Tuesday Open Thread
Still looking for news about the missing soldiers in Iraq. Yesterday some group claimed to have them and threatened violence if we didn't stop looking for them. (link )No news yet today that I see. Palestinian factions seem to be fighting each other. (link
) This is an open thread.
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Tue, 2007-05-15 08:14
Tags:
Comments :
Juan Cole has an interesting take
on the search for the missing soldiers:
Link
qui tacet consentire
I can't stand Juan Cole
and his fake concern. While he makes some sense, I'd rather he stayed away from giving military advise.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You don't like him because he's a liberal
Which is fine.
But how do you know his concern is fake?
qui tacet consentire
It is easier
to ignore if you label it as fake.
I have asked this exact question
of liberals over at dkos when they are on some rant about faux this or faux that.
Never got a good answer out of them yet.
For all of my obnoxious ravings, this is one of my main points. Why does the left feel justified in calling the issues of the right "faux concerns", while defending their pet concerns as legitimate.
I actaully don't consider Cole to be that liberal ... or if he is he is definitely centrist. I have on some reasonable number of occasions found myself agreeing with, or at least accepting as fair, some of the points he was making. (Sorry can't rememeber any specific examples.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Aligning words and deeds
You just have to look at whether the actions and the words align.
Prolifers who fight tooth and nail for fetii and don't give a damn about real people are fake. When they further go on to prevent effective sex education and to try and prevent useful STD treatments and contraceptives from reaching the market it becomes obvious- their concern is faux because they clearly have no regard for life, they just want to demonize sex.
Chickenhawks who scream about how much they support the troops, and who deride everyone who disagrees with them as against the troops, but who also got themselves deferments or chose not to serve and furthermore then sit by passively as their representatives stab the troops in the back by denying them medical services, body armor, widows benefits, disability benefits, and so on... well clearly their concerns are fake too. Thay see the troops as a tool or weapon, not as human beings. They only care about the political and personal advantage they can get from the military.
Seeing as those two categories cover the vast majority of the right these days it kind of answers why the GOP is so often considered fake.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My two cents
It's real simple for me, GoRight.
If the Republicans (citizens/voters this time, not just the elected) cared about the Global War on Terror as much as they say they do, they would insist on Cheney's and Bush's resignations, and appoint more able commanders. Yesterday.
That they do not do so tells me all I need to know.
If I were you, I'd be in the streets. Why aren't you?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It's is nearly time
for all of us to be in streets.
qui tacet consentire
That isn't
military advice. It's cultural understanding advice, something at which he has some expertise. And it is also something we need more of, at least that's what many military experts are saying. Here
is one example.
I have to disagree
It is military advice, but it is military advice that is so incredibly obvious that it is painful watching our army bungle it.
A main tactic of terrorists is to use their actions to tie up a disproportionate amount of the enemy resources...something we're actively helping them do.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Another key guerrilla tactic
Is to alienate the population from the army by provoking an overreaction to an attack.
qui tacet consentire
I actually agree
with you, but I was trying to counter the implication that Cole is meddling in something he doesn't know anything about. It is cultural awareness advice but is simultaneously something that is good military advice,
Great link, Mike
An interesting list of concrete ideas backed by expertise and experience.
Although the writer is talking about war, I see parallels with homeland security as well, whether we are responding to a major terrorist attack or the big one in LA. I would like to believe that we are also considering development of internal expertise in this paradigm. Although couched in martial terms, the following examples illustrate what I mean (I hope):
Is it really unreasonable of me to expect that someone is actually thinking and planning, given all the tax dollars we spend? Nevermind, stupid question.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
There are a lot
of bright competent people in each branch of the armed forces, though this doesn't seem to be a time when that is appreciated by our decider-in-chief and the yes men he prefers to have run things for him. :/
Here's some military (and geopolitical) advice...
...which I believe you'd be hard pressed to dismiss as fake concern:
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Very good advice by General Odom.
Good for Gen. Odom for articulating our need to get out of Iraq now, and for telling it like it is...that the United States has created the mess and the quagmire that we're now in over there.
The only difference I have with what he has to say , however, is the fact that we, the United States, as a country, has not had the respect of the rest of the world for the past half-century.
Another GOP Candidates Debate Tonight
On Fox.
Here's how Politico
describes some of the questioners:
It's gonna be a long haul to 2008. I wonder how long the candidates will subject themselves to this. It's not exactly gripping stuff, but it is the only unscripted response format we have available.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
House is on
at 9pm tonight... So I think I am gonna miss the debate. I hope you guys watch this one too - though don't worry about too many details. Just a few general impressions would be nice enough!
I am kinda rooting for Newt to get into this race. For now Rudy is still my man.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The knives are coming out for Rudy
CNN had a long piece today about Rudy's decision to put the emergency command post in the WTC and how he's trying to shift blame for that decision to an underling.
qui tacet consentire
so what
is the big deal about that command post? It's not like he could see WTC being destroyed... This is absurd. This proves absolutely nothing about Rudy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oh come on
The WTC had already been attacked once (in 1993). So it should have been seen as a potential future target.
You don't want your command center in an target. Do you suppose the undisclosed location that Cheney hides in during an attack is in the White House?
qui tacet consentire
maybe it is not incredibly wise
but still it's not like he put mayor's office into WTC.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Newt the Plastic Rambo?
Or Newt the flaky amateur?
In a time of war, the last thing we need is another overconfident incompetent in charge.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Platic Rambo
that's hysterical.
I'm only half stupid
Newt or Thompson for me ...
or I am likely to sit this one out ... unless Billary is the challenger.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you think Newt could get through the general election?
I mean, all anyone would have to ask him was:
"during your term as Speaker of the House, when you were helping to direct the impeachment of President Clinton for lying about adultery, weren't you lying about adultery at the very same time?"
Ask him that each and every press stop he makes.
Yea, yea.
I don't care, actually. The Democrats and Bill Clinton have already set the "standard" on adultery in public office for Presidential candidates. You can't take it back now.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's not the adultery but the hypocrisy. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yea, I know exactly what you mean.
Giving Bill a pass while trying to nail Newt with the same charge...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not quite, but nice try:
the right- Adultery is a BIG deal! It is absolutely unacceptable.
the left- who cares?
Bill Clinton was adulterous and the left supported him because, consistent with their position the whole time, they don't see it as a big deal at all.
Newt Gingrich is adulterous and the right supports him because...erm...well because their deeply held convictions are neither deep nor held if it is politically inexpedient.
The hypocristy is all on the Right in this matter.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just the facts ...
Fact: The Democrats defended Bill Clinton's adultery and meaningless.
Fact: The Democrats seek to use Newt's adultery against him.
Ergo: The Democrats are being hypocritical.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've decided to help you...
...by bolding the "fact" of yours that is BS. You managed to actually get half of them right though, that's a big step up. I'm proud of you.
Dems don't care about Newt's adultery. They care about his hypocrisy in decrying Adultery while being... you know... adulterous.
Similarly if I owned a VW bug while bitching out others for doing the same I would be guilty of hypocrisy even if there is nothing immoral about owning a VW bug.
Thus ends today's class.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well ...
I guess you missed kindness' recommended strategy above?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No I didn't.
That question plays directly to the charge of hypocrisy. You can choose to be willfully ignorant of what is happening here but fortunately you aren't the electorate as a whole. The electorate as a whole saw the matter for what it was: a bunch of hypocrites trying to persecute a guy for political reasons.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I personally don't care
whether Newt had an affair or three.
I do find it rather disgusting that he informed his wife he was divorcing her as she was recovering from cancer surgery.
qui tacet consentire
I'm merely pointing out the very important issue
of trust.
If the American people don't think they can trust you, you won't get the win.
Obviously you think you can trust him. Some of us, and his ex-wives, don't. What do you think Mrs Joette Sixpack is going to think about a guy who is an admitted serial adulterer?
An interesting question.
Not sure I have a good answer for you. I don't know if he is on good terms with the ex-wives or not, so I don't know if they woulld trust him to run the country or not. As for Mrs. Joette Sixpack, well they are already used to having an adulterous President (thanks to Bill Clinton), aren't they.
Here is a question for you, how do you think Mrs. Joette Sixpack will feel about trusting a women (Mrs. Bill Clinton) with such low self-esteem that she stayed with her husband through multiple affairs (all of which were broadcast across the nation on a daily basis)? I mean the mental abuse just kept piling on and on and yet, she couldn't bring herself to break away from her [mentally] abusive husband. It was like she was nothing more than a dish rag or something. Poor thing.
(Don't bother to look up the faux poll about how women think that means she is stronger, it is all made up push polling to do a CYA.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've heard of spouses staying with spouses who've
cheated. I don't think I ever heard that it was a result of Low Self Esteem.
Somehow, I don't think Hillary has Low Self Esteem, but I've never heard anyone ask her either.
She has many faults...
...but low self esteem wouldn't seem to be one.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Obviously Billary doesn't lack self-esteem. :-)
Although, I could certainly make a case for it as above.
I thought that it was generally recognized that one of the potential reasons that women stay with abusive spouses is low self-esteem (i.e. they don't feel like they can make it on their own, or they feel like they did something to deserve the abuse, etc.).
The point here is to demonstrate how easily impressions can be manipulated through framing of the issue. I believe that the Democrat leadership does this type of thing a lot. So, I figured why not.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why not put your weight behind a fringe candidate?
Gilmore perhaps? What's wrong with Gilmore? He seems to be a pretty straightforward conservative without a lot of baggage...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The marginalization continues
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctmyspace0515.artmay15,0,7460945.st...
So rather than doing their jobs and going after the people committing crimes they would rather just purge anyone with a previous sexual related crime from the site regardless of whether they are actually causing a problem.
So you have a person who makes a mistake once. They go to jail. And that's realy the best part because after they get out, after they've served their debt to society, they are going to be hunted and hounded for the rest of their lives. They'll have to live with byzantine restrictions on where they may live, where they may go, who they may see. They are heavily prejudiced against in terms of finding work. And now they are being deliberately excluded from major aspects of the internet under penalty of law.
When we set them up to fail we're partly responsible for what happens next.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Padilla
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070515.wpadilla15/B...
That's the offense so great it requires us to discard habeas Corpus rights that go all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215? He allegedly filled out an application?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Norm Podhoretz says, 'Let's Bomb Iran'
He makes the case in this column.
His basic point seems to be that Islamofascists are out to neuter us, having already neutered Europe, and we have to stop them.
And he quotes Bernard Lewis to claim that Iran will use nuclear weapons and not care whether they are nuked in response:
That's just plain garbage. A nuclear attack against Israel would result in Iran being reduced to a smoldering parking lot. That's reality, which has a way of sobering up even those most drunk with power and/or religious fervor.
And as for the claim that Iran doesn't goive a damn about killing its own people in great numbers, I assume he is referring to the Iran-Iraq War. That's a war that was started by Saddam. Iran was essentially defending itself. And while Iran did employ the human wave technique to no great advantage and considerable carnage, Iran was attempting to repel an invader and was displaying military stupidity on a par with the British insistence on standing in straight lines in the open while wearing bright red coats while attacking colonial Americans hiding behind trees.
There are numerous other things wrong with his argument, but I thought I'd throw him in here for debate.
I'm sure Ender will find Podhoretz to be right on the money. :)
Here's a question for Ender:
If you were president of Iran, would you pursue the development of a nuclear arsenal?
qui tacet consentire
no I wouldn't
What is the purpose of pursuing a nuclear arsenal if there is absolutely no outside threat to the country if you don't develop the nukes? The only reason there is a military threat to the country is because they are developing nukes.
There is no existential threat to Iran. If it was a deterrence issue then yes I would develop nukes. If I was president of Iran now I would get the best possible deal from the international community in exchange for halting the production.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
baloney.
The neocon agenda of war with Iran long predates any nuclear program on their part. They have every reason to believe there is a very real threat of military action against them so long as they don't have nukes as exemplified by the dichotomy of our actions aghainst North Korea and Iraq.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No outside threat?
You are thinking rather narrowly.
Imagine yourself as the president of Iran. You are less than 20 years from the end of a war with Iraq that killed more than a million people.
Your air force is rather decrepit since it is mostly leftover American hardware that you have trouble getting parts for and your navy leaves a lot to be desired but you do have a formidable missile arsenal.
Your neighbor to the east, Pakistan, is armed to the teeth and has nukes.
Your neighbor to the south, Saudi Arabia, at one time had a nuclear program and might very well restart it one of these days.
Israel, your sworn enemy, probably has 60 to 70 warheads, long-range missiles to deliver them and submarine-launch capability.
The United States, which has declared you part of an Axis of Evil and has threatened to bomb you, has 150,000 troops in Iraq, commands a NATO army to your east in Afghanistan and has two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf to your south.
Given all that, why wouldn't you seek a nuclear deterrent? Especially after seeing how North Korea developed nuclear weapons and has immunized itself from attack.
qui tacet consentire
He must have been in the same meeting
as James Dobson was this week:
Evidently, our president and his cohorts have convinced Mr Dobson that they believe that we are in imminent danger from a hundred nuclear strikes.
Now where did I put those shovels. . . .
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Falwell in 'gravely serious' condition
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18679412/
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've been
looking at recent file photos compared with older ones and I think he has been having some congestive heart failure of late. I have read that they had to resuscitate him, which is not a really good sign. When I was in undergrad, the vice-president for finance at my undergrad institution, whom I had a lot personal interaction with, had been an advisor for Falwell way back when. He spoke highly of him though I have always been dubious.
Breaking news: Falwell dead
RIP.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell.ap/index.html
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yup, just saw...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This is one of those times
when it's really best for me just to keep silent on the issue. At least for a week or two.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think
if I were in your shoes I'd agree.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No tears shed. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
An appropriate send off...
...for a man whose existence made the world a worse place for all:
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-schadenfreude/praise-god-jerry-f...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Death comes for us all
RIP
Much better heard than read
but it will have to do.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
From stardust to stardust.
And plenty of stupidity in between.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
I don't like many of the things J Falwell has done in his life.
But at times like this I just want to wish his family my sincere condolences. Go with god Jerry.
I have never liked Falwell's politics
But I certainly do not wish death upon him or anyone else I disagree with.
May the Lord have mercy upon him and grant him peace.
qui tacet consentire
And now I see
that Fred Phelps plans to picket Falwell's funeral.
Link
Phelps is in serious need of anti-psychotic medication.
qui tacet consentire
It is at times like these ...
when we see the true character in each of us.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am not sure if that's fair
because if certain hated figure on the left died (and by hated I mean by us conservatives) I would be seriously hard pressed to say anything nice and would definitely not think anything nice or worse.
Usually I opt for saying nothing in that case. But I do not think reactions to such an event are good measures of our characters.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Respectfully disagree.
Although I will say that even those who chose to say nothing show more character (at least the type of character that I respect) than those who choose to show their disdain at times such as this.
Even the hated Bush 43, given many many opportunities to make disparaging remarks of his political opponents (individually), has consistently taken the high road. Examples:
1) He praised Murtha even after being attacked.
2) If I remember he had kind words for Bill Clinton at the dedication of his library.
3) If I remember he had kind words for Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker of the house.
...
I don't want to bother to think of more.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4taking the high road is good
and personally I would be respectful about anything unfortunate befalling the vast majority of our political opponents.
That said, some figures are viewed in such horrible light for fair or unfair reasons that it is almost impossible mentally to be anything but disdainful even under the worst circumstances.
I am not going to name names that would do it for me and I would probably be quiet should bad fortune befall them, and I certainly do not wish them serious harm, but my teeth will be grinding.
Bush has taken the high road, I agree.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I employ minions for exactly this purpose
Bush has taken the high road, I agree.
I don't agree. When one employees political hit men, one has not taken the high road just by keeping one's own hands clean.
Also, lets not forget this one...
ehh
why should I trust that account by someone obviously biased.
