Fairweather

Doug, A thoughtful reply, much appreciated. I will point out a couple of things I disagree with. First, think what you want about the Iraq War; Bush went to Congress to authorize it. Did he lie to get an authorization passed? You no doubt say yes--and I'll say he was poorly informed. Still, he went to Congress and made a case. And negotiated. Why is it beneath Obama to do the same? Second, I'm not sure where you draw your line between rhetoric and hyperbole, but my use of "shitbag" no doubt puts it in the latter category. I never pretended otherwise. As you yourself said, this isn't a debating session, and given the thousands of gems that were leveled by posters here against our former president, I don't think my words are beyond the pale. Were you as outraged then? Anyhow, I do think the process is more important than any ideal--or single man, or perceptions of "leadership." And I do think this president is setting very dangerous precedents. Americans seem to prefer negotiation and compromise as a solution to the very gridlock they impose mid-term. Obama is thumbing his nose at the path out. And that's not hyperbole.

First, Democrats controlled Congress for Obama's first two years in office. Why wasn't there urgency then? Second, you don't seem to have a grasp on how American government is structured. Congress isn't there to do whatever the President wants ala Putin's Russia. There is a process. And Obama, clearly, thinks the process is beneath him.

This kind of language only serves to further expose you. You won't care of course, but you should... d Not sure why. (Please tell me.) Meantime, feel free to defend a president who has no regard for the Constitution re immigration law or his own healthcare law, uses the IRS as a political tool, spies on citizens and allies alike, and uses the Justice Dept to harass reporters. Like I said, thanks for the dictator. You should be ashamed.

But for now, I'd settle for Joe Biden.

yup. then yer shitbag - whoya got in mind? Someone who believes in individual liberty and separation of powers.

Well hail fucking Cesar. Two more years of this shit bag?

Now now, Jim, the tvashtar mini me me me thread manifesto is a long-standing tradition here. Rumor has it he cries as he writes. As for association, speech, petition protections, well, if only he were as enthusiastic about the rest. Clearly, he thinks it's a buffet.

SPD's response--bicycles and sidearms--was a lot more appropriate than the armored vehicles, M4s, shotguns, and tactical fantasy costumes seen elsewhere. IMO

Maybe not consciously. Still, a soldier's mission is different than that of a police officer. Citizens should be able to tell the two apart--and the hardware and tactics employed by the latter is making this more and more difficult.

[video:youtube]JUDSeb2zHQ0

Well, there's always that young lady's Bulger 100 celebration thread--where you're free to continue wearing any lampshade that fits your ego.

not so suprising really - very popular ideas at the time, no? can't argue w/ the basic premise in the clip though "you must know a dozen or so people who are of no use" anyhow, worth pointing out a line from his wiki entry: "Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account." Once again, Ivan, you are taking a snippet and running with it. And, not surprisingly, I see your meat-filled haul-bag has chimed in on yet another topic he knows little to nothing about. Eugenics was entirely bankrupt--even then--so it's surprising to see you are defending Shaw's "layered" version. In any event, my original point was a response to your question about national leadership. Hard to imaging a more arrogant ass than Shaw. (Well, with the exception of cc.com's rotund megalomaniac anyhow.) Here's the whole entry; there's plenty to go around: Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[80] Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[80][81] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section, Tanner writes: To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property. In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[82] Shaw in 1905 When, in 1910, Shaw wrote that natural attraction rather than wealth or social class should govern selection of marriage partners, the concept of eugenics did not have the negative connotations it later acquired after having been adopted by the Nazis of Germany.[83] Shaw sometimes treated the topic in a light-hearted way, pointing out that if eugenics had been thought about some generations previously, he himself may not have been born, so depriving humanity of his great contributions.[84] He seems to have maintained his opinion throughout his life.[83] As with many of the topics that Shaw addressed, but particularly so in his examination of the "social purity" movement, he used irony, misdirection and satire to make his point.[75][85][86] At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ..." Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[87] In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[88][89] Shaw often used satiric irony to mock those who took eugenics to inhumane extremes and commentators have sometimes failed to take this into account.[80][90] Some noticed that this was an example of Shaw satirically employing the reductio ad absurdum argument against the eugenicists' wilder aspirations: The Globe and The Evening News recognised it as a skit on the dreams of the eugenicists, though many others in the press took his words out of their satirical context. Dan Stone of Liverpool University writes: "Either the press believed Shaw to be serious, and vilified him, or recognised the tongue-in-cheek nature of his lecture".[90][91]

Nothing--and I mean nothing--gets the pure-blood science geeks riled up more than a lowly Saganesque popularizer raking in that capitalist dinero effectivo. As for Shaw, yes, he was a supporter of the eugenics movement. And a socialist.

Not that your choices represent anything close to reality, but I'd take the idiots over the arrogant. [video:youtube]xagSvfyFCWQ

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? I'm thinking that Plato's disdain for democracy--a view commonly held by philosophers throughout the age of reason--bears a remarkable resemblance to the arrogance of scientists that is cited here. Come to think, it also looks a great deal like the arrogance of the theocratic despots who came before. May God and the Collective Consciousness and the Cold Universe somehow conspire to protect us all from the arrogance of these human beings.

Perhaps we should replace our republic with a directorate composed exclusively of the best and brightest scientists?

That's what binoculars are for. Not to worry though, the police are on the people's side. I think. baa

Don't know about the cop who shot the guy. But this cop otta be on trial. Along with his CO.

I think Lincoln's supposed fears were realized during the excesses of the Gilded Age which, in turn, were partially reconciled during the Teddy Roosevelt/Taft/Progressive/Fordism era, which, in turn, were offset during the Harding/Cal/Hoover days, which, in turn, were back-lashed under FRD's New Deal, which, in turn, were partially offset by a booming post-WWII industrial economy, offset by LBJ/Nixon/Carter, offset by Reagan/Bush, swing to Clinton, back to GW, and so it goes. The pendulum swings back and forth and I don't really think it takes much imagination or effort to make a case for presidential prescience. Still, the details remain important, IMO. By November of 1864 Lincoln pretty much knew the war was won. Nevertheless, I doubt that the rise of corporations was foremost on his list of worries.

Mr Crawford is practicing the trade of the historian, that is, synthesizing attributed data to arrive at a particular conclusion. This is quite different than putting one's conclusion into the form of a (mis)quote and passing it off as part of the record. Not saying this is what you were doing, rather, that preserving the record is worth more than scoring political points in the here and now. Particularly troubling when you look back on this thread and see how easily it was soaked up by doug (aka "d"), Astrov, others.

cool quote from one of abe's letters to a friend: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the (Civil) war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." False. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp Ivan, respectfully you should know better than this. The temptation to tweak history in order to fit a contemporary world view is pretty normal. But passing along whole-cloth falsehoods is something I would expect from others here--not you. "The above quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies. These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias. . . . Why have these "money powers" words been put in the mouth of Abraham Lincoln? In a general sense, the reason is because dead people — especially revered leaders — make great commentators on modern-day politics: They can't be questioned about the legitimacy of their comments, interrogated about what they meant, or asked to elaborate about the subject at hand . . ." Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#S7ge6Ox6DSSybBVK.99[/i]

You've mixed a lot of issues together there, Jim. Not all of them science-related. But yes, I'll agree, any Republican (or Democrat) who fails to understand and acknowledge the logic of evolution is lacking. It's 150 years vetted--and no other model explains the diversity of life on this planet as completely. That said, there are a lot of Americans who weigh religion--or even philosophy--more heavily than science. Not sure they are worthy of the scorn you are serving up. Many of them are otherwise intelligent folks. Even Michelle Bachmann--a true ditz re science--somehow managed to earn an LL.M. from Ivan's old Alma mater. No small task. As for the other Republicans you name, yes, they are all the usual suspects. Here are a list of Democrats you might want to add to your list: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/5-democrats-who-dont-get-global-warming/nope-we-still-dont-get- No big deal; I appreciate your civil engagement. But, anyhow, what are your thoughts on net neutrality?

Joe would be so proud... Context. Snippet. Reading comprehension. Yes, little d, it's a complicated world out there. Especially in green and socialist and racist Wisconsin. Take it slow.

[video:youtube]G790p0LcgbI hmmm...

Our Nero: