Shaw had a great way of mocking this general attitude. He was a vegetarian and a socialist, and he would often end his speeches along these lines:
'As you exit the lecture hall, you will note a Rolls Royce parked on the street in the midst of this working class neighborhood. This illustrates perfectly the issue I've discussed of the contrasts between wealth and poverty. And please don't damage that Rolls Royce in any way. Its mine.'
Umm don't think any arguments will work with Bush. You want to turn public opinion strongly enough against it that elite opinion doesn't want the domestic trouble it will stir up.
The reason I bring up possible scenarios for an Iran invasion is that I think the main argument against such an invasion should be "its wrong" rather than "it won't work". Because for an "it won't work" argument to fail, the other side does not need to put up a plausible plan that will work, just a plan that sounds like is plausible and will work. And I don't know about you, but I would oppose aggressive war (and invasion of Iran would be aggression, nothing defensive about it) even if you win.
Here is a power point presentation by Dr. Zoltan Grossman that lays out some geographic, political, historical and ethnic background on Iran. (Warning, this is a long presentation). But it think it may offer some real insight as to the long term thinking and planning behind the U.S.'s attitude towards Iran, which I think complements Hersch's insider baseball nicely.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/IranWar.ppt
>RE: Iran. While we did invade Iraq with just over 3 divisions' worth of troops, the terrain there is ideal for the USArmy's doctrine of maneuver warfare. Iran, not so much. Not only is Iran much larger, it's also more rugged and the critical areas aren't easily reached through the more logical invasion routes we'd use.
Again, look at the basic geography. Redefine the critical areas as "where the oil" is rather than "where the people and military are" and you have a small flat area that can be supplied by coastal area. In terms of closing off Hormuz - if the U.S. grabs the oil then they can also cut off Iran from its oil supply. Bombing is aimed at civilian infrastructure - further destruction of oil infrastructure and electricity (including nuclear electricity infrastructure) and water, and sewage supply. At that point Iran is under a state of siege; their remaining oil will run out in 90 days. They can cut off Hormuz for a time, until they run out of missiles. (Maybe they can plant mines, but they have to get past the U.S. navy to do this. Where does the U.S. get the troops? Given our administration's priorities it pulls them out of Afghanistan. Also I'm not convinced Brown is different enough from lapdog Blair not put British troops in once push comes to shove.)
1) In one sense we are already attacking Iran. We are funding terrorist attacks inside Iran (pardon me - liberation fighter who plant bombs as part of their struggle for the rights of oppressed ethnic groups).
2) In terms of actual invasion - most of Iran's oil is along a narrow strip on the border with Iraq, occupied by ethic Arabs. Grab that, make a deal with the ethnic Arabs, and grab the seacoast, and you have a geographically tiny flat occupied area, with a coastal route for your supply lines. I'm not saying there are not major flaws in this (and I'll leave pointing them out as an exercise for other commentators), but I'm betting you can find people inside our military who will say this is doable.
3) As to raising the price of oil, well that is money in the pocket of the current administrations friends. As to hurting Republican chances, that is why a lot of people are worried about the window between the election and inauguration of a new President.
Please tell me I'm wrong, that this administration is not that crazy or that stupid, or that even if they are no one high in the military would agree with this.
Non Sequitur
Joe ducked low, zigzagged through the alley, darted into the street, ignored the honks of angry drivers and made it to the sidewalk, vaulted over a wall, dodged an angry Rottweiler to climb a chain link fence, climbed into a window, sidled into the kitchen and grabbed a cookie from the cookie jar, snuck out the back door ran down the side yard, dashed into the woods, strolled down the path , followed the gravel road past the old abandoned farmhouse, and was almost home, when he clumsily tripped over a clause, smacked his head painfully on a comma, suffered traumatic amnesia, and forgot the subject of this sentence.
Via the Buffistas, a funny link. Picture of a church Bulletin board. I think I've heard of this before - so it may have been mocked up or photo-shopped.
Joy
#28 Seth Breidbart
>Air travel works against global warming. (There was over 1% more sunlight reaching the ground shortly after 9/11/2001 while all flights remained grounded.)
Air travel burns fossil fuels. Air travel releases NxOX. And the same stratospheric and near stratospheric water vapor that prevents some sunlight from reaching the ground also reflects infrared emitted from the ground back into the ground. In short air travel provides net increase in global warming.
Debra Doyle 87: and to reinforce your point and reiterate what has been said previously -- even people living on the Canadian or Mexican border did not need a passport until recently. I've made day trips to both Canada and Mexico with only a drivers licence and credit card for ID - Mexico when I lived in California, Canada when I lived in Washington. Until recently a U.S. citizens had almost an entire continent (North America) they could visit without a passport. The only exception was the small fraction of Guatemala that is in North rather than central America. For that matter passport free travel included the U.S. state of Hawaii, our colonies Puerto Rico and Guam, and I gather from up thread independent nation Jamaica as well. I wonder how many other places that extended to.
Chip 375: I'll bite. What does it mean when a Thorne Smith man stops by a drugstore?
I did not get a passport until I was in my twenties. That is not because I did not leave the U.S., but because the other countries I visited were Canada and Mexico. No passport was needed for a U.S. citizen to enter or leave either. My mother who had her 86th Birthday a few days ago, has never had a passport for the same reason. Remember that until the 80's flying overseas was expensive. Lot's of people never went anywhere that required flying. I imagine you will start getting people born inside the passport free zone of the EU who get passports late for similar reasons. Especially since I suspect the era of cheap flying will prove a bubble soon; if we take global warming seriously and start pricing emissions, flying will get a LOT more expensive - and become a luxury most people can afford only once a decade or so.
Albatross #46
>There's also a bit of the New Testament that directly contradicts the idea that having some disaster befall you implies some special guilt on your part, which I wish had more effect on people running with this
I knew that is a major point of Job. So there is a part of the Christian testament that reiterates that lesson?
However, what the U.S. will do is process passengers on planes that stop in the U.S. - even if it is just for refueling. That is how Canadian citizen Maher Arar got sent to Syria and tortured. His plane stopped in the U.S. even though no one changed planes there.
David Goldfarb (186), the "Brightstar" description is misleading. A 100 watt bulb produces about 1,750 Lumen. The 10 watt "Brightstar" produces 400 lumens. It is the equivalent of a 23 watt bulb.
On the broader issue, can't add much to what has already been said. I can add a data point.
I on climate justice issues with a number of international non-profits. Every member I talked to said emphatically said they will never attend meetings in the U.S. (under current policies) -- both because of the certainty of unpleasant experience in immigration, and because of the small but real risk of deportation or arrest. A large minority of them make a point not to even book flights to Canada or Latin America that route through the U.S. -- paying extra to avoid U.S routing. (Google Maher Arar to understand this last point.)
I liked what they did with Lord of the Rings. Film is a different medium than print. If you try to make a book on tape with pictures the result will be an artistic disaster. Odds are, you will need a different narrative on film than if you want to tell the same story that was in the book.
Comics may be a different story.
Another RuPaul quote:
"We're all born naked. Everything else is drag."
Actually I'm not 100% sure that is from RuPaul. But I've never heard it attributed to anyone else.
Right. I actually think the Dumbledore being gay makes a lot of sense. There is a fair amount of evidence to support. But I believe it because of the textual evidence - not because JKR said it in a Q&A session.
>You can like it or not like it, you can agree with it or not agree with it, but I don't think anyone has a legitimate leg to stand on when they argue that her version of facts is not "authoritive".
As a counterexample, take Television writer Joss Whedon. When he was making Buffy the Vampire Slayer, he would often reveal stuff about his universe that was not in the show. And then a few months later, a script would be shown that contradicted it. Or, as Neil Gaiman sometimes says, "trust the tale, not the teller". So basically, no, the writer is not the final authority. The text is. I'm not saying the author is not first among equals; her interpretation certainly deserves special attention. But if it is extra-textual, then it is an opinion.
>But "Harry Potter" seems sufficiently fresh off the press for me and sufficiently under copyright lockdown that there isn't any such thing as authoritive text that didn't come from Rowling.
This is changing the subject. The question is not whether someone else can put out authoritative fiction. The question is, whether in the absence of additional text, the author is the final authority on interpretation. And there are many good reasons the answer is no, some of them given above. If JKR wants to establish authoritatively that Dumbledore is gay, she can do so quite easily - by writing a short story, or novella, or poem or whatever establishing that. Then it comes from the tale, not the teller.
A trivial point: in changing the name of the character from "Alexander" to "Archimedes" it rather destroys and important aspect of the work stolen from: that it was an alternate world world story about "Alexander the Great". So on top of stealing the work of another author it also vandalizes it.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 8 |
| 2007 | 32 |
| 2006 | 17 |
Total: 58 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Gar Lipow:
Show all comments by Gar Lipow.