I had no pity for her either nor any other murderers who were executed.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ha.
1) This is an apples to oranges comparison. Tucker was not Bush's political opponent.
2) Tucker was a convicted double murdered and legally sentenced to death for her crimes.
3) Bush seems to have merely repeated what Tucker had said, which was not a surprising plea under the circumstances.
4) Bush was no more mocking Tucker's plea, than Tucker's plea was mocking the justice system and, more importantly, her victims to whom she, apparently, showed no such mercy.
5) Given that Bush did not agree with the position of the protesters, and therefore would presumably have been in a position of having to reject their arguments, his decision to not meet with them is the equivalent of "not saying anything" rather than "showing disdain" for them. So, I still argue that his actions were taking the high road ... if there is one under these circumstances.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Flash drive problems
My thumb drive that I use to store writing on has suddenly died. When I plug it in windows no longer recognizes it at all (lists it as unknown USB device). I've tried on three computers it has worked on previously so it's definitely an issue with the drive itself. One time it showed up as a thumbdrive but according to explorer the drive was empty. I haven;t been able to get that to reoccur.
I've found a few recovery programs you can try to use if the FAT32 file structure got screwed up but I'm pretty sure those are only useful if the computer can recognize that it is a drive in the first place.
I'm not aware of any damage to the drive. There was some dust/lint in the plug so I cleaned that out after this started but it made no difference.
Anyone have any ideas/experience with this kind of thing?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Have you been
near any strong magnetic forces lately? I have had a similar problem with discs that had data on them. In my case, I think part of the disc got warped ever so slightly and that made it not interface with the reader correctly. I was lucky in that I had one machine that for some reason could still read most of the discs. It may have been part of the reason they were warped in the first place though. I would guess that your thumbdrive is bent somewhere and so isn't interfacing, but the data may have been wiped out accidentally.
Nope...
...flash isn't susceptible to magnetic fields, as opposed to the magnetic storage medium of floppy and hard disks.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Looks like it's the contacts
I was just able to get it to work for a short bit by pressing it against one side of the USB port. Long enough to at least copy off my latest project.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ah....
Problem partially solved then. Good!
Fred Thompson responds to Mikey Moore's
stupid letter
Here is Fred's response
.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Micheal Moore's letter
Earned every bit of that.
Good job, Fred
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Not sure I agree -
Thompson's response is witty (one of the real reasons he's a threat if he enters the race - the guy's got charisma), but it sidesteps all the arguments Moore throws at him, including some legitimate ones. Some of Moore's letter is the usual self-aggrandizement, but there are serious questions in there, as well, and I'd have liked to see a debate between the two of them.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The letter was rude
and intended to inflame. He could have expected no other type of response. There are better ways of making a point.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Moore isn't known for his diplomacy...
...certainly. Out of curiousity how polite was the article it was written in response to?
As for making the point- I don't know, I guess it depends on who you think the audience really was.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Gee, and neither are you!
Michael must be rubbing off on you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Alright alright alright
You and Tlaloc gonna have to be separated like Horry and Nash?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
We're being reasonably civil today.
Maybe more heated than some days but definitely not as bad as others.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just reread them both
The article was unfriendly; it was critical and it was dismissive.
The letter was still rude. And poorly written.
IMHO. YMMV.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
The letter was a response
to Thompson's not exactly polite op-ed here
.
The editorial also ends on a truly idiotic note. Thompson asserts that there was a Hollywood conspiracy to hush-hush Andy Garcia's The Lost City, because it was too negative a portrayal of Cuba. Right.
Or maybe it was just a crappy movie, while Thompson must have missed the Oscar-nominated and drooled-upon Before Night Falls.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Moore has a point here...
...and conveniently it connects back to the Newt discussion above: those who complain about a thing had best not themselves be supporting or engaging in the very thing they complain about.
Not that being a hypocrite (as we already knew from his faux red pickup truck prop) will hurt his odds at the nomination.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You are absolutely correct on this one.
People who complained about the right attacking poor Bill Clinton for adultery should not then start attacking Newt for the same thing.
Oh, and I see you are in good company with your buddy Michael.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who's attacking Newt for adultery?
I'm at him for hypocrisy, not adultery.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Sorry, you're late to the party.
Read up thread.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I did,
and you're wrong.
Otherwise, you've developed the perfect strategy for never getting called on anything. Let's say I want to criticize X in another person. According to you, all I have to do is participate in X myself, then when people cry foul at my criticisms, I can call them hypocrites for defending the person I initially attacked.
Genius, GoRight. Next time I want immunity from criticism, I'll just pull this little stunt.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'll take that as a compliment!
Thanks. More from you I could never hope for.
:-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fred wins! :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4General question for anyone who wants to answer:
Is a "theory" different from an "opinion" in any substantive way from the perspective of being "accurate" or "proven correct"?
Alternate form of the question:
Are not all theories nothing more than opinions, even in a scientific sense?
For example, let's take the scientific Theory of the Big Bang. We all know what it is. But is it [the current definition of the therory] a proven fact beyond any shadow of a doubt? Are there any reputable scientists that would actually make this level of a claim regarding this particular theory?
I don't think so.
As we know all scientific theories are not only open to revision based on new data and experimentation, but they frequently are so revised. Given this, does it make any sense what so ever to consider the previous revisions of such a revised theory as having been being "proven fact"?
More to the point, since we are unable to prove that no further such revisions are forthcoming, is it justified in any way to actually consider the current revision of a given theory to be "established fact"?
I think not.
Given this, even though there may be mountains of evidence in support of a given theory it is never actually a proven fact. As such, I assert that it amounts to nothing more than (perhaps a well established) opinion.
What say you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your Science Homework
Hypotheses, Facts, and the Nature of Science
The Validation of Continental Drift
Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding
They're short reads.
My fingers are too tired. And they explain things much better than I could ever hope to ;}
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yes,
because the bar set for theories is substantially higher than that of opinions, which has no bar at all. That may not mean much to you, but for a scientific community it's the backbone of all research.
For a good reason: it is impossible to prove anything definitively in science. Any scientist will tell you that. There is no such thing as 'proven fact' as far as science is concerned. If that's where you want to set your bar, fine: but be prepared to throw out all of science in the process.
For scientists, there are only opinions, guesses, hypotheses, evidence, and theories.
I'll give you an example why. Let's say we find a new substance X, and we note that it freezes at -100 C. Can we say that it's a fact that X has a freezing temperature of -100 C? No, we can't. We can only run more tests, try to isolate all the variables (purity of X, purity of environment, accuracy of measuring equipment), and after enough times, maybe we can say with some confidence that X freezes at -100 C. But it will never be a fact, because all that has to happen, a thousand years from now, is for someone to note that an undiscovered variable was involved (maybe it's an energy field we haven't detected), and then that "fact" about X will have to be further refined. But it still won't be a "proven fact", for all the reasons I've listed above.
Is there a qualitative difference between saying that X freezes at -100 C (a theory) and X freezes at +100 C (some dude's opinion).
I'd like to think so, yes.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Purist view
Strictly speaking this is true, but really a well established and rigorously tested theory is treated as fact, as it should be. When dealing with something like newton's laws of motions the chances that there is anything wrong with how they operate in general is nil. There are corrections to be made at the edges. Sometimes those corrections are important (like say relativity) but they are still fringe effects that have little to do with life as we know it. Relativity makes no difference to the issue of throwing a ball across a field so that it reaches the next person.
Newton's laws are facts in everything but name.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Refreshing conservativism
http://larison.org/2007/05/15/a-curious-law/
I have the same reaction when reading this that I do when reading George Will- "thank god there are some intellectually honest conservatives left."
Which is not to say I agree with them per se, just that after dealing with the tantrum throwing infants that the GOP has become, it is nice to see some good old fashioned thinking conservatives. People that can adopt a reasoned position and actually accept the natural and logical consequences of that position.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yeah, he seems reasonable
You can tell by his love
of Bush and the neocons =)
Wonder if he'd like to come argue with a bunch of libruls?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson