Scarabus's Comments (232)
Forgiving Political Correctness At Fort Hood On Thanksgiving
Commented Nov 26, 2009 at 17:54:12 in Politics
“Yes, you're right in your very first assertion, Alex. And your articulateness and civility are gratifying. But you're still wrong about the "victimhood" thing. That's a whole 'nother issue. Both valid and relevant in itself, but peripheral to this question.
The key is *why* one speaks, writes, or acts in a particular way. You say it because you truly believe it? That's legitimate discourse. (Maybe mistaken, but still legitimate.) You say it because those in control have decreed it to be so? Then you're being politically correct. That is not legitimate discourse.
Yes, of course, the term was invented and was for a long time used against those on the left. (By me along with a gazillion other "non-lockstep" liberals, I might add.) But it could equally as well be used against those on the right. (As my 4 year old granddaughter used to say, point one finger at others and you point three back at yourself.)
The reason is that it's not *what* you say or do that's relevant, but *why*. Two persons might say or do the very same thing, the first because she has an open mind, a sound factual basis, and a logical argument; the second because that's the talking point of the day. The former is engaging in legitimate discourse. The latter is being politically correct.”
The key is *why* one speaks, writes, or acts in a particular way. You say it because you truly believe it? That's legitimate discourse. (Maybe mistaken, but still legitimate.) You say it because those in control have decreed it to be so? Then you're being politically correct. That is not legitimate discourse.
Yes, of course, the term was invented and was for a long time used against those on the left. (By me along with a gazillion other "non-lockstep" liberals, I might add.) But it could equally as well be used against those on the right. (As my 4 year old granddaughter used to say, point one finger at others and you point three back at yourself.)
The reason is that it's not *what* you say or do that's relevant, but *why*. Two persons might say or do the very same thing, the first because she has an open mind, a sound factual basis, and a logical argument; the second because that's the talking point of the day. The former is engaging in legitimate discourse. The latter is being politically correct.”
White House Thanksgiving Dinner: MENU
Commented Nov 26, 2009 at 17:05:45 in Style
“Has anyone mentioned that the Menu article cites O's favorite as pumpkin pie, while the headline under the image at the top cites it as sweet potato pie?”
greymom replied on Nov 26, 2009 at 18:37:56
“Well, he was raised by white people after all. I'll bet he really likes pineapple pie.”
mssreader replied on Nov 26, 2009 at 17:10:37
“Both are on the menu.”
dwright replied on Nov 26, 2009 at 17:09:30
“well what can you expect from folks that barely graduate high school english”
Forgiving Political Correctness At Fort Hood On Thanksgiving
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 17:34:33 in Politics
“Does the term "political correctness" as applied in current politics have any comprehensible meaning? Historically it derives from the era of Communist ascendancy, when truth was defined by party orthodoxy, independent of truth or actuality.
In other words, in its essence it isn't restricted to those on the left. Quite the contrary. When Rush Limbaugh said he was glad he would no longer have to "carry water" for Cheney and Bush, McCain and Palin, what did he mean? He meant he had been pontificating, not about what he thought was correct, but what Republican talking points required. He was being politically correct.
To leap on Hamid's act, assume that Muslim=Terrorist, and start calling for a lynch mob…? Now *THAT* would be political correctness: trumpeting an over-hasty sweeping generalization because it encapsulates the radical right's biases and susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
Advocating learning the facts, knowing what one's talking about, before taking a position? And then affirming that position, whether ideologically convenient or not? That isn't political correctness. That's courage and rationality.”
In other words, in its essence it isn't restricted to those on the left. Quite the contrary. When Rush Limbaugh said he was glad he would no longer have to "carry water" for Cheney and Bush, McCain and Palin, what did he mean? He meant he had been pontificating, not about what he thought was correct, but what Republican talking points required. He was being politically correct.
