tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1126484804243369701..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Why The Candidates Should "Stipulate"David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85506223022522836952011-10-10T12:18:53.067-07:002011-10-10T12:18:53.067-07:00Did you Check the DailyKos recent time? You will f...Did you Check the DailyKos recent time? You will find some clear view over there. All we see in front are eye wash.David cameronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-700163755412372972008-02-23T13:21:00.000-08:002008-02-23T13:21:00.000-08:00Woozle's remark leads right into the link I'll soo...Woozle's remark leads right into the link I'll soon post about Haidt's study of lib/conservative thinking.<BR/><BR/>I've reviewed papers (murder boards?) I am not one to penalize a cribbed sentence here and there... unless it is a central aphorism around which the author intends to make a creative point.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88299549672625182882008-02-23T11:36:00.000-08:002008-02-23T11:36:00.000-08:00I think it's always a dire mistake to label the ot...I think it's always a dire mistake to label the other side (Republicans are in some senses the "other side" to me) without recognizing both camps are full of such folks.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of Democrats convinced that Obama did something that can justly be called plagerism, because their choosen leader told them so. There are plenty of Democrats convinced that Clinton is the anti-christ, because Chomsky told them so.<BR/><BR/>_____________<BR/><BR/>I think the Clintons are comming to terms with their loss. Bill said the other day that if they don't win big in TX and OH it's over.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Wolfson and Penn are on the same page with them. These guys make millions every campaign season, and failing to secure the nomination for Senator Clinton isn't exactly a great advertisement for their services.<BR/><BR/>Thursday night, while Senator Clinton was still in the Debate hall signing her book and shaking hands, Wolfson released a statement that her ending remarks and refusal to discuss the SuperDelegate issue were in no way a hint that she would accept a pledged delegate victory by Obama, and that this was in fact another New Hampshire moment which would assure victory on March 4th.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, there was no way he could have cleared this press release with her.<BR/><BR/>Their paid management is willing to destroy the Democratic Party to gain the nomination, but I don't think the Clintons are.<BR/>____________________<BR/><BR/>Dr.Brin, you've sat on murder boards, right?<BR/><BR/>A serious question, although I know it's a very different context. <BR/><BR/>If one sentence of a dissertation very closely resembeled one sentence of a published work, but the dissertation was unique in all other regards, would that be written off under the "a thousand monkeys banging on thousand typewriters" concept, or would a charge of plagerism stick?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39034094752911762702008-02-23T07:28:00.000-08:002008-02-23T07:28:00.000-08:00Reading the last few comments, I've been thinking ...Reading the last few comments, I've been thinking that I'd really like to have a better understanding of the GOP hatred for the Clintons (especially Hillary).<BR/><BR/>So, yeah, Bill came across as a bit of a used-car salesman. Aren't republicans generally in <I>favor</I> of "middle american" quasi-redneck types, especially if they own a business (the more profitable, the better)?<BR/><BR/>My theory, which I dislike because it seems too simple, is that republicans are basically sheep who like to be told what to think -- which leaves the door open for cheesy insubstantial attacks, like the ones on Bill's illicit affairs, to have a real impact. People more on the democratic side of the field tend to be more open-minded and skeptical (two sides of the same coin) and thereby less swayed by such cheap rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>So what republicans think, in general, is centrally-controlled -- and that brain trust took <I>extreme</I> exception to Bill's anti-secrecy measures. (Witness their hearty embrace of the worse-than-opposite Bush Jr. administration.) So they pressed the "hate" button extra-hard for him, resulting in Exhibit A (GOP hatred for Clintons).<BR/><BR/>Looking for holes to be poked in that theory... and looking forward to more data on presidential "affair" scandals.