of low-earth orbit and into tiny bits. In the next few days, the United States plans to show China that we can do the same thing.

The U.S. Navy is planning to "shoot down" a failed intelligence satellite, ostensibly to reduce the risk of environmental damage if the satellite plunged to earth full of toxic fuel. But if the mission is successful, the message will be clear: Satellite warfare is a reality.

Read More

Ben likes: Satellite shoot-down shows missile muscle

Bill Gertz/Washington Times

The Pentagon's plan to shoot down a failed satellite with a missile defense interceptor in the coming days is aimed at preventing toxic fuel from reaching earth. But U.S. officials and experts said yesterday it would also signal that U.S. missile defenses can be used to counter China's strategic anti-satellite weapons.

Read More

Joel likes: Is the satellite shootdown necessary?

Mark Thompson/Time

In a week in which Russia and China called for a treaty banning weapons in space, the Pentagon has announced it has orders from President Bush to shoot down a secret spy satellite — but the satellite in question is an American vessel, and its being targeted for destruction before it tumbles back to Earth next month and potentially spews a deadly chemical.

The U.S. hasn't tried shooting a satellite since President Reagan's heyday, in 1985 (it succeeded). And Washington complained loudly, early last year, after China successfully completed its first such test, blasting one of its own old weather satellites to bits.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
President Bush
The Associated Press

Greeted as a hero?

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 4 days ago

How will Africa greet President Bush?

President Bush is about to embark on a five-nation tour of Africa -- a trip designed to emphasize that American policy on the continent is broader than military interests, oil supplies and combating Chinese influence.

How is President Bush seen in Africa? How will he be greeted?

Read More

Ben likes: Bush of Africa

The New York Sun

Mr. Bush hasn't gotten much credit for this among the American public, but, as a BBC interviewer noted yesterday, his approval rating in Africa is in the 80% range, which is astonishingly high. The numbers are borne out by the Pew Global Attitudes survey. Critics of Mr. Bush seize on the low numbers in that survey for people's opinion of America in the Europe or in parts of the Arab world. But a 2007 Pew survey found 88% of those in the Ivory Coast view America favorably, 87% of those in Kenya, 80% of those in Ghana, and 79% of those in Mali. These numbers top the Pew charts.

Read More

Joel likes: George W. Bush, Third World hero

Dan Turner/Los Angeles Times

I have friends who are such committed Bush-haters that they find it impossible to believe that he has ever done anything morally right or geopolitically beneficial; when I point out that his global AIDS initiative has saved thousands and possibly millions of lives, they quietly admit they didn't realize that.

It's very cheap and easy for a lame-duck president to make financial commitments his administration will never have to keep. Bush's extension is aimed at keeping his AIDS initiative going after 2008, by which time he will have left office. But his successor will pay a political price if he or she breaks this funding promise.

None of this, of course, makes up for Bush's blunders in the Middle East and elsewhere, but at least give the guy his props. He's showing people overseas that the United States isn't just about bombs and oil.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote
The Associated Press

Crossing the line?

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 4 days ago

Jane Fonda and the 'c word': Can the FCC take action?

Jane Fonda used the four-letter "c word" on NBC's Today show Thursday. The 70-year-old actress used the vulgar slang term while talking about the play "The Vagina Monologues," prompting a quick apology from the network.

In recent years, such an utterance on live TV would have earned the network a fine from the Federal Communications Commission. Is that still the case? Should it be?

Read More

Ben likes: Flipping off the FCC

Peter Suderman/National Review Online

Some are still afraid of life without the FCC. But what would really happen if the FCC suddenly decided to take a genuine hands-off approach to broadcast indecency? Would it lead the way, as the Parents Television Council recently warned, to television networks allowing the use of “the f-word and s-word in front of children at any time of the day?” Probably not. Even on channels like HBO — not exactly known as a bastion of restraint when it comes to airing explicit material — R-rated and other adult fare is almost always relegated to the evenings. Saturday mornings tend to be filled with kids’ shows, and afternoons typically see programs aimed at teenagers. These networks could air the hardest of the hardcore all day long if they wanted to, but the best business model, even in the absence of government intervention, is to save the rougher fare for after hours.

Read More

Joel likes: FCC can't stop Diane Keaton's F-bomb

Farhad Manjoo/Salon

In June, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on behalf of broadcasters -- led by Fox -- that an FCC policy that penalized TV stations for accidently airing expletives was "arbitrary and capricious." The FCC adopted the policy after the 2003 Golden Globe awards, when U2's Bono remarked that winning an award for the song "The Hands that Built America" was "f****** brilliant," an utterance that was akin to hurling feces at innocent babies across the nation.

The court said that the FCC's policy violated the broadcasters' First Amendment rights. Which means, school's out! Celebrities, you're now free to say whatever you want on TV!

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
mccain romney
The Associated Press

He's got Mitt Romney's backing, at least.

Featured Topic | Posted 39 weeks 5 days ago

Will conservatives mount a third-party challenge to McCain?

John McCain still has some work to do. A group of conservatives who originally threatened to oppose Rudy Giuliani are now considering a third-party challenge against his candidacy, hoping to offer somebody who is "good conservative, Godly, Christian pro-life."

Is a third-party effort in the offing? What will it mean for McCain's candidacy?

Read More

Ben likes: The conservatives' despair

Alvaro Vargas Llosa

If I were an American conservative, I would not panic. I would relish the opportunity to have that honest, almost therapeutic debate (preferably in opposition) over the next few years and then come back with a clear idea of who we are and where we stand. The entire nation, not just conservatives, would benefit from that cleansing process.

Read More

Joel likes: Not bluffing

Steve Benen/The Carpetbagger Report

Of course, it’s worth remembering that Dobson & Co. don’t need to “create” a third party that reflects their extremist beliefs — one already exists. It’s called the “Constitution Party,” it’s ridiculously conservative, it has a spot on the presidential ballot in 41 states, and the party would sooner disband than nominate someone who supports abortion and gay rights.

The religious right has been coasting for over a decade, having convinced the Republican establishment that without theocratic activists, the party has no foot soldiers. It’s been a bit of shell game that no one in the party wants to push too far.

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote