Category: Uncategorized

George keeps missing forest for the trees:

But at the time we supposedly had intel that Iraq was funding overseas operatives and it is a fact they were paying the families of Suicide Bombers a bounty in Israel. Are you saying Iraqi’s are too dumb to buy a ticket to Mexico City with a connection to LA? They would be Silly if they did NOT try.

…And Congress approved the funding for this war or there would have been no war.

With respect…You and Vox are trying to rewrite history.

1. All nations are funding overseas operatives.
2. Israel is not the USA. It is neither our business nor our responsibility if a foreign country is funding suicide bombers in Israel or anywhere but the USA. Saudi Arabia and Egypt also fund suicide bombers in Israel, and according to Washington, Saudi Arabia was the country that actually attacked the USA on 9/11.
3. Invading and occupying Iraq does not prevent the hypothetical Iraqi from buying a ticket to Mexico City with a connection to LA. Or anyone else, for that matter.
4. Funding a war is not synonymous with declaring war.
5. We are not rewriting history, we are reading it correctly.

I once thought that we had a right to go into Iraq based on the terms of the ceasefire and Iraq’s breaking those terms. I have changed my mind because there is no 1991 ceasefire agreement between the USA and Iraq as the media has repeatedly implied, there is only a United Nations resolution to which the two parties are signatories, so any subsequent breaking of the “ceasefire agreement” was not a legitimate concern of the USA, but of the United Nations. I should have looked more closely into that before.

Furthermore, the idea that military force was an appropriate response to breaking the UN agreement appears to be completely unfounded. Consider:

Consequently, one cannot assign a definitive legal meaning to the term “formal cease-fire” in Resolution 687. Indeed, except for the use of that term, everything else about Resolutions 686 and 687 fits the general dichotomy between an initial agreement for a temporary cessation of hostilities and then a comprehensive final agreement setting the terms for a peace. Unlike the situation in Korea, there was no expectation of a further “peace agreement” that would follow Resolution 687, and certainly no expectation that either side could resume military operations at any time so long as they provided advance notification. Rather, Resolution 687 was the final agreement; it was a political arrangement that brought about the “definitive end to the hostilities” envisaged in Resolution 686. The armies on the ground did not wait around for a further agreement after adoption of Resolution 687; as contemplated by Resolution 687, once the UN observer mission was deployed, the combat troops went home.

Dweeb asks for clarification:

The question I have is, in your view, if FDR had re-armed in ’36-37, and attacked the Axis, or at least Germany, in ’38 or ’39, would that have been a good thing, or a bad thing? Would it be justified in the hindsight of what we now know Hitler was up to?

I think that would have been a Very Bad Thing. The flaw in this argument is that decisions leading up to historical events are fluid. For example, until the autumn of 1941, Hitler had absolutely no plans to exterminate European Jewry. At that time, he and Himmler favored various resettlement plans, inspired by the Polish government’s 1937 approach to France and Great Britain regarding the deportation a million Polish Jews to the French colony of Madagascar.

Robert Wistrich: “At this early stage, Himmler explicitly rejected ‘as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.”

Even worse, an early and unprovoked American-led invasion of Germany in 1938 would have risked bringing the Soviet Union into the war as a member of the Axis. The two dictatorships were quite friendly at the time and it was only Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin that led the Soviets into the Allied camp.

Military history is the history of unintended consequences. Imperial overstretch is the order of the day, from Greece to Rome, and I think the odds are very highly against the possibility that the Iraqi adventures will be viewed as a salutary action by the United States government.

Already, we have replaced a feeble secular dictatorship with an Islamist neo-democracy supported by Iran. This might be a good first step in a global war against Ba’athists, but I am not terribly sangine about it being a net positive in a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism much less in a secular crusade against the global jihad.

Lisa2 doesn’t quite grasp the point:

Personally, I wouldn’t want to work for a boss, male or female, that had such little comm skills that all they could come up with is “This is crap”. It has nothing to do with my “feewings” being hurt…. The couple of times I’ve missed a deadline or something, I was called to the mat for it, but he was able to do better than “Your work is crap” or “You f—– up, idiot”, or what ever. I see your point, Vox. But I think you used a bad example.

Most women I work with, would be all in a twist if their boss, factually, unemotinally and calmly called them to the mat on a deadline they missed.

I think the thing Lisa is missing here is that “your work is crap” and “you f—– up” can be factual, unemotional and calm statements coming from a superior. This points to the root of the problem, namely, that women infer emotion and personal issues where none exist. The “idiot” is almost always unsaid and usually not implied, but a woman will hear it all the same.

It was very illuminating for me when I got into a discussion with a female friend of ours at a Bible study a few years back. She misunderstood a certain phrase and based on that misunderstanding, offered an obviously false interpretation. When I told her, “you’re wrong,” and repeated it several times in response to her attempt to justify it as an opinion, she got very upset. I found this mystifying – there was no doubt she was factually and demonstrably wrong – but finally understood it the next day when she told me how upset she was that I had repeatedly called her stupid.

But I hadn’t, not once, nor had I even implied it with tone of voice or non-verbal communication. Only when I asked her if she honestly expected to be considered correct at all times by everyone did she understand how absurd and self-destructive her basic position had been.

No one likes being called on the carpet, but it is inevitable. What’s important is not avoiding criticism, but how you accept it and respond to it. And you should not be surprised if your boss expresses some annoyance either; it’s nothing personal, in most cases it’s simply irritation with having to deal with something he felt he would not – and should not – have to think about or otherwise fix.

Karen concedes the point, but wonders about it nonetheless:

Nothing to argue with Vox, I can’t take criticism well at all. It really hurts! Women tend to be more motivated by relationship than by sucess, so if our work displeases someone, it hurts more. Think about it, women tend to judge their life in terms of how sucessful their relationships are and men in terms of how their career. Everyone is good at something, but most women are made to be wives and mothers anyways, so why judge them harshly if they are not good at the careers that they are forced into? I don’t envy the cooler, more masculine, ultra-professional women. I wouldn’t want to become one at all! I don’t get why you men criticize us for not being more like men and then criticize us for being too much like men.

I’m not criticizing women for not being like men… nor do I think it’s either possible or desirable for women to be too much like men. In the case of the latter, it’s like watching a cat try to act like a dog; it’s not convincing and what actually irritates the dogs is having to pretend that they find it to be so. The point of my post was not to criticize women, only to point out the irony of how the truth of some things remains obvious to everyone despite decades of people trying to pretend otherwise.

I understand that many women have to work. But fewer women have to work than believe they do, and the better they understand the truth of themselves, the sexes and the workplace, the happier they will be. And the happier they are, the happier everyone around them will be.

Let’s face it, this blog is just a little ray of sunshine, making the world a shinier, happier, warmer and friendlier place. Group hug!

Christploitation gets a bit mixed up:

It is a standard political device for fundamentalist Christians to cloak their true theocratic political agendas using the label of “libertarian.” Vox Popoli comes to mind here. Fundamentalists know that theocracy isn’t exactly an attractive idea when it is presented at face value; it must have a “value-add” and a costume to wear. This was the elephant in the living room that was pointed out by Judge Jones in the “Intelligent Design” ruling this week. The Christian fundamentalists were lying about their true beliefs and motives. They lied to the citizens and they lied to the Judge.

Now, be it anecdotal, but I still find it significant that each time I cross paths with a GOP libertarian / “Christian Libertarian” (with FEW exceptions), they’ll ALWAYS support the Republicans no matter how wrong they are on economics. The GOP is still “God’s Own Party” for them and libertarianism is their mask.

I’d be interested to hear a description of my “true theocratic political agenda”. Anyone care to have a go? It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals manage to confuse my assertions of religious faith with advocacy of political action.

