Rain Woman

Posted by: jimhogan

Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 02:47

OK, I am going to guess that some of you have made the acquaintance of someone who got their Ph.D. in Specialized Knowledge but who was fundamentally an idiot.

So I ask: Condi, Where's The Beef?

I submit that Condi is a mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton.

Secretary of State? That was a given. Didn't even register on Google - Surpise Me! Qualifications: Agree with W.

I have gotten out of the political complaint business in favor of my new Eternal Life Initiative, but this whole Condi thing just amazes me. Somebody rock my world, though: Tell me, what has Condi ever done but suck up? Where's The Beef?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 03:17

Quote:
I am going to guess that some of you have made the acquaintance of someone who got their Ph.D. in Specialized Knowledge but who was fundamentally an idiot.

Yeah, my stepmother.

And she was a teacher, too. Sigh.
Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 03:18

I think this may end up looking like your home page:

Please check back frequently for the beef.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 03:40

I wasn't aware politicians needed qualifications...

From the "small moral victories" department, I'm glad there was at least an open discussion of the issues for 9 hours or so. Not that she admitted any mistakes or gave any ground, but I'm glad a few of the Democrats took a stand, to at least send a message to Rummy and the NeoCons (whose hit single "Oobie-Doobie Bomb-You-Do" reached #4 on the Billboard Hot 100 this week in 1958.)

Of course, there's no way the message is loud enough to be heard over the pouring and mass consumption of Kool-Aid at the Pentagon (ask Seymour Hersh) but I relish any good news I can find these days.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 04:10

Quote:
what has Condi ever done


I know this is a lost cause, but here's a start for anyone else reading this who is possibly less entrenched in their self loathing or at least don't get their news from Moveon.org.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.

In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004.

And yet some liberals insist on calling her an "Aunt Jamima" or a "mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton."

How's your resume' lookin?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 04:41

Quote:
How's your resume' lookin?


Mine looks ok. Nothing to brag about, but I'm not one for bragging.

Oh, and unlike Mrs. Rice, it doesn't include "Lied to the American People about Verious Important Things".

And to save time, I don't read MoveOn.org or whatever it is. I do, however, get news from as many different perspectives / places (and countries) as possible. Nor have I ever referered to her by any epithet stronger (or more creative) than "Lying Bitch".

Of course, just my opinion.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 05:21

You forgot to say she is also an accomplished pianist. I admire her personal accomplishments.

You also did not notice that, asked during hearing on 9/11 intelligence failures why did she did she not acted on plentifull intelligence warnings, she essentially answered that nobody told her what to do.
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 06:25

Typical academic CV, written with a template generator, where the object of the game is to "collect the most toys". My Dad's CV actually looks a lot better than this, but he wasn't a government advisor/staffer, in spite of being a Fellow of a number of learned societies(earned academically, rather than awarded in Honarium) or advisors to this or that (next time you're in Belfast or Manchester, use the public transport and road systems and find out for yourself. Or drive up the M6 in good ol' middle England).

I hope you noted how many toys in her collection have the word "honorary" prepended. This has nothing to do with her benefit, but a lot more to do with the awarding Institution's "honour". They are not earned, by any means I personally understand in terms of academic achievement ("Sick and tired of your job? Not getting on? Wish you had that degree certificate your neighbour has? We have them for $5.95 from Certifiable Academic Institutions - get one TODAY and take the first step into a new world!") Provost? Look it up in a dictionary. Responsibility is somewhat different to the practise of the job. Member of the board? Translation: rubber-stamping Yes-(wo)man.

This type of "look what I can do" CV means effectively, nothing.

So this is all flim-flam: Brad, I am surprised at you for pitching this up, and I am even more surprised that you have popped up the word "Liberal" in the way that so many of your countrymen do - as a kind of insult with the same intent behind it as Oedipus does in American society. Why did you need to do this? You have just gone down a long way in my estimation. The extreme conservatism of American Politics that has generated antipathy in this form is verging on a form of Fascism that no-one with the US seems to recognise or kick against, and has caused two major wars.

All that being said, she is a liar, a muppet, is being used as the fall guy by her own governement - and she's letting them do it to her! And you lot voted for these pillocks. Good luck, mate - just don't take the rest of us with you
Posted by: Ladmo

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 10:17

She can rock a mean keyboard as well!
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 11:35

Quote:
This type of "look what I can do" CV means effectively, nothing.


Did you even read the thing? Do you even know anything about her? Her foreign policy experience far exceeds anyone else appointed to the possition that I'm aware of. It certainly qualifies her for the job. You arrogant "well, some of those are honorary" come back is so weak. Go through and edit out the honorary stuff and just include her degrees and job positions related to foreign policy and the thing is still very long. Arrogant.

As much as I disagree with Madeline Albright's world view, politics and general way of approaching things, I at least respect her as a learned individual. You guys can't even bring yourselves to recognize all that this woman has done simply because you hate the man she works for. It is utterly disrespectful. Arrogant "flim-flam" if you will.

And yes, liberal. It's amazing how people who are liberals get so defensive about the word. You can call me "conservative" all day long or even toss the "neo" in there to make "neocon" so that the casual observor might associate it with "neo-nazi" (the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew") and I won't mind. I'm a conservative and I'm proud of it. I don't get offended even when I'm so often prejudged or even when I'm attacked for it. If someone is misrepresenting what "conservative" means to me, I try to correct it rather than run away from the term. Maybe you're not too familiar with the term liberal in US politics, but it's an accurate usage. And considering that this is a topic about US politics, I don't see a need to "internationalize" it. If you'd prefer "progressive", then fine. It's amazing how you entire view of me as a person has been diminished because I am aware of a large movement based on "liberal" ideals, politics and culture hates Bush and anything associated with him. What's so wrong about saying, "Yes, I'm a liberal and I hate Bush?" if that's really the way you feel?

And you guys really need to get your story straight. I thought Bush was a total puppet that had no brain and was run by the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz (damn neo-con Jew!) and Condeleeza (although let's make her sound like a child and call her "Condi") Rice. Now suddenly he's the one pulling the strings?

And to be honest, what's wrong with a President in charge of his cabinet? Is a cabinet supposed to offer input into decision making? Or course. But is a cabinet member supposed to be some renegade running around the government working at odds with the person who appointed her, the President of the USA? Was not Kennedy's or Carter's or Clinton's cabinet members' actions carried out in a way that was befitting of that particular president? I really don't get the Left's (or is that term too decisive too?) argument here. She is certainly more than qualified, has the credentials and can be trusted to enact the foreign policy of the President of the United States who was the first person elected to that post by a majority of the vote in quite some time.

If you simply don't like that foreign policy, fine. Talk about that. But don't drag Rice through this as part of the whole paranoid debate.

Honestly, I think the (insert word that won't offend) are really just frightened that she'll be on the Presidential ticket for 2008. It fits quite well with the recent efforts to get the Constitution ammended in order to allow Bill Clinton to run for a 3rd term, i.e. their ranks are pretty thin looking 4 years down the road. This just serves are good character assassination to try to nip her possible run at the bud.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 11:51

Quote:
I know this is a lost cause

Tru dat. C'mon, get with the name calling and degrading speech! How dare you have an opinion that is different! Let's just all bitch and moan about the current US situation in a way that would never change anyone's opinion about the real issues. I didn't see any inflammatory speech in Bonzi's post, just facts. Kudos.
Posted by: julf

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 12:33

Quote:
What's so wrong about saying, "Yes, I'm a liberal and I hate Bush?" if that's really the way you feel?

OK, OK... Yes, I'm a liberal and I hate Bush.

As to Ms Rice, she clearly is a very smart, very learned and intelligent person, and I applaud her achievements. I have nothing against her as a person. I am just really, really disappointed that she hasn't managed to steer the Bush administration away from a collision course with all the rest of the world.

And as one of those fancy-pancy european liberals, I actually don't care that much about the Republicans vs. Democrats thing, it's mostly just an artifact of the quaint US two-party pseudo-democracy, but I do worry about the fact that the current US administration has set back so many of the positive developments that were going on in the world, created a strong terrorist movement and alienated pretty much everybody, and is about to drive the world economy down into an abyss. But, hey, western civilization was overrated anyway...
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 13:10

... you forgot to include demolishing world agreements relating to climate change and global warming due to vested-interest energy lobbyists/funders, enacting in law the right of an energy lobby to drill for oil in formerly protected environments, the direct coupling of energy use/policy to national and international policy, creation of the politics of fear as a standard "democratic" method of government, etc. etc. .....
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 13:47

Quote:
Did you even read the thing?


Yes, I did. What does it mean? It's a pretty extended academic CV. It's written from a template. It shows someone who collects doctorates, honorary or otherwise, like sweeties. I also am a board member of several companies - means nothing. I am also a member of the board of governers of the local school - means nothing. Hell, I can play six musical instruments. Big Deal! I want to see real achievements, like establishing a stabilised government in the mess called Iraq.

Quote:
You arrogant "well, some of those are honorary" come back is so weak


No, the majority are honary. They mean nothing. A soldier gets a medal pinned on his chest for doing something valorous: I doubt your average grunt would have much regard for the "honour" of a degree awarded that way.

Quote:
"neo-nazi"


Naziism was a form of socialism, not conservatism. Get YOUR story right. You are the one making this association, no-one else. Strange you choose to bring this up given what is happening today in Poland, or doesn't that matter to you? Hell no - I shouldn't have said that - I am being arrogant again by implying that outside the borders of the US there is a world going about it's daily business.

Quote:
I thought Bush was a total puppet that had no brain and was run by the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz (damn neo-con Jew!)


You said it, not me. Miz Rice is also being manipulated, as far as I can see.

Quote:
She is certainly more than qualified, has the credentials and can be trusted to enact the foreign policy of the President of the United States who was the first person elected to that post by a majority of the vote in quite some time.


Oh, and Colin Powell wasn't? Eh? Am I missing something here?

Quote:
just frightened that she'll be on the Presidential ticket for 2008


I, for one, would be highly pleased to see her run on her own ticket for the presidency, not on the agenda of the "Neo Cons". However, seeing her performance recently in public, I don't hold out much hope - she is being bullied into line.

I would now like you to step back re-read your last post, count the number of times you use the word arrogant, and then reliase how insulting you are being on different levels. Everyone has qualifications, achievements, stuff like that. Pushing a CV as an indication of the worth of a person, is to me, "arrogant" in the extreme. Read your own words.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 14:19

Quote:
I am just really, really disappointed that she hasn't managed to steer the Bush administration away from a collision course with all the rest of the world.
'

Well, I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but in all of the books I've read, it seems that she has constantly been at odds with the Pentagon (and Rumsfeld in particular) and at least up until 2003 (when my sources were written) was more in line with Colin Powell as far as diplomatic relations and conflict resolution go. Add to that the fact that the State Department is doing everything in its power to derail Bush's policy and your world may not be crumbling quite as fast as you think.

Thank you for at least being respectful while still getting a chance to voice your disapproval and/or opinions. I'm sure Mark Cushman will get over it.

Aren't all Europeans, at least Western ones, liberal? I think in previous posts, Jim has quite proudly claimed to be liberal. And he should - he's very good at it!

Quote:
the quaint US two-party pseudo-democracy


That's a little condescending isn't it? And I can think of many borderline socialist nations in Europe and elsewhere that are far more “pseudo-democrac(ies)” than the US. But that’s using one inaccuracy to justify another one and that really doesn’t hold water in debate does it? Technically, the United States of America (i.e. Jesusland for the Moveon.org peeps) is a Republic. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. …Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. So, I guess I don’t mind not being a “pure” democracy.

And yes, our system is a two party system and that results in most people having to vote for someone who doesn’t represent 100% of what they believe in (just like how I do not support President Bush on 100% of his policies), but the system works for the most part. I look at the Canadian muli-party system and I’m not inspired but the fact is that each of our nations were founded on certain principles and those have to be respected and maintained to ensure the integrity of each. I dig. Yet, I do believe that with issues as large as the war in Iraq, it is easier to look at viewpoints as being either “left” or “right” of center. If we were talking about moral significance in the whole of politics, then we’d need about 500 political parties.


Quote:
created a strong terrorist movement


Obviously there was a strong enough terrorist movement long before President Bush took office to cause all of the terrorist actions against the United States including the abduction of US hostages in Iran in 1979, the bombing of the US embassy in Beruit 1982, the bombing of US Marine barracks in Beruit 1983, the attack on the Italian cruise ship resulting in the killing of a 69 year old American, 1986 bombing of a West Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1993 Bin Laden sponsored downing of a Blackhawk helicopter in Somalia, the 1995 car bombing in Saudi Arabia killing 5 and wounding 30 Americans, the 1996 bombing of a US Air Force housing complex, the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks against Washington DC and New York City. This doens't include any of the attacks that have been stopped such as the "Millenium Plot" in Los Angeles. Doing nothing wasn't an option.

But all of this supports my original point that this is truely a debate over the Bush administration and presidential term. Defaming Condoleezza Rice by calling her an idiot, retarded (Rainman reference), puppet or even "mildly smart" is disgraceful.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 14:31

Quote:
And yet some liberals insist on calling her an "Aunt Jamima" or a "mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton."

Could you do me a favor and edit this to read "And yet some liberals insist on calling her an 'Aunt Jamima' and some other liberals call her a 'mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton.' " Thanks. Appreciate it.

My submission was a debating point and part of me has to admire your gumption in taking up the argument for the losing team.

To be fair, though, I should have framed my proposal more closely. I mean, I know much of what you pasted in WRT her quals, and I don't think all of it is insignificant. I mean teaching, books, piano playing, and getting an oil tanker named after you?

I guess what I think is that if we were still fretting over the Fulda Gap, we'd be in great shape with Rice as National Security Advisor.

My question/proposal and puzzlement, is based on Rice's performance since 2000 which could be interpreted to be that of a mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton. Maybe I need to create a Web Page for Condi Rice's Positive Accomplishments since 2000 to see what anybody can suggest. What I see is that she tried to jump over the (Fulda) Gap and didn't make it. (Would that be The Pietr Priciple or the Das Peter Prinzip?) People with darker, but still reasonable, minds, think that she systematically lied to us and now lies about that.

As other have pointed out, when grilled over 9/11, she essentially cried ignorance. Instead of being derided for that, she was given high points for elocution and composure. More recently attacked by Boxer, her defense is to become indignant and trumpet her respect for the truth. Oh, puleeeeze.

With all the other factors (like, say, cred on the world stage) on the table, a woman who aided and abetted possible the biggest FU in our history is given a big promotion. And for one reason. Line toeing (I'm hearing those Stepford Wives voices again!). Well, surprise me. Let's see how she works out as a stateswoman. Let's see how many pieces she can put back together.

So, her resume is considerable. I admire the ability of folks like Bonzi to admire. Under the circumstances, though, a resume twice as long wouldn't impress me much in the face of her performce since 2000. I mean, John Wayne Gacy was probably a *great*, very well-credentialed, clown.

I don't find being branded a "liberal" in appropriate context disagreeable in the least. Now, I do find its frequent, bombastic use in political shout media pretty repugnant. What I find much more disagreeable, and much more frightening, is the stampede by many politicos to avoid identification with it. That *is* the road to fascism, IMO.

Quote:
How's your resume' lookin?

Pretty Fair. Could be better. I think that if I was to be nominated to be the Secretary of State, I would probably want to buff it up a bit.

So, I guess I still aske "Where's the Beef?", and I guess we'll all be able to watch and see where it is or isn't

Boy, amd I glad I don't care about this stuff anymore.

(edit: too clever Jim ~= no Cyrillic support, I think. And a few typos)
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 14:48

Quote:
Big Deal! I want to see real achievements, like establishing a stabilised government in the mess called Iraq.


I wasn't alive at the time, but from what I've read it took longer than two or three years in Japan and Germany following WW2 to establish self-sustaining governments. Especially in Germany, "insurgent" attacks were quite common. I can even dig up some New York Times editorials from the time that claim how Germany was a "quagmire". My fear is that many of the people who opposed the war don't want to see success in Iraq and often ignore any successes that have happened there. Doing so would mean a Bush accomplishment and that would ruin the whole effect of someone's "cough" web site. Hopefully you're not in that crowd, but how odd it must be to wake up in the morning knowing that you're wishing for the same outcome as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Quote:
Naziism was a form of socialism, not conservatism. Get YOUR story right. You are the one making this association, no-one else.


I didn't bring up the term "neocon", Tony did. I'm just saying that the lable was created to be unflattering and was popularized after the rise of the "neo-Nazi" movement clearly to try to make the loose association. The only two "neo-anythings" that have popular meaning are neo-con and neo-Nazi. And there is no shortage of "Bush = Nazi" signs are protest rallies or rock concerts. The irony is that the term is frequently used as slang for "Jew." I doubt that most people who use the word have any idea that is the case, but its originators undoubtedly did. My story is straight - look it up.

Quote:
Strange you choose to bring this up given what is happening today in Poland, or doesn't that matter to you? Hell no - I shouldn't have said that - I am being arrogant again by implying that outside the borders of the US there is a world going about it's daily business.


No, you're being arrogant by implying that I didn't already know about the commerations at Auschwitz today (or the coverage in the last week or so including a protest by a Muslim group in the UK against the commerations) and further arrogant in implying that I wouldn't care. Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.

Quote:
Oh, and Colin Powell wasn't? Eh? Am I missing something here?


Maybe we're both confused. Colin Powell resigned. I may disagree with a few of his positions, but I have the upmost respect and admiration for the man and have for over a decade.

Quote:
Pushing a CV as an indication of the worth of a person, is to me, "arrogant" in the extreme.


Okay, I have to admit, I have no idea what a CV is... can someone help me out? Jim stated her qualifications as "Agree with W." I thought I'd add to that a bit. And I can't look at her little bio I pasted there and think that she isn't accomplished. Was it arrogant of me to paste that? I was just trying to be fair to her. I'm not calling anyone here a muppet.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:07

Quote:
Quote:
Big Deal! I want to see real achievements, like establishing a stabilised government in the mess called Iraq.


I wasn't alive at the time, but from what I've read it took longer than two or three years in Japan and Germany following WW2 to establish self-sustaining governments. Especially in Germany, "insurgent" attacks were quite common. I can even dig up some New York Times editorials from the time that claim how Germany was a "quagmire". My fear is that many of the people who opposed the war don't want to see success in Iraq and often ignore any successes that have happened there. Doing so would mean a Bush accomplishment and that would ruin the whole effect of someone's "cough" web site. Hopefully you're not in that crowd, but how odd it must be to wake up in the morning knowing that you're wishing for the same outcome as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.



you're not going to find many "liberals" who don't want Bush to pull it out and fix things. you also won't find many who think he will. I don't want what al-Zarqawi does. But from here it certainly looks like it could turn into another Vietnam with another fall of Saigon in a few years.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:08

CV: Curriculum Vitae. You use one when a resume wouldn't suit describing you because you've specialized. At least that's an overly simple way to look at it.
Posted by: Heather

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:09

Quote:
Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.


ha ha ha ha ha HFS hah ha ha!

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're either joking or haven't travelled much in the US.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:10

Quote:
Could you do me a favor and edit this to read "And yet some liberals insist on calling her an 'Aunt Jamima' and some other liberals who call her a 'mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton.' " Thanks. Appreciate it.


Fair enough. If you want me to edit it, I will. I'm just not sure if you're really asking me to or just making a point, but point taken.

Quote:
My submission was a debating point and part of me has to admire your gumption in taking up the argument for the losing team.


Losing team? If your referring to the impeding "ganging up on" that I'm about to endure (it hasn't kicked in yet, your posts are still under 2,000 words ) you may have a point there. I'm sure once Bitt gets wind of this, it'll be impossible for me to physically have the time to reply to everything! But if you mean losing side of the issue, I disagree.

Quote:
I mean teaching, books, piano playing, and getting an oil tanker named after you?


Oil tanker?? Aw man, you just gave away your source... that parody George W. Bush resume right? I came across that this morning while looking for a quote for my post.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification of you post. As Napolean Dynamite would say, she has a great "skill set". I think it's unrealistic to ask for accomplishments on the world stage as a prerequisite for service as head of the State Department. Heck, Colin Powell was a war leader prior to her appointment - hardly a diplomatic post! That's like an astronaut not getting hired because he hasn't been to space before. The role of the National Security Advisor (technically, the position is called: Assistant to Pres, National Security Affairs) is a high profile but pretty limited job. The job is to basically co-ordinate intelligence information and advise the President. Her job is rarely to "carry out policy" or "force her will on the Executive Branch."

Quote:
Boy, amd I glad I don't care about this stuff anymore.


It doesn't show.

EDITTED FOR TYPO - thanks db
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:13

Quote:
you're not going to find many "liberals" who don't want Bush to pull it out and fix things. you also won't find many who think he will. I don't want what al-Zarqawi does. But from here it certainly looks like it could turn into another Vietnam with another fall of Saigon in a few years.


At this point, we're both speculating, but I'm glad to know you're not among those rooting for failure so they can yell, "I told you so!" Afghanistan was called a quagmire and "the next Vietnam" too. I'm glad they were wrong on that one.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:13

Quote:
Losing team? If your referring to the impeding "ganging up on" that I'm about to endure (it hasn't kicked in yet, you're posts are still under 2,000 words )


He is posts??
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:14

Quote:
Quote:
you're not going to find many "liberals" who don't want Bush to pull it out and fix things. you also won't find many who think he will. I don't want what al-Zarqawi does. But from here it certainly looks like it could turn into another Vietnam with another fall of Saigon in a few years.


At this point, we're both speculating, but I'm glad to know you're not among those rooting for failure so they can yell, "I told you so!" Afghanistan was called a quagmire and "the next Vietnam" too. I'm glad they were wrong on that one.


Uh. So Afghanistan is all safe now, Doctors without Borders has gone back, etc? WHEN??
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:19

Quote:
Quote:
Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.


ha ha ha ha ha HFS hah ha ha!

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're either joking or haven't travelled much in the US.


Nope, quite serious. Yes, in a country of 295,340,413 people, I'm sure you can list dozens and dozens of instances, but anti-Semetism is openly condemmed here in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the nuts who think that the world is run by 5 Jewish bankers on the top of some hill, but in contrast with parts of Europe, those people are hardly mainstream. The have to resort to secret little clubs and books etc. Maybe you're just hanging out with the wrong people?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:26

Quote:
Oil tanker?? Aw man, you just gave away your source... that parody George W. Bush resume right?

No, actually I bookmarked this page long ago to see if any other Bush cabinet members popped up on the list.

It is the Great Bush Oil Tanker Conspiracy, after all.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:26

Quote:
Uh. So Afghanistan is all safe now, Doctors without Borders has gone back, etc? WHEN??


What are you expecting exactly? I doubt they have a great recycling program either. But considering they have had their first elections EVER in their history and peaceful ones at that (for some reason, this was barely covered by the press), I'd say they are doing pretty good. Not to mention the end of the Taliban's War on Women after decades of a crippleing economy and having never recovered from their war with the Soviet Union, I'd say they are making great progress and will continue to do so.
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:28

Quote:
I think it's unrealistic to ask for accomplishments on the world stage as a prerequisite for service as head of the State Department


ROFL Chicken, egg - egg, chicken: chicken....

Quote:
Colin Powell was a war leader prior to her appointment - hardly a diplomatic post!


No, but at least he'd been out of the country at least once before, experienced dealing with other cultures with different societies and their mores, had direct experience of the results of failed diplomacy and was to a great extent respected by his international counterparts!

Quote:
That's like an astronaut not getting hired because he hasn't been to space before


Curiously enough, astronauts tend to be at least pilots with considerable flight experience first, or if not, have a critical speciality required for the forward mission!
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 15:33

Quote:
Curiously enough, astronauts tend to be at least pilots with considerable flight experience first, or if not, have a critical speciality required for the forward mission!


OK, bad example!
Posted by: Ladmo

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 16:39

Quote:

Quote:
Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.

Well, I am a Jew, and I have been insulted, spit on, gun pulled on, knife pulled on, violence directed at, my cars trashed (and it's HARD to trash a junker!), had my home vandalized, and my family threatened. But that is to be expected from 'low brows'. But when someone calls me a 'Nazi', I have to laugh! Ignorance is such a preventable illness.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 16:50

Quote:
Quote:

Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.


Well, I am a Jew, and I have been insulted, spit on, gun pulled on, knife pulled on, violence directed at, my cars trashed (and it's HARD to trash a junker!), had my home vandalized, and my family threatened. But that is to be expected from 'low brows'. But when someone calls me a 'Nazi', I have to laugh! Ignorance is such a preventable illness.


Maybe it's just where I live and where I've been then. I must not be that exposed to it, nor must most of my Jewish friend (you excluded obviously). I've seen far more violence taken out on SUVs and new sub-divisions than I have against Jews in the local news. And I'm not from a small town without a significant Jewish population either.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 17:34

I expect a volunteer organization which exists to provide care in 3rd world countries should not be scared for the lives of their workers to the point of pulling out, or we haven't actually finished...
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 18:27

Quote:
At this point, we're both speculating, but I'm glad to know you're not among those rooting for failure so they can yell, "I told you so!"

Who are these people who are rooting for failure? Are these the anti-American Americans (those....anti-American..liberals!)I keep hearing about on demagogue radio (but who I can't seem to find?).

I exaggerate. I suspect that there there are some identifiable Americans out there whose criticism of wrongheaded American policy is so strident that it starts to take on an anti-American cast. That "Noam" guy. But if I look at the sometimes contrarian opinions of say, the recently departed Ms. Sontag, I don't see an "anti-American". I see an increasingly precious part of critical political discourse that is slipping away in favor of fascist-flavored media labeling and bombast.

Am I *rooting* for failure? I think Rush et al work pretty hard to equate *predicting* failure with rooting for failure. I feel a responsibility to predict failure if that is my conviction. Do I wanna tell my sisters "Oh, don't worry about <my nephew>, cuz it's all going to work out great in Iraq?" Should we not opine/predict? When placing the country in a complete lose/lose situation, it is pretty hard to predict success (although we seem to have a pretty good supply of functionaries who try!). Should I try to predict success like the starry-eyed Rumsfelds and Condis?

The good news? Jim is not going to get personally killed in Iraq. As things go badly, will I be here saying "I told you so"? Oh, you bet. I wouldn't want anybody who dreamily imagined that this huge cockup was anything but that to be able to kid themselves. Wrong yesterday. Wrong tomorrow.

Quote:
Afghanistan was called a quagmire and "the next Vietnam" too. I'm glad they were wrong on that one.

Some people predicted quagmire, I guess. But many fewer people opposed that war initially on basic anti-war grounds even though we went to war without acknowledging some key facts about our enemies, "allies" and possible strategies and costs.