To leap on Hamid's act, assume that Muslim=Terrorist, and start calling for a lynch mob…? Now *THAT* would be political correctness: trumpeting an over-hasty sweeping generalization because it encapsulates the radical right's biases and susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
Advocating learning the facts, knowing what one's talking about, before taking a position? And then affirming that position, whether ideologically convenient or not? That isn't political correctness. That's courage and rationality.”
alex61 replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 17:44:36
“Nice try. Political correctness in our culture for the last several decades has been almost exclusively the purview of the left. Certain "politically correct" groups were labeled off limits to criticism as they were, by virtue of their "victimhood" held not responsible for their faults and failures and were therefore above criticism.
Even the best of intentioned constructive criticism was silenced with the words "racist" or "sexist" etc. People were attacked and silenced for daring to break the rules of political correctness.
PC is one of the nastiest, vicious, and destructive things ever to happen to modern American culture.”
Even the best of intentioned constructive criticism was silenced with the words "racist" or "sexist" etc. People were attacked and silenced for daring to break the rules of political correctness.
PC is one of the nastiest, vicious, and destructive things ever to happen to modern American culture.”
Va. Rep. Tom Perriello, On Health Care Vote: 'He Didn't Come To Congress To Get Re-Elected' [UPDATE]
Commented Nov 13, 2009 at 20:58:25 in Politics
“A guy who votes for what's morally right rather than for what's politically expedient? This congressman represents an endangered species. He should be protected. If this move reflects the whole of his voting record, I for one will contribute to his reelection campaign!”
putovanja replied on Nov 13, 2009 at 21:24:48
“I'm from sixth congresional district, but I'll contribute for his campaign.”
Newthron replied on Nov 13, 2009 at 21:19:21
“Word up. Like that, feel ya.”
msjimmied replied on Nov 13, 2009 at 21:07:06
“I'm with you!”
Hold the Hofstadter: Why the GOP Is Winning 2010
Commented Nov 11, 2009 at 20:35:46 in Politics
“Really interesting. I myself am a "pretty high information" Obama voter. I'm not bothered by the feeling that those who have less education and income than I might receive more individual benefit than I. I like that. What bothers me is that they seem *not* to be getting that benefit.
A very cynical thought. What if the obscenely arrogant bankers are deliberately flaunting the rewards of their greed. Combine that with unemployment figures? Looks as if Obama's administration is screwing the men and women who shower after work, while rewarding the "we deserve it because we work so hard and are so productive" merchants of greed. The more outrageous the boasting from Goldman-Sachs, the more the Republicans profit (so to speak).”
A very cynical thought. What if the obscenely arrogant bankers are deliberately flaunting the rewards of their greed. Combine that with unemployment figures? Looks as if Obama's administration is screwing the men and women who shower after work, while rewarding the "we deserve it because we work so hard and are so productive" merchants of greed. The more outrageous the boasting from Goldman-Sachs, the more the Republicans profit (so to speak).”
DannyDanson replied on Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:40
“Your are right, if spun correctly the whole situation looks as though this administration is oblivious to the concerns of working class people and pandering to corporate interest, but everything that would address their concerns is being evicerated by the opposition and their "anti-government" brigade of low information voters who 's attention have been misdirected from the past 30 years of conservative policy which put us in this position and convinced that any instance of progressive policy is poison to the nation. Healthcare and Energy reform would create the quality jobs that will never return to the manufacturing sector, but why would corporations with a global footprint take that route of their own accord, corporations are not fearful of high unemployment numbers, that's like a casket maker who is depressed because people are dying and buying caskets. Unemployment means higher profits especially when your are a multi-national entity headquartered in the country with the low employment numbers, while the national currency just happens to be losing strength, that means exports to countries were people have money and jobs (our jobs) will grow with the same level of productivity, they could create new jobs (check out the returns) but why would they? If the working class suffers long enough eventually they'll except pennies on the dollar for a job, and if you want to retire guess what you'll probably have to give most of those pennies back to those who started this crisis in the form of 401k contributions.”