I’ll admit to generally preferring Republicans to Democrats, but that’s like choosing between Helen Thomas and the rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt. I’d no sooner vote for a member of the bi-factional ruling party than I’d take Helen or Eleanor out on a date.

When JB of the Fraters and Emily Post collide:

Another important shortcoming of many business women is an inability to be impersonal–for instance being unable to take a criticism of their work without feeling that is a personal affront.

Man, how times have changed. What anachronistic garbage–working women fussing with themselves, talking too much and not taking criticism well!

I think perhaps men might be more concerned about fielding accusations of mysogyny if they weren’t hurled at every simple and factual observation. Familiarity in this case breeds indifference; I’m totally inured to it now. And then, of course, there’s the inherent irony when a frothing-mad woman angrily denies that women cannot receive criticism without taking it personally.

Some women can. But they are few, all too few indeed. And be honest, how many of the female regulars here can truly stand to have their boss toss something they’ve done on their desk and say “this is a piece of s—, what the Hell were you thinking?” without feeling upset for the rest of the day? Is your first response to focus on how your boss is a jerk because of the way he informed you that your work was sub-standard or to focus on how you can fix it so it won’t be?

From CNN/SI:

Terming his staff “lame-duck” as it prepares for a meaningless season finale against Chicago, Mike Tice expressed hope Monday that Vikings owner Zygi Wilf will announce Tice’s fate “sooner rather than later.”

Oh, I do hope so. How I do hope so! The Vikings should have made me their general manager long ago; I would have fired Denny Green and hired Tony Dungy rather than letting him go to Tampa, refused to sign Randall Cunningham to the long-term contract after 1998 that sent Brad Johnson to Washington and avoided the caticestrophe of recent years.

How did they not fire him last year, especially when he handed them an excuse on a silver platter with the ticket-scalping scandal? I’m still annoyed about that. Actually, I would have fired him after last year’s Miami game, then been in a position to pursue Charlie Weis or Lovie Smith, both of whom are looking pretty good right now.

Speaking of coaches, does anyone else think that Pete Carroll would do well to stay in college? Perhaps he can pull a Belicheck, but I don’t think so. They’re two very different men with very different styles. I think Carroll has found his niche; no one has a better deal than a legendary college football coach.

HP rather likes Imperial America:

Did the Athenians have a U.N. resolution 1441 before launching their attempt to build an empire? Were they already engaged in containment of an avowed enemy for which they had a written truce which was being violated on an almost daily basis? I wonder how you would have felt if FDR had decided to preemptively attack Germany once it was clear that Hitler and his minions were A) systematically committing genocide against certain groups. B)Rebuilding his war machine in violation of the Versailles accords. C) Preparing to attack his neighbors. If I was Vox Day I guess that would just have to wait till all came to pass before I would or should act. For me it is more prudent to act preemptively. Bush was right in attacking Iraq. The ultimate outcome is still not certain but at least there is a chance that a Democracy will take hold. At the very least we now have outposts in one of the most unsettled regions of the world so that we could act quickly. It would also be a constant reminder to our enemies that WE WILL ACT if necessary in our national interests. That to me is a good thing.

What does a UN resolution have to do with anything? Are you seriously going to try arguing that the Athenian attack on Syracuse been more just with the permission of the Persian empire and Republican Rome? Apparently you don’t know much Greek history, as the Athenians had been attempting to contain the Spartans longer than the USA was containing Iraq; Thucydides and Xenophon chronicle the Second Pelopponesian War. And the analogy holds with regards to treaties, too, as it was Sparta that first violated the 30-year truce by invading Attica.

Your knowledge of WWII history is scanty as well. A) Hitler and company did not begin systematic genocide until after Germany was at war with the USA; the decision to begin the Endlosung was not made until after Pearl Harbor. B) The guarantees of the treaty did not give FDR or anyone else free reign to attack Germany, only to reoccupy the areas specified in Article 429. C) This logic justifies the 9/11 attacks on the USA, as the establishment of bases around the world are obvious preparations to attack countries that are not even neighbors of the USA.

