Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Thu 26 Mar, 2009 05:22 pm
@roger,
Yeah, I think.

I do not think, though, that there is such an overwhelming consensus concerning this matter that the move can be considered a "no-brainer"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Mar, 2009 09:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The only "no brainer" around here are the GOP members who just know how say "no."

Did you see their budget? ROFL
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:19 am
@georgeob1,
Tippled prose? I was rather drunk, myself. Not just that but that also.
Quote:
I think the issue at hand is whether religious people or merely believers in a diety are more intolerant or given to oppression than non-believers; and, if so does the continuing continuing conflict in Palestine illustrate the phenomenon?

The premise above isn't mine, though you keep hoping it might be. I've spent god knows (pardon the expression) how many hours here throwing tomatoes at folks who presume religious belief or expression is the causal element in ugly human behavior. I find the presumption simplistic and shallow - thus its popularity.

My premise is that humans organize themselves in groups (religious, political, national, tribal, Shefield football fan, whatever is handy) and the proceed to act out, sometimes and in some circumstances, the ugly parts of our genetic inheritance.

But as not all instances of nationalism are the same, so not all instances of religious tradition are the same. Some are worse than others in respect of our topic here. The three faith traditions that evolved in the middle east aren't my favorites. The god of the the "old testament" is a merciless, cruel, bigoted bastard. Words, acts and ideas attributed to him are often (really often) utterly barbaric and without moral conscience. Such aren't the only attributions, of course, but Stalin may have been chummy with his grandkids.

So, that ain't a great start if we were hoping for a civilizing influence from religious notions (which, other than avoiding death and wishing for a benevolent and caring design in the trajectory of the universe) seems to me to be the only good we might posit from this particular means of organizing ourselves.

Now, I do consider that some progress was achieved two thousand years ago as regards the empathy for suffering thing. That's civilized. Desmond Tutu, for example. ML King, for another. But then you get Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson and Bill Donahue calling for fire and pestilence to rain down on those "other people" they don't like.

Faith doesn't cause any of this. But faith often doesn't prevent it either and, like a flag, can provide the symbols and justifications for ugly and can facilitate it.

I make no claim about the superiority of secularism for organizing human groups (though as a framework for understanding reality, I think it rather better in certain cases, which is why I have a surgeon and not an I Ching coin-flipper). Secular societies will find some other means to **** themselves up.

My claim is a negative one. I reject any claim from religious groups that they've got this problem handled. That's delusional and by it's exclusivist nature (we got it, the others don't got it) provides precisely the framework for the ugly to be, once again, facilitated.

Quote:
If I struck a nerve with the term, "preconceptions" I apologize. My intent wasn't to offend, belittle or even be (knowingly) smug

No. My nerves, the one's still firing, are mostly in my penis and your not likely to encounter them. As to "smug", you'd hardly have me beat on that one. Actually, I wrote that sentence mainly because the idea occurred to me while writing that there really ought to be a little visual representation of smugness. It's a notable omission in this world of whizbang computerese.

I am reasonably well though content only when drunk. As that rarely happens, it isn't much help. As I noted on my blog (I think the same excellently inebriated night I wrote the post above) I am waiting for the pharmaceutical industry (or some clandestine basement operation) to come up with a medication that actually achieves "You'll get over it". Until then, discontent will mar an otherwise perfect human being. Jane is another story altogether. As to your hoisting...we'll chuckle together. Portland. Cute town but too protestant, white and granola.

Nice to talk again. I like you. You're not Asherman and so right off the bat as a matter of mere contrast, there's that relief which I suspect one must feel, returning to a black box and placed in a stress-position after an hour of waterboarding..."Ah, thank god!"


blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:20 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I had to look up anorak.

There's a little joke between Mrs. McT and I one that one. That was for her and Allan's benefit.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:23 am
@McTag,
And there we are. Hi Allan. Please pass on a howdy to the missus. As I think I might have told you, Jane and I briefly missed you two after you departed. The silver was replaced and the matter quite forgotten.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:30 am
@blatham,
I was also wondering what happened to our silver. Now that I know, I guess we'll follow suit and forgive them too! We still haven't replaced ours, but I'm sure my wife will be happy to go shopping for new ones.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 01:41 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Tippled prose? I was rather drunk, myself. Not just that but that also.
Quote:
I think the issue at hand is whether religious people or merely believers in a diety are more intolerant or given to oppression than non-believers; and, if so does the continuing continuing conflict in Palestine illustrate the phenomenon?

