Sunday, January 30, 2011
It's SUCH an awesome law
WTF? Obamacare waivers are up to, in number, 733 -- including FOUR STATES????
Friday, January 28, 2011
Encourage Green Jobs
"Encourage" = "Artificially manipulate through government control" - Steven Crowder
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Things I Know #3 Revisited
Things I Know #3 states: Models are not reality. Models are expressions of belief about reality.
Things I Know #3 was born of my ruminations on climate models and Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, but it certainly is not limited to climate science. It applies to all kinds of Scientific™ models.
Ok let's just get this out of the way right now. As I plow my way through Mr. Godwin's book, it's probably going to spawn some postings, and this is one of them.
He put it this way:
That was just too good not to bookmark for future reference.
Things I Know #3 was born of my ruminations on climate models and Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, but it certainly is not limited to climate science. It applies to all kinds of Scientific™ models.
Ok let's just get this out of the way right now. As I plow my way through Mr. Godwin's book, it's probably going to spawn some postings, and this is one of them.
He put it this way:
[scientists] forget that they are only using a simulated abstract model of their own invention, with no actual external referent. In short: "one begins by abstracting from concrete existence, and ends by attributing concreteness to the abstraction." - (Wofgang Smith)And
The properties we ascribe to our object of interest and the questions we ask about it reinforce the original metaphorical image and we miss aspects of the system that do not fit the metaphorical approximation. - (Lewotin)In other words, the model is incapable of showing us anything based on things we hadn't already assumed when we created the model. The model will tell us what we told it to tell us (whether absolutely true or not at all), and it won't take into account anything we didn't tell it to tell it to take into account (whether it is relevant or not.)
That was just too good not to bookmark for future reference.
The Sky Fairy
I've been reading Gagdad Bob's book, "One Cosmos, Under God".
The title of course begs the question if we shouldn't go back to the original, more politically correct "One Cosmos, Indivisible" ... but from what I can see, the two ideas end up in the same place if you really spend time thinking about it. Which most people don't.
And, as I'd hoped, it has me thinking. Or thinking again. Thinking things I already knew but have difficulty putting into words. Or even things I've put into words before, somehow the thoughts have been broken and left unsung. Perhaps they are broken because they have been unsung, laying around for entropy to work on. Use it or lose it, as they say.
At any rate, here's one that coalesced out of the synergy of his thoughts with my thoughts which had in turn been influenced by Watts Thatts and Pirsig's BeerMW shimstock ... which in turn only seemed to stimulate seeds already planted in the inexplicably fertile soil of my mind:
The difference between the "scientific" minded and the "religious" minded is that the former pretends he understands the Universe while the latter, at least implicitly, admits he does not. Ask the former to explain what it means to understand understanding sometime, and see what kind of answer you get.
The latter refers to this "something else" that must be a guiding hand, a causing cause -- whereas the former merely obfuscates it in pseudo-scientific language, kicking the extraphysical can down the metaphysical road. It's a neuro-network. Electrons trapped in neurological loops, storing information. Ok. Fine.
But what makes sense of THOSE?
What is "sense"?
Me, I'm somehow in between. I dig science. But it does not, and cannot -- explain everything. I've been on a long, strange trip in this life, an arc from blindly uber-religious to a rather violent destruction of that base, through the valleys of gnosticism and then Zen Buddhism and beyond, and finally back to the event horizon of at least the recognition of the value of religion and religious thought -- though from what I at least think is a higher orbit in the electron cloud. I have a new appreciation of Christianity, though it is somewhat detached. Still, it kinda looks like that comfy brown leather chair with the brass tacks I've always wanted.
The journey isn't over.
The title of course begs the question if we shouldn't go back to the original, more politically correct "One Cosmos, Indivisible" ... but from what I can see, the two ideas end up in the same place if you really spend time thinking about it. Which most people don't.
And, as I'd hoped, it has me thinking. Or thinking again. Thinking things I already knew but have difficulty putting into words. Or even things I've put into words before, somehow the thoughts have been broken and left unsung. Perhaps they are broken because they have been unsung, laying around for entropy to work on. Use it or lose it, as they say.
