« Atheists vs Christians | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Links With Your Coffee - Thursday




re devil ducky, 'twas another in the long list: white vs, indian, vhs vs. betamax, qwerty vs. dvozak, pc, and of course, motorola hexagonal midi-controller vs. piano-style nonsense. (not to even think of mentioning bush vs. gore.) i used to make my own scrolls, and i assure you they are much easier to use than a damned codex, any day of the week.

re DAYLIGHT bulge-in-the-balloon savings, we tried that here in '67 and we had to wear our special hats until late in the evening. it certainly contributed to LOCAL warming. Reminds me of the law to set Pi = to 3, like the Good Book says it is. Or to teach intelligent design to young science students, turn out total american IDiots.

fully half of public library evolution section shelves here are taken up with books such as icons of evolution, darwin's black box, a practical guide for teachers to refute evolution, etc. in the Science area, not the occult, religious.

hot springs is probably even worse, i always said the whole South should have been a separate, but not equal (to U.S.), country .

the lady in hot springs, she probably heard that daylight savings had something to do with saving energy, light bulbs burning, whatever, and got it backwards. trust me, in the future only computers will be able to deal with the complex subtleties of our everyday culture--scrolls, codex, hexatesselations, ivories, all of it--their intelligence will so far surpass our own, North and South, Creationist, and Norm-

al mortal. We all will be left in the dust.

Says who?

Hans Moravec, the Bohemian. Or is it Moravian?

[Mora(vec) duh]!

Duh. An ID computer would never have made that mistake.

Left Behind?

Left in the Duh-st.

(This is a response to the flame war going on at Cheerch Going)

sheliphone: Why so mean? State your grievances so that they can be addressed.

My 2 cents is that too high a proportion of posts to OGM are useless cruelty. Norm gathers a nice variety of current media, and mostly on issues about which I care strongly. I would love to see thoughtful analysis follow so that we can become better citizens and wiser consumers of media. Too often, all too often, the comments are character assault, complaints, or unsupported assertions that one action or another is proper.

E.g., there is no credible argument I have read to dispute that the U.S. gov't has committed war crimes as described by U.S. law. It is clear the U.S. has done so by invading Iraq. However, it does not follow necessarily that the response should be impeachment. Maybe. But if this is your conclusion walk me through your argument:

  • Explain to me why the costs of this radical action are warranted.
  • Explain why the subsequent gov't will be preferable.
  • Describe the long-term consequences to global stability.
  • What are the domestic implications?
  • Give us a fair argument to suggest that the society unable to challenge black box voting should be roused to overthrow its government.

Maybe this is the proper action. Persuade me. Don't just scream "I am right!" Isn't that precisely what we hate about the other guys?

* Explain to me why the costs of this radical action are warranted. * Explain why the subsequent gov't will be preferable. * Describe the long-term consequences to global stability. * What are the domestic implications? * Give us a fair argument to suggest that the society unable to challenge black box voting should be roused to overthrow its government.
    1. It goes a long way to repairing America's reputation with the rest of the world
    2. Future miscreants are put on notice that cost is no object in the case of punishing them for their misdeeds while in office
  • As the subsequent government is likely to be democratic that is by default preferable. Given the impeachment of Bush and Cheney - whoever follows is on notice to keep their hands above the table as it were.
  • Assuming who follows is a Dem then the chances of getting out of Iraq quicker are increased and that can only assist global stability. Additionally anyone who fo9llows Bush will almost certainly have a better clue about international relations as it is impossible to less knowledge on this subject than Bush has
  • the populacwe will know they really do have the powre to take down a sitting Pres and VP for misdeeds - no better consequence could be desired than to refute the myth/feeling of powerlessness in the general population
  • Simple - only a small handful of your society was even aware of the implications of black box voting. Coverage of the flaws and potential, and probability and evidence for thereof, by the MSM was to be charitable, weak. Your question is not fair.

Why is impeachment warranted? To show future potential high office holders that they will be held accountable for grossly misusing and abusing the public trust.


Re: Global warming. Apparently Connie is a local lawyer who is known for writing satricial letters to the editor. Quite funny!

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I need a bit more persuading, and I find black box voting a great example of my concerns.

See, here is my worry: If we start tossing out the leadership too soon how can we control what will rise to power? Those who can't work out for themselves the problems with black box voting are dangerously susceptible to a great array of demagogues. I am not persuaded that we know where this upheaval will lead. It seems to me much more prudent to build the infrastructure of democracy before we start chopping off heads.