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8050316068588173372008-02-22T22:43:00.000-08:002008-02-22T22:43:00.000-08:00Sure, let’s start a list of GOP marital/sexual cri...Sure, let’s start a list of GOP marital/sexual crimes. It ought to be available online. But I’ll be posting a new blog soon, so wait a bit. I do recal that HALF of the “House Managers” - the gop members chosen to prosecute Clinton’s impeachment trial -- had had messy divorces. Oh, and before Reagan or Bush are held up as icons of virtue, ask if it is permissible to delve into their pasts. If not... if all is forgiven... then why just one way?<BR/><BR/>Kelsey, let me tell you what MY unpleasant suspicion is, about Hillary. She seems determined to justify her life. And yes, it’s totally human and yes this will stick in her throat. But dang, how many women get to be senator? How many people? Anyway, even if this is only a minority part of her psychology, I don’t need my country to be anyone’s vehicle for fulfillment. <BR/><BR/>Oh, I am being unfair. Nixon was far more psychologically, well, yknow. In fact, W is on a perpetual “out-do daddy” trip. Only Ike and Truman seemed not to be on some kind of justification trip. And Carter -- though he was a terminal dad type and chided us too much for staying out late. Oh, forget it. If she’s the nominee I’ll fight for her. For the sake of the appointments.<BR/><BR/>Yes, re Obama... though a governor has a LOT more experience simply running an administration. Frankly, <B>Obama ought to appoint Bill Clinton as his chief or staff --</B> on a trial basis, making sure he knows his place. (Of course it wouldn’t look good.)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85608343562837070892008-02-22T19:58:00.000-08:002008-02-22T19:58:00.000-08:00"I once saw the Clintons, during a moment when I b..."I once saw the Clintons, during a moment when I believe I was the ONLY person watching them... through some bleacher-seats as he was about to come on stage with his saxophone. She nuzzled him with very clear affection."<BR/><BR/>David, I remember you mentioning that you saw them having an intimate moment together awhile ago. But you were unclear about what you saw back then. Thanks for sharing that. I believe you. <BR/><BR/>To be honest, like Robert my gut instincts tell me to distrust Clinton. However, I was raised in a Republican household, and the jokes made about the Clintons and their marriage have sickened me to the point where I have been actively looking for reasons to defend her. You've given me plenty, and I've been able to use your arguments with my family. Thanks for that.<BR/><BR/>One thing I've noticed about the Clintons: They really do work together as a team, and they have shared hardships together. I know a lot of people view this negatively, especially when Bill Clinton is taking such an active role in campaigning. However, neither one of them could have gotten nearly as far as they have in politics if their relationship wasn't strong.<BR/><BR/>And about Obama. I know there's a risk in electing him. But allow me to reference a good president. He was a good speaker, he was charming. He ran on a platform of change. People were nervous about his supposed lack of experience and judgment. But he was elected, and he led this country in a new direction. He probably had the least corrupt administration of the entire 20th century.<BR/><BR/>And dig this: This president was the exact same age as Obama when he assumed office in 1993.Kelsey Gowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285652800584374081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71113722567578616802008-02-22T19:32:00.000-08:002008-02-22T19:32:00.000-08:00For Presidential Sex Scandels...In the past centur...For Presidential Sex Scandels...<BR/>In the past century, there have only been three presidents not linked to a 'woman not thier wife'.<BR/>Harry Truman.<BR/>Richard Nixon.<BR/>Jimmy Carter.<BR/>(The joke goes "Harry prefered poker, Jimmy only lusted in his heart, and Nixon was too busy screwing the country to screw around on his wife")<BR/><BR/>The difference isn't what happened (Men chase women) but that someone decided to make a big deal out of Bill Clinton doing it, but not Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Ike, FDR, Hoover, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Teddy (missed one...).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90962611772892632892008-02-22T18:31:00.000-08:002008-02-22T18:31:00.000-08:00Re the DNA framing scenario (good catch!), the obv...Re the DNA framing scenario (good catch!), the obvious solution that comes to mind is to have the key identifying parts of each person's genome one-way encrypted -- the same way passwords are on most software systems -- so you can't get the information from the data, but can only confirm whether there's a match. (The risk remains, of course, of planting genuine samples at the scene of the crime. Much as in days of old, people may need to start guarding their hair- and fingernail-clippings, only this time not in fear of witchcraft...)<BR/><BR/>On the NYT/McCain thing -- I had a <A HREF="http://triangle.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1747" REL="nofollow">brief exchange</A> on this topic with some folks on a right-wing blog; one of the points raised by the opposition was:<BR/><BR/><I>For what it’s worth, though, I can’t recall any instance of a Republican President getting involved in a sex scandal. The Democrats seem to have a monopoly on that particular area… Clinton, Kennedy, Hart (he was just a candidate, of course), etc.</I><BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, we have Dr.B saying "the GOP - the party of scandal, divorce, betrayal, affairs, buggering boys, more scandal, more divorce and betrayed wives." -- which was more the impression I had gotten, i.e. that the GOP manages to make a Really Big Deal out of a run-of-the-mill extramarital affair (or rumor of same), while their own people deviate far more frequently (and abusively!) from the very standards of which they promote themselves as the guardians.<BR/><BR/>But... does anyone have a list, anywhere?<BR/><BR/>(Should I get into the <A HREF="http://issuepedia.org/9/11_anomalies" REL="nofollow">9/11 thing</A>? Or has that been hashed to death already?)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68911778616852273772008-02-22T14:54:00.000-08:002008-02-22T14:54:00.000-08:001) see the movie GATTACA... one of the very few Sc...1) see the movie GATTACA... one of the very few Sci Fi films made entirely for adults<BR/><BR/>2) The planting of evidence aspect is creepy. It suggests that PARTS of the genome should be used for the database and parts excluded!<BR/><BR/>I hadn't thought of that. But the FBI should pick a couple of chromosomes and be barred from the others! Think, at a crime scene there will be whole cells left by perpetrators. So teasing out the telltale chromosomal genes would be no problem. But a crooked cop trying to use the database to plant evidence would have ONLY the recorded portions...<BR/><BR/>...oh, but that just takes him back to sneaking around stealing real samples from the guy he wants to frame. Still highly possible.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34273718796389557172008-02-22T14:41:00.000-08:002008-02-22T14:41:00.000-08:00Here's a small question to ponder. Is the creation...Here's a small question to ponder. Is the creation of a National DNA database a good or bad thing? <BR/><BR/>On the plus side, in theory it could be used to capture criminals who leave DNA evidence at crime scenes and possibly result in a reduction in crime through a combination of increased efficiency and increased realization by criminals they're more likely to be caught and put on trial. It would also allow for greater ease in identifying bodies and John/Jane Doe situations where the person has no identification on them when found (either alive or dead).<BR/><BR/>On the minus side... oh, where shall I begin? In theory it's possible to "plant" DNA evidence, especially once 3-dimensional ink-jet printers become more accurate. Thus cops could illegally create evidence to nab the person they want to get. Also in theory a DNA database could be used by insurance companies and the like to determine if someone is at risk for various diseases and then refuse to provide them with insurance benefits. Work places could likewise refuse to hire someone due to medical possibilities. And there is always concerns it is a violation of civil liberties.<BR/><BR/>Thoughts?<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11204749714345394292008-02-22T11:02:00.000-08:002008-02-22T11:02:00.000-08:00Ian’s tale is moving and well-written. I think we...Ian’s tale is moving and well-written. I think we’ve all been there and approve of his struggle for independent thinking. It is the sort of instinct that makes a guy drift - eventually - into this community. Also, any fan of Frank Zappa is, well, a fan of the same guy I’m a fan of. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the “yes, but...” contrarianism you’ll get here has a response, Ian. And that’s for you to not only see the forest for the trees, but the gaps between the trees. You are as much a product of anti-conformist messages as you are of conformist ones. Frank Zappa being a big example! Suspicion of authority and individualist messages pervade mass media, art, rock, books, even basic aphorisms like the “early bird...” In Anglic culture, that bird gets the worm. In the Chinese version it “gets its head chopped off.”