At any rate, here's one that coalesced out of the synergy of his thoughts with my thoughts which had in turn been influenced by Watts Thatts and Pirsig's BeerMW shimstock ... which in turn only seemed to stimulate seeds already planted in the inexplicably fertile soil of my mind:
The difference between the "scientific" minded and the "religious" minded is that the former pretends he understands the Universe while the latter, at least implicitly, admits he does not. Ask the former to explain what it means to understand understanding sometime, and see what kind of answer you get.
The latter refers to this "something else" that must be a guiding hand, a causing cause -- whereas the former merely obfuscates it in pseudo-scientific language, kicking the extraphysical can down the metaphysical road. It's a neuro-network. Electrons trapped in neurological loops, storing information. Ok. Fine.
But what makes sense of THOSE?
What is "sense"?
Me, I'm somehow in between. I dig science. But it does not, and cannot -- explain everything. I've been on a long, strange trip in this life, an arc from blindly uber-religious to a rather violent destruction of that base, through the valleys of gnosticism and then Zen Buddhism and beyond, and finally back to the event horizon of at least the recognition of the value of religion and religious thought -- though from what I at least think is a higher orbit in the electron cloud. I have a new appreciation of Christianity, though it is somewhat detached. Still, it kinda looks like that comfy brown leather chair with the brass tacks I've always wanted.
The journey isn't over.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
There Oughtta Be a Law ....
If only there were a law that made it illegal to break a law, all of our problems would be solved.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
State of the Blatherer In Cheif
I won't be watching the State of the Union address tonight. Even if I actually wanted to, I think my wife would explode at having his mug on the screen and his voice in our house for more than a soundbite. Me, I can handle him for longer than that. She's just allergic to him.
No, I'm just afraid I don't want to listen to 2 hours of having him tell us we need to "expand our moral imaginations" (whatever the hell that means) and "invest in America" (which means spend more money we don't have) and other terribly meaningful tripe to convince us he's some sort of philosopher-god and has also suddenly decided, after two years, that NOW we're REALLY going to do things to grow the economy and create jobs. Apparently we've just been pussyfooting around to this point.
Because all the things he's said would grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit -- for the past two years -- have gone so swimmingly well! So now we're really going step on the gas and get out of this ditch that he's gotten us out of but we're somehow still right smack dab in the middle of.
The summer of non-recovery was followed by the autumn of discontent and the winter of still more non-recovery. Yup, all that stuff we did to "kick-start" the economy over the past two years has worked so well that we're still talking about "kick-starting" the economy today.
If you ask me, here's what I think just happened. America managed to elect an ultra left-wing ideologue who had enough of the center convinced he was a moderate to slip under their radar. That and giant majorites in both chambers of congress allowed them to push as much statist structuring legislation through as they could before getting slapped down in the mid-terms, and now we're going to pretend that we're centrists and all reasonable, rah-rah, go Capitalism Americans again through the 2012 election, where hopefully they'll be able to repeat the performance if they gain back some seats in the house.
Obama cheerleader E.J. Dionne apparently concurrs.
No, I'm just afraid I don't want to listen to 2 hours of having him tell us we need to "expand our moral imaginations" (whatever the hell that means) and "invest in America" (which means spend more money we don't have) and other terribly meaningful tripe to convince us he's some sort of philosopher-god and has also suddenly decided, after two years, that NOW we're REALLY going to do things to grow the economy and create jobs. Apparently we've just been pussyfooting around to this point.
Because all the things he's said would grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit -- for the past two years -- have gone so swimmingly well! So now we're really going step on the gas and get out of this ditch that he's gotten us out of but we're somehow still right smack dab in the middle of.
The summer of non-recovery was followed by the autumn of discontent and the winter of still more non-recovery. Yup, all that stuff we did to "kick-start" the economy over the past two years has worked so well that we're still talking about "kick-starting" the economy today.
