On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:30:44 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Iskander <theinfinitiveofgo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> bukvich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> > On May 9, 8:06 am, Iskander <theinfinitiveo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >> Ah. But is it just? The Buddha disapproves of schadenfreud,
>> >I am pretty> sure.
>> > That isn't schadenfreud; it's apathy and my rationalization of why I
>> > don't want any of my tax dollars to go for repopulating the flood
>> > zone.
>>
>> No blood for oil! No money for houses!
>
>We need a bunch of stuff at the mouth of the Mississippi. And the
>Mississippi keeps trying to put its mouth elsewhere. Why not work out a
>plan? Build a new New Orleans at the new ****t, and do it right this
>time. Arrange things so the river can flood properly and maintain the
>delta. Preserve the wetlands.
That would be allowing nature to take it's course though. What are you
thinking?!?
>Well, of course there are obvious reasons not to. Somebody would have to
>do a lot of thinking, and there would have to be a lot of politics
>involved in a situation where most of the big money favors the status
>quo.
Bingo!
>> >> And any answer off the 'mainstream' will promptly get you
>> >****canned by> various office holders who control the party.
>> > If a hunting rifle was still a weapon of mass destruction we could
>> > have a bloody revolution every thirty years and the mainstreamers
>> > would unanimously keep their mouths shut.
>>
>> It's still a weapon of mass destruction.
>
>No, it's supposed to cause significant casualties or property
>destruction. Hard to kill even a hundred people a day with a hunting
>rifle, and harder to even get started the second day. If a hunting rifle
>is a wmd then so is a sharp knife -- you could kill just as many people
>by slitting their throats provided you had them all lined up orderly for
>it.
Do you think about this often?
>> > You could go to black mass
>> > and be a pillar of secular society six days a week.
>>
>> Somehow, I doubt that; one notes that freedom of religion and an
>>
>> anti-government attitude resulted in ... Mormonism. Not quite up there
>>
>> with the black mass thing.
>
>No? If the black mass people got the commercial success mormons have,
>they'd look just as stodgy.
I'm Mormon on Tuesdays.
>> > Alas the force of the status quo makes a puny little hunting rifle
>> > next to useless for making the society more interesting.
>>
>> The thing is, is that the world has never been like that.
>> Rebellions
>> tend to fail.
>
>They work best when most people don't care who's running the government.
>Failing that, they work when most people don't care who's running the
>government provided it isn't the idiots who're in there now. The hunting
>rifles usually aren't very im****tant because the government distributes
>lots of military rifles to people it hopes are loyal, and at the times a
>rebellion has a reasonable chance to succeed, a lot of those people turn
>out not so loyal after all. Why bother with hunting rifles when military
>rifles are so much more available?
The feel of something familiar? It just occurred to me that while I'm
not into guns I do have two multi-purpose knives within reach. One is
of the leatherman variety and the other is intended to be used on a
fi****ng trip. It's somewhat of a chore to get to the blades but if I
need a quick set of pliers for some reason ...
>> Rebellions (or revolutions) are practically batting .000,
>> in terms of changing the social mores. Guerilla war makes it expensive
>>
>> to occupy. It rarely totally overhauls the culture, and even when it
>> does the effects are usually not that lasting. Note that the Soviets
>> failed to wipe out the Orthodox.
>
>Sure. When people don't care who's running the government it's because
>they don't notice it getting in their way much. (Not to say it doesn't.)
>And when people want to get rid of the current bozos they aren't usually
>giving a mandate to a new bunch to do something extreme. Every now and
>then they do, but when enough people are ready to sup****t extreme
>measures for real, it's likely not to take much of a revolution to get
>started.
Who is running our government anyway?
>> >> That's because they're trying to maximise the power of the
>> >press by> controlling the nomination process. And the easiest way to
>> >do that is to> focus on trivial crap.
>> > That's part of it. The main driver is what draws ratings. That's
>> > Monica Lewinsky and OJ, not the deficit and the dollar.
>>
>> Bah. They could draw ratings lots of ways; they are not required
>> to be
>> stupid and mendacious. That's a failure of imagination, not a method
>> of meeting demand.
>
>But isn't that the default? When you call a plumber do you expect a
>plumber with imagination? Do you expect carpenters to do great
>imaginative work? Not especially, they build to code or they know some
>sneaky tricks for quick results that will probably pass inspection. All
>over, we expect craftsmen to do their jobs, not to do brilliant
>innovation. If you want innovative structures you hire an architect, not
>a carpenter. If you want innovative medical treatment you get into a
>controlled trial (and maybe wind up in the placebo group), you don't go
>to a regular MD. If you want innovative clothing you go to a tailor, not
>a retail salesman. And if you want to get public attention you go to an
>advertising agency, not a news organization. If advertisers wanted
>newsmen with imagination they'd pay them to think.
I would like a snazzy toilet.
>> >> The question is, is are the R's worn out enough that they
>> >can be beaten> in 2012 or do we get stuck with Guilani and civil
>> >war/dictator****p?
>> > You are getting ahead of your time bindings.
>>
>> But I have said it before.
>
>Do you expect a republican president with a solid-majority democratic
>congress? Or will they get control of congress too?
>
>I'm ready to believe maybe the fix isn't quite in. August September
>October maybe iraq will go visibly bad, and maybe the media will notice.
>Does anybody in iraq really still want us there? Even the Badr
>government guys -- we give them a lot of money but there are so many
>strings attached, they've got to wonder if it's worth the bother. We've
>spent some time bribing the sunnis to leave us alone, would August be a
>good time for them to announce "So long and thanks for all the guns and
>money"? How many more decisive victories can we get over the Sadrists
>before it starts looking like we can have decisive victories until we
>get tired of paying for them? I can't see McCain backing off from
>victory in iraq, and it could turn into a big issue.
The dream never dies just the dreamer.
>But then I keep hearing rumors about plans for war with iran. Say
>there's a quick strike in October, in and out, achieve some sort of
>goals and leave and declare victory, what would that do? Or say we get
>into another war that clearly isn't over by November.
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to
hate. Hate leads to suffering.
>And then there's the question of how fast the economy will slide, and
>what voters will decide it means.
People are numb.
>I just don't see it as all decided. Unless the media are organised well
>enough to be sure they won't turn on the GOP even when there are juicy
>stories available, it just doesn't look settled yet. Too much can
>happen.
Too little will.
|
