33
   

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

 
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 06:34 am
@spendius,
Spendius wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with Jung's assumptions. Nor a lot of Freud's either.


Both recognised pundits in their chosen field of action, but yes, both questionable and often contradictory.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:

I'm sticking with my position that corruption is endemic in human nature. Anybody who thinks Jesus was free of it hasn't read the Gospels carefully enough.


I don't want to bring a Jew into this equation. Too much money involved.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
A quick check in my library shows 56 books about American politics.


If I have access to every book ever written, does that make me an instant expert? Or simply well-read?

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
Tweeting marital bliss blossoms fanatically trying to foist evolution theory on defenceless people on the first rungs of life's ladder with their carpet-slippered feet standing on the edifice of Western Science are so corrupt that it is impossible to explain to them why.


Hmmm, read that back to yourself. Sounds cosmic, but the relevance is??
Wisdom without action is akin to knowledge without answers.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
Whether the premise has backfired or not is an open question.


The premise has not only backfired, but turned in on itself. When lies are the reality, it's a short hop to total anarchy.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
We have no alternative to compare it with because none of them have happened.


I disagree. From the outset of our current democratic/republic raison detre, things have been going pear-shaped.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
We are where we are. It's a necessarily unique case.


Why is it unique? Rome burned while Nero fiddled.

Spendius wrote:
Quote:
Speculating where we might be with any alternative is mere weaving of the winds which only serves to divine aspects of the subconscious of the loom operator.


We make our own reality. The trouble with our current reality is, people expect someone else to picture the puzzle.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 08:55 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

That avatar is really creepy, Tico, but I must admit, it fits you well.


I think this one is more appropriate.
http://sellbest.net/Designer-Handbags-Articles/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Prada-Black-Nylon-and-Calf-Leather-Large-Tote-Bag.jpg
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 09:43 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

But our lot don't ever get down to your levels of approval. 9% might well be the friends and relations of members of Congress.

And you remain fixated on 9% which either means the pollsters have manipulated your thinking in the way they intended, or you just don't want to stop riding that sway-back nag.

Maybe it's a result of the cultural divide.

When your lot rates something as "fair" does it mean their impression is

a) Neutral
b) Negative
c) Slightly positive

Here in the US, I would argue, the impression is (c) "Slightly Positive."

I will admit, however, that for some people using "fair" is an acknowledgment that they can't possibly know all of the qualties and achievements of the item being judged and a desire to be fair and bestow the benefit of the doubt.

I suspect it may also have to do with the fact that a large percentage of Americans (if not most) couldn't tell you who their elected representatives are. There's probably a decent hit ratio on Senator identification, but not so at all with Congresspersons.

How this effects overall ratings is something I still need to work out.

You'll have to educate me on your lot, as respects the extent of personal connection that is felt between electorate and elected.


The idea that you're free is ridiculous.


You can't even grow dope in your attic in case the heat seeking cameras notice your roof glowing and, after checking out your ID to make sure you don't know anybody important (see Catch 22), {So that's why I've never experienced the rest of this scenario} twenty big guys, with sniffer dogs etc, bust your front door in, put you in chains and haul you down to the waiting room where the lawyers masticate on your flesh when the time is convenient for them, and their wives and dependents.

And you're charged for it too.

You should be able to grow it in your front garden if you were free. You are not entitled to own guns so you can use them for what they are designed for. It's so you can buy them.

Exaggerated point taken. Would you prefer we sang
Quote:

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the relatively free and the home of the occassionally brave?



ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 09:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Maybe it's a result of the cultural divide.

When your lot rates something as "fair" does it mean their impression is

a) Neutral
b) Negative
c) Slightly positive

Here in the US, I would argue, the impression is (c) "Slightly Positive."

I will admit, however, that for some people using "fair" is an acknowledgment that they can't possibly know all of the qualties and achievements of the item being judged and a desire to be fair and bestow the benefit of the doubt.


I'm not chiming in on the general discussion/argument here. Just wanted to comment on 'fair'/language. There was a bit of a squabble at work about a week ago as someone interprets "fair enough" as other people disagreeing with her (but not wanting to argue).

She hears "fair enough" as "whatever".

Fair, for her, is an extremely negative rating. I take it as a slight positive.

I don't think any of us can evaluate the meaning of fair beyond the end of our own nose. That's the joy of using it in polls - it can be interpreted however the assessor wants to interpret it.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 09:56 am
@JTT,
I didn't realize you were a Hockey Night in Canada fan.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 10:27 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
I heard Arizona Senator John McCain on the radio this afternoon, quipping about the current approval rating of Congress: "At 13% we're getting down to paid staffers and blood relatives."


