Lame, not lame -- none of it can possibly count as a criminal offense. The police have no business closing the exhibit without a shutdown order from a civil judge.
David, this page puts the death totals of both cities so:
Hiroshima: 140,000
Nagasaki: 70,000
Total: 210,000
We had plenty of protections built into the law. We had protection against arbitrary firing. We had real benefits -- including real vacation time. My mother had the same sort of benefits in the 1950s. So why did I have to pay a representation fee to the Communications Workers of America? The generally accepted reason was that some politicians were cosy with the CWA.
Or it could have something to do with maintaining all those protections enacted into law seemingly by the labour fairy.
New Pope tastes more like Pepsi than Classic Pope, but almost certainly has never contained cocaine.
WARNING: New Pope's rumoured effectiveness as a contraceptive is no more than an urban legend. It cleans up corroded batteries pretty well, though.
shameless self promotions in pope blogging r us.
It certainly encourages more kidnippings, at the least.
David B., I think your equation is a bit too simple. An insurgent organisation that uses kidnapping as one of its methods regards "pay/no pay" as win/win, in that if ransom is paid, they get money, and if it is not paid, they get to stage a brutal demonstation of power.
I don't speak for the Italians, certainly, but paying ransom in cases of kidnapped journalists would result in both short and long term positives, aside from the obvious:
1. Italian journalists would be more willing to stick their necks out to get stories, knowing their government will do its best for them.
2. The intelligence they can get from a repatriated kidnappee may be of enormous use in shutting down the kidnappers for good.
"No money for hostages" is a tough sound-bite, but it's not a practical approach to hostile diplomacy.
Greg, the article has been corrected (page 2, at the bottom).
Jonathan Strange is on The Stack. Currently estimated pop-off time: Spring, 2005.
Recently popped off The Stack: nine or twelve non-memorable, but highly addictively fun while being read, jockey thrillers from Dick Francis.
Currently popping off with abandon: Aubrey/Maturin. Up to Treason's Harbour.
Alexander McCall Smith's stories are deeply satisfying on so many levels, not least of which is the affirmation that good people can make things work out by the force of their goodness, and by holding others to their standard.
Being questioned is Dubya's worst nightmare. It's why such an oxymoron as "free speech zone" is now a done deal.
I'll retract whatever it was that I posted to you.
Okay. Want a beer?
I'm saying knock it off because it isn't true.
If it isn't true, then they are base, cold-hearted villians, rather than, as I posited originally, good-hearted, well-meaning people with a whole lot of stuff on their plates already.
I did at one time know several people who thought concentration camps were just dandy, as long as they were American, and that torture was a useful tool, as long as it was done in pursuit of American interests. We no longer speak. I'm pretty sure they aren't representative of most Bush voters, but it's certainly true that they do think.
Is this what you've been trying to get across to slow me, that most Bush voters did in sober fact consider the issues of the camps and the torture and the secret trials and so on, and decided it worked for them and cast their votes accordingly?
And to view someone who was born into a Red State as someone who simply chooses not to think is ignoring the fact that you might have done little better if put in the same place.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It's a neat hypothesis, very tidy. Its only real flaw is that it is false to fact. I was born in a small town in Texas. I've lived in small, medium and large towns in Texas for much of my life.
Pretending that I didn't, that I've lived all my life in the big city, with every liberal advantage, I do not see how this would discredit anything I've said about Bush voters' reasons for voting Bush in spite of all the bad stuff.
Now, saying, "someone who was born into a Red State [is] someone who simply chooses not to think" is pretty out there. Hasn't a blessed thing to do with anything I have said or do believe, and your mention of it here, along with, "To believe you could have been born into a medieval world, and by way of sheer reason alone, to believe that you could think your way straight into the Information Age is fantasy," leads me to wonder if I'm really the person with whom you're disagreeing, or if I'm just a convenient stand-in.
Greg London wrote: I, on the other hand, never said anything to the effect of "Don't say anything that might offend Bush-voter sensibilities". I did not say anything about nudging you or anyone back into ranks, I said nothing about conforming to some new party line.
I refer to this comment, starting from:
Which I agree with. Concentration camps and...
through this paragraph:
To create a "favorable outcome" of stopping concentration camps, you're going to have to give up...
which I read as an exhortation to chill with the "don't think" chatter, because, in your view, it would alienate the very voters needed to win the next election. That ways must be found to bring these voters on side, and that expressing such views as I have been would only serve to "lose the next election". I did not, originally, quote you directly out of bandwidth concerns rather than any desire to slight you.
But do you honestly believe that every Bush voter actively supports torture and concentration camps? That every Bush voter actively choose not to think?
Rather the opposite; that the majority of them passively support torture, etc., via the passive act of not thinking about the ramifications of their support for Bush.
As Bruce said, "good intentions do not entirely excuse evil results."
And, just for the record, my personal relationships with some Bush-voters are close, in some cases familial, and IMO, neither here nor there as regards this discussion.
Greg, I realize that I am not on message, so far as how you've already concluded it should be structured, which seems to be, "Don't say anything that might offend Bush-voter sensibilities, as that'll scuttle our chances of persuading them of the rightness of our cause."
Bugger that.
I am not a duckling whom you need nudge back into ranks, nor a political operative whose message must be made to conform to anyone's party line. I am a private citizen in a society where speaking out is not just a fundamental right, but a responsibility of citizenship.
Strategies for forming voting blocs are all very well in their place, but they do not apply to the framing of public debate. The idea that I, or you, or anyone else, should be careful of what we say, as the next US election hinges on not offending people who voted for Bush, is the reddest of herrings, and worse — it implies that speaking our minds is a luxury we cannot afford if we are to win elections. I insist rather that speaking out, honestly and plainly, is a necessity we cannot afford to neglect if any election, once won, is to lead to any good.
To create a "favorable outcome" of stopping concentration camps, you're going to have to give up the righteous position that all people voted Bush because "they won't think, damn their dewy-sweet, God-fearing eyes".
By golly, you sure have fixed on that one sentence. I'm going to have to polish up my rhetoric, if a throw-away can have this much impact.
"And they won't think, damn their dewy-sweet, God-fearing eyes."
I think you have oversimplified the thought process.
I think you oversimplified my position, and unfairly discounted the context in which I wrote that sentence.
I regard the establishment of a concentration camp as earth-shattering. Red voters apparently do not, at least, not enough to change their vote. Same with torture, It's not happening right in front of their noses, so they won't think about it, and for damn sure don't want to hear me talking about it.
They are nice people, as I said, not stupid, but they are indulging in folly and are made fools in consequence.
You said:
Having to discard our entire world view in exchange for something completely unknown, and having to rebuild a new world model from nothing, is scary and a lot of work.
which is not terribly far off from what I concluded:
"So I guess this is my long-winded way of saying they voted to maintain the status quo, not because they think it's that wonderful, but because they cannot afford to face up to just how bad it is."
So when you speak of those Reds, I'd ask that we all have a little humility rather than demand immediate perfection. Because none of us were born with a perfect world view, and none of us simply said "Oh so thats the way the world really is." without some usually world-altering situation happening in our lives.
Frankly, I think you've got the cart before the horse. It is not a bad idea to examine just what there is in the 59 mil mindset, in whole or in part, that actively works to destroy those things I most value. Humility, in this process, takes a back seat to honesty.
And also keep in mind that next week, next, month, or next year, something might happen in your life that will show that the world-view you hold today is severely flawed.
As we are unacquainted, you will have to settle for my assurance that I am not in need of finger-wagging on this point; I am already well aware of how often and easily the world is turned upside down.
Thank you for referring back to that entry, Mary Kay. I skimmed through the latest comments, just making sure I'd not missed any, and re-read this one from Stefan Jones. He wrote:
Rove's allies distributed DVDs full of inflamatory ranting about Adam & Steve to churches.
What could WE send them?
A carefully edited program showing war casualties springs to mind.
and a couple of other possibilities. "Nice idea," I think, "but it wouldn't work."
"Why not?" (yes, I talk to myself a lot. yes, the neighbours avoid me.)
Anyway, it wouldn't work because counter-DVDs about war casualties or sweatshops or even the increasing impoverishing of middle America (something that should be crystal-clear to any middle-income American with children wanting to go to college) do not reinforce the core beliefs of 59 million voters. And DVDs saying gays use blond, white cherubs as appetizers during happy hour, do.
Red voters want to believe that America is the onliest superpower by right, not because China prefers to stay out of the limelight, and they for sure don't want to hear that China holds the mortgage on their own and their children's future. Red voters want to believe that official recognition of same-sex relationships will, somehow, cheapen that afforded to opposite-sex couples. (This is the 'finite size pie' theory.) Red voters want to believe that an American government would not go to war unless there was good reason, and all that stuff about torture and concentration camps and casual targeting of civilians, and on and on, that stuff's regrettable, sure, but not show-stoppingly so. At most, they're teachable moments.
They mean well, and try hard every day to do right, and want very much to believe that their government works the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. And they won't think, damn their dewy-sweet, God-fearing eyes.
This is what the Republican party has excelled in reinforcing as regards launching war after war: that if you watch all the way to the end, and don't walk out during intermission, everything will work out for the best. I've hear it said that the Democrats' message was weak, too nuanced, too dissipated. Kerry didn't roar back when the Swift Boat Pretenders lied out their butts. Kerry couldn't speak out properly against the Iraq invasion since he voted in the Senate to approve funding for it. That John Edwards, bless him, has all the gravitas of puppy chewing holes in a penny loafer (and this despite the man's professional accomplishments).
That's not why Kerry lost. Kerry lost because 59 million people could not face acknowledging that their government just might be as bad, as criminal, as venal, as to go to war for money. Twice. They have a vested interest in believing that when some uniformed McCop tells them to take off their shoes, give up their Bics, and then pats them down without even washing first, that this sordid experience serves to fight Terror. Because if it doesn't, if they get to thinking it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of increasing anyone's safety, then it would be intolerable and they would have to do something about it. And they already have quite enough to worry about, what with their kids' tuition and their investments tanking and their bosses hinting about layoffs.
So I guess this is my long-winded way of saying they voted to maintain the status quo, not because they think it's that wonderful, but because they cannot afford to face up to just how bad it is.
Independence, within reason, is a good thing. Wilfullness is not. A vote for Bush is a vote for concentration camps, for torture, for the perversion of the rule of law into the rule of the sword. Bush said, "Bring it on!" and yon Redshirt Voter felt ten feet tall and full of piss and vinegar. What is there worthy of respect in that? It is folly, pure folly, to vote for an administration that has, in pursuit of its appalling goals, already spent one's country into everlasting debt. I do not suffer fools, nor do I respect foolishness.
If my refusal to placate such a fool with surface 'respect' makes him sulky enough to vote his tantrum in place of his self-interest, then more shame to him.
Shrill is the new black.
But can you accessorize it?
pericat: ummm, no. I have read the National Report on the Causes of Aboriginal Poverty, which documents some appalling statistics, and that's enough evidence for me that Aboriginal poverty is a national disgrace. Whatever the solution might be, providing the benefits I mentioned to people who aren't by any reasonable description poor can't be part of it.
I think maybe it's a case of apples and oranges, then. I know some people who have done exceptionally well with the opportunities they've been given and the resources they've been able to muster, but setting them up as examples of their 'class' would, to my mind, be unfair to both them and to the faceless ones to whom you compared your friend.
In discussing AA as a whole with my partner over supper, she pointed out that AA programs are meant to rectify the grosser effects of power imbalances between classes, and that regardless of how well some members of the disadvantaged class did, or how poorly some members of the advantaged class did, the basic power imbalance remains: poor people, as a class, have not the power to affect (for good or ill) not-poor people.
You must correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Australian Aboriginals do not have co-equal power and influence in either finance or government, with non-Aboriginals. I'm basing this notion not just on what I've heard here and there, but on your citing of the existence of a National Council that studies Aboriginal poverty as separate from general poverty.
As I understand the purpose of AA programs, within a few generations there may be still the poor and the not-poor, but there would not be whole swaths of people born to poverty, whose parents and grandparents were likewise situated, and who have no hope of bettering themselves, solely because of their class or heritage. IOW, as someone smarter than I said once, we may always have the poor with us, but there's no reason they need to be the same people.
When Australia's social makeup is such that a National Council to study Aboriginal poverty would not be convened, since the reasons for Aboriginals being poor are indistinguishable from the reasons non-Aboriginals are likewise poor, then Australia would no longer need AA programs geared to bettering the lot of Aboriginals in particular.
But I shouldn't have discussed the lady's financial situation here. I apologise.
As you did not identify her, I don't think an apology necessary.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 7 |
| 2004 | 48 |
| 2003 | 9 |
Total: 64 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by pericat:
Show all comments by pericat.