Karzai isn't called the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing. Afghanistan is part of a region. I don't think it can be treated as a compartment separate from places like Pakistan. We made some mistakes and then made some bigger ones -- diverted focus. As Derrick suggests, the country is not secure. Not only has the Fat Lady not sung, I don't think her costume is back from the cleaners yet.
Posted by: peter

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 19:47

Quote:
Karzai isn't called the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing.

Nice graphic from the BBC's coverage. Presumably the white areas are the "swing states" of the new Afghan "democracy", where no single horde of murderous drug barons has a clear majority.

Peter
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 27/01/2005 21:50

Quote:
Presumably the white areas are the "swing states" of the new Afghan "democracy", where no single horde of murderous drug barons has a clear majority.

....

Sigh. Well, thanks for that link. Hadn't seen that. Sigh.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 01:20

Quote:
the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew"

I'm not really sure quite how it's ironic at all (because of your implied connection to neo-Nazism?), but it's worth it to point out that the Neo-Conservative movement came about as a result of a group of Democrats being unhappy with their party's doveish nature, especially in regards to the Middle East, and decided to leave, en masse, to join the Republican party. The vast majority of these people were Jews, and their hawkish nature towards the Middle Easy largely stemmed from their connection with Israel and its hawkish nature towards the rest of the Middle East. Of course, many of their notions stemmed from post-Nazi eastern European hardline Communism, in which many of them were raised, or at least about which they had heard stories from their parents. I'm not trying to imply some Jewish conspiracy, by the way. This is all pretty well open and common knowledge. I have no particular problem with their devotion to Israel other than my general dislike of organized religion and disagreement with the policies in general. It seems to me it's kind of like being devoted to North Carolina or Michigan or whereever you grew up. (Of course, it isn't as if they grew up there, but there's a similar bond.)

Quote:
I'm sure once Bitt gets wind of this, it'll be impossible for me to physically have the time to reply to everything!

Are you implying that I'm overly loquacious? Never!

Honestly, I don't have the energy to care. It's obvious what this administration's agenda is, and I don't have any notion that they'll be putting any more moderate people in power. (I honestly haven't looked at the other new "lesser" cabinet members at all.) All I can do is wait it out and try to convince people how much in opposition to this country's founding principles our current administration is, so we can get a good, solid LIBERAL in office next year.

Oh, one other thing I'd like to point out:

Quote:
It's amazing how people who are liberals get so defensive about the word.

Have you noticed how often black people these days seem to refer to themselves and each other as "niggers"? How about when a white guy calls them that? You think that they think it's meant the same way? That's the same way that most conservative pundits use the term "liberal" today. I'm a better man than to take it as an insult. I'm damned proud to be a liberal, and if someone tries to insult me by calling me one, he's done a piss-poor job of it.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 01:25

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Over here we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tollerated.


ha ha ha ha ha HFS hah ha ha!

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're either joking or haven't travelled much in the US.


Nope, quite serious. Yes, in a country of 295,340,413 people, I'm sure you can list dozens and dozens of instances, but anti-Semetism is openly condemmed here in the USA. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the nuts who think that the world is run by 5 Jewish bankers on the top of some hill, but in contrast with parts of Europe, those people are hardly mainstream. The have to resort to secret little clubs and books etc. Maybe you're just hanging out with the wrong people?


Maybe you're just not very good an doing research? I don't think _ww.KKK.com qualifies as a "secret little club" as you put it Brad.

Nor is _ww.americannaziparty.com....

Ironically, they're in Michigan. Perhaps you live near the wrong people? How can you cast dispersions at Heather when she's simply pointing out that something you said is obviously stated from a point of view totally lacking in knowledge of the facts? Finding those websites required me to:

1) assume the KKK had a web site.
2) type their name sandwiched by "www." and ".com"
3) Assume there was an active Nazi party in the US.
4) See above

Which is approximately 4 steps more than you took to verify your warrant before posting. And do you know why those sites exist, Brad. Because we not only accept it, we defend their right to do it. Sadly.

And by the way, maybe I'm wrong, but I think "neo-" also goes quite nicely with:

-lithic
-classical
-futurist
-phyte
-tropical
-impressionism
-natal

...and by itself it can even be Near Earth Object.

But I quess you're right. If you do nothing but watch US broadcast media for your information, you might not have beenexposed to some of those.

No offense Brad, you've always seemed like a pretty decent fellow, but you're coming off as someone who seems like he has a bit of a martyr complex going on. If you're the only one who's right, does it matter if everyone is going to "gang up on you" as you expect? Can't you just prove everyone is wong with carefully researched examples?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 04:00

Bitt,

Brad: the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew"
I didn't have time or inclination to take Brad to task for some very broad statements. Others took up those tasks who I thought were speaking to those statements more personally. Reading this line, though, I am troubled. Where did this "is most commonly used" come from? Your deliniation of neocon history, Bitt, seems pretty straightforward for anyone who is willing to spend a few minutes with Google..

I have heard a couple of commentatotors on the radio, David Frum comes to mind, offer near-sotto voce comments like "well, those people have a thinly-veiled antisemitic agenda" in a defensive shot at critics of US-Mideast policy. So is this it? Critical mention of "Neocon" as antisemitic codeword? That is what this smells of to me. The sneakily-implying Frums of the world piss me off.

Quote:
It seems to me it's kind of like being devoted to North Carolina or Michigan or whereever you grew up. (Of course, it isn't as if they grew up there, but there's a similar bond.)

I would take friendly issue with this assessment. It's a pretty flawed analogy, but Sherman didn't march through the south and kill all the women and children....

Apropos this point, in my waking moments this morning, I heard a bit of oral history from a 50-something Jewish woman (in New York?) whose Dad was an Auschwitz survivor. Throughout her life, her Dad sheltered her from his concentration camp reality with "Oh, it wasn't that bad..." Finally, with Dad approaching his deathbed, the daughter forced her Dad to fess up. I'm doing a lousy job of describing this, but it was very affecting. Ah, easy, it is here.

Anyhow, all I mean to say is that, even for some (Jewish) people of my age who have never been there, I think Israel means a whole lot more than North Carolina. Now, does that make Israeli political policy correct or exempt from criticism? Hardly. Frum shouldn't have to spend his time searching out critics of Israeli policy in the US. There are plenty of them in Israel.

Quote:
Honestly, I don't have the energy to care. It's obvious what this administration's agenda is, and I don't have any notion that they'll be putting any more moderate people in power. (I honestly haven't looked at the other new "lesser" cabinet members at all.) All I can do is wait it out and try to convince people how much in opposition to this country's founding principles our current administration is, so we can get a good, solid LIBERAL in office next year.

Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at. The people have spoken! All events, nominations, etc. since November 2 completely predictable.

Some of the Democratic criticism did take the form of complaining about the color of the deck chairs, but as I think Tony mentioned, I also did take pleasure in listening to some of the more direct questioning and criticism of Rice such as Boxer's... maybe even more Mark Rice (MN) "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," he said. "It's wrong. It's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous."

I think it was Danial Schorr this evening who mentioned that Boxer's words could be used in foreign capitols to discourage aid to US efforts in Iraq. If so, I'm sure the Rushs will rail against anti-American senators who are undermining our shot at victory over evil. So, what are anti-American Americans to do? Not demand the truth? Confirm liars to cabinet appointments without taking exception?

...Brad, I read with interest Webroach's very recent, critical post. I think I have to agree with what he's saying. It's not enough to be the ganged-up-on minority. With statements like the "neocon" one above, I gotta ask how much research you are doing.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 05:04

Well, I won't deny the differences between loyalty to your hometown and loyalty to your 5000-year promised land. My point was simply that I could understand the loyalty, even if I disagree. It does raise some parallels to current US culture, I think, in the realm of wanting to be loyal even while disagreeing versus feeling like you must agree in order to be loyal. I know I'm torn in my allegiance to the US. I know that it still has the capability of great things, even if I'l terribly, terribly disappointed at it at the moment. I imagine it's quite a bit like being a parent and finding drugs in your child's room. Or Lawrence Welk albums.

Quote:
next year

Uh, I meant next election.
Posted by: julf

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 06:23

Quote:
Apropos this point, in my waking moments this morning, I heard a bit of oral history from a 50-something Jewish woman (in New York?) whose Dad was an Auschwitz survivor.

And speaking of Auschwitz, I just watching the pics and reading the accounts of the 60th anniversary, with the largest gathering of survivors ever (and likely forever). Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Yushchenko, Jacques Chirac and Horst Köhler were all there. Where was Bush? Where was Condoleezza Rice?

And as most of us know, the World Economic Forum is on again in Davos right now. All major word leaders from politics and business gathered together, with their main concern being "How to prevent the US train wreck from pulling down the World Economy? What happens when China stops propping up the US Dollar? And what to do to really solve the problems in Africa?"

Nice pics with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Thabo Mbeki Olusegun Obasanjo and the ever-present Bono in a group session. Where is Bush? Where is Rice? Ahh, yes, back home making speeches about "liberty throughout the world"...
Posted by: pca

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 15:42

Quote:
next year


Uh, I meant next election.


Shhh. You know you're not supposed to talk about the revolutionary plans in public.

pca
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 18:02

Quote:
I expect a volunteer organization which exists to provide care in 3rd world countries should not be scared for the lives of their workers to the point of pulling out, or we haven't actually finished...


I never claimed anything was finished, but I still believe that it is a significant accomplishment to date.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 18:36

Quote:
I see an increasingly precious part of critical political discourse that is slipping away in favor of fascist-flavored media labeling and bombast.


Assuming I understand what you mean, I'll agree with you on this. I think both sides are equaly at blame. What's sad is that the labeling and bombasting isn't just in the media anymore - it's made it's way the floors of Congress. Maybe we were spoiled in the last half century. It seems that this type of politics was quite common in the not too distant history.

Quote:
Am I *rooting* for failure? I think Rush et al work pretty hard to equate *predicting* failure with rooting for failure. I feel a responsibility to predict failure if that is my conviction. Do I wanna tell my sisters "Oh, don't worry about <my nephew>, cuz it's all going to work out great in Iraq?" Should we not opine/predict? When placing the country in a complete lose/lose situation, it is pretty hard to predict success (although we seem to have a pretty good supply of functionaries who try!). Should I try to predict success like the starry-eyed Rumsfelds and Condis?


Well, we certainly have a disconnect here then. Are you truely "convict(ed).. to predict failure"? I could undertand if you saw failure and were convicted to express it, but it seems that being determined to arrive a certain prediction is pretty close to rooting for it (failure). The Iraq War is far from a lose/lose situation in most people's minds. We can go on and on about who is more likely to be right, but there have already been a million threads on this and I don't think this one needs to stray into that area. But the only way to ensure failure is to concede to it. Ted Kennedy seems to prefer this route, I do not.

Quote:
Karzai isn't called the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing. Afghanistan is part of a region. I don't think it can be treated as a compartment separate from places like Pakistan. We made some mistakes and then made some bigger ones -- diverted focus. As Derrick suggests, the country is not secure. Not only has the Fat Lady not sung, I don't think her costume is back from the cleaners yet.


Do you really go through life predicting doom and gloom at every turn? Would anything short of Utopia satisfy you? There were a LOT of people shouting that military victory in Afghanistan was impossible and had in fact already been lost. We were going to ignite a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Iran was going to jump into the frey. I'm not claiming that things are all hunky dory over there, but it amazes me what sort of results are being expected here. Maybe this wholePESD thing is real.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 18:56

Quote:
I'm not really sure quite how it's ironic at all (because of your implied connection to neo-Nazism?)


Yes. This was all brought up because someone got so defensive over the term "liberal" and thought I was using as some sort of attack. We're getting WAY off subject here: Dr. Rice.

Quote:
It seems to me it's kind of like being devoted to North Carolina or Michigan or whereever you grew up.


Actually, very few Jews from that time grew up in what is now Israel I imagine. Everytime I read or learn more about how the UK and US started that whole mess by promissng this and that, I cringe.

Quote:
All I can do is wait it out and try to convince people how much in opposition to this country's founding principles our current administration is, so we can get a good, solid LIBERAL in office next year.


Did you use "founding principles" and "LIBERAL" in the same sentence? ? ? That's it. I officially blame this whole mess on the "Founding Fathers" for not being more specific!

Quote:
I'm damned proud to be a liberal, and if someone tries to insult me by calling me one, he's done a piss-poor job of it.


Well, I'm glad to know that you're not one of the (hopefully few) liberals who want to equate their "struggle" with the Limbaughs of the world with slavery of the civil rights struggle!

I even have a few friends that are liberals. I even invited one to my house once. Well, we actually just worked together at the same job.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 19:26

Quote:
Maybe you're just not very good an doing research? I don't think _ww.KKK.com qualifies as a "secret little club" as you put it Brad.


First off, I'm not really sure how any of this came up. I'll need to re-read some of the first page posts. My point was simply that from the news reports I read every day (usually Reuters, AP or my local news feeds that get sent to my home page everyday) I see far more violence conducted against Jews in Europe (France in particular) than I do in the US.

Yes, the KKK have a web site. So does my neighbor's kid's band. Probably about as sophisticated. I think that doing a LexisNexis (or however you spell it) news seach would be more insightful than seeing who has a web page.

But the point is, the KKK is a joke. Ever since they lost in civil court (and IIRC a black woman who lost her son to KKK violence was awarded all of their property) the KKK is limited to Jerry Springer episodes and getting spit on while trying to be included as part of some city's local parade.