<BR/><BR/>In fact, every year, the Education Ministries in China, India, Japan, send out hundred of minions to retrain teachers (or try to) to teach “in a more American fashion.” If you think US schools “teach to the test” you’d be surprised and shocked how much MORE they do so, in most other countries. Of course, “No Child Left Behind” has the central goal of making our schools more like Chinese ones.<BR/><BR/>Robert, I haven’t a clue why those dingbats at the NY Times haven’t learned from the Dan Rather episode, to watch out for Karl Rove’s nasty little gotcha traps. These things are tediously predictable, and see what happened? It’s a sudden excuse for the Limbaughs to do one of their patented veers and suddenly leap to McC’s defense.<BR/><BR/>Obama et al should leap on this and say:<I> “Scurrilous, unproved personal attacks, based on rumor and sexual innuendo, are sure indicators of small and silly minds. Especially when made by people who should never cast the first stone. That kind of vicious distraction-politics was vile in the nineties and it is vile today.”</I>David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66566770485531863272008-02-22T07:46:00.000-08:002008-02-22T07:46:00.000-08:00So, moving on to conspiracy theories... is the New...So, moving on to conspiracy theories... is the New York Times trying to help Senator McCain with their news article? The New York Times earlier endorsed Senator McCain. Next they run a news article that focused on unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship with a Lobbyist rather than the potential impropriety of favorism which has polarized the conservative base behind Senator McCain with his attacks on the NYT concerning the inappropriateness of the article. Add to this the fact that even Left-swinging bloggers have turned against the NYT's article and most of them are <I>ignoring</I> the potential allegations of favoritism of Lobbyists by Senator McCain... and this "embarrassing" article looks to have done everything to <I>help</I> the Senator.<BR/><BR/>In addition, the NYT <I>sat</I> on the article for a couple months. Back two or three months ago, it might have made a difference. Now? It's only united the Republican party behind McCain, and shut off a potential line of attack against his credibility (favoritism toward Lobbyists) from Democrats.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if this was a conspiracy, then it's <A HREF="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit" REL="nofollow">along the lines of a Xanatos gambit</A>. Still, it's odd how suddenly all the conservatives (including Rush Limbaugh) are behind Senator McCain in attacking the NYT... and from there, why not just back Senator McCain?<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88839707401336837592008-02-22T07:17:00.000-08:002008-02-22T07:17:00.000-08:00(Muttering) Shows how long I've been out of the ge...(Muttering) Shows how long I've been out of the genre that I hadn't known of a rivalry. <BR/><BR/>A pity; I also greatly enjoyed <I>Ender's Game</I> when it first came out in <I>Analog</I> many years ago, and re-read the book and most of the subsequent series in the 1990's. I found the book everywhere at the Montgomery County, Maryland school board headquarters building where I worked as a computer tech in 1999; considered a means of 'understanding gifted children' was the explanation...a summation which I greatly agreed with. But Mr. Card's political leanings came as a surprise to me.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of education, NoOne's remark:<BR/><BR/><I>"...shallowness of American education created by 50 years of soft empire..."</I> <BR/><BR/>struck a nerve of sorts. Having briefly worked in the brain of the beast (I left after 6 months of steadily increasing frustration at what I was witnessing when I visited the schools to work on their machines) after having been shat out of its guts (a.k.a 'graduated high school') decades before, I could not help but make the corollary between quality of public education and the quality of our political leadership. Namely, the the poor quality of the former seemed to insure the exponentially worse quality of the latter. <BR/><BR/>Not possessing a mind that reacted well to conventional rote teaching methods, I became something of an autodidact in public school. I unknowingly followed Frank Zappa's injunction to cut many classes and maintained just enough of an average to remain off the 'corrective' radar...while spending every moment possible in the library, reading everything I could get my hands on regarding subjects that interested me, because the public school system I was a part of even back then (1960's-1976) seemed intent only upon 'teaching the test' that was administered at the very beginning and end of the school years; to this day, I still recall that one of the questions was what disease can you get from eating uncooked pork (trichinosis). On the order of trivia compared to such subjects as hard science. <BR/><BR/>I felt that I had been placed in a cage, like a lab rat, and forced to run a maze for my 'betters' amusement. But, <I>'die gedanken sind frei'</I>; they didn't dull all my gray matters. I still have a paltry few left.