Prudens replied on Nov 12, 2009 at 09:01:40
“First off, the majority of extremely liberal voters are among the richest people (salaries over 100,000 annually) in the country, that or the poorest. It is easy to say you dont mind higher taxes when you are taking money out of the pockets of the working poor to pay for your policies. Most Rebpublican voters are the in the lower and middle classes, check recent polling data if you dont believe me regarding voter demographics. The middle class are the people who get squeezed most with new tax and social policies. These rich Republicans you speak of are a myth. Any smart Goldman-Sachs fatcat would lobby anyone to pass legislation that benefits them, not just one party. I would be surprised if the percentage of the Republican party that are rich robber barons even reached 0.5% of the registered voter population.”
Study Paints iPhone Users As Porn-Watching Egomaniacs
Commented Nov 05, 2009 at 14:56:34 in Technology
“Who sponsored this not-really-scientific survey? Wouldn't have any relationship with Blackberry, would it?
But in response to your query, my wife (retired educator), my daughter (college professor), my son-in-law (nationally known medical researcher), and I (retired college professor) all use iPhones, and none of us fits the profile.”
But in response to your query, my wife (retired educator), my daughter (college professor), my son-in-law (nationally known medical researcher), and I (retired college professor) all use iPhones, and none of us fits the profile.”
RButler replied on Nov 05, 2009 at 16:24:39
“I'm positive that no, absolutely no iPhone user would admit to fitting that profile. That's called denial. Just like nobody says their a right wing nutjob.”
Obama Online -- Where Are the Young Supporters?
Commented Oct 26, 2009 at 16:49:05 in Technology
“This post blends two separate, if related, topics: the young and the tech-savvy. A recent New Yorker cover is emblematic in this context. It shows a kid standing on a pile of books writing "texting" jargon on a chalkboard. His students are older people.
My first thought was that this reflects the ho-hum standard line that kids know much more about technology than do older generations. On further reflection, though, it struck me that the cover also shows how technology can provide motivation for bridging the gaps among generations.
Two widely separated generations are depicted, each eager both to teach and to learn. The idealism of youth and the wisdom of experience are symbiotic qualities.
Disclaimer: I'm 67. I just finished creating a couple of composite images in Photoshop, and posting one of them to Facebook. As soon as I send this email, I'm going to text my daughter in another city. To read the message, she'll probably have to wrestle the iPhone away from my 6 year old granddaughter.”
My first thought was that this reflects the ho-hum standard line that kids know much more about technology than do older generations. On further reflection, though, it struck me that the cover also shows how technology can provide motivation for bridging the gaps among generations.
Two widely separated generations are depicted, each eager both to teach and to learn. The idealism of youth and the wisdom of experience are symbiotic qualities.
Disclaimer: I'm 67. I just finished creating a couple of composite images in Photoshop, and posting one of them to Facebook. As soon as I send this email, I'm going to text my daughter in another city. To read the message, she'll probably have to wrestle the iPhone away from my 6 year old granddaughter.”
Very Short Skirts: Which Celebs Are They Good For? (PHOTOS, POLL)
Commented Jul 24, 2009 at 17:56:44 in Entertainment
“They all look sad and pathetic. Real women are lilies already (of myriad shades of skin), and don't need expensive "gilding." Indeed, the "gilding" of these hothouse flowers encourages one to look for disguise and misdirection.”
Beer-Drinking Muslim Model, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, Sentenced To Public Flogging In Malaysia
Commented Jul 21, 2009 at 18:49:01 in World
“Lots of Muslims drink; so it's not about being Muslim, but about being fundamentalist. Fundamentalist Muslims have a lot in common with fundamentalist evangelical Christians.
Is one allowed to quit being a fundamentalist Muslim and start living in the 21st century? (Christian ex-fundamentalists do this frequently.) If so, would the law still call for caning?”
Is one allowed to quit being a fundamentalist Muslim and start living in the 21st century? (Christian ex-fundamentalists do this frequently.) If so, would the law still call for caning?”
pcplz replied on Jul 21, 2009 at 19:17:24
“I would probably win a lot of money betting on whether or not the same could happen here if we allowed the fundamentalists to come into power. Of course.....only women would be punished.”
Why Visiting Pompeii Has Me Thinking About the Smoke Billowing Out of Our Economic Mt. Vesuvius
Commented Jul 21, 2009 at 18:39:40 in Business
“"Pecora"? That means "sheep" in Italian, right? A cosmic warning?
Anyhow, the people in Pompeii recognized the warnings. They just didn't know what they meant. Same problem now. The signs are manifest. The question is, "Who ya gonna trust to interpret the meaning and import of those signs."”
Anyhow, the people in Pompeii recognized the warnings. They just didn't know what they meant. Same problem now. The signs are manifest. The question is, "Who ya gonna trust to interpret the meaning and import of those signs."”
PBMac replied on Jul 21, 2009 at 19:18:13
“Pecora was the man, (of Italian extract) who after the fall of the stock market in the 1930's called for an investigation as to why it happened. He made quite an impression in those days, shaming some big wig financiers in those Senate hearings. He is exactly what we need now. We need hearings that do a little more than spread platitudes around.”
Ultra-Orthodox Protest In Israel Over Arrest Of Woman Suspected Of Starving Son
Commented Jul 16, 2009 at 10:52:00 in World
“Domestic terrorism in Israel. Like they don't have enough problems with foreign terrorists.”
O'Reilly Suddenly Distancing Himself From Past Tiller Rhetoric
Commented Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:14 in Media
“This is like a guy who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Then, after people die, denies having yelled it. Then, when he sees it on YouTube, insists he was shouting "Flyer!"”
US Holds Journalist Without Charges In Iraq
Commented May 23, 2009 at 20:28:08 in Media
“Say what? We complain because Iran does this to one our journalists? We complain because North Korea did this to two or our journalists? And then we do the very same thing ourselves?
What's the legal, let alone moral, justification for this? And what are the implications for every U.S. journalist, serving anywhere in the world?”
What's the legal, let alone moral, justification for this? And what are the implications for every U.S. journalist, serving anywhere in the world?”
cinesimon replied on May 23, 2009 at 22:21:04
“This story is about an Iraqi Journalist who works for Reuters - so we are doing it to people of other nations - though I'm sure we do also do it to ourselves.”
National Security vs. Our Values: "The Toughest Issue We Will Face"
Commented May 23, 2009 at 20:18:52 in Politics
“Terrorism is a tactic. It’s adopted by nation states, as when the allies firebombed Hamburg during WW II. It's adopted by rogue organizations, like the one Timothy McVey represented. It’s adopted by single disaffected and/or disturbed individuals, like Richard Poplawski, who killed the Pittsburgh police officers.
To say that we are at war with terror is meaningless. Neither our nation nor any other will ever or could ever be free from the threat of terror. Thus, to say that our constitution and commitment to international treaties will be suspended until we have concluded the war on terror is to say that our nation will henceforth forever be rogue and lawless.
And this is to keep us "safe"? Red herring! Americans do not need to be kept “safe.” We can take care of ourselves. What we need is leadership. Nothing in the presidential oath of office mentions "safety." The president swears, not to keep Americans safe, but to defend and preserve our constitution.”
To say that we are at war with terror is meaningless. Neither our nation nor any other will ever or could ever be free from the threat of terror. Thus, to say that our constitution and commitment to international treaties will be suspended until we have concluded the war on terror is to say that our nation will henceforth forever be rogue and lawless.
And this is to keep us "safe"? Red herring! Americans do not need to be kept “safe.” We can take care of ourselves. What we need is leadership. Nothing in the presidential oath of office mentions "safety." The president swears, not to keep Americans safe, but to defend and preserve our constitution.”
dwright replied on May 25, 2009 at 07:52:45
“You say that the president takes the oath to defend and preserve our Constitution, but not to keep Americans safe? Correct?
I guess you neglected to read the Preamble of that Constitution: domestic Tranquility, general Welfare etc. The Preamble IS the platform or spirit where the Articles stand. The rest of the Constitution is simply outlining our governmental structure.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."”
I guess you neglected to read the Preamble of that Constitution: domestic Tranquility, general Welfare etc. The Preamble IS the platform or spirit where the Articles stand. The rest of the Constitution is simply outlining our governmental structure.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."”
BevfromNYC replied on May 23, 2009 at 23:29:11
“Well, if being the "Commander-In-Chief" doesn't mean that it is the President's job to "keep us safe", I don't know what else does.
FYI - There is nothing in the Presidential Oath of Office or in the Constitution that gives the President the power to nationalize private industry, yet that is exactly what is happening with the auto industry.”
FYI - There is nothing in the Presidential Oath of Office or in the Constitution that gives the President the power to nationalize private industry, yet that is exactly what is happening with the auto industry.”
NotProvenGuilty replied on May 23, 2009 at 22:11:28
“I learned in my M.B.A. program that if you listen to a conversation long enough, someone may say what you would have said. Thank you for making my post unnecessary. Yours is perfect.
But I WILL add, Prof. Stone is obviously bright and thoughtful. He delineates the issues well. But your point is his huge blind spot. John Kerry got pilloried for suggesting the "war on terror" should be thought of more as a police action. He was right.”
But I WILL add, Prof. Stone is obviously bright and thoughtful. He delineates the issues well. But your point is his huge blind spot. John Kerry got pilloried for suggesting the "war on terror" should be thought of more as a police action. He was right.”
Ali Soufan Interview: FBI Interrogator Of Zubaydah Breaks Silence, Condemns Torture Tactics
Commented Apr 26, 2009 at 21:21:40 in Politics
“I've had great respect for Michael Isikoff. But this article really bothers me.
First, it wasn't the CIA but "CIA contractors" who were in control? WTF! Our nation's honor and credibility have been trashed by unnamed contractors, hired by unnamed individuals, representing an unnamed organization?!?
That shouldn't be slipped in casually, so that most people wouldn't even catch it. That's BIG!
Second, "The administration, believing it faced an extraordinary threat that justified extreme measures…". To start with, an "administration" can't believe anything. Only individual persons can do that. Furthermore, how can Isikoff possibly know what any particular administrator actually believed? That's an inferential judgment. Judgment should never, ever be presented as fact.
Not that he gives a rat's ass, but I'll never again trust Isikoff's reporting.”
First, it wasn't the CIA but "CIA contractors" who were in control? WTF! Our nation's honor and credibility have been trashed by unnamed contractors, hired by unnamed individuals, representing an unnamed organization?!?
That shouldn't be slipped in casually, so that most people wouldn't even catch it. That's BIG!
Second, "The administration, believing it faced an extraordinary threat that justified extreme measures…". To start with, an "administration" can't believe anything. Only individual persons can do that. Furthermore, how can Isikoff possibly know what any particular administrator actually believed? That's an inferential judgment. Judgment should never, ever be presented as fact.
Not that he gives a rat's ass, but I'll never again trust Isikoff's reporting.”
Frank Rich: The Banality Of Bush White House Evil
Commented Apr 25, 2009 at 23:20:59 in Politics
“Don't have to go for infinite regression, but I do think one more step would be appropriate: Why torture? To justify the invasion of Iraq. OK. But why invade Iraq? Shouldn't that also be part off the picture? We don't hear enough about that.
[BTW, shouldn't Hannah Arendt get a h/t?]”
[BTW, shouldn't Hannah Arendt get a h/t?]”
nurseattorney replied on Apr 26, 2009 at 00:05:04
“I have followed everything this corrupt bunch of war mongers did from the Florida recount until Bush slunk out of DC in January. I've read O'Neil's book, Richard Clarke's books, Ron Suskind, Seymour Hersch, and Jane Mayer.
To this day, I cannot understand WHY Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neo-cons really wanted to invade Iraq. Bush would have done anything his advisors told him to do after 9/11, bec. really, everyone knew it was a failure by his administration that allowed it to happen. And more than anything, he wanted to distract public attention from that failing, and get re-elected in '04...and become a two term president, which had eluded his father. So a war SOMEWHERE was likely sold to him as a way to save his reputation and get re-elected. But WHY Iraq? The Project for a New American Century, which was the primary proponent of a new era of AMerican empire building, wanted the US to be the dominant force thruour the MidEast. I've always assumed that was proposed to surround Israel with US influence and protect it from the Arabs. But why did Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld buy into that motivation? I hope we hear that explained some day.”
To this day, I cannot understand WHY Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neo-cons really wanted to invade Iraq. Bush would have done anything his advisors told him to do after 9/11, bec. really, everyone knew it was a failure by his administration that allowed it to happen. And more than anything, he wanted to distract public attention from that failing, and get re-elected in '04...and become a two term president, which had eluded his father. So a war SOMEWHERE was likely sold to him as a way to save his reputation and get re-elected. But WHY Iraq? The Project for a New American Century, which was the primary proponent of a new era of AMerican empire building, wanted the US to be the dominant force thruour the MidEast. I've always assumed that was proposed to surround Israel with US influence and protect it from the Arabs. But why did Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld buy into that motivation? I hope we hear that explained some day.”
thirteen13 replied on Apr 25, 2009 at 23:41:03
“Invading Iraq was the beginning of the financial collapse created by the lawlessness of the Chaney/Bush regime. We hear about this financial collapse every day.”
Jordan Honor Killing: Man Confesses To Brutally Stabbing To Death Pregnant Sister
Commented Apr 12, 2009 at 16:48:26 in World
“What does "honor" mean in this context? Seriously. Can one assume it has something to do with religiously motivated obsession with female sexuality?
As I understand the concept, what this guy did is not just the opposite of honorable; it's subhuman. I was especially struck by the comment that he didn't actually know but merely suspected his sister was seeing other men.”
As I understand the concept, what this guy did is not just the opposite of honorable; it's subhuman. I was especially struck by the comment that he didn't actually know but merely suspected his sister was seeing other men.”
truthartbeauty replied on Apr 12, 2009 at 17:49:48
“people this depraved by religion are weak and afraid. not healthy at all”
Pantless Protesters During Obama's NATO Meeting (SLIDESHOW, NSFW)
Commented Apr 03, 2009 at 16:48:18 in World
“The putz has his face covered but not his tattoo.”
Vegas Mogul Slams Corporate Spending Backlash
Commented Mar 03, 2009 at 22:09:48 in Business
“To start with, can we dump the goofy euphemism "gaming"? It's gambling, folks. *Gambling*. You might like it; you might loathe it. Either way, you ought to be honest in naming it.
And to the billionaire, the point is symbolism. Las Vegas is emblematic of "adult" (not grown-up) diversion: gambling, porn-lite stage shows, legal prostitution, etc. You can't have it both ways, pal. You can't promote the symbolism when it profits you, and then deny it when it hurts you.”
And to the billionaire, the point is symbolism. Las Vegas is emblematic of "adult" (not grown-up) diversion: gambling, porn-lite stage shows, legal prostitution, etc. You can't have it both ways, pal. You can't promote the symbolism when it profits you, and then deny it when it hurts you.”
Big0725 replied on Mar 03, 2009 at 22:43:26
“Just so you'll know in the future, prostitution in NOT legal in Las Vegas nor anywhere else in Clark County NV. Seeing that you found it necessary to remind others about gaming and gambling, I thought you might appreciate the correction.”
Foreclosure Rescue Plan Under Fire From Lawmakers Over Mortgage Adjustments
Commented Mar 01, 2009 at 13:01:17 in Business
“If the persons and institutions that got us into the mess in the first place are against the proposal, then it can't be all bad! And they'd better not be using public tax dollars to lobby against the general public interest.
What specifically do these birds dislike? As a banker I have a house on which I must either reduce principle/interest rate to current market values, maintaining a steady if somewhat reduced source of income; or I must foreclose, sell the property at a big loss, and consequently see the value of every other property I own go down.
If Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats don't like this, then they have a public responsibility to explain why they think it will not be in the interest of home-owning Americans. Not bumber stickers, name-calling, or worn-out cliches. Cogent, documented explanation.”