I cannot dismiss the fact that the Democratic Party has chosen NOT to address black box voting as a central issue. Why not? Some say the Party doesn't dare undermine confidence in the elections. This makes no sense unless they fear serious unrest as a result of admission that the elections are being called by a group of unaccountable private tyrannies. Which they are, by the way.

Nor can I dismiss the history of tactics employed by the ruling class to maintain control. Imagine how the ruling elite would respond to a democratic uprising in a country like Haiti. You don't have to imagine, they make a great point to demonstrate what they are capable of perpetrating elsewhere. Isn't it foolish to imagine they are capable of less here at home.

Please don't misunderstand me: I want peace! I want justice, equity, tolerance, progress, democracy and good government. And yet, America can't even count the votes at this point. Let's not create a juggernaut we cannot hope to control.


Going beyond the headline:

"But while a majority of Sunnis (57%) still prefer that U.S.-led troops leave within six months, that percentage has declined 26 points since January when 83 percent wanted foreign forces out within half a year."

Does this not define a trend that contradicts the report's implied conclusion? Almost seems as if peoples opinions regarding highly emotional subjects ... tend to change . .. with their emotions. Hmm.

I'm curious to know other peoples' opinions on this issue: are you really for giving the Iraqis what this poll says they want? Bearing in mind that despite all the optimism, the most likely outcome is wholesale slaughter of one faction by the other, along with the probability of neighboring nations becoming embroiled in the conflict along sectarian lines?

At what point does the opinion of the people matter? It doesn't seem to matter when we're talking about Darfur.

All member nations of the U.N. helped set the stage for this war. We pushed it, and now figuring out what to do to fix it really begs the question: is the mindset that brought about this mess - the idea of any nation or group of nations being a 'world police' - is that just ridiculous?

When you get right down to it, this war happened because the American people let it happen. And in reality, people let it happen because they thought it would be a good thing. Not just 'rednecks' but a lot of educated people argued quite passionately, before and after 9/11, for the US (or UN) to forcibly remove Saddam from power.

The actions of our President are contemptible. But what about the intent throughout these years of global bickering and fighting with Saddam Hussein?

Can we say that the concept of non-peaceful UN involvement, ranging from condemnations to embargoes to sanctions to war, does no measurable good?


First, thanks for the thoughtful post. Whether or not I share your conclusions, it is refreshing that you make them for yourself and that you don't simply allow the headline editor to draw the conclusions for you.

Where would the U.S. troops go if they left Iraq? Apparently they weren't welcome in Saudi Arabia. And my point is this was never about what Iraqis want.

(Supposing we think popular opinion should count for something, I say let's start by learning to count election ballots right here at home.)

Do you agree that only a few want global oil supplies in the hands of delusional theists bent on even regional religious dominance? Especially now, after Hubbert's Peak?

Please explain further how you see the history of U.N. involvement as arguing against interventionist action. Why is this ridiculous on its face? I would like to see libertarian retreat from big brother big government, the BBBG, here at home, and still I am concerned by threats to international stability. Let's not forget how few in the Western world remember how or are in a position to feed themselves without the present structures of global trade. Yes, let's change these structures -- but don't you agree we must manage this change? Surely you agree economic instability led to Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy? Wasn't the threat to oil supplies a prime motivator for Japanese aggression against the U.S.? Wouldn't you agree economic uncertainty is fueling the American resurgence of theocratic nationalism? And just how much concern would the elite have for Darfur if there weren't oil there?

I think you underscore an essential -- and oft overlooked -- point: The ruling elite of the planet sanctioned this war, whether we speak of the United Nations or of the Congress of the United States or of the "virtual senate" of the economic markets. Only the poor and relatively powerless made any meaningful objection.

Speaking as one who has marched on Washington I cannot accept being painted as an American who stood aside for or enabled this war. What do you mean we Americans let it happen? I suppose you don't include the brain-dead hordes who accept the dogma of their authority figures, for surely their confusion is their justification. Leaving them aside aren't we left with those same authority figures and the impotent Left? The Right are persuasive because they tell people what to do, and the Left are too idealistic to manipulate the brain-dead hordes in this same way. What would you have had us to do? Suicide bombings? Self-immolation? Or maybe blatant lying to achieve a political purpose?

If you argue against the structure of international military intervention, and specifically that the use of this mechanism can never function effectively, what do you propose in its place? Do you believe there is no threat? Or do you believe we are doomed and we should put our heads between our knees? I assume you aren't waiting for a celestial Messiah?

In the kindest of terms, please help me to see how we can do better. I'd really like to help.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives