My God, folks, just reading this thread is taking more time than I have today. Good points, all.
I'll have to be back here later.
And george, when I call a person "honey" it's not always an endearment
.......or not entirely so.
You've kept us hopping.....and it's fun. Looking forward to more.
I was nuts about Yeats when I was in school, George, read everything by him and about him I could get my hands on! And then I abandoned him -- you know... moved on to others! But yes, I'm still a fan and the "head of a man with gaze as pitiless as the sun" is still chilling. No, not "still" but even more chilling, given our present circumstances. It's a terrific poem.
George -- I didn't recognize "Aengus" from the title and only did when I googled it and read it, remembering mostly the trout. However I did ta-dum ta-dum through it several times and agree with you. It led me to look for audio Yeats:
http://www.audiobooksonline.com/shopsite/9626347643.html
Blatham,
Articles like the one you've posted above cause me to think about how my children are grown and, praise the lord, I've provided them with a good enough vaccination against religion, that I don't have to worry about any of them coming down with the dread disease. And then I think about how I'll find a good man, sequester myself in a closet somewhere in a little coffee house cafe and try my best to make both of us forget the insanity...........
It's people like Professor Dawkins that restore my faith in the resiliency of mankind.
ms lola
Yes, I'm a big fan of Dawkins too. And coffee houses.
I have often heard the phrase "I have seen the light" from what one might generally catagorize as preverbal christian zealots (including Baptists ) but until George W. Bush came along I thought I was just hearing spirit-babble. Now I realize that what they were saying is "Soon as we gets ourselves elected we gets to have our fingers on them nukular buttons and that great white light of utter stupidy will be the fires of heathens (maybe even catholics and mormons) surrendering their souls to the almighty MBA and his apostles. On the other hand they might have gotten access to them new zenon headlights and while shining them thru each others ears discovered black holes on heretofore undreamed of profits laid upon the feet of global energy and military industrial complexes (not to be confused with Freudian Venus Envy complexes) or I may be wrong.
dys
Oh, I think certainly catholics and mormoms are on the list, just further down. Much further down than a paradigm of heathenhood such as yourself.
craven
Now that you've revealed how the press of daily duties and obligations prevented assimilation of page one (and relevant articles, we assume), let me clarify that my intent was to argue/discuss the thesis that this administration is uniquely 'extremist' and deeply dangerous to liberty and the constitution, and to international relations and peace. The Iraq discussion is entirely relevant, as would be a discussion of the ties between the administration and energy and defence-related corporations. But I wanted to focus on the three issues which the articles address...the nature of the religious right's influence on the administration, the nature of the neo-con's influence on it, and the consequences to liberty and justice from the new set of engagement rules arbitrarily assumed in the war.
Really only one voice, george, has emerged to argue for the administration side.
Blatham,
Yes, but what a voice !
What is the 'Socrates project'?
george,
Yes, you are standing up to it well, and your voice is articulate........however, you're wrong. :wink:
And in reference to Dawkins' advice.........if only we could just smile and ignore this administration and the "nutters" who are their supporters, but I know they are not harmless.
Dys,
Nice to see you here. Where ya been?
And LW,
I know your question was retorical, however it deserves an answer, I think. Yes.
A sing-song voice it is indeed.
I'm sorry, my wording apparently suggested quotation marks, or that there might be some ongoing activity to which I was referring.
I was merely wondering how familiar you might be with the fellow, and what it was he was up to.
He was a unique fellow, and I personally have him up there at the top with Voltaire and Hume, all three of whom were deliciously - and effectively - subversive. Socrates didn't take up some project such as Plato, with a design for a republic. It's actually very difficult to find Socrates arguing FOR something. What he sought to do was to have folks work their ideas around so as to become aware that the ideas they held were commonly built on assumptions which were entirely univestigated. Through dialogue, he'd narrow the ideas down to these assumptions, then demonstrate the ways in which the assumptions clearly could not be true, or how they might contradict some principle.
In other words, you don't find him claiming that 'x is right' or 'x is true', but rather, we find him demonstrating that certainty is always presumptuous.
As you can imagine, that's very deeply subversive, as group life often rests upon all sorts of univestigated assumptions and myths. It is what got him the cup of hemlock.
yes, we better watch our subversive little steps around here, Blatham. Pain and torture are often the reward for uninvited intrepretation of other's defensive fantasies.......but then again, pain and torture can be fun. It's the fundamentalist in me.
Blatham,
I understand and agree.
For example on the subject at hand;
- I agree that there are some nutty evangelicals out there who accept and advocate fantastic scenarios for the future based on the thinnest allegorical references in the Bible. Moreover they advocate doctrines of "salvation' that are a perversion of ideas first put forth by Luther and calvin and which both individuals later modified or rejected. Their beliefs have little in the way of rational foundation or structure and they are not Christian in the usual sense.
- I agree that President Bush has been careful to cultivate the political allegiance of the politically active elements of these groups. The degree to which he has done that is more or less typical what politicians of both parties routinely do to keep their various supporters on the ranch.
- I agree that it is possible to explain the disaffection of former allies as a reaction to the supposed influence of the thinking of these groups on the Administration's policies.
- I agree that the direct and vigorous actions of the administration to deal with Islamist terrorism and the internal revolutions brewing in Moslem countries has alarmed many people hopeful that international institutions such as the UN will be able to contain and turn these dangerous movements.
However,
- I see no evidence to suggest that the evangelical groups cited above are truly influencing policy development in a significant way or are even particularly influencing any key members of the administration. Indeed most key members of the administration are quite distant in both backgrounds and their professed beliefs from these groups.
- The aggressive policies put forward by the Administration can readily be explained and justified by rational considerations based on history, an understanding of human nature, and a prudent concern for the security of the country.
- The reactions of our former allies can far more plausibly be explained by their pre existing concepts of their national interest and strategy.
In these circumstances I feel sure that even Socrates would counsel skepticism concerning the allegations that are the central proposition of this thread.
Lola wrote:george,
Yes, you are standing up to it well, and your voice is articulate........however, you're wrong. :wink:
Well so much for persistence under fire, good humor in dark moments, and (fairly) cheerful acceptance of criticism.
As we used to say about the USMC,
"You can always tell a Marine, but you can't tell him much."
Tartarin,
Pity............yes.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
PRI's (Public Radio International) daily hour-long news program -- in cooperation with the BBC -- has become a chief source of news for me (and I recommend it). In today's program, two interesting audio clips which I hope you'll listen to. One is about Saddam and resistance in Iraq -- and the state of our intelligence; the other is a savvy report about Halliburton/KBR, the job they're doing, the money they're getting, and why they're chosen to do the job. Go to the website and, in the upper left-hand corner click NOT on the titles of the reports but on the audio symbols, next to each title, for each report.
http://www.theworld.org/
And I just got this by email from a vigilant friend:
This was an actual obituary published in The Times-Picayune, New Orleans on
10/2/2003.
Word has been received that Gertrude M. Jones, 81, passed away on August 25, 2003, under the loving care of the nursing aides of Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Lebanon, KY. She was a retired Vice President of Georgia International Life Insurance Company of Atlanta, GA. Her husband, Warren K. Jones predeceased her.
Two daughters survive her: Dawn Hunt and her live-in boyfriend, Roland, of Mandeville,LA; and Melba Kovalak and her husband, Drew Kovalak, of
Woodbury, MN. Three sisters, four grandchildren nd three great grandchildren, also survive her. Funeral services were held in Louisville, KY.
Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office.
Reading and reading this will take some time to think about.