Furthermore, Iraq is not a member state of the USA and it is not in the USA’s national interest to occupy it or even prevent its government from slaughtering its people. Nor is democracy in the American national interst, here in America or anywhere else in the world. Finally, I note that Athens, too, established many bases around the Pelopponese in support of its empire – Pylos, Cythera, Aegina, Cephallenia, Methana, Nisea, Naupaktos and Zkynthos – and this was done in the period immediately prior to its decline and fall.

Thomas Sowell writes on Townhall:

I don’t make a million dollars a year but I think every member of Congress should be paid at least that much. It’s not because those turkeys in Washington deserve it. It’s because we deserve a lot better people than we have in Congress.

The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected. You could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year for a century for less money than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.

There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption.

You are not going to get the most highly skilled or intelligent people in the country, people with real-world experience, while offering them one-tenth or less of what such people can earn in the private sector.

You’d think an economist would understand better than most that upping the compensation is only going to increase the demand for the job on the part of those driven by pecuniary interests, not reduce it. His point on the benefits of term limits is a solid, if unorginal one, but I am sure increased compensation is not the solution.

In fact, if one looks at the historical example he cites, one would correctly conclude the precise opposite. Institute strict term limits and pay Congress less, if anything. That’s the way to appeal to those driven by duty and honor instead of financial ambitions.

Like many NFL fans, I will miss Brett Favre when he retires. He’s a great quarterback, I genuinely like him, and because of the Packers-Vikings rivalry, I’ve seen an awful lot of his games, several in person. But what I’ll miss most is the way he makes me look like an NFL expert.

For example, when Spacebunny and I were watching the game yesterday, I noticed something familiar. When Favre gets frustrated and starts forcing the ball, he tends to lean forward a bit as he throws. Since he first became a starter, this has almost invariably been a sign of a multi-interception game, usually three at a minimum. Last night, early in the first quarter, I noticed the telltale sign and predicted many completions to the Bears.

Sure enough, Favre finished up with 4 INTs. But that didn’t come close to the time I came home while a few of the boys were watching the Pro Bowl. Favre had made the NFC team for the first time as an alternate, and he came in when the NFC had the ball on the AFC twenty.

“Here comes the interception in the end zone,” I announced to some derision. The ball was snapped, Farve faded back and drilled a strike right into the chest of an AFC cornerback.

“How did you know that was coming?” someone asked. But it was inevitable. Brett Favre + Excited + Red Zone + All-Pro Secondary = INT. What else could possibly happen?

I announce with some degree of relief that I have survived, barely, the reading of “Thank You, Jeeves”, by PG Wodehouse. It was given to me by Spacebunny, who I can only assume is seeking to rid the world of me by means of a lethal, albeit unprosecutable gift-giving.

Now, Terry Pratchett is a most amusing writer. Grant Naylor seldom fails to prise a smile from the reader. Our own Original Cyberpunk is no slouch in the humor department, and many is the time I have chuckled, or perhaps even snorted, when reading Douglas Adams.

But Wodehouse is the only writer who can reduce an innocent reader to desperate, painful gasps for air, as tears run down one’s face and an ominous pressure constricts one’s chest. The vision narrows, then grows dark, and there is naught to do but hope the fit passes before one’s breath leaves one’s body. It’s all in the convoluted setup, meticulous and precise, meant to finish off the unsuspecting reader as ruthlessly and efficiently as the meat-packing plant slaughters the cows.

I mean, you would not think the following exchange could be capable of rendering a grown man prostrate and helpless, but you would be wrong:

“Sorry. No butter.”
“There must be butter in your cottage.”
“There isn’t. And why? Because there isn’t a cottage.”
“I cannot understand you.”
“It’s burned down.”
“What?”
“Yes. Brinkley did it.”
“Good God!”
“A nuisance in many ways, I must confess.”

I laughed. I cried. Much better than Cats.