<BR/><BR/>So, what's my point? Simply this: the kind of environment that public school fosters does not value intense querying of accepted knowledge, but demands rote ingesting of it. Hardly original, but bear with me. <BR/><BR/>That this would benefit someone would be the first rationale. That that 'someone' would <I>not</I> be the students, themselves, became the suspicion, even back then. So I began to look into the origins of the philosophies forming the foundations of public schooling in the US...and many years later, came across <A HREF="http://johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm" REL="nofollow">this</A>.<BR/><BR/>That the progenitors of modern American public education had such plans concerning the futures of their charges - and their future role in society, and what shape that society would take as a result - was not that much of a surprise to me; rats in a maze, remember? That they would be so open about it <I>was</I>. And that they would also appear to belong to that Robber Baron-descended elite, who were their patrons, was equally so. Look here for the roots of that 'decline of the West' some here are concerned about. <BR/><BR/>In short, it's "Enlightenment for me...but not for <I>thee"</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3200210312224468982008-02-22T02:43:00.000-08:002008-02-22T02:43:00.000-08:00Dr. Brin and OSC broke at just the time when pimpl...Dr. Brin and OSC broke at just the time when pimply faced Xers were running out of Heinlein and Asimov and Niven and Herbert to read.<BR/><BR/>Not that there weren't other folks around writing good Sci-Fi (more fantasy with a sci-fi flavor in OSC's case) but they were the two breakouts of the early-mid eighties.<BR/><BR/>It's no suprise, considering that, that they share a lot fans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44574484207613643852008-02-21T23:28:00.000-08:002008-02-21T23:28:00.000-08:00I have been bemused by that fact for decades. It ...I have been bemused by that fact for decades. It certainly irritated the hell out of Scott, long before it did me. <BR/><BR/>(Thick-as-a-stone, I didn't realize we weren't pals till about the tenth time 3rd party gossip told me about OSC savagings, behind my back. Sigh.)<BR/><BR/>An odd fellow (which to a contrarian like me, actually makes him interesting!) Who preached "secular-humanist revival meetings, then promoted guru power relationships. Who relentlessly portrays Lucas-style demigods as the rightful rulers-over-mankind... <BR/><BR/>...then fills these god-characters with so much responsibility-angst that they never enjoy it! Wringing their hands in tormented regret as they put the thumb down, imposing their will on the dull, sheeplike multitudes, saying "This will hurt me more than it will hurt all of you....ow!"<BR/><BR/>If we ever are taken over by some demigod, I hope instead of a Yoda or Neo or Mahdi type, it will be an OS Card character, because at least then he won't enjoy it.<BR/><BR/>Still, it all saddens me. He had some makings of a pretty cool guy.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84759389709049113062008-02-21T22:42:00.000-08:002008-02-21T22:42:00.000-08:00I just have to say, I found it hilarious that in O...I just have to say, I found it hilarious that in Orson Scott Card's latest essay he openly calls what is going on "The war against Islam."<BR/><BR/>Wow. Not even Bush is claiming that. The man is certifiably batshit insane; he's continuously parroting the "If we pull out of Iraq/Vietnam then it will lead to World War Three" line that Nixon kept spewing.<BR/><BR/>No offense David, but how can you find it amusing that you have fans in common with him? It's like having fans in common with Father Coughlin.<BR/><BR/>I mean really.<BR/><BR/>Jon RothAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10679566265266681252008-02-21T20:48:00.000-08:002008-02-21T20:48:00.000-08:00"You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fin..."You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends."<BR/><BR/>From Senator Clintons closing remarks tonight. I think she just might pass that test and become a serious party heavyweight and Elder Stateswoman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47905164490412774372008-02-21T17:02:00.000-08:002008-02-21T17:02:00.000-08:00Yes, I concede the possibility that the profession...Yes, I concede the possibility that the professionals have seen the coincidences and suspicious consistencies and benefit-trails that I see... and that they perhaps have already done their jobs and investigated, fulfilling all protocols and going the extra mile, to be sure. They do NOT have to show and tell everything to a crackpot sci fi writier. Even one with some contacts in the Community.<BR/><BR/>But of what use am I, if not as a nag? ;-) If I am wrong about everything, all I've done is add to the noise. <BR/><BR/>But if I am right, and they have let us down, then they must share the blame.<BR/><BR/>Nobody (BTW) is asking for them to perform illegal or anti-Constitutional acts, if the aroma of coincidence leads to evidence and proof of treason at the top. Indeed, in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, the lesson is that there are some things the American people may be better off not-knowing. (As "Mr. Transparency" I object! But I also am a pragmatist.)<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the professionals would be able to cauterize the damage-wreaking process. Isolate the harm-doers. Threaten them into refraining from further harm and into cooperating in the demolition of their network. <BR/><BR/> This is not unimaginable. Anyone who thinks that Bush <I>willingly appointed</I> Admiral Mike Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should have his head examined! That was a blatant case of the entire military -- or at least a hundred top flag officers -- threatening mass resignations if it didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>The crucial importance of the professionals cannot be overstated. You and I cannot solve this -- whether the treason has been deliberate or perpetrated through mind-boggling incompetence. We have hired people for the task. And now come the critical months when they must earn their pay, at last.<BR/><BR/>If a "terror strike" just happens to occur between now and inauguration day, it will be time for us to (quoting from Time Bandits) "have some new generals, for a while."David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39595924124621012592008-02-21T16:27:00.000-08:002008-02-21T16:27:00.000-08:00Well, to be honest I never thought that President ...Well, to be honest I never thought that President Clinton was an enemy agent who managed to weasel his way into the Presidency to bring the country down from within. I might dislike the man, sure. But I never thought him more than a smarmy and arrogant git who couldn't keep it in his pants. <BR/><BR/>I hate the Shrub because our mini-Bush managed to create a presidency far worse than the worse excesses of the Clinton years. But all I really saw it was an echo to the John Quincy Adams presidency that wasn't exactly among the best of the early presidencies. <BR/><BR/>However, it could very well be that the reason the CIA and FBI hasn't said anything about the Shrub being a plant (sorry, had to say it) is because <I>they already investigated his ties and found there was no conspiracy</I>. Or at least, there was no <I>foreign</I> conspiracy, and the Shrub was in fact acting on his own.<BR/><BR/>Nor could they just get rid of the Shrub through aggressive administrative change (ie, assassination) because the <I>alternative</I> was Cheney... who would be far worse than the Shrub. In this case, the Shrub actually picked a VP who was designed to keep him alive because <I>no one</I> would want the VP to take control.<BR/><BR/>This possibility is in and of itself equally far-fetched, but hey, I'm a writer as well and am well-versed in rather imaginative variations on the existing world sociopolitical reality.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89925310569920145832008-02-21T15:09:00.000-08:002008-02-21T15:09:00.000-08:00Yes, noone, you state the standard model nicely. ...Yes, noone, you state the standard model nicely. And I think it's 55% likely to be trure...<BR/><BR/>...even though it begs an astonishingly HUGE list of fantastic coincidences. That EVERY major or consistent policy of a noxious alliance of "leaders" should have somehow never, ever, even-by-accident, turned out to be beneficial to the USA.<BR/><BR/>But mind you, I am not only paid to think up entertaining paranoid plots... I am also a contrarian, and it frustrates me that the reflex is so universal, so automatic, so predictable, that not one smart person I know will even try the parsimonious theory on for size!