I read a couple of days ago that the percentage of "absolute approval" for Congress was 3 %, (with a margin for error of 4 %) but we do have to take into account the fact that polls of any description, despite the best efforts of the pollsters (or otherwise) have little chance or being a fair representation of the whole of America.

Even an approval rating of 30 % should be ringing alarm bells far and wide, but simply, this doesn't seem to make a scap of difference anywhere.

Why would it? Voting is not compulsory in the US of A, and polls of any kind only count at election time, which is pretty ordinary, considering the fact that the Electoral College comes into play before election time.

I'm thinking that the whole process of electing anyone in the US is so convoluted and confusing for a very good reason; to hide the corruption currently inherent in that system.




Public approval for newly elected presidents usually runs at 60% or higher, and this is before they have actually done anything other than getting elected.

Surely that number doesn't represent anything more than self-congratulations for picking the right guy.

Presidential approval ratings also tend to climb at the outset of a new war, but does this reflect anything more than feelings about unity in times of national security challenges?

If the high approval ratings are so suspect, I'm reluctant to assume that the low ones are an accurate reflection of how Americans feel about all aspects of performance of the position rated.

If you were to poll the fans attending a baseball game as to their general attitude about umpires, my very strong suspicion is that you would find the majority to have negative impression. If you polled the fans at the end of the game as to the performance of the umpires in that game, the results would be almost entirely based on one or two calls. No matter the quality of the umpiring throughout the game, if a controversial call goes against your team...the umpires suck.

We all understand that the little kid hawking newspapers in 1930's New York wasn't going to be heard shouting:

"Nothing new! Everything's about the same! Read all about it!"

Yet, we usually fall for the hype when it is delivered.

Stories on Congressional approval ratings all contained headlines that included the words "historical lows." Reading the article you find that "historical" relates to the history of a certain poll which may only be in existence for less than the past 20 years. At the same time, while a rating of 14% may indeed be the lowest in the 17 years the poll has been conducted, if the highest rating in the prior 16 years was 32%, we get some needed perspective.

I don't feel that the particularly low congressional ratings are some sort of fluke or do not reflect real discontentment among the populace, but the notion that they are signaling the fall of the empire is well over the top.

These polling numbers do mean something though and if I were an elected official I would be worried about them. They preceded the 2010 elections and we saw how they turned out, with the GOP taking back the House. Similar significant results can be predicted for 2012.

Say what you will about the Tea Party, but it was its activism that sprang from the discontent reflected in the numbers and it's activism that drove the 2010 elections. To my mind this is a very good thing and I would like to see the OWS develop into a similar grassroots activist organization on the Left.

(After Obama is defeated in 2012 of course)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 11:13 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
When your lot rates something as "fair" does it mean their impression is

a) Neutral
b) Negative
c) Slightly positive


A pile of shite only nobody likes saying so. It's called damning with faint praise like when the PM said that Mr Fox had his full support.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 11:21 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

It's called damning with faint praise like when the PM said that Mr Fox had his full support.

Fox: Bent, gay or both? I think he's definitely bent, I'll reserve judgement on his sexuality.
0 Replies
 
mars90000000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 11:23 am
March 04 2009

Dear President Obama,

“Make Love, Not War”

Peace, a state of mutual harmony between people or groups. To be at peace is to love and not hate. To be in peace is to give and not take away. As I write this letter to you, I am much obliged to think about all those countless people that die everyday. Every second, someone, somewhere, dies. Death; the act of dying. To die is to be deprived of life. Some die of illnesses while others out of anger. Needless to say, life is priceless.

To be in war against someone else is to be in a conflict carried on by force of arms and weapons. A war does not tell you who the most powerful is, nor does it tell you who is right and who is wrong. A war simply tells you who is left. As you increase the number of American Soldiers serving in Iraq, I am much obliged to think about all those American soldiers as well as all the Iraqi men and women; boys and girls who have perished in their homeland. Life is a gift that should not be taken away and with that in mind, I deny the fact that more soldiers should be sent to Iraq.

Every one wishes to live a calm life. This however, is hardly the case. A day came in America when a cumbersome cloud of despair and sorrow covered the entire country. A cloud so imposing, that its days are still remembered today. A day when lives were lost, families destroyed, children left orphans and wives left widowed. A day came when even the President, who at that time was in an elementary class, couldn’t express his emotions fearful for the students to worry and a nation to disappoint. A single “nine-eleven” shook the whole country upside down. These are the kind of days that Iraqi men and women see tirelessly when they learn that a bomb has exploded in their neighborhood. I myself have been to Iraq and have seen fear with my own eyes; I have seen fear in their eyes. They are scared to go out to the grocery not knowing if they will return. They are fearful of sending their children into danger when they drop them off at school. These people feel unassured by the same men who were sent there to protect them.