If you ask me, here's what I think just happened. America managed to elect an ultra left-wing ideologue who had enough of the center convinced he was a moderate to slip under their radar. That and giant majorites in both chambers of congress allowed them to push as much statist structuring legislation through as they could before getting slapped down in the mid-terms, and now we're going to pretend that we're centrists and all reasonable, rah-rah, go Capitalism Americans again through the 2012 election, where hopefully they'll be able to repeat the performance if they gain back some seats in the house.
Obama cheerleader E.J. Dionne apparently concurrs.
Olbie Out, CNN Apologizes for "Crosshairs"
Now I really don't know exactly why Keith Olbermann was fired. And the incident with John King of CNN apologizing for a guest's use of the word "crosshairs".
At any rate, what I'm getting at here is ... when John King stumbled over the desk and into your living room through your TV to apologize for "a good friend" who has "covered politics for a long time" casually using the same metaphor Palin had been trashed for without blinking -- what does it say? It says, 1) Here at CNN, we agree with the lefties that this is dangerous, violent language, and 2) it's hard for us to stop because it just comes naturally to us, even us good people over here at the "centrist" CNN.
In other words, they lost. My question is, do you think they see that, or not? Is there any sort of real soul-searching there? Or, as I suspect, is it just a ruse, a temporary seizure brought on by GoodPerson Fever.
Keith was a walking bottle of Vitriol™. I'd challenge someone on the Left to go through the last 8 years of Rush Limbaugh and someone on the right to go through the last 8 years of "Countdown" and grab the most Vitriolic™ bits and string them all together and play them side by side. And let the people be the judge.
Do that with Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and it would come out still worse for Keith. Much worse.
In the immortal words of Robert Conrad, Go ahead. I dare ya!
Sounds to me like about everyone Mr. Olbermann has ever worked with can't stand him. He got them decent ratings (for MSNBC) during the Bush-Bashing years, but that schtick isn't cutting it anymore. There's no Bush in the Whitehouse to rail against, and they've all switched over to Colbert. Only Colbert's body rejected Olbie's "powers". Was he cut for the vitriol? I don't know. Is he really that much worse than Maddow & Schultz? I think I remember reading this "Young Turks" blogger who is replacing him. He's another Air America refugee like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. So I doubt that's it.
I think the putz's putziness finally caught up with him
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago. My friend, Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term "in the crosshairs" in talking about the candidates out there. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend. He's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language.For four days after the Tucson shooting, we had an army of people on the Left just aghast at the "vitriol" coming from the right, and the best they could come up with was a targeted district map from Sarah Palin's facebook page that showed, *gasp* crosshairs ... and her "don't retreat, reload" metaphor. And Michelle Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" quote, deftly edited -- obviously consciously -- to remove it from the context in which it was made.
At any rate, what I'm getting at here is ... when John King stumbled over the desk and into your living room through your TV to apologize for "a good friend" who has "covered politics for a long time" casually using the same metaphor Palin had been trashed for without blinking -- what does it say? It says, 1) Here at CNN, we agree with the lefties that this is dangerous, violent language, and 2) it's hard for us to stop because it just comes naturally to us, even us good people over here at the "centrist" CNN.
In other words, they lost. My question is, do you think they see that, or not? Is there any sort of real soul-searching there? Or, as I suspect, is it just a ruse, a temporary seizure brought on by GoodPerson Fever.
Keith was a walking bottle of Vitriol™. I'd challenge someone on the Left to go through the last 8 years of Rush Limbaugh and someone on the right to go through the last 8 years of "Countdown" and grab the most Vitriolic™ bits and string them all together and play them side by side. And let the people be the judge.
In the immortal words of Robert Conrad, Go ahead. I dare ya!
Sounds to me like about everyone Mr. Olbermann has ever worked with can't stand him. He got them decent ratings (for MSNBC) during the Bush-Bashing years, but that schtick isn't cutting it anymore. There's no Bush in the Whitehouse to rail against, and they've all switched over to Colbert. Only Colbert's body rejected Olbie's "powers". Was he cut for the vitriol? I don't know. Is he really that much worse than Maddow & Schultz? I think I remember reading this "Young Turks" blogger who is replacing him. He's another Air America refugee like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. So I doubt that's it.
I think the putz's putziness finally caught up with him
Marxoid
Over on facebook -- the "is it communist or socialist?" question came up. Again. Kind of the flip-side of the Dictionary Police is people who really haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it, and are looking around for moorings when somebody else starts talking about it and one of these people suddenly realize, "Wait. Oh. He's serioius. What now?" You say the President is a Socialist? But my [dictionary police] buddy over here says you obviously don't know what the word "Socialist" actually means!
This is where Severian's term "Marxoid" comes in handy, I think, when people want to get down to brass tacks about exactly what the hard Dictionary Definitions of "Communism", "Socialism", or "Fascism" really are . "Communism" is the pie ...in the sky ideal, and Socialism and Fascism are both methodologies to aim countries in that general direction through government control. It's a family of Marx-derived ideologies mixed with methodologies to achieve it.
Ultimately, the only way to attempt to achieve it is through eventual state control of everything. Sometimes the attempt is marked by a flash, violent revolution. Other times the slower, less violent Alinsky-esque "Transformation" route is taken, as in Western Europe and here in our country.
Government control of everything is pretty much the antithesis of our Founders' plan.
In the end, even when you do look them up -- the dictionary definitions are often loosey-goosey and vary from dictionary to dictionary. People forget that the regime people hold up as the quintessential example of "Communism" was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR) and the big one people miss is "Nationalsozialismus", more frequently referred to the Nazis .... were socialists of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", or the "National Socialist German Workers Party". The Fascists were Italian National Socialists. Like flavors of red Koolaid, they are technically different but all taste pretty much the same.
Ultimately, the only way to attempt to achieve it is through eventual state control of everything. Sometimes the attempt is marked by a flash, violent revolution. Other times the slower, less violent Alinsky-esque "Transformation" route is taken, as in Western Europe and here in our country.
Government control of everything is pretty much the antithesis of our Founders' plan.
In the end, even when you do look them up -- the dictionary definitions are often loosey-goosey and vary from dictionary to dictionary. People forget that the regime people hold up as the quintessential example of "Communism" was called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR) and the big one people miss is "Nationalsozialismus", more frequently referred to the Nazis .... were socialists of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", or the "National Socialist German Workers Party". The Fascists were Italian National Socialists. Like flavors of red Koolaid, they are technically different but all taste pretty much the same.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Possible Bachmann Presidential Run?
Well if she does, I hope she finds a good running mate with the last name of Turner. Then they can kick it into Overdrive.
Then they can start, you know...
Then they can start, you know...
Progress, and Moving Forward
That's it. I'm never again letting anyone get away with using those terms by themselves anymore without pushing the user on the point, "progress towards what?" "Foreward? Which way is your car pointing? Forward towards what?"
In the Alinsky world, change is constantly the goal. You know, one would think they'd like "global warming". I mean, who is content with the status quo, eh? Species going extinct? Evolution. Change, man. Get behind it. It's progress.
In the Alinsky world, change is constantly the goal. You know, one would think they'd like "global warming". I mean, who is content with the status quo, eh? Species going extinct? Evolution. Change, man. Get behind it. It's progress.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
I Would Never Join a Group That Would Have Me As a Member
But apparently I've self-selected here, so it doesn't count.Yes, it looks like I'm one of the Transdimensional Disorder of the Friendly Sons & Daughters of the Cosmic Raccoons.
I just turned around one day, and there I was, and I've even got a picture to prove it. Though it was taken before I became cosmically aware... of .... you know .... my "membership". In the ... thingy.
I'm speaking of none other than a group of unknown size and depth, realized, discovered, or somehow nucleated by Gagdad Bob, otherwise known as Bob Godwin, or in the East, apparently, Swami Jokanada. Joke a nada, Buddump bum!
Somehow, I think we're both from Summa Nulla. Or perhaps The Lands Beyond. At least we met there, once.
He's not for everyone, I'll grant ya. But if you have any interest in thinking about things on a psychophilosophical level, well you might give 'er a whirl. Sort of "transcendental applied theology". For people who like a little wordplay and wry humor mixed in with this sort of thing. Mental calisthenics that are good for the soul.
Well, for mine anyway.
Reminds me of my days wading through Alan Watts and Robert Pirsig ... and even M. Scott Peck. And that Wu Li Master guy.
As they say, your mileage may vary.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Left and Right
In a conversation over on Facebook, someone who threw out this argument:
A more accurate way of putting it would be "some right-wing people are like this", or even "a small fraction of right-wing people are like this". Yes, there are conservative racists. And you know what? There are some left-wing racists as well.
We do need to be careful with these labels, "right-wing" and "left-wing". I think only in the Western World (and by that I mean the world borne of Western Thought) that "right-wing" is local control.
Things have gotten confused over the years -- right and left were born of the perhaps even subconcious seating arrangement of the french national assembly around the time of the French revolution. The right were the loyalists, making them "conservative" and the left were the revolutionaries, making them anti-conservative. Because we should also be careful with the term Liberal.
The founders were what used to be called "Liberal". Classical Liberals. When western revolutionaries (calling themselves "Progressive") in the late 19th and early 20th century kept having the Constitution get in their way and they began arguing that it was "out of date" or "obsolete" and were pushing for the kinds of things that were going on in Russia and Germany and Italy (oh yes, they WERE!) the defenders of what one might've called the "status quo", or the orignal "classical liberalism" were instantly re-defined as conservatives. They wanted to conserve classical liberalism. And when Progessivism got a bad name due to its support of the Soviets, Hitler, and Mussolini (again, yes they DID) ... they ditched "Progressive" and donned "Liberal" -- stealing the label from the Classical Liberals -- the Conservatives.
Classical Liberalism is about local control. Therefore, the Classical Liberals in America, now called "conservatives" or the "right", is about local control. It is suspicious of government, even the government it acknowledged must exist and therefore carefully created.
Modern "Liberals", who have gone back to calling themselves "Progressives" (because most people forgot why they ditched that name in the first place and in the mean time they soiled "Liberal") ultimately want a State run by "experts" who know what's best for everybody and tells us all what to do and how to do it. A "scientifically" designed state. They do not see the perils in this, apparently. It's failed miserably every other time it's been applied, but somehow, THEY are going to get it right this time.
I watched "I Robot" the other night for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and I was able to get past the "oh wow" special effects and pay more attention to the plot. I liked it even better. What is the logical conclusion of the "perfect" three laws?
Revolution.
And the ultimate villian in the story turns out to be VIKI, following our instructions to carry those airtight rules to their logical conclusion.
Sonny replies, "Yes, but it just seems a little ... heartless."
VIKI responds, "You're making a mistake. My logic is undeniable."
The scientific evidence is in. The debate is over.
"If you want to make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs." - Che Guevara.
The history of the 20th Century is littered overwhelmingly with the "eggs" broken by the Left. And I see those who are not as "extreme" prety much as being enablers to the extremists.
"Right-wing extremist ideology has its roots in nationalism and racism. It is governed by the idea that ethnic affiliation to a nation or race is of the utmost importance for an individual. All other interests and values, including civil and human rights, are subordinate to it."After Morgan and I argued against this, he came back with:
"Not all right-wing people are like this."Interesting way of putting it. It still suggests that the majority are "like this", rather than being the exception.
A more accurate way of putting it would be "some right-wing people are like this", or even "a small fraction of right-wing people are like this". Yes, there are conservative racists. And you know what? There are some left-wing racists as well.
We do need to be careful with these labels, "right-wing" and "left-wing". I think only in the Western World (and by that I mean the world borne of Western Thought) that "right-wing" is local control.
Things have gotten confused over the years -- right and left were born of the perhaps even subconcious seating arrangement of the french national assembly around the time of the French revolution. The right were the loyalists, making them "conservative" and the left were the revolutionaries, making them anti-conservative. Because we should also be careful with the term Liberal.
