So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
no creditable reason to believe that he did not honorably complete his duty.
Except for questionable records & a complete lack of anyone coming forward to say that they saw bush serving because they served with him.
Oh, Michael, don’t be silly. Saint George can do no wrong in some men’s eyes, don’t you know? Bringing evidence (or the lack thereof) into it is just SO last century…
TWL
Oh, Tim, you silly twit,you are so right, everyone who doesn’t denounce everything about the president is just a blind worshipper of his!
Or, it could be that I have military experience and can see the records that are available as proof of service and the ‘missing evidence’ as proof of lazy and stupid conspiracy thinking on the part of those who are only wanting to trash someone that they disagree with.
Oh, and the only ‘questionable’ records that have been produced are the forged documents that Dan Rather came up with.
Or, it could be that I have military experience and can see the records that are available as proof of service and the ‘missing evidence’ as proof of lazy and stupid conspiracy thinking on the part of those who are only wanting to trash someone that they disagree with.
It could be, but that’s not where the smart money bets.
You claim that “there is no proof he didn’t complete his service.” That’s an argument based on lack of evidence.
Michael has pointed out that not one single person has ever positively verified Bush’s presence in the latter period of his alleged service.
That is also an argument based on lack of evidence — but when the latter evidence should be trivial to produce and the former evidence might not be, Occam’s razor suggests going with the latter.
Face it, “Ham” — Shrub’s a spoiled rich brat. He grew up a spoiled rich brat whose friends and relatives always bailed him out of trouble, and he remains such to this day. You can agree or disagree with his policies all you like, but it mystifies me how anyone can see him personally as anything other than a waste of protoplasm.
(And for the record — yes, I’d happily say that to his face.)
I’m not saying that “everyone who doesn’t denounce everything about the president is just a blind worshipper of his,” though that’s an impressive straw man you built up there.
TWL
And yet none of the bushbots ever offer a reason why none of the people bush “served” with during his unconfirmed time have ever come forward to say “bush served & I was there with him”.
Even though a couple of veterans groups & Gary Troudou have offered cash awards for anyone who does so.
(unless you discount the national guard as not being military, which does a great disservice to national guardsman!)
Well, it was certainly a great disservice to those that were drafted, since Bush signed up for the NG only so he could avoid the draft.
Well, the impossible happened. My respect for Bush actually went up a little. Of course, going from more negative to less negative isn’t all that much but still….
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html
“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,” Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday’s vote for Iraq’s parliament. “As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that.”
I gotta admit, at least he is taking responsibility. Of course, Iraq is still a hopeless SNAFU, and things aren’t gonna get better soon, and he still thinks we should be in Iraq….and…and…
But whatever. At least he is showing some signs of maturity and responsibility. It’s a sad day for America, though, when a president taking some small responsibility for his mistakes is worth being noticed, let alone commented upon.
Not much of an apology. He’s still claiming Saddam was a threat to America and others even while saying the intelligence was wrong.
To me, this is little more than Orwellian doublespeak.
Forget the Orwellian doublespeak (though I agree with Michael on that). He’s also promising “total victory” in the war on terror.
When’s the last time anybody used the phrase “total victory” in wartime who wasn’t utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic? “Total victory” in a case like this would basically mean one of two things: either everyone recognizes that “we’re the good guys” and decides never to bother us again, or any possible threat to us is permanently destroyed.
If he expects the former, he’s delusional and dangerous. If he intends the latter, he’s a megalomaniac and dangerous.
Is there a choice here I’m missing? I frankly hope so.
I’m not heartened at all by today’s speeches. I’m really nervous about what the hëll’s about to happen.
TWL
Fun picture of bush here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11306.htm
When’s the last time anybody used the phrase “total victory” in wartime who wasn’t utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic?
Hmm, FDR?
When’s the last time anybody used the phrase “total victory” in wartime who wasn’t utterly and completely round-the-bend psychotic?
Every war President we’ve ever had except (possibly) for his father. If the word “war” starts being tossed around, popular politics require that only absolute victory be considered as a possibility. Midway through World War I, a British Nobel laureate suggested in a letter to the Times that the war be resolved by a negotiated settlement as so many preindustrial wars had been; public reaction was negative to put it mildly. And of course in the next war, that raving lunatic Winston Churchil announced his war aims thus: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs – Victory in spite of all terrors – Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” In January of 1943 during the Casablanca Conference, the United Nations announced the Axis’s “unconditional surrender” as its requirement for the end of the war. UN Resolution 82 called for North Korea’s withdrawal to its own borders, not a plebiscite about reunification. Even Nixon, faced with widespread popular opposition to US involvement in Viet Nam (an involvement tied to the guy he was running against, no less– Humphrey was Johnson’s VP, remember) portrayed his plan to cut and run from Viet Nam as a plan to “win the peace.” No politician can campaign on a platform of partial success or measured response; there is no way a modern President could promise anything but victory witohut committing political suicide.
Amusingly, the least sane candidate was actually the one who least exhibited the behavior you categorized as “completely round-the-bend psychotic.” “O fortune, how you mock me.” (Gratuitous South Park reference.)
As for the war on terror, a total victory would mean a world characterized by an utter and global rejection of terrorism as a desirable or effective means of political action. That’s the only world worth living in. Why should we not at least accept that as our goal, even if we never completely achieve it?
(One footnote– I’ve been trying like hëll to remember who it was that was lambasted in the Times for suggesting a negotiated peace in WWI, and I’ll let you know if I remember his name. I can provide citations for everything else.)
Bill wrote, I think Murtha’s call for an immediate “redeployment” (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal…unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq…which doesn’t sound very logical)
Craig responded, Murtha’s call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.
Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.
Actually in Armyspeak “Redeployment” is a term of art generally meaning a relocation of troops, but as best I can tell, the most common usage is a relocation of troops from a foreign zone back to their bases. Given that Murtha was career military, I assumed that he was using the word in its more common usage and meant bringing them all back to base immediately. On further review I think that’s exactly what he meant, since I found news stories that quoted him saying, “The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.” Although it is worth noting that for the last 60 years “home” for some divisions has meant “Germany.”
Every war President we’ve ever had except (possibly) for his father. If the word “war” starts being tossed around, popular politics require that only absolute victory be considered as a possibility.
Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that’s what I was reacting to. Of course every politician plays the game as though victory is the only possible option — but “victory” and “total victory” have very, very different connotations.
Had Bush said simply “victory” or even “certain victory”, then I’d just think he was being his usual blowhard self. He didn’t; he upped the ante in his rhetoric, which makes me wonder how the ante will be upped in substantive ways.
So while I appreciate the history lesson (about 10% of which I didn’t know previously), you’ve done precisely nothing to assuage my concerns.
As for the war on terror, a total victory would mean a world characterized by an utter and global rejection of terrorism as a desirable or effective means of political action. That’s the only world worth living in. Why should we not at least accept that as our goal, even if we never completely achieve it?
First, because Bush didn’t call it our ultimate goal. He said that specific actions were going to achieve it. That’s rather like claiming that your actions in the next day are going to bring about a Golden Age. It’s pie-in-the-sky moronic.
Second, because (as I already said) there are other definitions beyond the one you just described. It could also mean “all who oppose us are dead.” Given Bush’s usual martial bent, I think there’s a significant chance that’s the one he meant, and that scares the hëll out of me.
(There’s also the issue that calling this “the war on terror” itself assures permanent war, but that’s a different rhetorical problem and one of longer standing. More on that some other time.)
TWL
I think I need to recant one point I made above; now that I’m going back and trying to find a citation, I’m not sure Bush ever really did talk about particular actions achieving “total victory”. I could swear I remember seeing that someplace, but I’m not finding it now. So that point (the third-to-last paragraph above) is one I’ll back away from.
TWL
Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that’s what I was reacting to. Of course every politician plays the game as though victory is the only possible option — but “victory” and “total victory” have very, very different connotations.
I was beginning to doubt my memory of FDR using the phrase, so I looked it up–as it turns out he apparently could barely order lunch without adding the words “total victory”.
From his Fireside Chat 26 (September 8, 1943)
This war does not and must not stop for one single instant. Your (our) fighting men know that. Those of them who are moving forward through jungles against lurking Japs — those who are (in) landing at this moment, in barges moving through the dawn up to strange enemy coasts — those who are diving their bombers down on the targets at roof-top level at this moment — every one of these men knows that this war is a full-time job and that it will continue to be that until total victory is won.
…Nobody knows when total victory will come — but we do know that the harder we fight now, the more might and power we direct at the enemy now, the shorter the war will be and the smaller the sum total of sacrifice.
from the Fourth Inaugural Address:
In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war.
from Address Delivered by President Roosevelt at Washington, March 15, 1941:
From now on that aid will be increased-and yet again increased-until total victory has been won.
From THE ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS Delivered on January 6, 1942:
That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives. No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been-there never can be-successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of tolerance and decency and freedom and faith.
Holy crap, Tim, can you imagine how you would have felt if Bush had said the last one? (Actually it sounds as though Steve Ditko wrote it!)
There are plenty of reasons to critique the president but this seems like a stretch, in my opinion.
Thanks, Bill. That’s actually useful information.
I’m not especially comfortable seeing that rhetoric from FDR either, but it does help to see that others have used the phrase *without* having some sort of America Uber Alles in mind as the end result.
Doesn’t change my overall opinion much if at all, but it certainly lessens my immediate concern. Thanks.
(Just as a side note, though, the last quote you used did come less than a month after Pearl Harbor, and I don’t think anyone should find it a surprise that the rhetoric was over-the-top bombast right then. 🙂
TWL
True. And it was a very different time. I did a chapter of an education book once on propaganda and, in the course of researching it, stumbled across a photo of FDR examining a letter opener that had been sent to him from some soldiers. It was carved from the legbone of a dead Japanese soldier. Yow.
There’s a great book on the subject: War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War by John W. Dower. Highly recommended.
I’d heard that story before (the letter opener made from a legbone). Definitely a different time.
(Or perhaps not. After all, I think everybody here is familiar with the fact that Bush apparently shows off Saddam’s pistol to Oval Office visitors…)
TWL
I think I am more comfortable with the President showing Saddam’s pistol off to visitors than, say, a lamp made from Saddam’s skull.
These may be gentler times afterall.
Returning to the original topic for a moment, a resolution has been introduced in congress to support for “the symbols and traditions of Christmas.”
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-39306sy0dec15,0,1382931.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
What really disturbed me was the speech Bush made Monday, saying that foreign regimes were a threat to America, and saying:
“The long run in this war is going to require a change of governments in parts of the world.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002680398_bushiraq13.html?syndication=rss
Great.
Think that all those “parts of the world” might be say, the Middle East? Places like Iran and Syria? Or do you think hes gonna go after North Korea? Hey, last I heard, Vietnam was still communist, think we might take another crack at it?
You know, I no longer pray that we will elect a democrat next time around, I pray that there will be a country to lead. preferably one that isn’t bankrupt and hated around the world, especially by the people most likely to become terrorists.
Well, the impossible happened. My respect for Bush actually went up a little. Of course, going from more negative to less negative isn’t all that much but still….
“>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html
[snip]
I gotta admit, at least he is taking responsibility. Of course, Iraq is still a hopeless SNAFU, and things aren’t gonna get better soon, and he still thinks we should be in Iraq….and…and…
But whatever. At least he is showing some signs of maturity and responsibility. It’s a sad day for America, though, when a president taking some small responsibility for his mistakes is worth being noticed, let alone commented upon.
Actually, he isn’t taking responsibility at all. Or at least not of any mistakes.
It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that.
The only thing he ‘fesses up to is that he decided to go to war and that he’ll fix America’s intelligence gathering abilities – not that he ignored good intelligence that undermined the case for war in the first place, not that he ignored warnings from analysts that the intelligence he was basing his decisions on were suspect if not outright wrong. Indeed, “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong” – namely, the intelligence that he used to justify the war. The intelligence that said the war was unwarranted, intelligence that he ignored, was not.
Don’t be fooled. W. is not taking responsibility for really anything. All the blame is being dumped upon the intel-gathering community, but his speech is crafted to make it seem like he’s conceding he is actually to blame for something when it’s actually a disingenuous mea culpa designed to help his (and the GOP’s) image . . . much like what he did with Katrina.
But what really twists me (and the fact that this bit is being mostly ignored by almost everyone) is this little detail he dropped after his speech:
Knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.”
Is W. actually saying that if he knew with certainty that Saddam wasn’t a threat (immediate or long-term), wasn’t developing WMD, wasn’t colluding with terrorists, and was being successfully contained with sanctions and inspectors he still would have invaded Iraq?
