Meanwhile . . .

[Dan H]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated ... s-it-does/

[Ghost]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated ... s-it-does/

Dan, can even you read that article and call it unbiased?

[Dan H]

Yes, Amir Taheri is a bit biased on the topic of Iran. NYT work for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world ... .html?_r=0

[Mori Chu]

Dan H: I have a request. When you post links, can you please also post a relevant/interest quote from the article? I honestly just never click the links because there are several of them and I don't see any "hook" to get me interested in any particular one. But if there were a quote in there that helped me see what you found interesting about the article or got me curious, I'd be more likely to click through and read them.

[Ghost]

Dan H: I have a request. When you post links, can you please also post a relevant/interest quote from the article? I honestly just never click the links because there are several of them and I don't see any "hook" to get me interested in any particular one. But if there were a quote in there that helped me see what you found interesting about the article or got me curious, I'd be more likely to click through and read them.

I am completely with that. I just am not going to spend a lot of time reading random links about things that often don't interest me. When all I have to go from is an abbreviated URL, I often just skip them. I would go further than Mori, just tell us why you find the article interesting. I'm not here to debate the guy who wrote the blog about the thing that will never read my reply. I like talking with/arguing with you guys. I am way more interested in your opinion than the dude who wrote the blog about the thing.

[Ghost]

Yes, Amir Taheri is a bit biased on the topic of Iran. NYT work for you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world ... .html?_r=0

To be quite honest, I don't know if NYT is supposed to work for me or not. I hate the media even more than I hate the two parties, because they ruin everything. But the article does seem less biased, so I'll judge it on that. Thank you.

It sounds like they have agreed to some things in principle and not worked it out yet. And, it sounds like both sides are blowing smoke about what they agreed to. I expect that whatever happens, it won't matter in a couple of years anyway, because I'm a cynic. The fact that there is any conversation and even if the deal we are trying to make is a sham, a sham is better than not talking, makes me happy.

I set a very low bar for these things.

[Zeratul]

Totally disregarding France still, I guess.

France is probably the most racist country towards people from the middle east in the world. Well, 2nd most.

Yes, there are many racist people in France but we 're talking about individuals not government policies. When the French government talks about how we should be cautious about Iran and nuclear power they are just trying too make some noise on an international level to make it look like they're actually doing something. Current government is very unpopular here so they'll try anything to avoid losing next elections, opposing Obama on Iran?... Perfect way to pretend they have balls.

It is true there is an openly racist party called FN which is already the third largest party in France and is becoming bigger and bigger but they "only" win local elections right now, so they make a lot of noise but can't really change government policies. It is also true that individually lots of French people are racist towards arabs and to a lesser degree black people. I don't think other cultures and religions get so much hate however.

I can't defend racist people but the reasons they put forward for hating arabs and blacks are crime, drugs and how they treat women. Suicidal bombers and insane fundamentalists don't help either. Also, some neighborhoods are now mainly populated by muslims and the few "old school" french inhabitants that remain feel like they are living in Marrakech and hate it. At the end of the day they vote for the FN hoping for a change, which is stupid.

[Nodack]

You are funny and right to be sceptical Ghost. The whole world sucks and is wonderful at the same time.

[Dan H]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/politics/ ... index.html

Word is this may attract enough bipartisan support to pass with a veto-proof majority.

[OE32]

Mr. Stewart (D-New Jersey) makes a good point. Why is Congress so hesitant to enter into international agreements, yet so unwilling to provide oversight on the President's war powers? Is it because the military-industrial lobby is so strong? I tend to believe that international cooperation and economic expansion (rather than war) are the keys to spreading peace and democracy. Why isn't that position enthusiastically endorsed by members of Congress?