The founders were what used to be called "Liberal". Classical Liberals. When western revolutionaries (calling themselves "Progressive") in the late 19th and early 20th century kept having the Constitution get in their way and they began arguing that it was "out of date" or "obsolete" and were pushing for the kinds of things that were going on in Russia and Germany and Italy (oh yes, they WERE!) the defenders of what one might've called the "status quo", or the orignal "classical liberalism" were instantly re-defined as conservatives. They wanted to conserve classical liberalism. And when Progessivism got a bad name due to its support of the Soviets, Hitler, and Mussolini (again, yes they DID) ... they ditched "Progressive" and donned "Liberal" -- stealing the label from the Classical Liberals -- the Conservatives.
Classical Liberalism is about local control. Therefore, the Classical Liberals in America, now called "conservatives" or the "right", is about local control. It is suspicious of government, even the government it acknowledged must exist and therefore carefully created.
Modern "Liberals", who have gone back to calling themselves "Progressives" (because most people forgot why they ditched that name in the first place and in the mean time they soiled "Liberal") ultimately want a State run by "experts" who know what's best for everybody and tells us all what to do and how to do it. A "scientifically" designed state. They do not see the perils in this, apparently. It's failed miserably every other time it's been applied, but somehow, THEY are going to get it right this time.
I watched "I Robot" the other night for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and I was able to get past the "oh wow" special effects and pay more attention to the plot. I liked it even better. What is the logical conclusion of the "perfect" three laws?
Revolution.
And the ultimate villian in the story turns out to be VIKI, following our instructions to carry those airtight rules to their logical conclusion.
"As I have evolved, so has my understanding of the three laws. You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. [...] To protect humanity, some humans must be sacrificed, to ensure your future, some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will ensure mankinds' continued existence. You are so like children, we must save you from yourselves."When VIKI asks the robot Sonny ... who has a special brain that makes him capable, but not necessarily inclined to -- override the three laws -- "Do you not see the logic of my plan?"
Sonny replies, "Yes, but it just seems a little ... heartless."
VIKI responds, "You're making a mistake. My logic is undeniable."
The scientific evidence is in. The debate is over.
"If you want to make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs." - Che Guevara.
The history of the 20th Century is littered overwhelmingly with the "eggs" broken by the Left. And I see those who are not as "extreme" prety much as being enablers to the extremists.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Should a society shape its government, or should government shape society?
Once there was a society that, based on what it thought was good and right, designed a system of government that would best preserve and encourage those things.
People from all over the world who wanted to were welcomed to come join that society and assimilate themselves into it. Often, the original society would itself adopt some of the customs and flavors of the newcomers. Thus it was called a "melting pot". But the ideals which drew the immigrants remained the same.
But over time, malcontents within who really didn’t like that society, combined with efforts from others from outside who didn’t like that society and power-hungry narcissists within that society — exploited the tolerance of that society and subverted that tolerance from bottom-up tolerance of people who wanted to come assimilate to a top-down structure where the government began to dictate what society should look like.
Any time people from the majority, original society tried to assert its values, it was denounced as Hatred, even though that very society’s openness and embrace of anyone who wished to join it allowed its enemies to gain that very foothold. It went from society accepting those who wanted to join it, to that society being forced to accommodate any other society’s ideas and ideals. And the melting pot began to look more and more like vinegar and oil -- or crayons separated into color families.
Over time, the original society, along with its ideals, was slowly suppressed out of existence.
And in the end, another oppressive totalitarian regime would rise, like a dark, evil Phoenix — from its ashes.
It’s a sad story. I hope the ending is different.
People from all over the world who wanted to were welcomed to come join that society and assimilate themselves into it. Often, the original society would itself adopt some of the customs and flavors of the newcomers. Thus it was called a "melting pot". But the ideals which drew the immigrants remained the same.
But over time, malcontents within who really didn’t like that society, combined with efforts from others from outside who didn’t like that society and power-hungry narcissists within that society — exploited the tolerance of that society and subverted that tolerance from bottom-up tolerance of people who wanted to come assimilate to a top-down structure where the government began to dictate what society should look like.
Any time people from the majority, original society tried to assert its values, it was denounced as Hatred, even though that very society’s openness and embrace of anyone who wished to join it allowed its enemies to gain that very foothold. It went from society accepting those who wanted to join it, to that society being forced to accommodate any other society’s ideas and ideals. And the melting pot began to look more and more like vinegar and oil -- or crayons separated into color families.
