Blueskye2

Rubio asked if Saudi Arabia was committing human rights violations. Tillerson did not answer that question, yes or no, not once. He answered some other unknown question that wasn't asked. Hard for me to understand how you miss diversion and aversion. I also think it naive to believe that Tillerson was not playing politics at his confirmation hearing.

Every Night and every Morn Some to Misery are Born. Every Morn and every Night Some are Born to sweet delight. Some are Born to sweet delight, Some are Born to Endless Night. (From William Blake's, "Auguries of Innocence") Now a discussion of how the words "misery" and "delight" are defined, can ensue. "5'07" and I have no athletic talent" = misery

Argh, here is the problem with the ACA, that it is heavily reliant on funding insurance companies, to their fiscal content. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of healthcare coverage for everyone. I am not in favor of my taxes being earmarked directly to corporations.

I could die from that surprise. /s

Watch ed, it's less than 3 minutes long. Anyway, it was a politician answering questions by not answering the questions. Says nothing.

I would love to see UT finally vote Hatch out. I think he'll retire or die before that happens. Alas, UT already has most of what is in School Choice. Families around here have their kids going to school all over the place. UT state gov't tried to get out of Core, but the Feds wouldn't let them. Bye bye Core is happiness for Republican majority UT. The piece that some people around here would love, and most don't care one way or the other, are school vouchers. The Catholic private schools, and parents of students attending private schools, are all for it.

haha, I'll watch it later. Have to get some work done. But Marco Rubio...he makes me laugh just reading his name. I'm still waiting to see what the Trump foreign policy actually is.

Some women would cover themselves in pride, others may not want to, as many Muslim women in the East do not cover their heads. Western ideal is that women should have the choice. This is what the oppressive religious government in Iran is against. The freedom to choose. Rather, they want to dictate what a woman wears or doesn't wear. There is currently a movement in Saudi Arabia, of women who want to drive. Shocking! I know. Not all Muslim women are the same.

*shrug* Both are done deals. Neither is going backward. I'm all for ongoing dialogue and support protestors on both ends of the scale, because it is their right to protest and speak out. Personally, they are non-issues for me when I vote, because honestly, Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned and no one is going to strip people of their right to marry, now that they are married. It's like the ACA, lots of people want it to go away but the reality is, that isn't going to happen. Rework, modify, strengthen, weaken, is the battle now. As a side note, I was in DC on 911, at the Capitol steps. It was a surreal day, where my family and I got parked in a park, next to the Capitol. There was a Muslim woman there, with her son, telling everyone who would listen that the US will always be under attack by Islamic states (as in countries, not IS), as long as abortion is legal in the US. I snuck a pic of her and sent it to the FBI via their website. I'm not joking! I am personally, pro-life, because I think it is the logical thing to be (another discussion for another day). But certainly, I'm not militant. I'm not a protesting, marching, kind of person. Never have marched in my life. But I'd march for the right of a woman to choose, if it were packaged as religious law to not, i.e. Sharia or a Christian likeness of Sharia. I'm all for separation of religion and state, along with the rights of individuals to vote according to their conscience.

Yes, to the OP and women rights, they want modernization that benefits men. Not the westernization that benefits women.

Free, to a point where they are not. As you pointed out, in Iran, things are tightly controlled. The internet is not open, people are arrested and imprisoned for what they post on the internet. Books are censored (banned). Opposition is suppressed. Tournaments are restricted for women, based on not being able to wear particular sportwear. Iran are isolationist to a point where it serves the level of oppression they hope to maintain. Which, as Anatess has pointed out, there is leverage, and it is because they are isolationists only to a point. It is that point that can be worked. The risk is that the point moves toward further isolationism. With Iran, I think they have demonstrated that they are willing to tighten down (see 1979), while simultaneously, they demonstrate they want the benefits of interacting with the West.

Indeed. That is why I say, I'm not a political scientist. There is a balance, that has multiple factors, that are not uniform for all regimes or issues. Wayyyy outside of my skill set!

I think we should not act to enable isolationism.

I have not, but I do watch a lot of documentaries. Have you seen Kimjongilia? I agree that isolationism is only a part, but it demonstrates how regimes use it to further their power over those they rule. It helps to enable human rights violations on a pretty massive scale.

*shrug* I'm not a political scientist, but my gut feel on this, is that isolating regimes and countries doesn't work. See North Korea, which uses isolationism to further misinform and oppress its citizens.

I can agree with this POV. BUT (always a but, ha), if only Muslim women showed up there would be cause for the male dominated society to rule that women don't "need" to play chess, because they have no competitors. It could further isolate women from other societies and other POV. I think it does well, to demonstrate that it is OK for women to travel, to play in tournaments, to actively participate in society. Further isolating people, as a political statement, that improves one's personal agenda, is not a sacrifice for the "other".

I agree with this POV, except that "moral high ground". It isn't always so black and white. Sometimes we have to go into the den of vipers in order to improve the den. I think this is a very Christian principle. Women playing chess publicly, in a society where women are excluded from public life, is a statement in itself. If no one shows up to play, then it serves the male oppression that is the life for women, in Iran. I'm also OK with the hijab, as long as it is not enforced as a law with capital punishment as the penalty for not wearing one. It isn't a fashion statement, BTW, it is considered modest to cover one's head (for both men and women), in many societies, and was so in the West until society changed, and going bare headed was no longer viewed as immodest. I'm certainly ok with people choosing to be modest.

I agree, that the Iranian nuclear deal has had bad consequences for the West. Though I think we probably disagree as to why? I think it was made in good faith, that Iran was going to act in good faith, giving them a chance to act as less than the jerks they usually are. Proven, to be a false hope, and so yes, it should be revoked or modified if possible to address the games that Iran has shown will never cease.

You, using the word "liberals" as a form of "them", which for me is "we". Me using the word "we", means us "liberals". If you're a liberal, then yeah, "we". In other words, not "you". You're OP is encouraging "liberals" to break the laws of Iran, no?

We?

Of course this is alt-right drivel, painting everyone who is not on board with fascism, with the same darkly colored lens.

Wait a minute. Trump's immigration "policies" are great because they're enforcing the laws of the US, and we should all be on board because IT'S THE LAW. But! We should break THE LAW in Iran and go bareheaded. Who are the hypocrites, again? I say, protesting via breaking unjust laws, is up to each individual, as it is each individual who is resisting the force of THE LAW and who will bear the consequences. Jeering from the sidelines, BREAK THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW, I WANNA SEE YOU BREAK THE LAW. ALL LAWS. EVERY LAW. BREAK THE LAW. Is stupidity.

So, my nephew was killed several years ago by a drunk driver. Obviously, all drivers should be pulled over every time they get on a road, to prevent deaths from drunk drivers. Madness, that all those people driving out there every day and every night are doing so without extreme vetting. In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. in the same year, zero people were killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a migrant or immigrant. Fear mongering is THE madness, of this century. TSA is a close second.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/ I prefer reason over irrational. Thx.

Personally, I think when spy craft is revealed to be involved, it is uncertain what is the objective, what is theatre and what is not, and what is the role that all on the stage are playing. We may know, in 50 years from now, when some retired spook writes a book. Meanwhile, the public shows put on by both left and right players, over the last few days, has been entertaining.