WTF?!?
That’s not preemptive war; that’s just plain, old-fashioned, naked aggression.
And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.
And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories.
Returning to the original topic for a moment, a resolution has been introduced in congress to support for “the symbols and traditions of Christmas.”
It’s about time the pagans and other got their due for all the things Christians stole… err, pagans and others contributed to make Christmas what it is today.
And what is Christmas today? Well, it certainly isn’t a celebration of Christ to most people.
So, if Congress wants to protect that, by all means.
Is W. actually saying that if he knew with certainty that Saddam wasn’t a threat (immediate or long-term), wasn’t developing WMD, wasn’t colluding with terrorists, and was being successfully contained with sanctions and inspectors he still would have invaded Iraq?
Of course he is. That’s what he’s been saying for years. He was just a little more obvious about it this time.
Cheney, Rummy, Perle, Wolfie, Feith, and the rest of the PNAC crowd didn’t give a rat’s ášš about WMD’s and still don’t. They want to remake the Middle East by way of naked American power, and saw an opportunity here.
And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.
And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories.
Not all of us, Sasha. As one who recognized this as a sham and protested the war from the git-go, I categorically refuse to shoulder any of the blame for this. I have no doubt that David Bjorlin and other unreconstructed nationalists (I believe that’s the term he’s used to describe himself before; apologies in advance if I’m wrong) will consider that refusal disloyalty bordering on treason, but I think my duty to human decency is a hëll of a lot more important than my duty to a nation that’s become way too corrupt for its own sake.
Like James above, I’m hoping that there’s still a country left in 2008 and that we can start picking up the pieces. I have my doubts.
As to why that particular bit of his speech isn’t being picked up and discussed … hmm, gee, well, you’d think the allegedly liberal media would be all over it, wouldn’t you? I can’t imagine what part of our assumptions are wrong there…
TWL
TWL achieved a new level in drawing distinctions without differences when he wrote, Yes, David, but not a single example you cited used the actual phrase, and that’s what I was reacting to…So while I appreciate the history lesson (about 10% of which I didn’t know previously), you’ve done precisely nothing to assuage my concerns.
And the distinction between a “total victory” and the “unconditional surrender” of one’s enemy is precisely what? Please also distinguish “total victory” from “Victory at all costs” and “Victory, however long and hard the road may be.” You seem to think that the “actual phrase” “total victory” somehow implies that Bush entertains options that are out of line with practices that American wartime presidents routinely engage in, but not to put too fine a point on it, you’re wrong. Do you honestly think that the slight word change really means that they’re discussing different things? That carpet bombing Germany was not a quest for total victory? That firebombing Tokyo was not a step towards ensuring that, in your own words, “all who oppose us are dead?” That even as far back as Sherman’s march to the sea, the US strategy of making war upon the enemy’s ability to make war is anything but a quest for total victory? I stand by my original claim: Total war is the primary form of warfare and plans for victory in a total war can only be categorized as an attempt to achieve total victory. You are elevating style far above substance, and I’m not even sure you’re right about the style (q.v. Bill’s post). Not only was Bush’s rhetoric perfectly consistent with Presidential precedent, but the things you’re afraid he means are precisely the things that our military has done time and time again.
Please enjoy your second 10%.
I’d written most of a lengthy, somewhat angry response to David’s last post (from 6:04, in case another one comes up as I write this).
I took a break towards the end to put my daughter to bed, which always tends to change one’s outlook.
Y’know, the argument’s not worth it. You want to think I made an irrational call on this one, feel free; the particular buzzword struck a very ugly chord that I felt was worthy of comment, but that’s as far as I really want to take it. I’m sure we both have better things to do than belabor this particular go-round.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got one more day of school until winter break and have some quizzes to grade.
And as for the original topic of this thread: Happy Holidays, all.
TWL
As one who recognized this as a sham and protested the war from the git-go, I categorically refuse to shoulder any of the blame for this. I have no doubt that David Bjorlin and other unreconstructed nationalists (I believe that’s the term he’s used to describe himself before; apologies in advance if I’m wrong) will consider that refusal disloyalty bordering on treason, but I think my duty to human decency is a hëll of a lot more important than my duty to a nation that’s become way too corrupt for its own sake.