The premise above isn't mine, though you keep hoping it might be. I've spent god knows (pardon the expression) how many hours here throwing tomatoes at folks who presume religious belief or expression is the causal element in ugly human behavior. I find the presumption simplistic and shallow - thus its popularity.

My premise is that humans organize themselves in groups (religious, political, national, tribal, Shefield football fan, whatever is handy) and the proceed to act out, sometimes and in some circumstances, the ugly parts of our genetic inheritance.


I fully agree. All such groups; tribal, political, national, religious, social & other reflect human nature in all its parts, good and bad.

blatham wrote:

But as not all instances of nationalism are the same, so not all instances of religious tradition are the same. Some are worse than others in respect of our topic here. The three faith traditions that evolved in the middle east aren't my favorites. The god of the the "old testament" is a merciless, cruel, bigoted bastard. Words, acts and ideas attributed to him are often (really often) utterly barbaric and without moral conscience. Such aren't the only attributions, of course, but Stalin may have been chummy with his grandkids.

So, that ain't a great start if we were hoping for a civilizing influence from religious notions (which, other than avoiding death and wishing for a benevolent and caring design in the trajectory of the universe) seems to me to be the only good we might posit from this particular means of organizing ourselves.
I think you are being a bit selective about the segments of the three from which you choose. The New Testament certainly claims to replace the Old One, and its central message contains none of the elements you find so distasteful - indeed it contradicts them.

Zeus and Wooten weren't such nice guys either. Perhaps you are attributing some rather universal human spiritual religious fantasies as applying uniquely to the Middle Eastern religions. I agree these elements are sometimes present in them, however they don't uniquely characterize them and they didn't originate in them.

blatham wrote:

Now, I do consider that some progress was achieved two thousand years ago as regards the empathy for suffering thing. That's civilized. Desmond Tutu, for example. ML King, for another. But then you get Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson and Bill Donahue calling for fire and pestilence to rain down on those "other people" they don't like.

Faith doesn't cause any of this. But faith often doesn't prevent it either and, like a flag, can provide the symbols and justifications for ugly and can facilitate it.
Agreed, without qualification. Faith certainly doesn't prevent the manifestation of the unpleasant aspects of human nature and individual choices by self-styled 'religious" people or those organizations themselves. Inded the notion that "faith" alone can deliver "salvation" which is so common among the evangelicals whom we both find a bit ... odd, is one I consider quite illogical, unsatisfying, and daffy.

blatham wrote:

I make no claim about the superiority of secularism for organizing human groups (though as a framework for understanding reality, I think it rather better in certain cases, which is why I have a surgeon and not an I Ching coin-flipper). Secular societies will find some other means to **** themselves up.

My claim is a negative one. I reject any claim from religious groups that they've got this problem handled. That's delusional and by it's exclusivist nature (we got it, the others don't got it) provides precisely the framework for the ugly to be, once again, facilitated.
No argument here either. Indeed I would generalize it a bit to say that exclusivist, doctrinaire and intolerant modes of thought and action, whether religious, political or social are all generally hateful and destructive. Some modes of human though and action are mostly bad, but none are without defect: and good things are found in many of them.

Life is often a good deal more complex than the various paradigms, -philosophical, political or religious - with which we attempt to describe it. What we do is much more important morally than what we say.

blatham wrote:
I am reasonably well though content only when drunk. As I noted on my blog ... I am waiting for the pharmaceutical industry (or some clandestine basement operation) to come up with a medication that actually achieves "You'll get over it". Until then, discontent will mar an otherwise perfect human being. Jane is another story altogether. As to your hoisting...we'll chuckle together. Portland. Cute town but too protestant, white and granola.
Discontent is the human condition ... as for palliatives... any port in a storm. I believe that every town needs a good sprinkling of dagos, micks, and yids (Ukrainaians too) to be really interesting (there's actually a club dedicated to them in San Francisco - it meets in North Beach).

blatham wrote:
Nice to talk again. I like you. ... there's that relief which I suspect one must feel, returning to a black box and placed in a stress-position after an hour of waterboarding..."Ah, thank god!"
Thanks ... I feel the same about you. Interesting to observe that, although the foundations of our thoughts are so similar, we disagree about so much. In a perverse way that too is reassuring.

My greetings to Thomas. He's a very good guy ... for a German (so goddam sure about everything... it unnerves me sometimes - he probably thinks I'm worse). I wish I had the opportunity to join you guys. Have a great visit.



Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 03:20 pm
That Obama appears to be one tough socialist!


Quote:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised Obama's plan, saying it is "a significant pivot" away from the Democratic Party's left wing.

"So the president's decision to continue Secretary Gates, follow [U.S. Central Command chief] Gen. [David] Petraeus' advice -- which may be somewhat exasperating to his own political left -- I think is in the best interest of the country and I think he's going to enjoy pretty strong Republican support for the plan," the Kentucky Republican told reporters.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Fiengold's reaction is interesting. Not that I disagree with him, but it's a somewhat surprising response from such a dove.


blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 07:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI
Yeah, don't worry about it much. To those according to their need. Where our friends come from, it's only been the last half century where they've had dining utensils that weren't artfully flaked off from large hunks of coal.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 08:13 pm
The Economist rips Obama a new one
Quote:
The biggest surprise of Mr Obama’s first two months has not been his policy preferences (most of which he advertised), but a certain lack of competence. The man who earned the sobriquet “No Drama Obama” for running such a disciplined campaign has, since coming to office, slipped on one banana skin after another.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13362078&source=hptextfeature
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 08:19 pm
@georgeob1,
george
Quote:
The New Testament certainly claims to replace the Old One, and its central message contains none of the elements you find so distasteful - indeed it contradicts them

It's a replacement which hasn't been fully achieved at this time. Another two thousand years and I'm going to give up on the prospect.
We share a sensibility here. Of course, we got magicalled into sentience into particular families.

I was talking with my twin and his boy a couple of weeks ago and we got into a discussion about the tendency of communities to refer to the land they grew up in or live in as "God's Country". But where is an objective judge going to pin the blue ribbon?

Still, we understand that sentiment because we have it. If a Muslim or a NeoDruid in latex, or an Othodox Wootenarian considers (and given he is a considering sort) that his notion of god and the good is held with warmth and affection for the best parts of his cultural heritage, who am I to deny him a blue ribbon matching my own? While keeping my own (which I'm gonna do). I have to give him one too. Asherman may or may not be included here.

You know, there's a counter argument to what I've been advancing in all this. And that argument comes into focus when one considers the jews. We know from DNA testing that this group has remained quite markedly distinct. There's been, obviously, a cultural component that has, among many other things, had the consequence of jews tending to bare children with other jews. And, they are survivors, clearly. But on top of all of that, our mental world via our cultural world, would be utterly diminished without their contributions. It boggles me what these guys have done and do. Take the blogging world which I've been sneaking around in. The number of really bright, careful, imaginative and generally excellent writers who are working in this new medium who are jewish is breathtaking.

Let me reveal an embarrassing corner of my noggin. I look quite jewish and that became utterly clear in Manhattan. Anecdotes are too numerous to choose from. I am, as Larry David put it in one wonderful episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, a "jewface". I have an aunt who share this characteristic and there's been talk in the family about possible mis-behaviors in the grandma's largely redacted early life. And the cost of DNA is coming down and... yes, you have it. I was speaking with my daughter a couple of weeks ago and she's dating a smart young fellow name Shmuel Mormenstein. I've met him and his brother and loved them both immediately. Their dad is a pot-smoking Reform rabbi who's presently in Israel. I'm confident I'd like him too. And I told me daughter I'd been thinking of this DNA testing and confided I was hesitant because...(and she completed the sentence), "you're scared you won't be jewish". Right on the money. Hope you don't mind me sharing a confidence.

All of which is to say, it isn't necessarily a losing proposition to be somewhat exclusivist and tight-knit.

Thomas and I would both be utterly thrilled had you been part of whatever intimacies are about to unfold.




0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 08:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Not sure, but you might be in the wrong room. Were you looking for the unshaven Italian lady? Two doors down, on your right. Buyer beware.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 27 Mar, 2009 08:30 pm
Let me try a joke. Until the testing gets done I have to find complimentary holistic remedies.

One jewish man say, " I don't like the idea of dying"
Second jewish man replies, "You'll get over it."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 28 Mar, 2009 07:01 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That Obama appears to be one tough socialist!


Quote:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised Obama's plan, saying it is "a significant pivot" away from the Democratic Party's left wing.

"So the president's decision to continue Secretary Gates, follow [U.S. Central Command chief] Gen. [David] Petraeus' advice -- which may be somewhat exasperating to his own political left -- I think is in the best interest of the country and I think he's going to enjoy pretty strong Republican support for the plan," the Kentucky Republican told reporters.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Fiengold's reaction is interesting. Not that I disagree with him, but it's a somewhat surprising response from such a dove.

Don't they realize they will be creating more terrorists by instigating more fighting and killing?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Sun 29 Mar, 2009 10:30 pm
You sure wouldn't think there was an economic crisis would you? This is even more impressive than the $100/lb kobe beef the White House has been serving at frequesnt parties, etc.

While I don't begrudge him the necessary very best security at all times, I wonder if our President might be receptive to a suggestion of 'lead by example' on other things?

Quote:
With an entourage of 500 staff, an armour-plated limousine and a fleet of decoy helicopters, America's new president will arrive for his first visit to Britain amid huge razzmatazz on Tuesday for the G20 summit. . . . .

. . . .Obama will fly into London for his first visit to the UK as president of the United States on Tuesday to take part in the G20 summit in the capital's Docklands area. He will not be travelling light.

More than 500 officials and staff will accompany the president on his tour this week - along with a mass of high-tech security equipment, including the $300,000 presidential limousine, known as The Beast. Fitted with night-vision camera, reinforced steel plating, tear- gas cannon and oxygen tanks, the vehicle is the ultimate in heavy armoured transport.

In addition, a team from the White House kitchen will travel with the president to prepare his food. As one official put it: "When the president travels, the White House travels with him, right down to the car he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats. America is still the sole superpower and the president must have the ability to handle any crisis, anywhere, any time." . . . .

. . . .Apart from the 200 secret service personnel who will follow Obama on his European tour, the president's entourage will also include representatives of the White House Military Office, the White House Transportation Agency, the White House Medical Unit, the Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron, the State Department Presidential Travel Support Service, the US Information Agency, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service and the Customs Service.

In addition, there will be staff from the White House kitchen ready to turn out a quick burger should the president suddenly feel peckish.

Michelle Obama will have eight of her own staff, including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards. And Obama's personal aide Reggie Love - called by the president "the kid brother I never had" - will be at hand to provide pens, Nicorette gum, throat lozenges, tea or even aspirins. . . . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/obama-london-visit-uk-g20


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria090323_sub20090323044929.jpg


McTag
 
  1  
Sun 29 Mar, 2009 11:33 pm
@Foxfyre,

Glad to see you're reading a good newspaper, Foxy.

Pres Bush's circus/entourage closed down Heathrow, by the way.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Mon 30 Mar, 2009 10:31 am
@McTag,
Yes, I don't know why that happened as it did and I suspect given the chance to do it over, President Bush would have opted for a military base or alternate airport. So far it seems to be a top secret issue where President Obama's entourage will land. I think President Bush did travel very light compared to what is being described for President Obama, however.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Mon 30 Mar, 2009 10:43 am
@Foxfyre,
Or, after doing some more research, maybe not so light. I don't know.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 30 Mar, 2009 10:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Or, after doing some more research, maybe not so light. I don't know.


Perhaps you didn't read the papers when he travelled? Wink
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2009 11:14 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I think President Bush did travel very light compared to what is being described for President Obama, however.


http://www.boingboing.net/200711291013.jpg

Quote:
Bush has a back-up or two for his jumbo

Ever feel guilty about over-packing on your travels? George Bush will make you feel better.

The United States President, who arrived in Sydney last night, brought not one Jumbo jet, but three, as well as another two aircraft that carry aircraft. The President's Jumbo has a back-up, and the back-up has a back-up.

Air Force One can jam enemy radar, and radar-guided missiles, and is equipped with flares to avoid heat-seeking missiles.

The Jumbos are carrying 700 of the President's closest friends, including a doctor, nurse, personal chef and four cooks.

They are also carrying advisers, and it is clear the President will not be short of advice.

His entourage includes 50 White House political aides, 150 national security advisers and 200 specialists from other government departments.

POTUS, as he is known in Secret Service jargon (President Of The United States), is getting by with a mere 250 protective agents.

That doubtless would have been more if the First Lady was here too, but Laura Bush is back at home nursing a pinched nerve in her neck, a casualty of a hiking trip four months ago.

The President's Jumbos look small alongside his gargantuan C17 Globemaster III air transports.

They carry the presidential chopper Marine One and a Black Hawk surveillance helicopter.

They are also bearing a fleet of cars that would do credit to a decent-sized business.

It is an understatement to say the President's limo, Cadillac One, is bullet-proof. Its 12cm ballistic armour makes it anti-tank-grenade-proof.

It is sealed against chemical and biological attacks, too, which means it should just about block out the stench from Sydney's Pyrmont fish markets.

The President's men are believed to be bringing their own sniffer dogs.

They are bringing their own guns and bullets, too, believed to be the only delegation to get special dispensation.

That should shave a few dollars off Apec's A$169 million security budget.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1199
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 07:17:31