This journal is "Friends Only."
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
|||||
|
Welcome to Pooperman's Pile
7th September, 2008. 2:50 pm. The Terminator Ticket Here is what this presidential election needs: That would make the debates much more enjoyable, to have a third person in each of them with nothing to lose. They could stand in sharp contrast to the scripted efforts of the other two on the stage, and exert some heavy pressure for the two in contention to speak more from the honesty of their gut rather than from the puppet strings of their impressions of what the polls tell them we want to hear. It doesn't matter that Schwarzenegger isn't natural-born, because they aren't going to win the election. He could even say that out loud, in the spirit of honesty. Current mood: terminatortickety. (14 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
5th September, 2008. 7:15 am. McCain's Speech Is it just me, or did anyone else almost feel sorry for McCain and the fact that his moronic audience would not let him deliver his speech effectively? A handful of protesters made their way in there and the audience seemed to think that the "USA! USA! USA!" chant was the way to deal with them, but that was also the way they dealt with everything they heard, whether they were drowning out a protester, or they were drowning out McCain. I mean, I had high hopes that some clever protester would infiltrate the sound system and have McCain rickrolled (that would have been just so awesome), but the audience upset McCain's rhythm much more than a rickroll ever would have. Where McCain actually was able to get some substance out (which wasn't much), here are two places that stand out to me: 1. "We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties -- and Sen. Obama -- passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles." I don't know WTF he was talking about here. He seemed to be taking part of the blame and then suddenly laying it at the feet of Obama. Anybody know what bill he's talking about here? Or was he just talking out of his ass, or did the audience upset his rhythm so much that he lost his place on the teleprompter? This came out very sloppy--I'm not sure it came out as intended. 2. "We're going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much, and some of that money... [audience, for some reason, chooses this time to go wild, as if the GOP doesn't share the blame for this one or that the Democrats haven't been saying as much forever and a day] ... We'll attack -- we'll attack the problem on every front. We'll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we'll drill them now. We'll drill them now. We'll -- we'll -- my friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants. We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that." Well, some Americans don't know better than that, including this one. Senator McCain, perhaps graduating near the bottom of your class at the US naval academy didn't prepare you to understand the complexities of something like nuclear power. But, and I say this as a former nuclear power engineer in the US navy that graduated near the top of his nuclear power training classes, the only thing you understand about nuclear power that exceeds the knowledge of George W. Bush is how to pronounce "nuclear" (and thank you for that--truthfully, truthfully--thank you for that). The notion of expanding nuclear power in the ways you say simply lacks a connection to reality. There aren't enough qualified people to operate these plants, there isn't enough raw material to collect and there aren't enough qualified construction companies (and the qualified companies are full-up doing other things) necessary to put 45 nuclear power plants in service within a decade or even three decades. And that's assuming we can come to some political consensus about nuclear waste disposal, and no, Yucca Mountain is not the answer, even if you could get the local NIMBY folks to roll over (which would be a political miracle in and of itself). Stop talking about nuclear power. It won't work, not on the timescale required for the problems we face. Worse yet, it would constitute a diversion of the critical resources required to make other plans work, such as wind and solar and geothermal power. We cannot do all of these things. We need to prioritize early and focus, and if that focus and priority falls on nuclear, oil, and coal, then wind and solar will simply never happen, and moreover progress will be too slow for nuclear to solve the problem in time (unless something really ridiculous happens, and we start to embrace real conservation and efficiency programs that slow down the rate of load demand growth). Anyway, the first thing up there, I don't know what he was talking about, and the second thing is nothing new. My primary reaction to McCain's speech is the part the audience played in not understanding how to be spoken to, and how they pretty much ruined any skillful presentation of ideas that McCain might have been capable of by throwing off his rhythm at every turn (and don't try to blame that on the protesters--the protesters were miniscule compared to the moronic audience when it comes to throwing McCain off his game). Current mood: mccainspeechy. (3 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