As you are well aware of, Mr. Obama, the war in Iraq has had its economic toll on America. As of now, more then 600 billion dollars have been put into the war in Iraq. The common man is much obliged to ask himself where this money comes from. To their surprise, they learn that the war is paid by their own money; the money they give to the government in the form of taxes. It is an undeniable fact that the war is killing the economy. 600 billion dollars could have been used another way. 600 billion dollars to improve the health service; 600 billion dollars to improve education services; 600 billion dollars to give birth to a healthier and cleaner planet; 600 billion dollars is a lot of money. Instead, all this money is being used in an attempt to solve a conflict that shows its side effects on the common man. Seeing how you encourage people to see every person as being equal, would it be fair for the common man to pay the government to give their own mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters a hard time to live a calm and happy life, be it in another country?

The war itself started in the previous presidency so to extract natural gas from a country you have no right on. Imposing force since you had some, and taking what you needed. The initial goal, as you know, was to simply extract petrol from the Iraqi soil. Couldn’t 600 billion dollars easily be used to look for a more efficient way which would, in terms, out beat petrol in whole? The money could have been used in finding a source of energy well above petrol which would not only raise the status of America in the eyes of the Scientific Community but would also have prevented a war of few hopes.

As a freshly elect President of the United States, great responsibilities have been given to you. In these times of economic crisis, the war, I believe, should be put aside and forces should be joined to truly fight a wide-spread crisis affecting the smallest corners of the earth. Our world is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. Plato once said: “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. Perhaps it is time to prove him wrong!

As I stretch this letter to its final words, I loose my patience in the hope to see the world reflect peace and serenity. I cannot forget the four words I used as a rudiment to my plea to stopping the war in Iraq.
“Make Love, Not War”

With all due respect,

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2011 11:29 am
@Builder,
As I tried to explain Builder, you can't just say "The premise has not only backfired, but turned in on itself. When lies are the reality, it's a short hop to total anarchy."

Well--okay, you can say it. You just did. But it means nothing unless you can turn the clock back and tell us what reform we should have brought in, and when, in order to prevent the outcome we have which you describe. Oh-- and how it would have been carried through.

Outlaw *******. That would do it.

Quote:
I disagree. From the outset of our current democratic/republic raison detre, things have been going pear-shaped.


Think of the pear shape as a sculptor would think of the statue when examining his block of marble which in this case is the
democratic/republic raison d'etre.

Quote:
Why is it unique? Rome burned while Nero fiddled.


And that was a unique case in its time and place.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 07:07 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It's important to note, too, that Builder is indulging hysterical hyperbole. He says the entire process of getting anyone elected is convoluted and confusing. That's bullshit, and just shows how quickly foreign ranters will go off on the American system without knowing the hows and whys.

The Electoral college only elects the President and Vice President. All the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are chosen by direct election. But if you love to bash the U.S., it's so much more gratifying to allege that the system here is "convoluted and confusing" as opposed to finding out how it actually works.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 10:53 am
@Setanta,
That's not how it works. That's the version for the infant civics classes.

It works on bribing sufficient numbers of the voters with the minimum required to get their votes. Which is a very convoluted and confusing process and if expertly applied it results in something near a tie. Like NFL rules are intended to do.

Bribing the required number with too much makes any promises too difficult to carry out and bribing them with just enough is spun rhetorically to make it seem more than it is.

The rhetoric has to be purchased from TV, radio and newspaper moguls and corporations with cash collected from various sources which is essentially a bet on the outcome involving stitching together both local and national coalitions whose main hope is to be granted the right to ambush the rest.

With local variations in tradition, racial mix, boundary fixing and economic activity added to make the concoction spicier, and the purity of the candidates consciences for a topping, one might easily say, knowing the subtle nature of all the above, that convoluted and confusing is a gross understatement.

And that's just the final. The knock-out stages are mysterious.

It only looks simple to those with the sort of simple mind that can't imagine anything beyond its own limitations.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 11:44 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It only looks simple to those with the sort of simple mind that can't imagine anything beyond its own limitations.

I suppose it looks complex and confusing for those on the outside looking in.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 12:35 pm
@Ticomaya,
Any competitive sport played for these stakes can be guaranteed to be fiendishly complex and as confusing as the trees are in the wood.

It's an insult to human intelligence and cunning to suggest otherwise.

Standing above and beyond gives a clearer picture. And few partisans can see anything meaningful.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 01:38 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

That's not how it works. That's the version for the infant civics classes.

It works on bribing sufficient numbers of the voters with the minimum required to get their votes. Which is a very convoluted and confusing process and if expertly applied it results in something near a tie. Like NFL rules are intended to do.

Bribing the required number with too much makes any promises too difficult to carry out and bribing them with just enough is spun rhetorically to make it seem more than it is.