And I didn't look into that www .americannazi. com link, but I did see in the news yesterday they are wanting or did adopt some local road. Yep, they're striking fear into the hearts of litterbugs! Again, these people are a joke. Does that mean that we should condemn them or keep an eye on them? Absolutely not.

Quote:
And by the way, maybe I'm wrong, but I think "neo-" also goes quite nicely with:

-lithic
-classical
-futurist
-phyte
-tropical
-impressionism
-natal


Again, this was a minor side comment I made and I think we're wasting time discussing it when we're supposed to be talking about how Dr. Rice is a parrot for President Bush (oops, I mean for the people who are secretly running the White House through the conduit of President Bush), however I clearly said that the "casual observor" might make that association. I also said that those two terms were the only two that have been popularized. Not only do none of your excellent finds have anything to do with politics, I doubt that the average person is well versed in neophyte religious studies.

Quote:
But I quess you're right. If you do nothing but watch US broadcast media for your information, you might not have beenexposed to some of those.


Perhaps you'd prefer I Tivo the BBC or CBC broadcasts? Lots of documentaries on neoimpressionism that I'm missing out on? Perhaps a new reality show on neolithic studies that's all the rage?

Quote:
No offense Brad, you've always seemed like a pretty decent fellow, but you're coming off as someone who seems like he has a bit of a martyr complex going on. If you're the only one who's right, does it matter if everyone is going to "gang up on you" as you expect? Can't you just prove everyone is wong with carefully researched examples?


Martyr complex? I give a knowing wink to Jim about how I know I'm going to get out numbered on this and you think I'm trying a whole "pitty me" routine? I was simply stating that I know I have the minority view on these boards but I still enjoy debate - even if I get out numbered sometimes. I think the only time that I've even got offended here is when I read that someone here had a small view of anyone that was religous and I knew that it included me. Yeah, that hurt, but I just took a break from Off Topic and got over it. I'm sorry if I give you the impression that I saw myself as some sort of David vs. Goliath here.

And thanks. You're um.. decent too.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 19:39

Quote:
...Brad, I read with interest Webroach's very recent, critical post. I think I have to agree with what he's saying. It's not enough to be the ganged-up-on minority. With statements like the "neocon" one above, I gotta ask how much research you are doing.


I'm confused. I said that "neo-con" is "most commonly used to mean conservative Jew". And THIS was only said after Tony made reference to those pesky "neo cons". And the whole point of that paragragh was to say I don't mind being called conservative so I don't understand why some liberals get so defensive about it.

Bitt gave more details that give some context and history to the origins of "neo-con". That supported my "common usage" statement.

Jim agreed that he proudly calls himself a liberal and doesn't view it as an attack (or even when it is, it's not an effective one).

So what's the gripe here?
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 21:12

Actually, we traded one set of bad circumstances (oppressive single government) for a different one (regional warlords and a region which is freer albeit with a higher ambient danger level than before at the center of the country). For some people it is more of an improvement, for others, not so much.

And of course, rather than actually finishing this before moving on, we have largely moved on.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 21:52

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe you're just not very good an doing research? I don't think _ww.KKK.com qualifies as a "secret little club" as you put it Brad.


First off, I'm not really sure how any of this came up. I'll need to re-read some of the first page posts. My point was simply that from the news reports I read every day (usually Reuters, AP or my local news feeds that get sent to my home page everyday) I see far more violence conducted against Jews in Europe (France in particular) than I do in the US.


Fair enough. That may have been your point, but that has nothing to do with the claim you made relating to anti-Semitism in the United States.

Quote:

Yes, the KKK have a web site. So does my neighbor's kid's band. Probably about as sophisticated. I think that doing a LexisNexis (or however you spell it) news seach would be more insightful than seeing who has a web page.

But the point is, the KKK is a joke. Ever since they lost in civil court (and IIRC a black woman who lost her son to KKK violence was awarded all of their property) the KKK is limited to Jerry Springer episodes and getting spit on while trying to be included as part of some city's local parade.

And I didn't look into that www .americannazi. com link, but I did see in the news yesterday they are wanting or did adopt some local road. Yep, they're striking fear into the hearts of litterbugs! Again, these people are a joke. Does that mean that we should condemn them or keep an eye on them? Absolutely not.


So could you please explain in detail how them being a joke (which I'm sure is an opinion that would go over quite nicely at the Auschwitz rememberance) equates to them not being anti-Semetic? Because you know, it's possible to clean up a highway and still hate Jews. And your original statement had nothing to do with the level of respect you have for people such as this; you stated that we "we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tolerated" which is, sadly, simply not true. We have plenty and it is tolerated.

And your neighbor's kid's band is not under discussion here, nor debate. I understand it was an attempt to dismiss the argument, but it doesn't serve that purpose. After all, nobody ever said that we "certainly don't tolerate Brad's neighbor's kid's band", did we?

Quote:
Quote:
And by the way, maybe I'm wrong, but I think "neo-" also goes quite nicely with:

-lithic
-classical
-futurist
-phyte
-tropical
-impressionism
-natal


Again, this was a minor side comment I made and I think we're wasting time discussing it when we're supposed to be talking about how Dr. Rice is a parrot for President Bush (oops, I mean for the people who are secretly running the White House through the conduit of President Bush), however I clearly said that the "casual observor" might make that association. I also said that those two terms were the only two that have been popularized. Not only do none of your excellent finds have anything to do with politics, I doubt that the average person is well versed in neophyte religious studies.



I disagree. You actually went into a fair bit of detail as to your feelings about the term. And, yes, you also pointed out that people were welcome to "toss the 'neo' in there so that the casual observer might associate it with 'neo-nazi'.." Kind of a non-sequiter if you ask me (I personally never made that association until you brought it up), but that's just my opinion. You also stated later, in response to Rob, that "the only two 'neo-anythings' that have popular meaning are neo-con and neo-nazi" which is a sweeping generalization, and one that has the added benefit of being incorrect. You may want to reconsider; not everyone is confused by the above terms. Pretty much everyone in my circle could explain any of them. If you're right, and the general populace of the US can't, then we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

As to us wasting time when we're "supposed to be talking about how Dr. Rice is a parrot...", I would humbly submit that we are addressing side arguments you've made in relation to the central argument. Did you yourself not say that the cabinet is there to carry out the president's policies and not be at odds with them? What exactly is that, if not parroting? And if that is what she does, your argument regarding her qualifications is pointless; you don't need to be qualified to do and say what you're told to do and say.

And by the way, neophyte does not just refer to religous pursuits. It can apply to pretty much anything. Including politics, as in "Though he was a neophyte, the new congressman showed promise". You can even use it in regards to cogent argumentation.

Quote:
Quote:
But I quess you're right. If you do nothing but watch US broadcast media for your information, you might not have beenexposed to some of those.


Perhaps you'd prefer I Tivo the BBC or CBC broadcasts?



Might not be a bad idea. Is there something wrong, in your opinion, with having more than one source of information? Or is that just a myth perpetrated by the liberal media?

Quote:
Lots of documentaries on neoimpressionism that I'm missing out on? Perhaps a new reality show on neolithic studies that's all the rage?


It strikes me as odd that you seem to be making fun of any kind of intellectual pursuit. And yeah, you're missing out on them. Give the Discovery networks a shot once in the while. I know they don't bash on "liberals", but still, they're ok if your're up for learning about more than how to argue about who's right or wrong....

Quote:

And thanks. You're um.. decent too.


Hrm.. I say thank you, and I really mean that. But I get the idea from the way you put that that there may be some confusion as to the meaning of the word "decent". It's not dismissive; it's a compliment. Hopefully you understood my intention when I said you were decent.
Posted by: Redrum

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 22:02

Open Letter to Brad:

Thanks for expressing the conservative stance so well in the midst of this bombardment, with ya bro. Yes I agree that this is a lost cause for most on this board. However it may help to sway some anonymous reader that is not sucked in by the overwhelming number of liberals here.

It is sad that some people’s “estimation” of you has gone down because of your stance/beliefs. Of course that is what inevitably happens when people do not agree. Your still the same Brad as always but since you disagree with them you are somehow less. Note: See history – every war and prejudice is usually not personal but belief oriented.

Well I’m not going to comment much on this subject because I don’t care and need to get back to my “capitalistic raping of forests, sea turtles and natural resource.” I also need to kick my dog, finish my fourth beer and beat my wife and kids. Got to take it out on them because my 4x4 is broken (not really all that but the don’t care about this subject and need another beer is correct).

Keep on keeping on.

Hey, after all, what do they want, she’s black isn’t she?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 22:27

Quote:
Hey, after all, what do they want, she’s back isn’t she?


I can only assume you meant to say black.

Becuase you know that's all anyone who doesn't agree with your particular brand of "keep on keepin'g on" politics cares about, right?

What happens when people don't agree (or what should happen) is that they try to figure out their differences by discussing them, without using overly inflammatory language and (one would hope) without making it all about attacks?

I don't get what you're trying to say with the "lost cause" comment. Are you saying that any of us that don't agree with you are "lost causes"? Because if so, who's doing the "bombarding"?

And I hate to break this to you, but peoples opinions of others are formed by eachothers stances and beliefs, among other things. What do you base your opinion of others on?

Thanks for dropping by to slather sarcasm all over the thread. We were running a bit low, ya know. If you don't care about it, I would have to ask:

A) Why comment on it at all?
B) How is it that you have such powerful opinions on something you "don't care about"?

And if you think Mrs. Rice being black or white or whatever matters to any of us, I think you've really made an unfortunate mistake. I personally think that this board has better things to worry about than sombody's ethnic background. I personally look at her as simply another person.

Do you?
Posted by: DLF

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 22:38

Quote:
And you lot voted for these pillocks.
You do know that statement was patently false for the denizens of this board, right? I've never voted for a Republican in my life. Of course, I've never voted for a Democrat for U.S. President in my life, either. Just smarter, better-qualified, and generally more moral and ethical human beings who, almost by definition, are unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties, and who again almost by definition, can and will never, ever win the Oval Office. Drats.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 22:47

Quote:
Quote:
And you lot voted for these pillocks.
You do know that statement was patently false for the denizens of this board, right?


I think Rob was referring to the euphemistic "you"; in this case referring to the people of the US. I'm only assuming, of course.

Quote:
I've never voted for a Republican in my life. Of course, I've never voted for a Democrat for U.S. President in my life, either. Just smarter, better-qualified, and generally more moral and ethical human beings who, almost by definition, are unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties.....


I only wish more people would make wise choices like this.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 22:59

Quote:
... it's HARD to trash a junker!
Now that I think about it, ALL my Jewish friends drive PoS cars. So where are you guys supposed to be doing all that vicious hoarding of America's money and selfish monopolization of all the world's precious resources, anyway? As for really being a Nazi, well at least I hope your junker is a beat-up old VW Bug.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 23:08

Quote:
The vast majority of these people were Jews,...
Meaning that Paul Wolfowitz will be played in the movie version of Iraq by Ron Silver!

Quote:
It seems to me it's kind of like being devoted to North Carolina....
Which is why I left the Appalachians in 1991 for the Rockies!

Quote:
Have you noticed how often black people these days seem to refer to themselves and each other as "niggers"? How about when a white guy calls them that? You think that they think it's meant the same way? That's the same way that most conservative pundits use the term "liberal" today. I'm a better man than to take it as an insult. I'm damned proud to be a liberal, and if someone tries to insult me by calling me one, he's done a piss-poor job of it.
Or like in the scene from the maudlin classic "Brian's Song," a laughably poor job.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Rain Woman - 28/01/2005 23:18

Quote:
I personally look at her as simply another person.
Or the same ol' person, in the sense meant by the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."

Edit: Speaking of dropping by with a spit-bucket full o' sarcasm...
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 01:05

Quote:
finish my fourth beer

Fourth?

Yeah, right.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 02:14

Quote:
Quote:
And you lot voted for these pillocks.
You do know that statement was patently false for the denizens of this board, right? I've never voted for a Republican in my life.


I did. I voted for Arlen Specter in the primary, and I voted for Arlen Specter in the general election. I do not and have not concealed that fact. For reasons of local candidate availability in my former place of residence, I am still registered Republican. I am unsure if I want to reregister Democrat. I will not register Independent, I see no reason to throw away my primary election votes either.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 03:26

Daring to Fly

A play in one short act.

Scene: San Francisco, on the northern approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. Behind the wheel of a small silver Japanes station wagon is WagonBoy, having driven south from the darkness of the Northwest winter to score some Humboldt bud, commune with fellow anti-American liberals, and marry another man.

The wagon, Washington plate 2LEFT4U, weaves between lanes so that WagonBoy can have the opportunity to flash the peace sign at all other cars climbing on to the fabled, glorious Red span of Utopian Socialism.

As WagonBoy nears the midpoint of the bridge he spies 3 men mounting the rail of the bridge. WagonBoy's bleeding heart almost comes to a complete stop. He pulls the handbrake, cuts the wheel to start a skid, and manages a 60-0 1-second stop in the curb lane behind the 3 men.

Two young men, looking a bit nervous and forlorn, stand on the rail on either side of an older man who holds one of each of their hands aloft in the manner of a referee at a prizefight. The older man, wearing wizened wire rim glasses and an expensive suit and with nary a hair out of place, turns to WagonBoy to reveal a radiant, knowing, confident smile. The youth on the left, a pale white boy with a white wall haircut and acne wears an OD t-shirt and some desert cammy pants. On the right a much darker-complected youth wears a very worn pair of Adidas and a torn "Hard Rock Cafe - Kirkuk" T-shirt.

[WagonBoy, shouting]: "Hey! Hey! What the hell are you *doing*???

[WiseOldMan]: "Well, I am teaching these boys to fly! Isn't that great? What a day, huh? Couldn't be a better day for flying!"

[WagonBoy]: "Flying? Are your crazy? If you step off there you are all going to die!"

(young white boy directs a confused glance at WagonBoy...)

[WagonBoy]: "Hey, you? Are you going along with this? What's your name?"

[white boy, Jared]: "Ummm, Jared. Ummm, I dunno. Everybody says it's cool to fly...and like if I get the chance I shouldn't pass it up!"

[WagonBoy]: "Hey and you, Hard Rock: What's up? Are you actually going along with this??"

[hard rock boy, Ahmad]: "Well, yes. My father, Ahmad son of Ahmad insisted that any of his sons fly if given the chance!"

[WagonBoy]: "Old man you are *crazy*!! Anybody who's ever jumped off here has *died*! It's that simple! You're not birds, you're men! You are way too heavy!"

[WiseOldMan]: "Actually, we are not too heavy. I have carefully measured my weight and I weigh only 1.3 kilos. According to my careful calculations, my flight dynamics are quite good. Now Jared and Ahmad here, they weigh only 700 grams each. They should have no problem at all!"

[WagonBoy]: "That's insane! No way do you weigh 1.3 kilos! Have you discussed this with your doctor?"

[WiseOldMan]: "Well, actually I have, but you know I have got to say that my doctor has been in his job too long. He seems to have lost the ability to look at issues of mass and flight in new ways. If I paid too much attention to him, nobody would ever get off the ground!....Besides, and I have this on very solid authority, there are massive air pockets in the tidal flows below the bridge that will cushion any landing in the unlikely event that we encounter any previously-imponderable ambiguities in the areas of flight dynamics management or atmospheric density."

(At this moment, a small silver Japanese sedan comes buzzing down the northbound lanes, executes a U-Turn, jumps the median, and comes to a stop next to WagonBoy. A pale, white man, wearing a "Live Free or ...Whatever" T-shirt jumps out and starts shouting.)

[pale guy, SedanMan]: "Hey you! (to WagonBoy) What are you doing? Why are you bothering these people? Are you rooting for them to kill themselves? That is *sick*! You should be arrested!"

[WagonBoy]: "Well who the hell are you and what the hell are you doing barging in here when you don't know what the hell is really going on?"

[SedanMan]: "Don't tell me I don't know what is going on! I'm SedanMan and I just drove straight through from Detroit to come diss all the liberals in San Francisco! You're one of them, aren't you?"

[WagonBoy]: "Well, genius, your arrival is untimely. These people are trying to kill themselves and I am trying to stop them. Why the heck didn't you stay home and diss some liberals there?"

[SedanMan]: "Well, I was going to drive up to Ann Arbor and diss some liberals, but I figured I might get shot along the way for driving a foreign car! .....But hey, I'm asking the questions here! Why are you rooting these people on? Trying to make them kill themselves?"

[WagonBoy]: "I am *NOT* trying to make them kill themselves! The idiots, at least the old yo-yo with the glasses and the snazzy tie, think that they are going *flying*! I gotta stop them!"

[SedanMan]: "Well, flying, that's a completely different story! Why the heck are you trying to keep them from going flying?"

[WagonBoy]: "They're not going to fly, they're going to be killed!!"

[WiseOldMan]: "I *remind* you that I only weigh 1.3 kilos and that my power-to-weight ratio exceeds accepted nominal thresholds given what we know about ambient air temperatures around the bridge pylons and that the angle of approach to the water should be quite acceptable given the massive air bubbles below the surface!"

[SedanMan]: "You see! He only weighs 1.3 kilos and that his power-to-weight ratio exceeds accepted nominal thresholds given what we know about ambient air temperatures around the bridge pylons and that the angle of approach to the water should be quite acceptable given the massive air bubbles below the surface!"

(At this moment, SedanMan loses his footing and inadverdently steps sideways into the 2nd lane. A Lexus sedan driven by a California pornographer with California plate ACLU4U smashes into SedanMan, throwing him 80 commie meters down the road....the pornographer slows for a moment, just long enough to shout "take that you right-wing anti-pornography fascist!" and flip SedanMan the bird.... after about 45 seconds, SedanMan props himself up, gets to his feet and walks back to the railing.)

[SedanMan]: "Now, as I was saying: You see! He only weighs 1.3 kilos and his power-to-weight ratio exceeds accepted nominal thresholds given what we know about ambient air temperatures around the bridge pylons and that the angle of approach to the water should be quite acceptable given the massive air bubbles below the surface! So tell me again, why are you rooting for these gallant young fliers to die? You should be ashamed of yourself!"

[WagonBoy]: "Me? Ashamed of myself? Holy crap! You should get your head examined! You are going to help get all these people killed. Even if they somehow managed to survive the fall, there are great white sharks down there!!"

[WiseOldMan]: "Sharks are not a factor. We have carefully analyzed intelligence from our allies in the shark community and we can report that shark populations in the environs of this bridge have been decimated by the large air bubbles! What few sharks remain have been scattered and are in hiding!"

[SedanMan]: "You see? Sharks are not a factor. He has carefully analyzed intelligence from our allies in the shark community and he can report that shark populations in the environs of this bridge have been decimated by the large air bubbles! What few sharks remain have been scattered and are in hiding! So tell me again, why are you rooting for these gallant young fliers to die? You should be ashamed of yourself!"

(At this moment, SedanMan, now a little woozy, shifts his weight and steps in front of biodiesel-powered Volkswagen. The driver, a 50 year-old woman wearing granny glasses and a Mu-Mu, swerves to hit SedanMan squarely in the back, throwing him 90 socialist meters down the road. The driver stops by SedanMan's crumpled form and gets out to deliver a short, pithy, critical diatribe to SedanMan in favor of the endangered transgender great white sharks, then gets back into the VW, California plate LIBHERL, and speeds off..... after about 50 seconds, SedanMan props himself up, gets to his feet and walks back to the railing.)

[SedanMan]: "You see? Sharks are not a factor. He has carefully analyzed intelligence from our allies in the shark community and he can report that shark populations in the environs of this bridge have been decimated by the large air bubbles! What few sharks remain have been scattered and are in hiding! So tell me again, why are you rooting for these gallant young fliers to die? You should be ashamed of yourself!"

[WagonBoy]: "Holy Crap! I am not looking for you to die, but if you jump, you most certainly will. Gad, old man, if Jared and Ahmad die, their mothers will hate you forever and their fathers will swear vengeance against those of us who let it happen. Why don't you let them go? If you're so confident in your flight dynamics, you should be able to fly solo, right?"

[WiseOldMan]: "Now who says I was going flying? *Somebody* with experience has to remain in the control tower! ... Jared? Ahmad? Ready?"
Posted by: cushman

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 11:54

Troll.
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 14:13

Damn, Jim, sometimes you scintillate, squire
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 14:51

Quote:
Nice pics with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Thabo Mbeki Olusegun Obasanjo and the ever-present Bono in a group session. Where is Bush? Where is Rice? Ahh, yes, back home making speeches about "liberty throughout the world"...

Speaking of Gates: an artice in The Economist sent me to his foundation pages. Wow! Billions he spends on global health programs (e.g. malaria vaccine research) are well publicised, but it makes barely 20% of what is spent to at least partialy reverse effects of Bush government's efforts to destroy public education, social services etc. So, now I pay Microsoft tax so that American Pacific NW homeless have a shot at standing on they own feet! Talk about global solidarity!

That inaugural speech you refered to deserves a separate thread.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 15:05

Quote:
Of course, I've never voted for a Democrat for U.S. President in my life, either. Just smarter, better-qualified, and generally more moral and ethical human beings who, almost by definition, are unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties, and who again almost by definition, can and will never, ever win the Oval Office. Drats.

Thet's probably one of the main reasons someone here refered to America as 'pseudo-democracy' - pactically no chances for anybody outside established two 'parties', regardless of capability or program.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 15:33

Hey someone had to write Qt.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 17:14

Quote:
I actually don't care that much about the Republicans vs. Democrats thing, it's mostly just an artifact of the quaint US two-party pseudo-democracy...

In all fairness, I think that American Republicans and Democrats currently differ on many important issues more than, say, most European Demochristians do from Social democrats (or even reformed Communists). I am affraid that European political scene is currently too 'homogenised', lacking radical marginal ideas (that still fall within the universally accepted limits of democracy and humen rights). I mean, one can't tell (to use German examples, Croatian are too obscure and surreal) CDU from SDP in labor policy, or from Greens in environment. Perhaps exception are British with their strong Euro-scepticism, and most important issue of them all, fox hunting (Then again, who would have guessed that Blair belongs to Labour?)
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 19:21

Quote:
Did you use "founding principles" and "LIBERAL" in the same sentence? ? ?

Well, the Founding Fathers whose intentions Americans seem to be trying to divine when other arguments fail did think that slavery was fine and dandy, and did not seem to notice that pristine land they were colonizing was inhabited for ten or so millenia by the people who would prefer white men to take their missunderstandings about taxes back across the ocean where they came from. So, you might be up to something here...

But, what Bitt probably had in mind was that Founding Fathers are unlikelly to would have been enamored with ever-growing snooping powers of federal government, hostage-keeping a'la Guantanamo or going to war for the benefit of old buddies in oil companies.

Quote:
Meaning of 'neo-cons'

I wasn't aware of ethnic background of prominent neo-conservatives (OK, so Wolfowitz does sound Jewish). The term was simply used to distinguish them from 'paleo-conservatives', those who did not switch sides, so to speak. I never detected any hint of intention to imply parallel with neo-Nazis.

Quote:
Anti-Semitism

It is possible that Europe has larger number of acts like defacing of Jewish cemeteries, probably because there are proportionally more Muslims (like Palestinian refugees) in Europe than in USA. There's another effect in play, I think: many Israeli politicians and commentators follow the formula 'anti-Sharon = anti-Israel = anti-Semite', which is, of course, utter nonsense, but helps to paint Europe as anti-Semitic.

BTW, speaking of tolerating (verbal) anti-Semitism, where is the line one draws regarding hate-speech? We saw an opinion in a previous thread denouncing French policy of punishing (anti-Muslim, in this case) hate speech as trampling the basic human right of free speech. Does this apply to anti-Semitic remarks? Should it?

(BTW, term 'anty-Semitic' is, strictly speaking, wrong: both Jews and Arabs are Semites.)

Quote:
Actually, very few Jews from that time grew up in what is now Israel I imagine. Everytime I read or learn more about how the UK and US started that whole mess by promissng this and that, I cringe.

I could agree with you here. It looks as if the whole affair was designed to fail (my impression is by British more than Americans). Was displacing Palestinians really the best way to cure feeling of guilt for Holocaust? Speaking of that, what about Romanies (Gypsies)? They were being externimated by Nazis even more zealously than Jews; not only was no state constructed for them, they are still second-class citizens all over the Europe (including, I am ashamed to admit, in Croatia)...

Quote:
I even have a few friends that are liberals. I even invited one to my house once. Well, we actually just worked together at the same job.

Well, I am quite sure you are considered a friend by most of us bleeding heart liberals here. And I have very good conservative friends. But somehow they seem to be able to actually hear arguments a bit better than you guys here (and succeeded in making me change the way I look at a thing or two in our local politics)
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 19:32

Quote:
Well, I am a Jew, and I have been insulted, spit on, gun pulled on, knife pulled on, violence directed at, my cars trashed (and it's HARD to trash a junker!), had my home vandalized, and my family threatened. But that is to be expected from 'low brows'.

For being a Jew, or 'just on general principles'? Sounds scary and much worse than I imagined that is happening nowadays pretty much anywhere in the West...

Quote:
But when someone calls me a 'Nazi', I have to laugh! Ignorance is such a preventable illness.

Heh, I saw a segment on CNN a few years ago about a row between ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews and their guests from USA. The sin the guests commited was that men and women were praying together at the Western Wall. Of course, the most popular insult flinged was 'Nazi'...
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 29/01/2005 19:46

Quote:
“capitalistic raping of forests, sea turtles and natural resource.”

I find that tree-hugging rhetoric about 'raping Mother Earth' silly and conter-productive. Humans are, after all, animals like any other and are expected to make most of environment for their own good.

That's exactly why clear cutting the forests, squandering precious petrochemical raw material in monster trucks and spewing enourmous amounts of greenhouse gases is somewhe between merely idiotic and criminal.

Quote:
I also need to kick my dog, finish my fourth beer and beat my wife and kids.

You mean fourth six-pack? Even my nephew can take four beers!

The problem is that the gang currently at the helm of the USA and their supporters are not (only) stereotypical redneck barbarians, but seemingly refined people like Dr. Rice...
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 01:45

Quote:
Would that be The Pietr Priciple or the Das Peter Prinzip?....systematically lied to us and now lies about that.


Late to the debate (busy week and broken laptop) but the above quote seems to encapsulate the original theme....IMO, what Rice demonstrates is both an embodiment of the Peter Principle and the maxim that power corrupts. From my vantage point, which is living just down the road and working across the street from Stanford, where she received a lot of local scrutiny in a town that specializes in debating everything from international politics to traffic circles, Dr. Rice did a fine job as provost at Stanford, and I have no interest in denigrating her previous accomplishments. Although one of those liberals, I thought initially that she (as with Colin Powell) might be a voice of reason in an admministration short on that substance, and was severely disappointed. It seems to me, based on her performance in Washington only, that she either left her reason or her honor on the West Coast, and I suspect that Barbara Boxer was responding with a similar sense of disillusionment in her questioning of her fitness as Secretary of State. All the side-issues, including her CV, are irrelevant to that central point and seem designed, intentionally or not, to distract from it.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 03:10

Quote:
Troll.

Flock of Seagulls?

Complete non-sequitur: I remember observing a seagull once... far, far, far away from the sea. I remarked to myself "My! How far we are from the sea! And from gulls! (Who might be properly terned...See!...Gulls!").... as I sat swigging water from my jug on the Knife Edge and as the gull lazily, nonchalantly, slowly rose on an early afternoon updraft along the Chimney Peak couloir. It was somewhat hypnotic. The seagull came closer and closer. I remarked to myself: "Look at that gull. The rising, warm air. It is almost as if Katahdin was an extinct volcano."
Posted by: cushman

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 04:08

Quote:
extinct volcano

It would seem that way, wouldn't it? I always thought it was, since we have a few others nearby.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 14:02

Quote:
Actually, we traded one set of bad circumstances (oppressive single government) for a different one (regional warlords and a region which is freer albeit with a higher ambient danger level than before at the center of the country). For some people it is more of an improvement, for others, not so much.


Perhaps you've forgotten that one of those circumstances allowed the open hosting of a terrorist organization that produced the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world. In addition to the terrorist training camps, women were killed for the accidental showing of flesh (as in part of their forearm if the wind caught the fabric of their sleeve), were forbid from learning how to read or any of the countless crimes against women that are very well documented and for some reason, certain people only seemed to care about in 1998. Now, women are allowed to not only go to school, but to teach and vote in the first elections in their country. The terrorist camps care destroyed and Afghanistan is finally allowed to recover from decades of turmoil.

Maybe those "some people" you refer to that don't consider this an improvement are the Taliban.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 14:51

Quote:
So could you please explain in detail how them being a joke (which I'm sure is an opinion that would go over quite nicely at the Auschwitz rememberance) equates to them not being anti-Semetic? Because you know, it's possible to clean up a highway and still hate Jews. And your original statement had nothing to do with the level of respect you have for people such as this; you stated that we "we don't have as much anti-Semitism and it's certainly not tolerated" which is, sadly, simply not true. We have plenty and it is tolerated.


Fo this topic that you love to go on about, the anti-semitism reference that composed one short sentence, I was refering to violence against Jews in this country by people or groups based solely on that person being Jewish. Rob's post was trying to critize me for daring to bring up the word "Nazi" on the Auschwitz memorial. I must be some insensitive American who has no idea of what's going on outside of the borders of my self-centered country. I just wanted to say that from what I've read in the news, violence against Jews was much more common in Europe than it is here. I never claimed there was no Anti-Semitism (go re-read my post). I said there wasn't as much and I was simply referring to the level of violence. You want to "nail" me for not being more specific on that? Go ahead, but I bet even if you include non-violent behavior, my statement is still correct.

As you have so diligently pointed out, the KKK has an internet site on the world wide web. They may even have an email address and fax machine. They are however, an utter joke. They are the idiots that deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at. This once fearsome domestic terror group is now limited to adopting highways, making animated GIFs for their web site and appearing on the Jerry Springer Show.

Quote:
And your neighbor's kid's band is not under discussion here, nor debate. I understand it was an attempt to dismiss the argument, but it doesn't serve that purpose. After all, nobody ever said that we "certainly don't tolerate Brad's neighbor's kid's band", did we?


Again, all you managed to prove in your detective work is that the KKK have a web site. So does my neighbor's band's kid. They both suck and will have no impact on this world (sorry Ronnie).

Quote:
I disagree. You actually went into a fair bit of detail as to your feelings about the term. And, yes, you also pointed out that people were welcome to "toss the 'neo' in there so that the casual observer might associate it with 'neo-nazi'.." Kind of a non-sequiter if you ask me (I personally never made that association until you brought it up), but that's just my opinion.


Well then fine. You're not the casual oberver who may have thought that. What, you're an exception to something I said "might" happen with the casual obersvor and suddenly what I say is not true? And I didn't ask you if it was a non-sequiter. And watch out, don't mention your opinion either because if I disagree with you, then you're incorrect and I'll think less of you as a person for not reseaching what my opinion is.

Quote:
You also stated later, in response to Rob, that "the only two 'neo-anythings' that have popular meaning are neo-con and neo-nazi" which is a sweeping generalization, and one that has the added benefit of being incorrect. You may want to reconsider; not everyone is confused by the above terms. Pretty much everyone in my circle could explain any of them. If you're right, and the general populace of the US can't, then we're in deeper trouble than I thought.


Oh yes, the world is doomed because my mom and hafl the people driving down the highway can't pick out neoimpressionism from impressionism. The sky is falling because Ronnie and his band have no idea what neophyte refers too. Man, we're screwed.

Quote:
And by the way, neophyte does not just refer to religous pursuits. It can apply to pretty much anything. Including politics, as in "Though he was a neophyte, the new congressman showed promise". You can even use it in regards to cogent argumentation.


Oh wait, you mean even I who looked that term up only knew of one of its definitions!!! Ah man, I'd better get that bomb shelter and duct tape ready!

Quote:
Might not be a bad idea. Is there something wrong, in your opinion, with having more than one source of information? Or is that just a myth perpetrated by the liberal media?


Well, only about 7% of Canadian citizens seem to think that the CBC is worth watching and 20% of those are hockey fans that only watch it to see games. I guess they're fucked too. And considering how you are going over my posts with a finetoothed comb trying to twist how I probably meant "much as" in reference to a sidebar comment, I'm surprised you missed that I get a lot of my news from AP and Reuters. I don't even mind the Washington Post or NYT if I skip the editorials. These aren't of course the only places, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm about to watch the swill from CBC or the BBC thank you very much. Maybe my sources aren't anti-Bush enough for webroach? Is that it? The Page 3 section of the UK Sun is pretty nice sometimes as well.

Quote:
It strikes me as odd that you seem to be making fun of any kind of intellectual pursuit. And yeah, you're missing out on them. Give the Discovery networks a shot once in the while. I know they don't bash on "liberals", but still, they're ok if your're up for learning about more than how to argue about who's right or wrong....


Do you realize how condisending you're being here? I wasn't making fun of documentaries, I was making fun of you (sorry, but you're pretty much the only one here being overtly rude to me and I don't appreciate it) for thinking that "neophyte" was such a stable in the American culture. I don't believe I'm even wasting my time explaining this, but with the exception of a few Aqua Teen episodes, my Tivo is full of recording on the History Channel, PBS (rarely but the History Detectives rocks), Discovery Science, Discovery and TLC. I'm actually a big fan of documentaries and they're my preferred type of show to watch. But you couldn't pay me to watch one on neoimpressionism.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 15:25

Quote:
Open Letter to Brad:...

It is sad that some people’s “estimation” of you has gone down because of your stance/beliefs. Of course that is what inevitably happens when people do not agree. Your still the same Brad as always but since you disagree with them you are somehow less. Note: See history – every war and prejudice is usually not personal but belief oriented.


You know, this is what's really getting me. So here we are, because someone disagrees with me, I'm thought less of. Not simply disagreed with - but in their eyes, less of a person to a community that I've been part of for nearly 6 years.

But at least I'm still descent! Like that brown pair of shoes I have!

Sure, Jim can devote his signature to a web site he made that lists all of Bush's accomplishments to date (don't bother clicking, he's left it empty) and he titles this thread "rain women" implying that Dr. Rice is Autistic. She is then called "fundamentally an idiot." It goes on! She is also an idiotic automaton suck up!

Yet these "broad" statements are praised. Why? Because people agree with them. Fine, that's expected. We make plenty of broad statements about our empegs that we all accept because we agree ("There will be no better mp3 player for 10 year!", etc.)

Yet, when I think that such a broad, offensive, perhaps intentionally over the top post deserves a little ballance by at least pasting the resume of Condeleezza Rice, I'm accused of being "arrogant in the extreme". Yes, Jim asks a question, I answer it and I'm arrogant to the extreme!

However, a page or so later, someone else takes about 3 seconds to type "www.kkk.com" into this browser (proving to the world once and for all that the KKK have started paying their electric bill again) and he's a "reseacher!"

So, a Google search is arrogant and typing a url into your browser is research.

And if I make a "broad" statement, I'm bad for not having footnotes listing my sources. Yet, all of the broad statements that Dr. Condeleezza Rice is a muppet, puppet, parrot, Autistic, idiot and a suck up are not overly broad.

Whatver.

Quote:
I also need to kick my dog, finish my fourth beer and beat my wife and kids.


Crap, thanks for reminding me. I forgot to beat my wife last night.

Don't forget about the book burning today!
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 15:38

Quote:
What happens when people don't agree (or what should happen) is that they try to figure out their differences by discussing them, without using overly inflammatory language and (one would hope) without making it all about attacks?


It was a letter to me. I didn't see him engage in any attacks.

Quote:
I don't get what you're trying to say with the "lost cause" comment. Are you saying that any of us that don't agree with you are "lost causes"? Because if so, who's doing the "bombarding"?


"Lost cause" means that there really isn't any chance of changing some people's minds because they are so obviously entrenched in their views. Also, many views are based on predictions and there is no way to prove that a certain prediction is wrong without simply waiting to see. Matters of fact can usually be proved, but matters of opiion (such as world-view) can not. So trying to change your mind might be a lost cause. You as a person however are not a lost cause. If that's bombarding, then we're in deeper trouble than I thought.

Quote:
And I hate to break this to you, but peoples opinions of others are formed by eachothers stances and beliefs, among other things. What do you base your opinion of others on?


Most of us simply say, "I disagree with you, but I respect you." I don't think Jim and I could be more politically opposite with one another, but I deeply respect him and think he's an intelliegent guy. That isn't to say he doesn't make my blood boil sometimes, but I'm not going to let politics get in the way of my view of a person. Maybe that's how the guys on Crossfire are friends.

Quote:
A) Why comment on it at all?


He thought I need a pep-talk. It was appreciated.

Quote:
B) How is it that you have such powerful opinions on something you "don't care about"?


Reading his post. I don't see a single comment about Dr. Condeleezza Rice. I wouldn't call those "such powerful opinions."

You just love to argue don't you?

Quote:
And if you think Mrs. Rice being black or white or whatever matters to any of us, I think you've really made an unfortunate mistake. I personally think that this board has better things to worry about than sombody's ethnic background. I personally look at her as simply another person.


That was his point. It was a joke. I might suggest some of the wonderful selections on the Comedy Channel.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 15:39

Quote:
ALL my Jewish friends drive PoS cars.


Dude, that's a broad statement. Careful.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 15:52

Quote:
I find that tree-hugging rhetoric about 'raping Mother Earth' silly and conter-productive. Humans are, after all, animals like any other and are expected to make most of environment for their own good.


Who expects that? Animals kill one another and some even manage to destroy their habitat. Are you suggesting there is some sort Oversight Board or greater power that might expect something like that? Them's fightin' words in these parts!

Anyway, he was just joking. Us conservatives, believe it or not, do not spend our days drving 4x4s, shooting our guns, beating our wives, drinking beer, watching Nascar or raping the forests.

And I actually agree with you on some of the points you made regarding this, but I'd rather save them for another thread. This one is bloated enough.

Quote:
stereotypical redneck barbarians


The Rednecks have cut off all ties with the The Goths, The Mongols, The Huns, and the Vikings! This is Europes problem now!
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 16:37

Quote:
but in contrast with parts of Europe, those people are hardly mainstream


Thereby implying that all Europeans are nuts who think the world is run by Jewish bankers.

Hang on, where have I heard that before?

Thank you for that illuminating gem of wisdom, Brad. It's nice to know how people think of us racist, Jew-hating furrriners. Obviously I am hanging out with the wrong people.

This thread, the way it is being conducted, and the propogation of this type of invidious sidesniping is going well out of bounds. It should stop now.
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 16:44

Quote:
I see far more violence conducted against Jews in Europe (France in particular) than I do in the US.


So you do concede that there is violence against Jews in the US after all then? I thought anti-semitism was not tolerated in the US?

Could you point me to a URL where you have observed the basis of that comment, that France is an inherently anti-semitic society?
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 16:56

Quote:
Rob's post was trying to critize me for daring to bring up the word "Nazi" on the Auschwitz memorial.


Please don't put words (especially with this flavour) in my mouth. Please go back, and read carefully, the exact wording of what I said.

I was disappointed that you even used the term in the context of what you were trying to say about Miz Rice (the original discussion). By coincidence, it was AMD. The use of the term Nazi in Europe has such a strong association with many generations of people that it immediately invokes revulsion when it is used as a sly insult - very much the way that the allusion to an Oedipal complex in a male US citizen will result in anger, revulsion. The difference here is perhaps one of degree - the cultural differences here will ensure that neither side understands the intensity of anger generated.

The statements being made all the way through this thread continue to show insularity, and lack of cross cultural experience. Not an ideal way to ensure a stable world culture based on diversity and acceptance.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 17:11

Back in the 80s I worked with somebody I'll call Elaine. After a few side conversations with her, I pretty much decided not to get into conversation with her about anything other than strictly-work-related issues because most of those side conversations had gone something like this one (a very rough example from distant memory):

Me: Hey, I see a triple-decker burned down on your street last night. That's too bad!
Elaine: It wasn't last night it was yesterday afternoon.
Me: Oh, the news said it started at around 7 PM.
Elaine: So now I'm a liar?
Me: No, I'm just saying what the news said! Too bad about the families...losing everything.
Elaine: Well, they probably didn't have that much, and if they didn't rent the place, they wouldn't have gotten into this situation!
Me: Well, sheesh, people gotta live somewhere!
Elaine: I bet they set the fire themselves!
Me: Wow, how do you figure that???
Elaine: What, so you're saying *I* set it???

....and so forth and so on. Some sort of a "forest versus the trees" problem, I thought, but after about 5-6 go-rounds like this, I gave up.

There's an aspect of some of the BBS conversations with you that are just a little reminiscent of the frustration that I felt with Elaine. Of course, I get the sense that you may feel some of this from 180 degrees, but I can only speak to what I've experienced.

You have criticized Webroach for being "pretty much the only one here being overtly rude to me", but I in turn, while I won't get into the veracity of your accusation, I am concerned that you may be unfairly singling him out. My cheesy little Golden Gate drama could be interpreted, aside from making some fun, as not conveying respect for your positions or arguments and that is actually the case. Frankly, I just got tired of having what felt like an "Elaine" discussion and decided to have a little fun. I continue to admire Bonzi's mature, thoughtful comments. He is a much better man than I. Me, shame on me, but I guess my role as grumpy, immature provocateur has been reinforced by BBS history: on those few occasions where I iniate a polite and mature thread in OT, it sinks like a stone.

But how did I get to Daring to Fly? I feel a responsibility ("Why?", I can only ask myself.) to explain.

Well, I certainly *did* criticize Condi Rice in a pointed, exaggerated, insulting way, so perhaps I have brought this on my own head. Our employees in the White House, though, are public figures and are expected to tolerate and survive a certain amount of satire, lampooning, caricture and ridicule, though. So some of this is Condi's job. Still, should I *really* have called her an idiot, or should I just have stuck with something more neutral and respectful like "cunning liar"? It's a tough call.

If all you did was cut and paste Condi's resume and say "Hey, that's not fair!", I guess I would have to simply concede and say, "Yup, some of her resume is quite impressive." and just tone it down -- stick with the whole cunning liar thing and point out that she hasn't done jack since 2000 and admit that, yes, I really hate her boss (you got me there).

You've been pretty quick to jump in other people's case for being "arrogant" and such, but I have to say that I am amazed you can manage that when you sling slipshod knowledge and anger around so readily. I am going to just pick through a few snips and offer some frank thoughts:

Quote:
"but here's a start for anyone else reading this who is possibly less entrenched in their self loathing or at least don't get their news from Moveon.org."

OK, you were hot under the Condi, but one part of this comment is a gross, spiteful insult and another part is simply Rush-esque demagoguery. I let the insult go on the first pass, but not now. Oh, and the last time that *I* looked at moveon.org (one of 3-4 occasions), was when Howard Dean was still in the race. It is probably to my discredit that I have not looked since.

Quote:
"And yet some liberals insist on calling her an 'Aunt Jamima' or a 'mildly smart, but idiotic, automaton.'"

If you are going to falsely expand the insults I issue, you could at least spell "Jemima" correctly.

Quote:
"How's your resume' lookin?"

How good does my resume need to look to be a US citizen, poster on this BBS, and critic of this or any other administration?

Quote:
"or even toss the "neo" in there to make "neocon" so that the casual observor might associate it with "neo-nazi" (the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew") "

Boy did you pull *this* one out of your butt! Hey, but feel free to make stuff like this up in political discourse and then wonder afterward what the big fuss is about. I still wonder what news outlet this came from -- or maybe it came from very casual reading? I submit that anybody who wants to participate in current political debate where American, Iraquis and others are dying on a daily basis has a responsibility to understand what this term means and who those players are. If you want to be taken seriously.

Quote:
"and Condeleeza (although let's make her sound like a child and call her "Condi")"

Why, pull one out of your butt again! I would collapse in shame in the face of this criticism if one or two other people didn't call her that.

Quote:
"Oil tanker?? Aw man, you just gave away your source... that parody George W. Bush resume right?"

You thought I was joking.

Quote:
This just serves are good character assassination to try to nip her possible [2008] run at the bud.

I hadn't heard this theory. Is this yours alone or held more widely? How handy, though. Any attempt to take nominees to task for their prior commissions/omissions (like pointing out how someone behaved feebly/ineffectually in the runup to 9/11, misrepresented intelligence and/or lied or, in other nominee cases, ignored torture problems) is nothing but an attempt to damage their future political prospects. Well, I guess we should pack up our questions and go home. Not.

Quote:
"Obviously there was a strong enough terrorist movement long before President Bush took office [.....] such as the "Millenium Plot" in Los Angeles. Doing nothing wasn't an option."

And so doing stupid things was somehow mandatory?

Quote:
"But all of this supports my original point that this is truely a debate over the Bush administration and presidential term. Defaming Condoleezza Rice by calling her an idiot, retarded (Rainman reference), puppet or even "mildly smart" is disgraceful. "

In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush sat around and looked like an idiot. From all I can tell, Rice sat around and looked smart. But you are right, I am a disgrace. I formally withdraw that remark. I will just call her ineffectual or out of her depth, or paralyzed by neocon Iraq fixation, or an unwitting tool or a cunning liar. I can't decide, but you could help by telling me what effective things she did prior to 9/11 and has done since then other than nod and occasionally protest her innocence.

Quote:
"Doing so would mean a Bush accomplishment and that would ruin the whole effect of someone's "cough" web site. Hopefully you're not in that crowd, but how odd it must be to wake up in the morning knowing that you're wishing for the same outcome as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Not liking my Web page doesn't create positive accomplishments, Brad. If you want me to put "He cut Brad's taxes!" up there, I will take that under consideration.

Oh, and thanks for the al-Zarqawi slander, by the way. It is helpful. I gotta practice spelling his name correctly if he's ever going to read my coded messages. In truth it was that nasty, ill-considered comment on your part that told me that what I thought was a fairly deliberate attempt to explain a difference between "root for" and "expect/predict" was something that you just cast aside, and it is the one that finally made me put these conversations in the "Elaine" category (and got me thinking of the lame "Daring to Fly" parable).

Quote:
Well, we certainly have a disconnect here then. [...] But the only way to ensure failure is to concede to it. Ted Kennedy seems to prefer this route, I do not."

Hmmm "the only way to ensure failure is to concede to it." How moving. Think hard, Brad. There are other ways to ensure failure.

Quote:
Do you really go through life predicting doom and gloom at every turn? Would anything short of Utopia satisfy you?

Now what do you base this on? Oh, oh,... self-loathing! I get it!

Brad, it must be great being easy to please. To sleep untroubled by comments like "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally," ... "It's wrong. It's undemocratic, it's un-American, and it's dangerous."

A clue, though: Jim has somehow survived in the absence of Utopia. In the alternate history department, though, Nixon lost and this country and the world became a better place. Jim was much happier. Very happy in fact.

Iraq? The troubling unknown is whether the extremists are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. It is quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 18:38

Quote:
I wasn't making fun of documentaries, I was making fun of you...


Excellent. I'm sure that was much more productive than realizing that I was not trying to be rude, but rather simply pointing out the errors in your argument.

But I'm sure making fun of people and slinging accusations at Europeans, non-conservatives and anone with different opinions than you while not actually responding to any of the criticism regarding your argument would be more entertaining.

And just so we can get off that pony, Brad, I don't enjoy Bush-hating talk any more than I enjoy the European bashing. I enjoy (somewhat) intelligent discussion about the problems.

But you're right. We'll have to agree to disagree, as this whole thread has become mired in ideological bickering. Because some of us appear to expect FACTS to back up an argument. It would seem not all of us use the same criteria to differentiate reality from fantasy.

And it's spelled "condescending".
Posted by: drakino

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 20:04

Quote:
but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm about to watch the swill from CBC or the BBC thank you very much


I really hate to try an jump into the middle of all this, especially with an off topic tangent, but I'm hoping to come out of this with maybe some new information. Why is it that you dislike the BBC news so much? I have to admit I use them as a major news source to get a good world view of how things are going. I generally enjoy their news, as it seems to me that is doesn't carry the bias and baggage from being "left" or "right" like so many US media sources. But maybe I am missing something.

Today, I am reading the story Iraq election declared 'success'. If I was forced to rate the article as coming from the right or left, I would say the right, only for the fact that it is showing some success in Iraq and has quotes only from Bush and Blair. But again, I would only say so if forced. Otherwise, I find it an informative article with no real bias in it either way. I try and avoid really siding with either "side", as I find doing such limits me too much. I much more prefer going to the polls and voting for who I want, and not for what party I want.

A good friend of mine considers himself conservative, but still has harsh criticism of how the situation in Iraq is going. It's a shame that such a stance can be seen by some as being wrong and un-patriotic. What unwritten law says you must support the person you voted for 100%? I will likely have my own criticism of any president ever elected, and the officials below that office no matter how I voted. And I would hope others feel the same. Of course I'll be much happier when those criticisms go back to "Why are they spending upteen million on that" instead fo the current war enviornment.


Anyhow, I do have to agree with Rob, this thread is getting a bit out of hand on both sides. I hate to think moderation might have to come into force on this issue, but it is heading that way. Just keep in mind post count doesn't matter, nor does replying 5 seconds after someone else. Try to step back a bit and consider what you are posting before doing so, possibly by even delaying the submit by an hour. A hastly typed in response filled with hints of insults is not going to do any good, and may turn people against you.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 20:18

Quote:
Anyway, he was just joking.

Err, you thought I was not aware of that?

Quote:
Us conservatives, believe it or not, do not spend our days drving 4x4s, shooting our guns, beating our wives, drinking beer, watching Nascar or raping the forests.

That's what I said, isn't it (not all of you, anyway)?

Quote:
And I actually agree with you on some of the points you made regarding this, but I'd rather save them for another thread. This one is bloated enough.

Agreed.

Quote:
The Rednecks have cut off all ties with the The Goths, The Mongols, The Huns, and the Vikings! This is Europes problem now!

Vandals were out favourites. Anyway, it would seem that rednecks don't need role models.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 20:34

Thank you for this post - I can't agree with you more. 'Left', 'right', 'conservative', 'liberal' (both in European and American meaning, which are quite different) are not (or should not be) one's religion, but just a kind of shorthand for describing one's overall 'worldview' (at least in polical and economic sphere).

I think we are far from the need for moderation, occasional insult-flinging notwithstanding.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 21:14

Quote:
"Lost cause" means that there really isn't any chance of changing some people's minds because they are so obviously entrenched in their views.

You woldn't, just as a test, for a moment entertain an idea that this might describe you or indeed any other conservative, would you?

Quote:
Most of us simply say, "I disagree with you, but I respect you." I don't think Jim and I could be more politically opposite with one another, but I deeply respect him and think he's an intelliegent guy. That isn't to say he doesn't make my blood boil sometimes, but I'm not going to let politics get in the way of my view of a person.

And that's why I am puzzled at your insulted response at someone here saying he considered you a decent guy. Perhaps we have different ideas on nuances of meaning of 'decent' - my English highschool training was in British English and there slightly understated compliments were preferred.

Speaking of blood boiling, it is good that I currently don't share my appartment with anyone - no one to doubt my mental health as I shout at invisible Brad, not understanding how he doesn't see things that are plain as day...

Quote:
Hopefully you're not in that crowd, but how odd it must be to wake up in the morning knowing that you're wishing for the same outcome as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Do you realize how insultig this is? Do you really?

I have seen this exclusive claim to patriotism before: by right-wing, nominally ultra-nationalist thieves we had in power here in Croatia some years ago. I remember the rage with which I listen to their denounciations as 'unpatriotic' (understanding exact terms require good knowledge of local circumstances) of anybody remotely critical of their policy or plundering. I understand the thinking half* of America very well.

*) 'Thinking', not 'intelligent'. Others are not stupid, just lazy. Did I return the insult by this? Perhaps. But that pretty much describes how I saw it at home and how I see it in America.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 21:26

...I think we are far from the need for moderation...

Quite the contrary. I think moderation is sadly missing from this entire thread. While I must admit to not having read every posting to the detail I should, what I have seen appears to be a shouting match between nearly opposite viewpoints. What good debate and factual discussion is lost to me, not wanting to wade into the trash talking and hurled refuse. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, based on their perspectives and experiences.

If you were referring to the other kind of moderation (as in BBS / thread control), I practice that myself with what threads I read, skim or ignore. However I agree with Tom that is starting to get a little out of hand.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 30/01/2005 21:34

Quote:
If you were referring to the other kind of moderation (as in BBS / thread control), I practice that myself with what threads I read, skim or ignore.

Err, yes, that was the kind of moderation I had in mind. Of course this thread needs more of the other kind.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 31/01/2005 01:30

Quote:
Quote:
ALL my Jewish friends drive PoS cars.


Dude, that's a broad statement. Careful.


No, the cars really do suck.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 31/01/2005 02:43

TO ALL:

Rereading my original post, I was more abrasive than I remember being. I thought I just pasted a bio of Condeleezza Rice, but it looks like I also tossed a jab or insult in there as well. The fact is, I guess I'm still stinging from another thread from months back. I honestly came in here looking for a fun debate but it looks like everything got off to a bad start and I never hesitated to continue running it into the ground.

This BBS has been my online home for almost 6 years now and I don't want to screw that up over this. I am more than happy to agree to disagree but I don't like to agree to disrespect.

I'm not going to continue w. this thread anymore, but where I think specific replies are needed:

DRAK: You have mail.

schofiel :
Quote:
Thereby implying that all Europeans are nuts who think the world is run by Jewish bankers.


It sure reads that way doesn't it? I'm sorry. I in no way think that's the case. I even had to reread my posts to make sure I had writen it. It was my whole "there is more violence against Jews in Europe than the USA" thing, but whether it's true or not doesn't matter and it made no sense for me to bring it up. I made the mistake of waiting a day before I read the replies. Then I'd panic and think "Aw man, I have to hurry and reply to 9 replies to me!" Next time, I'll read then wait a day.

Well, crap, this is going to take all night and only add 3 more pages if I go one by one... so I'll be brief.

Jim: Before I emailed Tom, I reread my initial post and I had this sinking feeling once I realized how I tossed the jab in there (which wasn't directly aimed at you, but it was overly aggressive). I didn't realize I started off like a troll that way. Would you believe that d33yz stole my login info? Probably not. I'd like to apologize. Regarding your points about Rice, I agree with you on some points, disagree with you on others, but in general can see where you're coming from and share some of your frustrations regarding the war and the general state of pre and post war intelligence.

Webroach: Yeah this whole thing sucks. I was being just as rude as I accused you of being. Being in a defensive mood, I read "descent" in a totally sarcastic way. Most of what I've writen above applies to you too.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Rain Woman - 31/01/2005 04:36

Brad,

I'm glad we can all look at this and understand we're all still friends. And I'm also glad to see you understand I meant nothing but the best when I said "decent".

So I thank you for your kind words, and I hope you (and everyone else) understand that it was never my intention to attack anyone (Bush or Rice included). If anyone took anything I said that way, please accept my apology for not being clear enough.

Why can't all this politics crap just go away?

I think I'm gonna go eat some mochi and pretend the politics crap has gone away....
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 31/01/2005 05:36

Quote:
Would you believe that d33yz stole my login info?

Absolutely!

Heh, I understand the urge to reply immediately. Being so comfortable with these novel surrogates for real communication, we sometimes forget (at least I do) it's not like yelling at a stuborn friend over one beer too many, and then laughing, changing the subject and having another one. Maybe we should use Skype teleconferencing for our political arguments?

Quote:
Webroach: Why can't all this politics crap just go away?

Sadly, together with proverbial death and taxes (and eventual catastrophic loss of invaluable data for us computer types), there is no escape from it. Perhaps the fix is more grassroot political activity, not less....

Anyway, real life is calling, my friends. I am late for work.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 00:25

Brad,

Thanks. I'm about 1/2 way through a book that makes me want to start a nasty Madeleine Albright thread, but I think I'll maybe let that lie for a few weeks in favor of some movie spoiler theads while I watch this one drift off the scope.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 01:24

Sounds like good reading!
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 05:39

Mmm, interesting! I have quite high opinion of her, which probably means there's plenty of suff I don't know!
Posted by: julf

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 08:23

Quote:
Why can't all this politics crap just go away?

Well, I guess part of the problem is that this is more than about politics. It's also about fundamental values and beliefs, and yes, religion. When you mix religious fundamentalism (be it christianity, islam, judaism or whatever) into politics, you always have an explosive situation - too often literally.

Some of us believe that you are free to believe whatever you want, but that you should grant others that right too. Others seem to believe that their particular belief system is the only "right" one, and try to impose it on others. That's a pretty fundamental difference of view.

One of the really sad things (as we se even on this board) is how the current US political situation really divides people. Good friends stop talking to each other because they happen to be on different sides of the democrat/republican trench...
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 12:49

Quote:
Mmm, interesting! I have quite high opinion of her, which probably means there's plenty of suff I don't know!

Well, so do/did I (have a high opinion), and it is probably not fair to lay all at her doorstep without thinking about it...I'm now about 2/3 of the way through "Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda". She and we (U.S.) don't look very good. A much easier book to read than I would have thought, BTW. Very interesting to read Dallaire's narrative. Yes, once again, I could long to be Canadian.

(edit: I should not single out the U.S. for not looking good in 1994, but it just happens to be where I was born and raised. And we had the highest capacity to do better.)
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 13:59

Quote:
Some of us believe that you are free to believe whatever you want, but that you should grant others that right too. Others seem to believe that their particular belief system is the only "right" one, and try to impose it on others. That's a pretty fundamental difference of view.
At the risk of exploding this thread again, I’d have to disagree with the line you’ve drawn here. It’s more like a spectrum and we find ourselves in different places. We all impose our beliefs on other people; the only question is how much we do it. Some say they only impose their beliefs when the behavior in question affects other people, but the truth is that 99% of all behavior affects others- the only question is how drastic the consequences are.

Most people agree that there has to be some kind of law that prohibits certain behavior. And this law is derived from some sort of collective internal idea of what is “right” and “wrong”. For instance- we pretty much all agree that if someone wants to go around killing people for no good reason, well that’s wrong. But when we start talking about motivation, the line seems to get blurry. What if the person is insane? What if they are defending their property? What if they are defending a loved one? What if they were being manipulated? What if they are a soldier in battle? What if the state is doing the killing as a form of punishment? What if there is a question as to the personhood of the "victim”? Some of these questions have clear answers that most agree on, others are murkier. Some seem very clear and obvious, and yet we come up with different answers. The point is, virtually EVERYONE seeks to impose their beliefs on others, just in different areas and to different extents.

And then once you add religion to the mix the difference get even more pronounced because you have ideas based on premises that don’t make sense to others. People on the outside see the issues as irrelevant and an overreaching of personal beliefs. People on the inside see the issues as truth that the world has obscured, but that also really does affect others and is important to enforce.

People have used religions to prop themselves up and create codes that bring them personal power and control over others. It is the most abused part of religions (and what Jesus spent that majority of His time on earth talking about). However, people have also abused many other institutions such as business, government, and other completely secular organizations. But as true as that is, many involved in organized religion are not seeking power or control- merely to help us all experience the best possible life that we can. Yes religion sometimes seeks prohibitions on things that not everyone agrees with. So does enlightened thinking. And many times (I believe) both are right, even though the world doesn’t see it. I realize the popular answer to this is, “I don’t want someone deciding what’s best for me, thank you very much.” But there are many things we have as a society deemed as best for you, whether you agree with these is immaterial- you ARE protected from murder, robbery, slander, and a host of other things. And you are not allowed to murder, rob, or slander someone else, even if you think you should be allowed to. In a sense, society already protects you from yourself, it’s just that none of us really need to be told not to murder, rob, or slander. But those are clear examples, and there are an awful lot of laws that are fare more complex.

I truly, deeply believe that all of the political conflict comes from humanities obscuring of the truth and being who we were created by God to be. And by this, I don’t mean that if everyone were Christians then we’d all get along. I’ve can tell you internal Church politics between well meaning people are every bit as contentious as some of the division between political parties. My point is that we live in a world where the truth has been obscured and we all see things in a different, unfocused light. Others believe that there is no real “truth”, but the result is the same: we all think that we draw the “correct” line between personal liberty and imposition of law on other individuals, but (I believe) none of us really do, and we certainly can’t agree on it. So the best system we have is to voice our ideas, sometimes very fundamental and personal ones, and decide as a democracy what to follow- or in another word: politics. It’s ugly and I personally hate politics, but at least none of us have to submit to the fringe beliefs of a single individual. We at least get to submit to something that’s widely accepted, even if we don’t agree. And I don’t know how we can ever do any better than that, even as ugly as it is.
Posted by: julf

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 15:01

Quote:
we all think that we draw the “correct” line between personal liberty and imposition of law on other individuals, but (I believe) none of us really do, and we certainly can’t agree on it.

I can certainly agree with that.
Quote:
So the best system we have is to voice our ideas, sometimes very fundamental and personal ones, and decide as a democracy what to follow- or in another word: politics. It’s ugly and I personally hate politics, but at least none of us have to submit to the fringe beliefs of a single individual. We at least get to submit to something that’s widely accepted, even if we don’t agree. And I don’t know how we can ever do any better than that, even as ugly as it is.

Well, some systems protect the rights of the minority a bit better than others. What really scares me about the US system is that it hands over the power so strongly to a nominal majority (as in 50.01%).
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Rain Woman - 01/02/2005 19:49

Jeff, you probably know with what parts of this I would agree (most), and which not, but I must say you put it nicely.

Of course, I don't believe a moment that Julf's intention was to divide people in two neatly delineated groups, 'us' and 'them'. However, you know those impossibly self-righteous people who don't for a moment doubt their convictions and are perfectly sure those are the only possible way for the whole world, and that this should be beaten into world's head, so to speak.

You believe your mission, perhaps even the main purpose of your existence, is to spread your belief, so that the rest of us could exist in Christ's grace (the concept I still don't quite understand). However, I am quite sure that, should you find yourself in position of political power, you would still use only your words and power of persuasion to 'spread the word', not coercion. This makes you completely different from those Julf (and I) abhor.

Cheers!
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Rain Woman - 02/02/2005 05:15

Quote:
Yes, once again, I could long to be Canadian.

Maybe one of these kind folks can help you out, eh?
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Rain Woman - 02/02/2005 06:13

Quote:
At the risk of exploding this thread again, [...]

Can I nominate this for the Best Post In Thread award?

I'm going to slightly re-order a couple of your statements...

Quote:
I truly, deeply believe that all of the political conflict comes from humanities obscuring of the truth and being who we were created by God to be.


Quote:
People have used religions to prop themselves up and create codes that bring them personal power and control over others. [...] However, people have also abused many other institutions such as business, government, and other completely secular organizations.


I think you've really touched on two seperate, but intertwined issues there. I'll ignore the religious aspect of the first, and simplify it a little to "political conflict comes from different perceptions of what constitutes the truth" -- where a person finds their Truth, whether through a religion, or not, is immaterial to the fundamental argument. That's the first issue, and I think that sort of political conflict is reasonable, and a healthy conflict -- what do we do about something like abortion? (Rhetorical question for illustrative purposes, only...)

The second issue is in your second quote, and I think that's where a preponderance of current US political conflict comes from. I suspect that a large number of non-Bush supporters see the current administration falling completely, and wholly within that description -- on both the religious and secular aspects. I know I certainly do. (But then, I also see the same problems, at least on the secular side, with the Dems, too.)

I don't know how for certain, but it feels as though the preponderance of conservatives are voting based primarily on the first issue, and secondarily on the latter, while the opposite is true for the liberals. When I see the (re-ordered) first statement, along with the second statement, it's pretty clear that the two sides will never meet in the middle -- they're simply on two seperate paths.

The sad part of all this? The second issue is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent via the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. For one person's perspective on how that was derailed take a look at this article and book.
Posted by: julf

Re: Rain Woman - 02/02/2005 12:25

Quote:
However, I am quite sure that, should you find yourself in position of political power, you would still use only your words and power of persuasion to 'spread the word', not coercion. This makes you completely different from those Julf (and I) abhor.


Extremely well put. I also think that a crucial difference is that pretty much everybody on this board would have the humbleness and intellectual honesty to know that we don't know all the answers - unlike some who have the strength of Faith to know They Are Right. That faith might not be a religion, it might just as well be any -ism...
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Rain Woman - 02/02/2005 13:35

Quote:
Maybe one of these kind folks can help you out, eh?

Why, thanks for that link! Why, yes, I am quite interested in hooking up with a gorgeous, personable, middle-aged (oh, even young if need be!) female Mega-Lotto winner from Vancouver who could somehow find my annoying habits entertaining and who could support me in a manner to which I could become accustomed.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 02/02/2005 19:09

Quote:
And yes, liberal. It's amazing how people who are liberals get so defensive about the word. You can call me "conservative" all day long or even toss the "neo" in there to make "neocon" so that the casual observor might associate it with "neo-nazi" (the "neocon" term ironically is most commonly used to imply "conservative Jew") and I won't mind.


There are apparently those who do want you to make that connection:
Bush-Nazi link

On one hand, so much for the "Liberal media" theory; They didn't report this, right?

On the other, maybe there's a *reason* they didn't report it.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Rain Woman - 03/02/2005 20:06

There are still Americans alive today who were aware of much of this at the time. My mother, (who isn't; she would be 91) lived in NYC in the 30's-early 40's and brought it up when G.H.W.Bush was running as V.P., so it is more than recent gossip. Fascinating that no mainstream media will touch it...
Posted by: Daria

Re: Rain Woman - 03/02/2005 20:44

Quote:
There are still Americans alive today who were aware of much of this at the time. My mother, (who isn't; she would be 91) lived in NYC in the 30's-early 40's and brought it up when G.H.W.Bush was running as V.P., so it is more than recent gossip. Fascinating that no mainstream media will touch it...


True or not, I ask this, with interest: am I responsible for the sins of my father? Or my grandfather? If so, why?

(And, well, if not, why not?)
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Rain Woman - 03/02/2005 21:06

How can one be responsible for things that happened before he was born? At the same time, it's certainly possible to be influenced by them, although the direction of that influence is not certain (I'm sure there are as many men who want to be exactly like their fathers as there are men who want to be nothing like them). One might also make the case that genetics influences predilictions, even something as high-level as favoring money over morality; I wouldn't. But the environment in which one is raised is bound to be very influential to the ultimate personality.

Not that you were asking me.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Rain Woman - 06/02/2005 19:35

Quote:
... to throw away my primary election votes either.
Certainly you must not intend to set me off on *that* rant again, do you?