4th September, 2008. 4:30 pm. Jon Stewart is teh shit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/jon-stewart-hits-karl-rov_n_123852.html And some notes on the Palin speech: I read the transcript and watched the video today--maybe that was the wrong order, because I was already down on her. Her presentation was confident and just a little better than plastic--I will give her this, at least she knows how to pronounce "nuclear" (hint: it's not nuke-u-lar--I swear, if nothing else, at least come January I will not hear it pronounced that way by the whitehouse again, at least for a while). Two parts that jumped out at me: "Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending, nearly $500 million in vetoes. We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged: directly to the people of Alaska." If the audience would have realized what she just said, here, they should have booed her off the stage. Where did these additional revenues come from when oil prices went up? Not from fuel taxes, because they suspended those. They came from a tax on oil company profits! Wow. Where have we heard that one before? Who opposes windfall taxes on the oil companies? The way she made a budgetary success in Alaska was right out of the Democratic Party's playbook. Obama should point this out, and praise Palin for not only supporting windfall taxes on oil companies, but showing how effective they are. Also, where did this money come from? From hard working people who put gas in their tanks at $4+ per gallon--a price that Alaskans don't pay because their fuel tax was suspended. Where did that money go--back to the people who spent that money, back to everyone in America? No--she sent it back to Alaskans. They have a negative income tax. She took money from oil company profits and gave it back to Alaskan citizens. I can't believe the Obama campaign hasn't called her on this one. Another one, and I'm done for now: "Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights." As should all of us be worried. The rule of law is more important than security, and it goes well-beyond simply reading someone their rights. It goes to not torturing them (and waterboarding is torture) for information, even if it seems to be a necessary evil. Due process is fundamental to our constitution and our rights. "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (5th and 14th amendments) Reading them their rights is part of that due process, and for her to dismiss this in such a way is absolutely against the constitution. It's a statement that feeds off of fears at the expense of something as fundamental as due process. Due process is important, ESPECIALLY when it seems "frivolous" in the face of something like Al Qaida, and ESPECIALLY when we are afraid. Due process is what separates civilized nations who treasure the rule of law from uncivilized tyrannies who rule by (military and/or police) force. To characterize reading of rights as some bureaucratic nonsense is absolutely unconscionable. I really wish some people who are enthralled by the RNC activities could take a deep breath and back away from Palin and McCain for a moment and really see this for what it is. This was not knocking the ball out of the park. It showed that she could deliver a speech written by a Bush speechwriter (Matthew Scully) with much more skill than Bush, and probably McCain as well (she still doesn't hold a candle to Obama's skills in this area, though--but note that Obama writes his own speeches, which is important to me), but it also showed pretty clearly the hypocrisy (taxing oil companies' profits) and the absolute disregard for due process (which should scare the living bejeezus out of thinking people) that this campaign and the Republican Party has embraced. Current mood: jonstewartistehshitty. (1 poopy on my head | Poop on my head.)
31st August, 2008. 11:39 pm. Priceless... Wouldn't this be totally awesome if this is actually true? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223 (Palin's son may be her grandson--WTFOMGBBQ!!1!ONE!1) It's going to be an interesting week for news... Current mood: awesomeweekfornewsy. (9 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
8th April, 2008. 12:23 pm. 729 An open letter to my Congresswoman: Dear Representative Gillibrand, I have recently been made aware of this: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=267675 "Hattan, who was awarded two purple hearts for his service in Iraq, came home this summer to discover his deployment orders had been written for 729 days - one day short of the 730 days needed to qualify for education benefits potentially worth thousands of dollars... The 1,162 members of the guard unit known as the 'Red Bulls' were denied the same benefits given to 1,138 of their fellow soldiers who served just as long in Iraq. The Red Bulls served longer than any other unit on the ground, and their mission was extended to 22 months as part of President Bush's surge." Now, to Washington's credit, it seems that Hattan and others like him will eventually get their benefits (though I'm not 100% sure about this), albeit after running these guys through bureaucratic red tape they shouldn't have had to deal with. This isn't my issue. My issue is what this story represents. Some bureaucrat, or some political hack within the administration and/or pentagon saw that if National Guard troops were allowed to serve 730 days or more on deployment, it would cost us a lot of money. Somebody somewhere sat down and considered this, and started a process that ended up being a policy to limit deployment orders to exactly 729 days. In addition to these soldiers getting the education benefits they deserve, what I want from you is to spearhead an investigation to find and identify this hack. Get their name(s), take their picture(s), and make a big stink over this and ask them publicly how they can look themselves in the mirror. Take these pictures and make them the Willie Horton of the 2008 presidential campaign. I voted for you in 2006 because you promised to try to reign in this administration specifically with regards to the Iraq War. You have failed in this. I don't blame you so much because I know you and Speaker Pelosi have basically no power over this president because this power was given away before you ever got there. Finding this hack (and linking them to the president, if you can pull that off) and exposing them, however, is something within your capabilities and power. I count on you to live up to your campaign promises in this kind of way. This kind of cynicism towards our soldiers during a time of war is unconscionable. It naturally follows suit after the string of shortcomings being exposed at places like Bethesda and the lack of treatment given to soldiers suffering from PTSD. If we're really at war we should act like it. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Bruce E***** Current mood: openlettery-729y. (2 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
12th November, 2007. 12:23 pm. Politico Entry Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I am old enough to say things like "Today, after 20 years of being a republican, I registered to vote as a democrat." Crazy that. Happy Veteran's day to you! Current mood: registery. (11 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
19th October, 2007. 2:38 pm. An email I sent to my favorite uncle Jack (My uncle is a strong advocate for a rapid transition to renewable energy, as am I. This is an email I sent to him today in a fit of nonidealistic realism.) One thing we should not forget about is that a transition to renewable energy requires not only an investment of money, but an investment of--and this is extremely important--excess energy. That is, it takes energy to make energy-generating and energy-transporting equipment. Many of these technologies require a whole lot of aluminum. The processes of aluminum manufacturing are heavily dependent on electricity. To create a larger energy infrastructure, whether it is renewable or not, requires the increase in infrastructure. It is analogous to building a huge crane. You start with small cranes to build larger cranes which build even larger cranes which build the huge crane. Oil is over The problem is not the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump. The problem is that oil companies are making such high profits at $90 per barrel. The reason their profits are so high is not because this is an unfairly high price for oil. In fact, I would argue it's still a bargain. The reason their profits are so high is that they are getting a free ride on the heels of our mortgaged environment. The environmental cost of oil (and coal) is not being borne by those people profiting off of oil (and coal). They simply pass it on, calling it a "public cost". So, the public will pay the environmental costs for oil consumption, and the oil companies will simply avoid this cost and add this cost avoidance to their bottom lines. Renewable energy technologies simply cannot compete with this subsidy we've been giving to oil and coal companies for almost a century. Investment in terms of both money and excess energy to build up the renewable energy infrastructure will not happen as long as coal and oil are subsidized in this manner. What we need is not necessarily funding for renewable energy. What is needed is to take away the coal and oil subsidies so that renewable energy can compete on a level playing field. What we need is to assess the companies who are profiting off of dirty technology an honest and accurate bill that reflects their fair share of the environmental costs of the use of their product. The most straightforward method I've seen to address this is a carbon tax on consumption. Electricity that starts at a coal plant or an oil burning plant should simply cost more for the consumer than electricity that is produced by technologies like wind and solar and nuclear power that do not add to the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. If the consumer is faced with a bill that shows coal-powered electricity at 20 cents a kilowatt hour and solar-powered electricity at 10 cents a kilowatt hour, they will demand that the utility increase the electricity share at the lower rate. When gasoline hits $5 per gallon, they will either drive less or pony up the money for a hybrid car that gets better than 50mpg, or do both. When local food that has traveled less than 50 miles from harvest to store shelf costs 15% or even 30% less than the equivalent food shipped from New Zealand, we may stop the wasteful processes of thinking that we are entitled to fresh strawberries 365 days a year. The way out of this mess, unfortunately, is for people en masse to embrace higher utility bills, less consumer choice when it comes to food, crazy-high (European-like) gas prices, and a compromise on the quality of life that would include less travel. That, and oil companies will have to see their profit margins go from 30% and 40% down to "only" 5% or 10%. Are we ready to sign up for that? Color me skeptical. This is the tradeoff we must make to bring our soldiers home. I don't know if people understand that such a sacrifice is required. Also, I'm not sure that if they did understand what's at stake, that they would choose the right thing. I have yet to see a single presidential candidate put things in such stark and honest terms. If you or someone else can paint a picture for me of a road to realizing your wonderful and beautiful dream of a rapid transition to renewable energy technologies that doesn't involve the sacrifices I see as necessary, I would appreciate a healthy dose of optimism. Current mood: pesimisty. (13 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
27th August, 2007. 8:39 pm. I should write for the Onion Seizing on a perceived opportunity--hot on the heels of the recent resignations of Karl Rove and Roberto Gonzales--Osama Bin Laden announced his resignation today as the head of Al Qaeda. "He was a worthy enemy, and always had my deepest respectitures [sic]," President Bush said in a news conference shortly after the announcement. "He was certainly slippery, and always the cause of constant frusternation [sic] of my staff. Well-played, Osama. Well-played." White House Press Secretary Tony Snow announced after the President left the news conference that the awards ceremony, where Osama Bin Laden will be presented with the Presidential Medal of Current mood: oniony. (2 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
20th February, 2007. 2:45 pm. The Man Behind the Hood Torture at Abu Ghraib: The full sworn testimony of Ali Shalal http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070219&articleId=4865 Fuck, man. Fuckity fuck fuck. Read and post to your own LJ, if you would. There is a dimension to this story that needs to be given much greater exposure, and that is this: no matter what our ideals and goals may be, the ends do not justify the means. In terms of victory and defeat in Iraq, Abu Ghraib is the story that turns every other story into the same one: We lost. We lost the war. We lost our credibility. We lost our soul. There is no coming back from this. There is no excuse for this. There is no forgiveness for this. There is no hope for us until we confront this head-on and hold ourselves, each and every one of us, personally and separately accountable for this. Fuck. Current mood: fuckity. (16 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
8th November, 2006. 11:46 pm. Ten Seconds of Optimism, and I'm Already Back to Reality... Don't get me wrong--I'm very happy about the election results. I'm not much of a democrat, but this administration needed to be slapped and slapped hard by the American voter, and they were. Of course, now I'm starting to see their path out of this mess. It is as simple as "stay the course". George W. Bush took it upon himself to sum up the voice of the people: "The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner and work together to address the challenges facing our nation." No, W. That was not the message. That was not the fucking message at all, you moron. The message was that your administration is a failure six ways to Sunday, but most of all the loud and clear message from this vote was that your Iraq "war" strategy is the most dismal of failures, starting with your lies to get us to go to war and ending with your inept execution after you got us in. So, W. will hang Rumsfeld out to dry as a convenient scapegoat so he can retire with a Presidential Medal of Next, W. will strike a deal with Pelosi to not veto a handful of her pet legislative agenda in exchange for no impeachment proceedings, and maybe he'll get a couple of "negotiated compromise" tax breaks for his rich friends out of the deal. A year and a half from now, in the midst of the 2008 presidential campaign, the number of U.S. soldier deaths in Iraq will still be in the 50-100/month range, with no end in sight. However, we will have a higher minimum wage and another "middle class tax cut" that will somehow favor the rich in the end. Maybe we'll get a few bucks thrown towards stemcell research and a better immigration policy so that we can import and/or clone the next generation of cannon fodder for Dick Cheney's crusade to sell oil at $75/barrel. There will be a little hoopla about habeus corpus and the Geneva Conventions and the words "habeus corpus" as well as "Geneva Conventions" will be inscribed into a new PATRIOT ACT in a way that guarantees that, whenever we want, habeus corpus will be suspended and the Geneva Conventions will be discarded to perform whatever incarceration or interrogation technique we deem necessary. It will be hailed (by the ACLU, probably) as a victory for liberty. Don't worry about the truth ever coming out to contradict that sense of victory, since the secrecy surrounding those things is absolutely necessary (let me assure you that secrecy is always absolutely necessary in a democracy) for purposes of national security. I should be more optimistic, or at least a little more appreciative. For a few days--weeks, perhaps--GWB got his peepee smacked by the American people. I just wish his crucifixion by the press wasn't done in the comfy chair ("oh, that poor man--how he must be feeling today!"). Already, the republican talking-points are turning to "cooperation" and "let's try to avoid gridlock" and "conservative and moderate democrats were the ones who made the strongest gains" and "let's find common ground" bullshit, and pretending that the success of the 2006-2008 House of Representatives should be measured legislatively by how many bills don't get vetoed instead of by manyears in prison for Rove, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and yes--Bush himself. The trouble with the republican talking-points is that they are most-effective in convincing the democratic party. Nancy Pelosi--please prove me wrong. (6 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
7th May, 2006. 2:35 pm. Running Man So, I just finished reading War and the Soul: Healing our Nation's Veterans from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder by Edward Tick, Ph.D. I bought the book from Tick directly after a discussion on PTSD at the local library. Both himself and Jimmy Massey, who is one of the founders of Iraq Veterans Against the War, gave an incredible talk about the true costs of war. I highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone--whether or not you are interested in politics, and even if you are one of those damn Canadians who are better than us Americans because you are a much more peaceful sort of folk up there. This book has had a profound effect on me. It has opened up something I didn't know was there. This post will be an attempt at a limited catharsis of what I found. ( Confessions of a sort-of mass murderer.Collapse ) Peace. Current mood: catharsissy. (16 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
28th February, 2006. 10:04 pm. A True Story, Part II In conjunction with my previous entry, I wanted to keep relating my very extremely true and factual story. I just finished Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which led me to a very quick skim of Plato's Phaedrus, and then a review of the beginning of Plato's Timaeus, which I had read because of one of  jeffrock's posts concerning Plato's belief in Atlantis.I want to make a huge, wild-ass, reckless claim about Plato in general: it would be unwise to take him at face value, and assume a straightforward understanding of what is written was what he was after. I think there is an underlying sense of irony throughout every dialogue, and the arguments attributed to Plato's main (mostly-fictional, though based loosely on fact) character (i.e. Socrates) could in fact be the most effective refutation of what is commonly labeled as "Platonism" today. It is the subject of fact versus fiction, and the role of the well-fashioned allegory, and the distancing of the author from the fruits of his labors, that leads me to say these things. ( This story is true, true, truey-true! It has the kind of existy existence that can only exist in really real reality! Goddammit!Collapse ) Current mood: truestoryparttwoey. (5 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
27th February, 2006. 9:29 pm. A True Story The following is a true story. The other night I was watching a nice DVD called In America. It's a story that tugs at your heart, about a family (the Sullivan's) of four Irish immigrants to NYC who have no money and are simultaneously dealing with making a new life in this new city and mourning the death of their 5-year old boy named Franky who was lost to brain cancer. It was a good movie with a good message, made me misty and all that. At the start of the closing credits, I see a dedication: "In loving memory to my brother, Frankie Sheridan." I see the whole Sheridan family has participated in this movie, and get online to find out that the movie is (loosely) based on their true story. All of the sudden, this good movie becomes even better--good in a whole other dimension. Why is this? Why was the emotional "credibility" of the storyteller suddenly increased after I find out it was a real experience? Now, the screenplay writer (Jim Sheridan and his two daughters co-wrote the play) admits that it was "loosely" based on their real-life story, so I wonder what was different? ( The TRUE story continues!Collapse ) The truth deserves a proper voice. The truth deserves the adornments of these fictions. It should not be replaced wholesale by them, but it should not be left naked in the square, with a crown of thorns and a crowd of ignorant fucks spitting on it because we did not care enough to be creative. Continued... Current mood: truestory-y. (3 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
18th August, 2005. 1:16 am. Anti-War--and not the easy kind of pacifism So, tonight my wife goes to a peace vigil in support of Cindy Sheehan. I would have gone with her, but I wanted to spend some more time with my son as I was away from him last night on a business outing. She actually got interviewed by the local news and she was one of about 4 people out of a fairly large crowd that made the cut from an interview standpoint. I'm very proud of her--she does well in front of a camera! I must admit that I have not always been a pacifist. I'm not sure I am one now, either, and hence the purpose of this post--to feel out the idea a bit. ( Is a hard pacifist stance untenable?Collapse ) (23 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
29th January, 2005. 10:50 pm. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind So, I just saw this movie last night. ( Semi-spoiler behind cut, just in case you haven't seen it yet.Collapse ) Current mood: moviereviewy. (3 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
23rd January, 2005. 7:41 pm. Definition of Embodied Truth From Philosophy in the Flesh, The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought by Lakoff and Johnson: "A person takes a sentence as 'true' of a situation if what he or she understands the sentence as expressing accords with what he or she understands the situation to be." I love this definition. Notice the fundamental parts of this definition: Is this subjective truth? No. Is this objective truth? No. It is neither. It is both: "Embodied truth is not, of course, absolute objective truth. It accords with how people use the word true, namely, relative to understanding. Embodied truth is also not purely subjective truth. Embodiment keeps it from being purely subjective. Because we all have pretty much the same embodied basic-level and spatial-relations [metaphorical] concepts, there will be an enormous range of shared 'truths,' as in such clear cases as when the cat is or isn't on the mat." Current mood: embodiedtruthy. (11 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
19th January, 2005. 9:52 pm. Military Service Below is part of what I said to someone who is considering joining the military for various reasons--the reasons are not all that important to the overall discussion, and they vary from person to person. I post it here because my answer surprised me: In general, I would encourage you to do something with the government for a time and then go out somewhere else and work in the private sector for a time to compare. It really opens you eyes to the nature of how governmental organizations work (and don't work). Also, be honest with yourself about what it is you are doing when you go to work for a military as a professional. I certainly won't judge you for the obvious reason that I was a mercenary myself, but there may come a day when you realize what you've taken part in, and you may regret it, depending on your proclivities and biases in that area. Myself, personally, I've come to a point in my life where (and perhaps it is mostly because of my son) I wish I could undo my military service because I recognize that war is simply an outdated concept that we now have the technology necessary to transcend and leave behind us as a method of solving human conflict. What we lack is the courage and imagination to make it happen. This is another reason I joined "Veterans for Peace". Current mood: peaceniky. (6 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
14th December, 2004. 9:42 pm. Random Heretical Thought for Today I love God too much to wish immortality on Her. She should derive just as much (and more) meaning as I do from death. Without death, what is life? ( anosognosia said something along these lines much more eloquently than I can.)
