HH:

quote:

In that case such a person wouldn't be engaging in name-calling. He would be sincere.

Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a traitor is a shakey sort of sincerity.

BN:

quote:

They've even got Markle swallowing the line (that he has said often) that fighting the terrorists has just made the problem worse.

Attributing something to somebody that he never said isn't very sincere, either. Nobody has said that fighting terrorism only makes the problem worse. What people who don't have far-right blinders on have said is that the WAY that BUSHCHENEY have done it has been an incompetent counterproductive bungle. The mere fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive while we're draining our national resources in Iraq and breaking our military is just the beginning of the proof of that.

The far-right is apparently incapable of distinguishing satisfying rhetoric about their goals with the reality of what they're actually accomplishing.
.

Nobody has said that fighting terrorism only makes the problem worse. What people who don't have far-right blinders on have said is that the WAY that BUSHCHENEY have done it has been an incompetent counterproductive bungle.

I'm still waiting to hear the magical way that terrorism can be fought that is different from how the Bush administration is doing it.

The mere fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive while we're draining our national resources in Iraq and breaking our military is just the beginning of the proof of that.

More Democratic talking-point spin. Real wars (as opposed to political ones) are not won by taking points. Regurgitating this tired point just shows how Democrats (and their supporters) are oriented toward criticism -- ceaseless criticism -- not results. The Democrats could easily point to the hundreds (many of them top operatives) of al Qaeda (and other groups) who have been caught and killed, as well as the other disruption of the terrorist network, including disrupting money supplies. Line up the names and corpses. But even if bin Laden were added to that stack, you'd still have a "What about....". It never ends. This is pointless (other than for political gain) opposition that has become unhinged -- but not without a purpose, which Rocco eloquently outlined. By all means, let's capture or kill bin Laden because the point is to defeat these guys. But when you traipse out these talking points, it's clear the point isn't to defeat al Qaeda, it's to defeat Bush. And pretending you have a better plan doesn't work, because the Democrats don't have any other plan but criticism -- ceaseless, pointless, often bordering on treason, criticism. Instead of defending these jerks, you ought to be embarrassed by them.

.
Eye roll.

Head shake.

Shoulder slump.

Palms held to the sky.

Not a clue.
.

quote:

Originally posted by Markle:
.
Eye roll.

Head shake.

Shoulder slump.

Palms held to the sky.

Not a clue.
.

We have a break through.

Markle finally admits not having a clue.

Bravo Markle.

Let's set up the Markle scenario.

At all cost osama bin laden should be captured because this alone will stop terrorism. Under the Markle Scenario we would invade Afghanistan because that was were osama is located. Once the Taliban was overthrown osama would be caught. But wait osama is no where to be found. The Markle Scenario next would be to invade Pakistan because we are so sure osama is there. Pakistan wouldn't mind. So send the troops into the mountains of Pakistan. Much like sending the troops into the mountains in Korea. We lost 55,000 troops in Korea in what three years. Those casualty numbers would be meaningless to the Markle scenario after all we need to capture osama at all cost. But wait osama is not found in the mountains of Pakistan word is he is in Kashmir region of India. Send the troops to Kashmir next. India would not mind this at all. They would say certainly osama needs to be captured. When osama is not found in Kashmir were to next? Oh wait maybe we made a mistake osama went west into Iran. We need to invade Iran.

By this time Iran would have a nuclear weapon. Without overthrowing Iraq we would never even know they were developing nuclear weapons. Iraq Libya and Syria would most likely also have a nuclear weapon developed as Iraq's nuclear technologies had already been sent to Libya and Syria. Saddam Hussien would have his nuclear weapon. Now under the Markle scenario to capture osama unfolds we invade Iran. Now Iran wouldn't necessarily use nuclear weapons on it's own soil but Iraq would. So when the Markle scenario troops roll into Iran Iraq would take the opportunity to nuke our troops for them.

But don't fear under the Markle scenario our troops are super human. They could and would withstand such an assault. Still after all of this osama is still not found. What gives?

Eye roll away.

Instead we have a candidate for President in Senator Hussein that from the beginning was "against' the Iraq war. Recently we found out that a major Senator Hussein fund raiser Tony Rezko was receiving money from an oil-for-food henchmen of Saddam Hussein. Could this possibly be the reason Senator Hussein supported keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

.
More of the dazzling logic that lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama's uncle was in the Red Army.
.

Senator Hussein said his Uncle liberated Auschwitz. The only way for that to have happened his uncle would had to have been in the Soviet Red Army. Should I question as you have described an articulate speaker like Senator Hussein? If he says his uncle liberated Auschwitz then his uncle had to have been in the Soviet Red Army.

What are you saying then that Senator Hussein really isn't articulate. That he would so flippantly state his uncle liberated Auschwitz? Or maybe Senator Hussein should be just given a pass on such a statement that he misspoke on one of the most horrific acts of mans inhumanity to man? That he would bungle up details of his Uncles service. Maybe Buchenwald was to tough for him to pronounce.

And of course Markle just ignores his personal Scenario on capturing osama. Please fill us in how the war on terror should be fought again. Tora Bora right that was the key right because we were so sure osama was there but we let him slip away. Markle are you that stupid to just parrot Kerry's 2004 talking points as though some how it is an enlightened view in 2008. osama is a coward. When we were attacked on Sept 11 2001 osama was no where near Afghanistan. osama was already in hiding long before a single coalition soldier stepped foot in Afghanistan.

.
Idoit.
.

Markle it is obvious you are an idiot.

Is there anything you have to say to try to prove that you are not an idiot.

.
Yes. I won't be wasting any time trying to convince you of anything.
.

I think these issues we discuss are one-quarter reason and three-quarters culture-emotion. And by "culture-emotion" I mean that we reach opinions about things simply because of what other people around us are thinking or what is, for whatever reason, emotionally satisfying to us, not which ideas are buttressed sufficiently (even barely) by reason, evidence, and logic. It's the only way to explain obviously stupid ideas like the one this woman expressed in our local letters-to-the-editor recently:

quote:

Any bill addressing "home-grown terrorism" is going to eventually undermine our Constitution just as every previous bill has.

The hidden language that has been overlooked or just plain lied about in previously passed bills has done nothing but further the administration's cover up and protection from their criminal behavior.

I for one consider this "administration" the "home grown terrorist" we need to be fearful of."

Pre-canned, pre-packaged ideas like this seem to be transferred from person to person by means that seem little different from how a virus is transmitted from person to person. It's just an accident of who your friends are, who your teachers are, or what news is sneezed in your face. Instead of intelligent human beings as we pretend to be, we seem to have three or four settings like a cheap microwave oven. Potato. Popcorn. Beverages. Defrost. People become something little more than dip switches for other people to throw. If you question the dangers of man-made global warming, you must be in the pockets of the oil companies. If you respond to the fact of a fairly widespread and organized death cult that is trying to kill us, no, it's George Bush who is our greatest threat. None of these types of ideas even meet the basic requirements of reason or logic, but they are passed on from person to person like the deepest, most thoughtful truths.

Granted, in the above case, it pays to watch out for power grabs by the government. But liberals these days seem to care only about power grabs when it is by Republicans and only when any such supposed grabs are regarding the protection of this country. There's a mean, weird, deranged cultural element out there where these ideas are considered the highest morality. But your typical liberal never balks at the ongoing intrusions of government for an assortment of other reasons. Only when the defense of our country is at stake do they get hysterical and indignant about the growing reach and power of the government and the supposed dangers to our Constitution. It's not silly to want to oppose such real dangers when they occur, and it's obvious that reasonable people will have differences of agreement about what constitutes a danger. But it's silly to be such an unthinking drone and pass on the various pre-packaged ideas in lieu of thought. We'll never keep our liberty as long as what passes for political discussion is little more than pre-canned one-liners and other pre-packaged ideas that aren't even remotely true, but remain alive because they jiggle the right emotional connections in some people. What a way to run a Democracy.

quote:

Instead of intelligent human beings as we pretend to be, we seem to have three or four settings like a cheap microwave oven. Potato. Popcorn. Beverages. Defrost. People become something little more than dip switches for other people to throw.

That's as sound a description of postmodern culture as I've heard.

And it's why the media treats us as retards and rubes, instead of freethinking individuals. Retards and rubes are easier to steer. Whether it be toward certain ideas of submission politically (politically correct culture)... or toward being voracious consumers of complete bullshit items that have a relatively low functional or nutritional value.

It's why computer interfaces have gone from good tools to marketing vehicles, and why you pay more for less laundry detergent in the bottle and fewer corn chips in the bag. It's why our leaders speak to us in soundbytes and talking points instead of discourse and dialog.

It's why vocabulary becomes nothing more than stimulus--PEDOPHILE!!--that has an instant reaction that can be manipulated. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

Leaving all the particulars, and nuts and bolts of human life and interaction aside. It's a shorthand, a mainline into our emotional makeup. It's far too much work to appeal to our intellects, so nobody bothers.

And it's why the media treats us as retards and rubes, instead of freethinking individuals. Retards and rubes are easier to steer. Whether it be toward certain ideas of submission politically (politically correct culture)... or toward being voracious consumers of complete bullshit items that have a relatively low functional or nutritional value.

Let me first off say that I don't consider people stupid for believing bullshit. I've believed plenty of bullshit in my time. And if you just look back at the history of the progression of human knowledge, nine chances out of ten, much of the stuff we believe today will be shown to be false or incomplete in a few years. As it ended up, William Herschel knew shit about astronomy. Our knowledge has grown since 1800. Many things that people thought then were were just wrong. Those faint glowing patches in the sky were not nebula but galaxies. But he knew probably as much, if not more, than anyone in his day about the objects in the sky. We can open a page of some magazine and in seconds know far more about Saturn than Herschel ever painstakingly did. But who was smarter? Crap, not even close. He was. (He was reportedly a damn fine composer as well.)

Stupidity is not having the facts wrong. It's the process. "George Bush is an idiot" is not about having the facts wrong. It's about having the process wrong.

It's why computer interfaces have gone from good tools to marketing vehicles, and why you pay more for less laundry detergent in the bottle and fewer corn chips in the bag. It's why our leaders speak to us in soundbytes and talking points instead of discourse and dialog.

One of the areas where society is particularly wanting is for poets, critics, and intellectual leaders. (The world needs Richard Feynmans, not Al Gores.) We do a little of our share of it here at thalo.net, and I'm proud of that. Doesn't matter if we don't always have the answers, but at least we're not just swallowing bullshit without a thought.

It's why vocabulary becomes nothing more than stimulus--PEDOPHILE!!--that has an instant reaction that can be manipulated. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

Used car salesmen, and even some of the kids and parents who sell Girl Scout cookies, are masters at exploiting human psychology and propensities. You'd really enjoy reading that book, "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." Basically, it all comes down to us humans having traits and intelligence that work quite well, but which are not perfect (nature cares only about "good enough," not coming up with answers that, like a digital calculator, are accurate to eight digits). And many of the smarts that work great out on the savannah don't do to well when trying to sort through environmental policies. Facts have to matter, and as science shows us, facts are things that we somewhat have to conform to, and not the other way around. Our natural way of thinking -- while certainly capable of logic, reason, and noting cause-and-effect relationships -- was not made to easily and naturally handle problems scientifically. And a lot of the problems we're dealing with in society today don't respond well to knee-jerk reactions and human mythology. Facts, as John Adams said, remain stubborn things.