You are partially right and partially wrong in anticipating my position. You’re right that I’m an unreconstructed nationalist, and that sounds like something I’d say so I’m inclined to think you’re quoting me correctly. The American republic is the greatest social institution that humanity has yet made work, and I see its survival as the greatest possible good in the world today.
What you’re wrong about is my definition of disloyalty. The war in Iraq has been, if not a disaster, well short of what its supporters had hoped; while we’ve rid the world of a brutal dictatorship, Iraqis have gone from living in daily fear of one thing to living in daily fear of a completely different thing, which is not a “success” by any definition I can think of. People who said all along “this is going to suck” are entitled to say “I told you so.” One of the things that makes the American republic the greatest social institution yet devised is that citizens are free to say “I told you so,” as well as burn flags, call George Bush a weenie, listen to disco music, and generally do things that annoy the crap out of me. The fact that the republic protects those rights for its citizens is what makes it worth defending, so I’m not going to lose my composure because you’re enjoying the political culture I want to conserve. (That is my own personal definition of what makes me a conservative– I think we have a good thing going, and I’m inclined to keep it that way and only tweak the problem areas; from my viewpoint, radical changes seem more likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences than to substantially improve things.)
I don’t believe I have ever questioned your loyalty for criticizing the government, and I hope to God I never will let myself commit that error. If I recall correctly, the only time I questioned your moral fiber was after the 2004 election when you suggested you might emigrate due to the result. I rather strongly implied that the nation might be better off without people whose devotion to the country could be shaken by the results of any number of elections. I believe that’s when I used the word “unreconstructed” in my self-description to allude (ironically) to the last time large numbers of people sought to disassociate themselves from the United States following an electoral reversal. It was wrong in 1860 and it’s wrong now. That’s my definition of disloyalty; sedition is perfectly OK, and I fully intend to criticize the government the next time the Democrats manage to elect a President.
Y’know, the argument’s not worth it. You want to think I made an irrational call on this one, feel free; the particular buzzword struck a very ugly chord that I felt was worthy of comment, but that’s as far as I really want to take it. I’m sure we both have better things to do than belabor this particular go-round.
Probably so. I’ve always felt that debating issues on here is an entertainment end in and of itself, and it helps to procrastinate wrapping Christmas presents, but it’s not really important. I just thought that the “So while I appreciate the history lesson…” comment came across as a bit snide, and nobody out-snides me. I’m a lawyer, dammit.
Anyway, have a good evening, and in case we don’t start another tempest in a teapot before then, have a Merry Christmas.
You know, I no longer pray that we will elect a democrat next time around, I pray that there will be a country to lead.
Like James above, I’m hoping that there’s still a country left in 2008 and that we can start picking up the pieces. I have my doubts.
Sigh. I’ll make a prediction of my own. The Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate in 2006. Despite their well demonstrated ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. it is hard to imagine they can’t manage to do at least that. Wouldn’t shock me if they took back one or both houses.
Anyway, that’s not the prediction. A monkey could pick that one. My prediction is that, following this first glimmer of good news in 6 long years, the fact that the country WILL still exist in 2008, that there WON’T be a draft, that martial law ISN’T declared, that a Red State/Blue State/Old State/New State/ civil war FAILS to occur, that the elections of 2008 are NOT canceled, etc etc, will all be credited to the election of 2006 having stopped the jackbooted neocon takeover of America.
And yeah, it’s fun to roll one’s eyes over this stuff but conservatives should remember that there were plenty on our side who said the exact same goofy stuff about what Clinton would do.
Anyway, that’s not the prediction.
How about…
A generation from now, we’ll be in some stupid war, and once again (like with McCarthy, Vietnam, and now during this war in Iraq) the government & military will be keeping tabs on the innocent, peace protestors, and the like.
Curse you Bill!
Your reasoned arguments and trust in the American process that has worked beautifully for over two and a quarter centuries has taken all the fun out of my liberal angst!!
I was just settling in with a survival guide to see how I was going to survive the coming atomic holocaust when YOU, Mr. Well-reasoned-logical-type-person, pops up with his sound arguments and blows it all to hëll!
Do you have any idea how little fun it is being the Grinch when all the Who’s start singing???
Anyway, I think you are right. I hope what will happen is what happened after Nixon, that we will be able to waltz a Democrat into office with the debonair grace of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.(This is in reference to your comment on the “Kong” thread that no one remembers the old icons. Sheesh, you old fogies have no trust in the classics 😉 ) Hopefully, however, it can be done this time without the whole hostages/oil/Reagan-looking-really-good triple whammy that screwed it up LAST time.
Actually…..Jimmy Carter only served one term. We should re-nominate him!
Carter ’08! Lets give Georgia something to be proud of!
“And it suggests that this war was never a preemptive war, but rather a manufactured war designed to realize some nebulous neoconservative ideology.
And if that’s true (and I hope to God I’m not) then he and his circle are criminals and we are all accessories.”
I also have to say that anything that’s happened in the past 5 years is none of my fault. I started saying about 2 years ago that Bush and his administration, were they taking these actions at the helm of just about any other country, would be seen as war criminals, and that they will be lucky if they manage to survive to the end of their days and avoid being brought before the World Court. From the day Bush first announced that the US was launching a pre-emptive, unprovoked all-out attack on a sovereign nation, I’ve basically held my breath, waiting for the rest of the world to realize that the most powerful military in the world has now become an aggressive, unpredictable force. And if someone doesn’t step forward to reign in this madness, we won’t have to worry about where the terrorists are, because conventional war is going to come looking for us.
Don’t put away that survival manual just yet James. There are plenty of other far more plausible scenarios where it will be needed: zombie plague, collision with some large meteor, and my new personal favorite, someone exploding a nuclear bomb at a high altitude, sending an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy all electronics, sending us into the 18th century technology-wise while still having to feed a 21st century population.
Imagine a world where the Society For Creative Anachronism members are the new elite…
For my part, I’m reading up on how to bleach the tannins out of acorns to make them edible. I just raked about 100,000 of the bášŧárdš off my driveway, a potentially lifesaving food source once I’ve gone through all of our canned goods and cats.
Imagine a world where the Society For Creative Anachronism members are the new elite…
Hey, my wife and one of my good friends are both SCA’ers (though the former’s been inactive for a while). Count me in to THAT new regime. 🙂
TWL
and nobody out-snides me. I’m a lawyer, dammit.
I’ll cop to “snide,” but I’ll note in return that the post before it was coming off to me as more than a little pompous — and if nobody out-snides you, nobody out-pompouses me. (Just ask my students, though occasionally there are some of them who’ll try to out-snide me as well. They usually discover that’s a bad idea after one attempt…)
In any case, have a good holiday.
TWL
Well, since this is a “Buck Fush” thread…
Is anybody surprised to find out that Bush gave permission for the NSA to go several steps further than even the Patriot Act gave the power to do?
And then that he admits it, all in the name of ‘protecting Americans’?
Do we really need to deal with this law-breaking son of a bìŧçh for 3 more years?
Well, since this is a “Buck Fush” thread…
Oddly, it started as a “Bush did the right thing this time” thread.
Do we really need to deal with this law-breaking son of a bìŧçh for 3 more years?
Yes, law-breaking sons of bìŧçhëš are typically allowed to serve out their terms. (See: Clinton, William Jefferson. See also: Perjury.) Also, until we know what the heck Bush actually authorized and the NSA actually did, shouldn’t we hold off legal conclusions like “law-breaking” until we have enough information to make that determination? Based on reading the NY Times story, the NSA has apparently been listening in on international communications that originated in the United States, and this is a new development although surveillance of foreign communications to the United States has not previously been considered problematic. Bush’s claim seems to be that the President’s war powers implicitly authorize counterespionage surveillance, and I’d like to see that position briefed and argued by people familiar with the issue before reaching an opinion. I recall from prior discussions that you’re really not all that impressed with details like what the law on any particular subject actually is, but some of us care.
I’ll cop to “snide,” but I’ll note in return that the post before it was coming off to me as more than a little pompous– and if nobody out-snides you, nobody out-pompouses me.
Maybe, but the problem is that it’s almost impossible to say “I’m right and you’re wrong” without sounding pompous, and it’s also nearly impossible to have an interesting debate unless each party is convinced he’s right and the opponent is wrong (because if the declarant doesn’t think he’s right, he should have the good grace to shut up and end the discussion). I think a little constructive pomposity is inevitable. So pomp away: I’m wrong three or four times a year, and you may stumble across one.
Oddly, it started as a “Bush did the right thing this time” thread.
And then he turned around and did the wrong thing. Again.
Yes, law-breaking sons of bìŧçhëš are typically allowed to serve out their terms.
And last I checked, lying about a bløwjøb had nothing to do with torture, war, and other things presidents such as Bush have to defend on a daily basis.
Bush makes Nixon look like a saint.
Cristmas Bush….heh…..
No comment
“Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance…” That’s you, fat jewish. Is all you are. And you know it. Pice of šhìŧ!
spellcheck in aisle 3… spellcheck in aisle 3
on another note…
I’m awaiting a thread on the latest Bush revelation of secret wire taps and bugging. It would certainly bring about some thoughtful discussion here.
Fred
And we have a new candidate for banning. Swell.
I’m awaiting a thread on the latest Bush revelation of secret wire taps and bugging.
Well, that’s why I brought it up.
Between the recent stuff about what the Pentagon has been doing, and now Bush’s approval of what the NSA was doing… well, that quote about having neither liberty or safety (if I’m remembering it correctly) certainly applies.
And for a fun side note: a Senator used that Benjamin Franklin quote in speaking out against the Patriot Act renewal, which thankfully failed.
I wonder if the news about the NSA spying had anything to do with it.
Oh, I’d be surprised if the NSA spying issue *didn’t* have anything to do with it — and I think at least a couple of senators have explicitly said it did.
My biggest issue at the moment is with the media. The allegedly-liberal NY Times had this story for over a year — since before the 2004 election. They decided to sit on it because administration officials told them it could jeopardize national security.
Methinks the very events depicted IN said story represent a threat to national security in and of themselves, albeit of a different type than what’s normally used as a bludgeon. Mealsothinks that more than a few eyes might have opened and eyes might have changed had this story actually seen print when they first found out about it. There’s no way to know — but I find it deeply irresponsible journalism, and another example of the way most mainstream publications have been too busy running scared or kissing ášš to actually do their jobs.
TWL
P.S. to Craig — it’s actually liberty and security, not safety. The overall sense of it’s certainly right, though.
Tim & Bill,
Neither of you had an email link, so I will briefly respond here.
You have made very clear that “evolution” is not the term to refer to the scientific theory for the origin of life. What, then, is? I know abiogensis is a technical term for it, but I have frequently seen “evolution” used as the generic term for the explanation of the origin of life. I am not trying to debate this, I am just asking what term you would use for the origin of life. What term would you use for the origin of the universe?
Iowa Jim
For life it’s “abiogenesis”. That’s not just the technical term but the only one I know. Since evolution by natural selection requires life to be there it can’t really have a whole lot to say about the issue.
I don’t know what the proper term for the origin of the universe would be…cosmogenesis? Again, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it, any more than you could say evolution explains how a mountain forms.
I can see how some people may be slapping the term evolution on anything that takes place over time and, indeed, evolution does mean “change over time” but when we talk about Darwin we are very specifically talking about the change of life forms over time (Change in gene frequencies to be specific). It’s a mistake to equate change with evolution. My eyes are getting weaker and my ášš is getting saggier but neither really qualifies as evolution.
May I just say that I don’t need to hear about Bill’s ášš getting saggier? 🙂
In answer to your question, Jim, I’m not sure there is a name used to refer specifically to “the scientific theory for the origin of the universe”, for any number of reasons.
Cosmology is a general term used to refer to the study of events early in the universe’s history — nucleosynthesis, formation and evolution (!) of galaxies, the formation of large-scale structures, etc.. It’s sometimes broken down into “early-universe cosmology” and “later-universe cosmology”, but that’s not an amazingly common usage.
NASA’s web site, for the record, defines cosmology as “the scientific study of the large-scale properties of the Universe as a whole”, but they do continue to include the origin of the universe in that.
Cosmology seems a reasonable enough term — “Big Bang cosmology” would certainly make the point that you’re discussing the Big Bang theory specifically.
You will see cosmologists discussing “galactic evolution”, but that’s using the term in a sense completely unrelated to life.
TWL
May I just say that I don’t need to hear about Bill’s ášš getting saggier? 🙂
Oh right, like you could bounch a quarter ever higher off of yours as the years pass… 🙂