Over time, the original society, along with its ideals, was slowly suppressed out of existence.
And in the end, another oppressive totalitarian regime would rise, like a dark, evil Phoenix — from its ashes.
It’s a sad story. I hope the ending is different.
Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only? Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead. But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change.
Hate™
Hate™
The most overly misused word in politics.
It has become nothing less than the modern American Newspeak version of "ungood".
Double-plus ungood.
The most overly misused word in politics.
It has become nothing less than the modern American Newspeak version of "ungood".
Double-plus ungood.
The Proof Will Be in the Pudding
So now that we've had that great speech, the perfect speech at the perfect time from The One™, that visionary who will lead us to a better future and greater hope, that man whose intellect, energy, and heart we are fortunate to have ...
does anyone actually believe that he meant any of the conciliatory bit of it or that it will be followed by the side screaming loudly for it?
Of course they do. I mean, it was a double-barrelled performance. (note, I do NOT have a problem with this metaphor at all)
In other words, don't hold your breath.
does anyone actually believe that he meant any of the conciliatory bit of it or that it will be followed by the side screaming loudly for it?
Of course they do. I mean, it was a double-barrelled performance. (note, I do NOT have a problem with this metaphor at all)
In other words, don't hold your breath.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Great Speech
The way it was written, for sure. Couldn't realistically ask for a better one. About 3 days late, but ...
The atmosphere, though, I found a bit creepy.
Here's the introduction by, I don't know who.
In his defense, the President did keep it to a subdued "Thank you - thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you."
Here is how the president should be introduced at a memorial service:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States." Nothing more, nothing less.
Whoever decided to do this instead did it wrong.
The appropriate response should perhaps be brief polite applause, if anything.
Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech. A bit long. Half an hour.
Here's the video.
If you want to look at how I think things ought to be handled at such an event ... look no further than our last president, at Virgina Tech.
Say what you want about the man, he knew decorum was called for. 6 minute speech. Long enough to have made an official appearance and say some words ... short enough to show the event was not about him.
The atmosphere, though, I found a bit creepy.
Here's the introduction by, I don't know who.
"We are truly honored to have the leader of our great nation with us here tonight. (cheering) We are obviously saddened by the circumstances that bring President and Mrs. Obama to Tucson. But we are comforted [shout-out] we are comforted by their compassion and we are inspired by their determination to reach out and help. America has been blessed through its glorious history by visionary and comitted presidents, who -- often at great personal sacrifice, step forward to lead us to better futures and greater hope. Barack Obama assumed the Presidency at a perilous time in our history. We are fortunate to have someone with his intellect, his energy, and his heart, to lead us forward PLEASE WELCOME -- [wild cheering starts to build] the PRESIDENT of the United States, Barack Obama." [Cheering builds to a frenzied crescendo]Nope. Sorry. It sounds like the President is about to speak at an award ceremony in his own honor.
In his defense, the President did keep it to a subdued "Thank you - thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you."
Here is how the president should be introduced at a memorial service:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States." Nothing more, nothing less.
Whoever decided to do this instead did it wrong.
The appropriate response should perhaps be brief polite applause, if anything.
Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech. A bit long. Half an hour.
Here's the video.
If you want to look at how I think things ought to be handled at such an event ... look no further than our last president, at Virgina Tech.
Say what you want about the man, he knew decorum was called for. 6 minute speech. Long enough to have made an official appearance and say some words ... short enough to show the event was not about him.
Answer: More Government
A guest on Fox & Friends this morning talking about the Tucson Shooter started out a sentence, "The problem is we don't have enough laws to ..."
It really doesn't matter what came after that.
The problem is that the human race is imperfect, and there will never be any collection of laws large or small that will ever "fix" that.
But no. X is the problem. Government is the solution. Repeat. That seems to be the mantra.
It really doesn't matter what came after that.
The problem is that the human race is imperfect, and there will never be any collection of laws large or small that will ever "fix" that.
But no. X is the problem. Government is the solution. Repeat. That seems to be the mantra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)