The rhetoric has to be purchased from TV, radio and newspaper moguls and corporations with cash collected from various sources which is essentially a bet on the outcome involving stitching together both local and national coalitions whose main hope is to be granted the right to ambush the rest.

With local variations in tradition, racial mix, boundary fixing and economic activity added to make the concoction spicier, and the purity of the candidates consciences for a topping, one might easily say, knowing the subtle nature of all the above, that convoluted and confusing is a gross understatement.

And that's just the final. The knock-out stages are mysterious.

It only looks simple to those with the sort of simple mind that can't imagine anything beyond its own limitations.


At the risk of implying that your description of the process is somewhat convoluted and confusing, I think the following breakdown can be helpful:

Candidate Jones promises voters the services, policies and outcomes he believes they want in return for their casting their votes for him to serve as their nation's executive or one of their representatives in Congress.

Voters, who find what Jones is promising to be attractive, cast their votes for him.

If his promises attract more voters than do those of his opponents, he wins.

I think that's a fairly accurate description of a pretty simple concept.

That it's far more difficult to achieve than it is to describe doesn't belie its simplicity.

It is essentially the same process that has been in place since the birth of the nation. As the complexity of American society has increased, naturally has the mosaic of voter interests and desires became more complex, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the process of determining what promises will be found sufficiently attractive to the voters has become convoluted and confusing as a result.

Likewise, the means available to a candidate to communicate his promises to the voters have increased and grown more varied over the decades and so today's candidate communication plan will naturally be more complex than that of his predecessor in the 19th century, who had only personal appearances and limited newspaper coverage to consider. There is actually no shortage of campaign professionals who do not find establishing a communication plan for their boss to be convoluted or confusing, and I'm quite sure the average voter would not find the plan to be either as well.

While it's true that the Electoral College process is not instantly comprehensible to those who hear of it for the first time, most fairly intelligent people can grasp it well enough in a short period of time. More aptly though, the process is based on logical premises and clearly not intended as a means to circumvent inconvenient election results.

I'm hardly claiming that the US has the best election system in the world and since it depends heavily on both bureaucrats and volunteers, moments of confusion are assured, but I can't think of a clearly superior method or even one that is substantially different than that described in the earlier breakdown.

Of course I appreciate the differences between the parliamentary and presidential systems, but I'm not seeking to the compare the two systems here. I'm referring to the transaction of voting and I don't imagine UK candidates for office are seeking a bargain substantially different from their American counterparts. Still, I'm not expert on UK elections and if I need education in that regard, I'm certainly open to it.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 01:46 pm
Apart from that, Builder stated that anyone standing for office in the United States is elected by a convoluted and confusing method. That's clearly bullshit. Representatives and Senators are directly elected, just as are members of Parliament in countries using a Westminster system. Only the President and Vice President are chosen by the Electoral College.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister in a country with the Westminster system is not elected directly or indirectly by the electorate. They are chosen as party leader in a closed election, open only to card-carrying members of the party. Their only hurdle thereafter is to be elected in a single district, for which purpose, if necessary, a "safe" district is found for them, one which will reliably vote for their party. How that could be any less convoluted and confusing than the Electoral College is a mystery. Prime Ministers are no more the winners of an open and fair electoral process than are American Presidents.

To emphasize, Builder has claimed that anyone being elected to the national government in the United States is chosen by a "convoluted and confusing" process. That's nonsense.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 01:49 pm
@Setanta,
Affiliated Trade Uninion members are not members of the Labour party, but are allowed to vote in leadership elections. Just thought I'd split a couple of hairs for you.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2011 01:59 pm
@izzythepush,
That's fine. The point remains, however, that your PM does not stand for election by the national electorate. I'm always bemused when people from countries using the Westminster system act as though the Electoral College were some sort of arcane hocus-pocus. That system is itself simple in its basic form--each state has a number of electors equal to the number of members of Congress it has. So, for a sparsely populated state such as Wyoming or Montana, which sends only one Representative to the House, they have three electors--one for the Representative and two for the Senators. It only looks sinister because states have the right to regulate the choosing of electors, and all but two of them use a winner take all system. That is not a "convoluted and confusing" system ordained by the constitution.
0 Replies
 
trying2learn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 02:29 pm
Thank you for trashing this thread and making it about your own agenda. All I wanted was to remember those killed and let their loved ones know people still care.
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 03:00 pm
@trying2learn,
Had you forgotten? And they do know (not that any of them have seen this thread)...

Perhaps there is a september 11th forum out there that would be more sympathetic to your desire to ... continue ... remembering.

http://able2know.org/topic/176937-1#post-4720747
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero - Discussion by Phoenix32890
9/11/01: Mary Pope and Eurodiva - Discussion by Miller
Lights over Manhattan. - Discussion by Frank Apisa
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
America At War - Question by blueveinedthrobber
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:58:45