Comments by Jacques Six

I guess this list of traits describes most people ...

As far as I can tell, burning oneself to death is a form of suicide - a cop out - not a very good way of furthering a cause, although, if it's uncommon enough maybe a good way of making some sort of a point that is then open to interpretation. It's no doubt a inflammatory act, but does that make it an effective means of communicating a cause? Somehow, I think not.

Remind me again why we allow lobbyists that represent foreign states to so heavily influence the affairs of our own. Also, what's the significance of a "profound historical obligation," Mr. President? What people can't claim a historical obligation? A people without a history? What people are those?

Excuse me. Jeremy is not from Taiwan. He is from my hometown, Palo Alto. We went to school together, and like I've already commented, he's just an exceptional American kid with a wonderful gift. I am proud to say that I have interacted personally with Jeremy, and he's a great kid, and great role model. His work ethic is admirable. His attitude is first class. He is his own man. Not China's man. Not Taiwan's man. Not some media fad. Go Jeremy!

.

I went to high school with this kid. He's just an American kid. Frankly all this over-analysis is absurd.

As far as I can know, being brainy doesn't help you in being a model. Moreover, the fact that so-called educated people become models says more about the people than the education -- I think.

Perhaps this is the intent, but I surely would've been lost in the point-grubbing system envisaged by Vinod Khosla in the final paragraph of this article. Some students don't strive to do well in order to gain popularity, but perhaps most would? It will be interesting to see.

Huh, huh, and huh?

The first thought that comes to mind: James Bond super-villain. The second thought: maybe the native americans had the right idea about ownership. How could we ever let anyone do this to our planet?

The review mistakenly states that Aomame has asymmetric breasts. I believe the reviewer meant ears not breasts.

The lack of fact checking demonstrates a general lack of journalistic integrity. The "juicy" details touched upon in this article sound like the sorts of interactions that would take place in a high stress, high chaos environment like the executive office. And, the article is correct to point out that the achievements that have come out of this executive office are demonstrative of a rather unprecedented level of managerial competence. The allegations of sexism should be investigated further, though I'm not quite sure what to make of them. Sounds like someone who was frustrated with her job more than anything, though I'm not really sure ... I definitely agree with con man conclusion. It's truly unfortunate that our society propels talking heads like Mr. Suskind to the forefront and then let's them go like loose canons without checking them. At least this newspaper has pointed out his flaws. Other have not.

It is still unclear to me how defined "al-Qaeda" has ever been as an organizational unit, and to what degree it has posed a real risk to the United States of America. President Bush played up politics of fear, and President Obama has since ramped down that rhetoric. In this sense the sentiment of risk has certainly diminished over the past decade. However, it seems very plausible that history will look back on this event and the reaction to it and view the perpetrators of the attacks as the real winners, as the US response has inflicted even greater loss on the nation both in terms of American lives lost, and in terms of world image, with millions displaced, and thousands of civilians killed. Who is the real winner?

Is it somehow okay for the Israeli army to open fire on Palestinians, who are unarmed? Make an example of a few Palestinians to scare the flock. Sounds very humane doesn't it? Does the world think that is ok? And Israel's excuse, protecting their sovereignty? Oh, please.

A muddle

Muddied intentions

It's the attention that accounts

It's ridiculous that anyone would seriously dwell upon the possibility of Palin as president. And, yes, that's a personal attack.

Respectfully disagreeing with The Apostle 777: Malcolm X takes great pains to relate the condition which made become who he ultimately became. He despised the ignorance of his younger years, but he was also a victim of a society which discouraged him from aspiring to be anything. As the top student and class president in a predominantly white middle school, he told a teacher that he aspired to be a lawyer. To this his teacher replied that he had better recalibrate his expectations and perhaps consider carpentry. Thus, he embarks on his life story, explaining the sort of condition of hopelessness that lead him to whole-heartedly later embrace the doctrines of Nation of Islam, which he then wholeheartedly rejected after over a decade of service to its cause. But, the sympathetic reader will understand the preconditions which made the Elijah Muhammad's doctrine palatable to someone so deserted by society as Malcolm X was when he found himself serving time in prison. It takes a very INTROSPECTIVE person, who after standing up for one cause in the public eye, begins to question his life's work.

The correspondent will note that a stamp in honor of Malcolm X was in fact issued by the USPS in 1999. Furthermore, the case for a change of ideals is quite a bit stronger than a "maybe". And, a critical reading of the autobiography would lead to the conclusion that "Detroit Red" was a small time hustler, not a "hardcore" criminal. Although some of the exploits related may be of a fictive nature, it doesn't much matter in the overall telling of the life and times of this conflicted and charismatic leader. Has the correspondent read the autobiography? It seems like s/he may be guilty of the same ignorance espoused in this article.