Current mood: heretically. (1 poopy on my head | Poop on my head.)
10th December, 2004. 9:09 pm. Entropy and Intelligence After several posts in a row in  philosophy on intelligent design and similar subjects, I wanted to propose something I've been thinking about in this regard. As I see it, the critical problem in the debate over ID (and almost all theological questions) is one of sloppy definitions. In this case the prime culprit is "intelligence".Everybody thinks they know what "intelligence" means. And, they are absolutely correct in that they know what it means--to them. Of course that is no guarantee their audience is using the same or even a similar definition. So, let me try to feel out with this post what it is that I mean by the term, and see where that might lead us in this discussion relating to ID. (Side note: the first person to copy and paste a dictionary definition or link me to a lexicographer's website will be visited in the middle of the night by a fat, middle-aged man who will proceed to fart directly into your face. With a name like pooperman you know I have the power to make this happen. Consider yourself warned.)( Pretty pictures behind cut!Collapse ) (X-posted to philosophy.)
Current mood: entropicy. (64 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
4th December, 2004. 7:57 pm. A City of Pigs Glaucon: But if you were founding a city of pigs, Socrates, what other fodder than this would you give them? Socrates: Why? How ought they to live? Glaucon: In the usual manner. Let them recline on couches, if they don't want to be uncomfortable, and dine off tables, and have the relishes and dessert that people have now. Socrates: Oh, I understand. The question before us is not simply how a city comes into being, but a luxurious city. That's not a bad notion, perhaps. A city of that sort might show us possibly how justice and injustice grow up in states. However, the real city seems to me what we have described, a healthy sort; but if you wish us to examine one in a high fever, there is nothing to hinder. The Republic, Book II This, I think, should be the bridge between left and right, politically speaking. The foundations of society should be based on a minimalist economy, not one of luxury. The drive for luxury is the foundation for all acts of aggressive warfare. Current mood: luxuriousy.
26th November, 2004. 10:57 am. Historical Perspective The following is a paraphrase of an historical quote, with some obvious substitutions to make it appropriate for today: "I have no word of encouragement to give! ... the people have not yet made up their minds that we are at war with [al Qaeda]. They have not buckled down to the determination to fight this war through; for they have got the idea into their heads that we are going to get out of this fix somehow by strategy! ... [Secretary Rumsfeld] thinks he is going to whip the [terrorists] by strategy; and the army has got the same notion... The people have not yet made up their minds we're at war I tell you! They think there is a royal road to peace, and that [Secretary Rumsfeld] is to find it. The army has not settled down to the conviction that we are in a terrible war that has got to be fought out--no; and the officers have not either." --Abraham Lincoln, 1862. (Substitutions: "al Qaeda" for "the South", "Secretary Rumsfeld" for "General McClellan", and "terrorists" for "rebels") Who was it that said something to the effect of, "the only historical lesson is that we do not learn from history"? "In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent." --George W. Bush, from the "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 Please, Mr. President--recant this speech and admit the error of your ways. It's time we shit or get off the pot. Either we are at war or we are not. War is ugly, and no amount of technology can change that. War is embodied by Admiral Halsey's famous slogan: "Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs ... [keep killing Japs until], Japanese [is] be spoken only in hell." Try to sanitize it, and you fail. The only way to win at war is, like that cheesy 1980's movie "War Games" said, not to play. We could have accomplished our goals without war. But, of course, that would have required leadership and a willingness to piss off the House of Saud. Barring that, if we had to choose war (because we obviously lacked that leadership and willingness), we should have grasped it by the neck with both hands and let the blood flow. We should hang our heads low and massacre people until the threat no longer exists. That is war, people. Our technology did not change what war is. "Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster." --General W.T. Sherman, 1875. We are no safer today from bin Laden than we were on September 10th, 2001. Current mood: historicalperspectivey.
7th November, 2004. 10:36 am. Quotes from Left-Wing Nutjobs Let me quote a left-wing nutjob: "One way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'we do it this way, so should you'... The United States must be humble... humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course." Who was it that said this? Michael Moore? Ralph Nader? Jaques Chirac? No, none of these--it was Presidential Candidate George W. Bush, in a debate with Vice President Al Gore. Compare this with November 4, 2004: "If we are interested in protecting our country for the long term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking." This is the same man? Talk about your flip-flops! Here's a quote from another left-wing nutjob--it was a prediction made in the summer of 2002 of what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was taken out of power: "With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afganistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beruit, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we shall meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history." Was this from George Soros? Barbara Streisand? Al Franken? No, it was Patrick J. Buchanan. If you think he might want to take it back in support of this president, think again--it was he who quotes himself in a book entitled, Where the Right Went Wrong, finished in September of 2004. Every person--especially conservatives--should read this book. I cannot understand why anyone who would label themselves a conservative would support this president. It is completely beyond me. Current mood: leftwingnutjobby. (5 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
4th November, 2004. 7:48 pm. Open Letter to Kerry the Quitter Dear Senator Kerry, I am a republican. I am a veteran of the U.S. Navy--formerly a lieutenant like yourself. I not only voted for you, I plastered a "Veterans for Kerry" sticker on my car and a sign in my front yard. I supported my wife who got involved in your campaign directly. This was the first time I have ever gotten involved in and contributed money directly to a political campaign--because it was important to me that you defeat this administration. Their complete military incompetence and strategic failures in Iraq made it imperative that they be held accountable. I believed in you. And you succeeded--you won the election. Congratulations. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php So, why in God's name did you concede the election that you won? You had no right to defy the will of the people. You had no right to call the election for Bush before the process was complete. Who the hell do you think you are? Why did I believe in you? Congratulations again--I now see the light. It is not idealism that forges politics, it is cynicism. Power doesn't corrupt--corruption empowers. I see the light now. Thank you. I can now grow up out of my high-school idealism and see this country for what it is. Now I know how to get the things I want. Karl Rove has been showing this to us all along. Machiavelli, long before Rove, gave us the keys to political power. Political power starts with cynicism--thank you for giving that to me. Thank you also for destroying the democratic party. Out of its ashes will (hopefully, though I'm not sure why I still hope) rise a phoenix of progressive politics based in the effective cynicism of Machiavelli and Rove. This movement will accomplish all of the goals of the progressive movement, and do so completely dishonorably--because it is lying, cheating, and stealing that works, not honor. Thank you for allowing us to shake that pesky, inconvenient, and inefficient desire to be "morally and intellectually right". It gets in the way of the more pragmatic desire to be effective. Best regards, Bruce Xxxx ______________________________________ I emailed this to him this morning--not that I expect him to read it. On the way home I hear that John Ashcroft is retiring. If Kerry ends up as Attorney General we'll know why he conceded so quickly. Current mood: openlettery. (5 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
3rd November, 2004. 9:11 pm. A Difficult Lesson for People Who Think--and Also Feel After taking 100-200 deep breaths, hyperventilating, passing out, and coming to, I came to a realization. WE NEED TO THINK IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY IF WE ARE EVER TO GET WHAT WE WANT. I had a conversation with someone who voted for Bush today. I think that Bush supporters are basically split about 50/50 in two camps: 1. They either don't care or do not understand how much he screwed up in Iraq. (These by and large do not know his positions on much of any of the issues.) 2. They will admit that he screwed up Iraq, but were not convinced that Kerry would have done anything differently, or offered much (that they could understand) in the way of remedying the situation. ( Read more...Collapse ) A large chunk of the population are not to be convinced--they are to be manipulated. ( Read more...Collapse ) The democrats deserve to rot away into insignificance. Current mood: pragmatic-y. (1 poopy on my head | Poop on my head.)
1st November, 2004. 8:50 pm. Why this libertarian-at-heart will vote for Kerry Given the overall statistics nationwide, it is kind of funny how many people on my friends list are libertarians from the state of New York. While I am a registered republican in NY, I am a libertarian-at-heart. In 2000, I had the distinct pleasure to vote against W. not once but twice. I voted for John McCain and then Harry Browne. This year, I'm facing sort of a conundrum. While one thing is sure--I will vote against Bush a third time and only regret there not being a republican primary so I could have voted against him 4 times in a row--exactly how I will vote against Bush was not apparent to me until tonight. ( Read more...Collapse ) (News brief: If you are voting for Kerry, remember to vote Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004. If you are voting for Bush, make sure you remember that the law has changed and the new Incumbancy Act of 2004 has the votes for the sitting president taken on Wednesday, not Tuesday. So, vote for Kerry on Tuesday, Bush on Wednesday. That is all.) Current mood: votey. (2 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
25th October, 2004. 11:19 pm. The Meaning of Meaning--An Allegory I cannot remember the beginning of this story. It was told to me by Him Who cut me free. I was slumbering in peaceful nonexistence. He came to me and shook me repeatedly. He pulled a sword out of a sheath and swung it violently and deliberately at the umbilical chord between me and Reality. He gave me a name. "Say your name," he cried. I didn't know what he meant. What the hell is a name? He continued hacking at the chord, each time screaming, "say your name!" The pain was unbearable. What was more painful, His ear-piercing scream or His apparently blunted sword, was not apparent. Finally, in pain I screamed the name He gave me. "Self!" I screamed. "No! Not that Name," He said, pointing to the other end of the chord. "Your name." "self!" I cried. With that the sword turned from blunt to razor sharp. The next stroke went through the chord like it wasn't even there. To that point it had hardly made a scratch. Here is where my memory begins, and I don't need to rely on His telling of the story. ( Story continues...Collapse ) Current mood: alle-gore-y. (10 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
7th October, 2004. 6:58 pm. Ya gotta read this Take a look at this email exchange between an army officer and his wife: http://optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=hear&htmlId=1046 While you are there, check out the rest of the site, especially the stories written by soldiers about their experiences in Iraq. I can't imagine what it must be like to be there not only risking your life, but doing so with the full realization of the fact the people who sent you there are completely wrong. I am flabbergasted by this guy's attitude--I don't know how he managed not to "drink the koolaide" to save his sanity: "Vietnam was more justified than this war, and I don't think there are many people out there who thought that we would ever have another Vietnam, but here we are. ... It's about the idea that a military force should be subject to civilian oversight and duly elected authority. ... I wanted to be the guy who pulls up outside the concentration camp and opens the gates. I wanted to be the guy. The good guy. The guy who is here to make things better. ... Instead, I ended up being part of an invasion force that I don't support politically but am duty-bound to support in reality. The thing that bothers me about the glory that comes from this job is that Americans, almost universally apply it without any caveats." Read this page. It is important. Read the website. Find out how our soldiers get two MRE's a day and not enough water to drink while they build houses with showers and refrigerators for Iraqi troops so "they won't quit". Find out how they feel about this backdoor draft stoploss program. This country better get its fucking act together before my son grows up. Current mood:  pessimistic.
(7 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.)
5th October, 2004. 6:56 pm. Help me understand the latest face of evil http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3056374a12,00.html Someone out there who reads my journal from time to time may know this: what is known, credibly, about this Zarqawi character? He seems to be the latest face of "evil" in the propaganda effort (now that Saddam has been captured and the administration wants us to forget about the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose), but he is also what seems to be the administration's only remaining link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Let's forget for the moment whether or not Zarqawi has any ties to Bin Laden. While an important question, I want to focus first on whether or not Zarqawi had any ties to Hussein. ( Read more...Collapse ) The administration continues to try to make this connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and the link is through this Zarqawi. Anyone out there have any credible information that looks at this with an even, non-partisan hand? Current mood: zarqawiy. (1 poopy on my head | Poop on my head.)
30th September, 2004. 7:28 pm. Belief in God and Heaven Can Be Heretical
I think that belief in a God, if it is done for the purposes of living out our lives secure in our own meaning and personal heroism, is an act of profound dissatisfaction with our lot in life. Are we too royal to suffer the pangs of hunger? In heaven will we not shit? I would want to compare the attitude of "something better awaits those who believe in God and do x, y, and z in accordance with the rules given to us by the Prophet Y," to the lesson of the Book of Job. In that case, I believe that the voice of God says, "who the fuck are you to question My Creation?" (I'm paraphrasing.) "Is it not good enough for you? Perhaps you could do better?" Some belief in God is actually heretical in this sense--if we believe in God to "prop up" the dignity of our existence, by reflection we think our existence lacks dignity. This is the existence we've been given, however, and if we complain it lacks dignity don't we tell God he screwed up the design? So: you get hungry, you eat, you shit, you die. If you think you're meant for more, then you may waste your time and energy not enjoying the pain, the food, the relief, and the rest. Current mood: beliefy. (3 poopies on my head | Poop on my head.) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