<BR/><BR/>I find this especially disturbing because there are people we <I>pay</I> to be paranoid about treason, subornation, and other potential dark scenarios. It is their <I>job</I> to run test protocols, seek out systematic or suspicious patterns of correlations, follow money/benefit trails and investigate the plausible-though-unlikely failure modes that might hint at enemy action. <BR/><BR/> And if they all think like you, then they simply have slept at the switch for the last 7 years.<BR/><BR/>I assure you, the other side doesn't think that way! All through the Clinton years, we were treated to a never-ending series of paranoid rants, based on zero evidence. <BR/><BR/> And yet, here we have copious, if circumstantial, correlations of thousands of deliberate decisions with a relentlessly monotonic series of outrageous harms... but liberals and moderates are unable to even entertain the logical conclusion, even as a <I>lesser or less-plausible theory to keep an eye-on!</I><BR/><BR/>People who hate the Bushites... yet cannot bring themselves to envision that the evil might be deliberate... wow. Now how unlikely is THAT?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15120686280422756072008-02-21T14:50:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:50:00.000-08:00Ever so often, David veers off into paranoia: "A v...Ever so often, David veers off into paranoia: "A very real and palpable and possibly staged decline of the west.."<BR/><BR/>How may I ask can any cabal pull this off? Isn't it much more likely that the "decline" is self-organized. A lot of factors coming together - American cowboyish unilateralism, fundie preoccupation with the year 2000, the rise of the BRIC bloc (including China and India), shallowness of American education created by 50 years of soft empire, the spread and spread of a military industrial complex, over-reliance on big oil - have all contributed to our present state. Why do you need a conspiracy when you have so many other factors coming together?NoOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685249095572192084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42017413846096694012008-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:00It is perhaps easier to do these long links using ...It is perhaps easier to do these long links using the "a href" HTML tag.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633" REL="nofollow">Daily Kos link</A><BR/><BR/>Then again, I'm one of those people who used to code webpages using notepad, so I'm used to the code. Sadly, CSS has kind of made my coding skills obsolete (what little skill I had). <BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80698761705808391442008-02-21T14:11:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:11:00.000-08:00ARRRGHH!!!!http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20...ARRRGHH!!!!<BR/><BR/>http://www.dailykos.com/story/<BR/><BR/>2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63406686202158287542008-02-21T14:10:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:10:00.000-08:00Grrr. It cut off half the link on the KOS diary.h...Grrr. It cut off half the link on the KOS diary.<BR/><BR/>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633<BR/><BR/>Extremely well written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53825982549529623162008-02-21T14:06:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:06:00.000-08:00Actually, turns out just going to www.barackobama....Actually, turns out just going to www.barackobama.com is easiest. The shortcut is right there.<BR/><BR/>Second, a terrific KOS diary comparing Senator Obama and Senator Clintons records in the Senate. Objective, fair, and not full of the nasty, written by a former Clinton Supporter who recently crossed over.<BR/><BR/>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633<BR/><BR/>I think it's clear that Bill and Hillary are at a minimum very, very fond of each other. At the same time, I think that they made an agreement in the 90's that she would get the chance to accomplish everything she wanted to get done in Bill's term, but were unable to do because of the scandals.<BR/><BR/>I think she's been looking forward to this chance to "do it right the second time" for about a decade. I think it's very hard for her to let go of that idea of "one more chance". I think she feels she's earned it, for a lot of reasons.<BR/><BR/>She really would make a decent Supreme Court Justice, and there is little doubt that there will be spots open in the next four years. I don't know if it's possible, but it would be a good idea.<BR/><BR/>If she refrains from damaging the parties hopes in November, and bows out with grace after she fails to secure a lead on March 4th, we'll know who's been right about her. It's going to be one of those telling momments.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, sorry for being a bit of a one topic participant lately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com