But we've still got that vast storehouse of on-the-savannah evolutionary heritage inside us. We're made to think in those ways. It's like pulling teeth to do anything else. That's problem #1. Problem #2 is that it is rather easy to exploit (intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or unconsciously) our hunter-gatherer brains that evolved "good enough" strategies for which poisonous berries to stay away from but not necessarily which Barry's to stay away from.

Sister Ann is in rare form.

She calls it dead on, and yet the you-know-whos are going to have rim froth over what she says.

She's outdone herself. I laughed up half a lung.

Ann has obviously been reading thalo.net.

Tim Russert is dead. Meet the Press has been a wing of the Democratic Party for the last 17 years any way. I was never overly impressed with him.

Condolences to his family.

With tomorrow being Sunday, it's going to be strange without that familiar face on "Meet the Press." Even though it was generally a show that infuriated me, made me eye roll... there was a huge comfort factor with Russert. Kind of like the same thing Carson had. I never really thought Johnny Carson was that FUNNY, but for some reason he became part of America's family. He had an endearing quality.

For a Democrat, Russert became like everyone's kindly Democratic UNCLE... and yet he did know how to interview people. He was a less-is-more questioner, and he frequently got people to answer beyond their talking points, because he knew how to phrase a question so that answering was UNAVOIDABLE. When anyone tried to dodge a Russert question, you could almost hear the entire television viewing public go... um, which part of that question didn't you understand? Sounded clear to ME!

It will be interesting to see where that show goes. Big shoes to fill. And I'm not sure there's anyone with a zeal for politics who has even HALF of the guy's likability factor. The competition is Stephanopolous, and he always comes off as a mincing little turd.

I think that's as good of a eulogy as you're likely to get, at least in terms of brevity. By all reports, Russert was a nice guy and a good family man. If you're going to have political disagreements with someone, you'd prefer they come in a package like him. But I hadn't watched his show in years. Perhaps outside of O'Reilly and Fox News, you won't find much in the way of true interviews. I loved O'Reilly's real hardball interview (not to be confused with Hardball, which is anything but) with Hillary, for example. But the typical interview show in the mainstream media tends to ask softball questions; questions which the interviewee generally ignores while proceeding to use the interview format as a means of disseminating their propaganda.

But I think Russert was a better interviewer than most. Like I said, I hadn't watched his show in a number of years, but I think at least Tim tried to play the role of the objective journalist who wasn't afraid to ask tough questions.

The competition is Stephanopolous, and he always comes off as a mincing little turd.

Whatever the ultimate reason for it was, he's been the only one in the press to ask Barry Hussein Obama a tough question during his debates with Hillary. He is a turd. Most of them are turds. I suspect they'll try to carry on with the Meet the Press show, but it will be like trying to continue the Rush Limbaugh show without Rush Limbaugh. Tim was the show. Turd-like Stephanopolous softball interviewers are a dime a dozen. But to replace Russert you at least have to give a try at journalistic integrity, which is frankly beyond most of these lib types.

quote:

But to replace Russert you at least have to give a try at journalistic integrity, which is frankly beyond most of these lib types.

I think someone who holds up Bill O'Reilly as an example of a "true interview" is hardly qualified to judge "journalistic integrity." Journalistic integrity is not just mindlessly parroting the Bush line on everything.

I'm sure you've all seen the graphic Fox News ("fair and balanced") threw up on the screen calling Obama's wife his "Baby Mama." Let's see you tie yourselves up in knots justifying that one.

BTW, Stephanopolous IS a mincing little turd.
.

I have no idea who they're going to get. Chris Wallace was pre-Russert, and he's now at Fox News. Garrick Utley also held the post for a while.

If it were me, I'd try to convince Lynne Russell from CNN to stop selling girly lampshades and come back to journalism and host the program. She's 20 years past peak hotness, but that might give her gravitas. Where Russert would disarm with his friendly demeanor, Russell could do the same with feminine wiles and her bedroom voice.