What specifically do these birds dislike? As a banker I have a house on which I must either reduce principle/interest rate to current market values, maintaining a steady if somewhat reduced source of income; or I must foreclose, sell the property at a big loss, and consequently see the value of every other property I own go down.
If Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats don't like this, then they have a public responsibility to explain why they think it will not be in the interest of home-owning Americans. Not bumber stickers, name-calling, or worn-out cliches. Cogent, documented explanation.”
Restore the Republic
Commented Feb 25, 2009 at 16:51:42 in Politics
“"Community organizing" is about bringing members of a community together, showing them how and why to make a difference, and providing the inspiration and leadership to make it happen. President Obama began his career by doing that successfully in a small area of Chicago. Anyone who believes in America should stand with him to make it happen on a national level.”
RamonBackwards replied on Feb 25, 2009 at 18:05:05
“And had he been forced into that service it would be of no value whatsoever.”
The Media Business: It's the Perspective, Stupid
Commented Feb 23, 2009 at 20:55:25 in Media
“Nice. I like it when arguments are supported by accurate data. (As opposed to George Will's Post article, supported by falsehood.)
The Versailles analogy is trickier. Personally I love it. It's absolutely perfect. On the other hand, how many of The Rest of Us will recognize the reference to Louis XIV's moving his court out of the city and into a compound over which he exercised unquestioned autocracy?
In other words, what's the audience for an essay on... well, audience?”
The Versailles analogy is trickier. Personally I love it. It's absolutely perfect. On the other hand, how many of The Rest of Us will recognize the reference to Louis XIV's moving his court out of the city and into a compound over which he exercised unquestioned autocracy?
In other words, what's the audience for an essay on... well, audience?”
karinova replied on Feb 23, 2009 at 23:54:04
“In defense of the author, I do think he's (theoretically) addressing the Beltway navel-gazers, not "The Rest of Us."
The Rest of Us clearly already get it.”
The Rest of Us clearly already get it.”
Pope Keeps Finding Himself In Hot Water: Analysis
Commented Feb 03, 2009 at 20:36:11 in World
“Why does the article not mention as well the promotion of the American bishop who claimed Katrina's destruction of New Orleans and killing of so many people was God's punishment? It matters, because patterns are more important than individual events. (As Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence.)
Maybe the guy thinks the Catholic Church will inevitably fragment, and he's trying to solidify its ultra-conservative element. Maybe he really is anti-semite, anti-Muslim, and racist. Or maybe he's just incompetent. He might be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but otherwise he's just another guy. And the Peter Principle is just as operative in the Church as in every other institution.”
Maybe the guy thinks the Catholic Church will inevitably fragment, and he's trying to solidify its ultra-conservative element. Maybe he really is anti-semite, anti-Muslim, and racist. Or maybe he's just incompetent. He might be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but otherwise he's just another guy. And the Peter Principle is just as operative in the Church as in every other institution.”
Restoring Science To Its Rightful Place
Commented Jan 30, 2009 at 16:05:29 in Politics
“Is there any way to get the commercial broadcast media to stop the insanity of "balancing" serious scientists, as disinterested as possible, with either nuts or bought and paid for industry puppets?”
BrettnCalgary replied on Jan 30, 2009 at 18:47:50
“It would be nice, but I can't see any way of making them change that philosophy. The concept of balance is great. but having a climate scientist on, and a denier is 50-50 coverage, when it should be 99 climate scientists and one denier. Heck if you insist the denier be a qualified scientist without conflict of interest, I bet the ratio would be even worse for the deniers. The media is what makes most people think the science isn't settled.”
FCC Reviewing NBC's Golden Globes Telecast: Complaints About 'Wrestler' Director's Middle Finger
Commented Jan 14, 2009 at 18:21:14 in Media
“Should consistency matter here? It's OK for Dick Cheney to say "F__k you!" to a colleague on the Senate floor, but not for an actor to say the same thing in a fictional show about the senate? It's OK for George W. Bush to give the middle finger (literally, not just figuratively) time after time, but not OK for some TV producer to do it? Ditch the hypocrisy.”


