Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 15:16:01

Dude, brush up on your beltway lingo. Try:
"Space exploration potentialities and program related activities"

Duly noted.

Speaking of which, is there ANY news on Sean O'Keefe's possible replacement?

You mean Hoagland didn't get it?

:laugh:

BWhite · 2005-02-10 16:09:33

Dude, brush up on your beltway lingo. Try:
"Space exploration potentialities and program related activities"
Duly noted.
Speaking of which, is there ANY news on Sean O'Keefe's possible replacement?
You mean Hoagland didn't get it?

:laugh:

If they pick Pete Worden then - - dang it - - I'd have to praise Bush again.

clark · 2005-02-10 17:41:25

look, Hamlet and Ophelia are bantering.

You figure out whose who.

I know who the next Administrator is, but I ain't tellin. :;):

BWhite · 2005-02-10 19:00:14

look, Hamlet and Ophelia are bantering.
You figure out whose who.
I know who the next Administrator is, but I ain't tellin. :;):

Tolstoy wrote that every man must choose: Hamlet or Don Quixote.

A Better choice than Hamlet or Othello.

= = =

By the way, Thursdays are "one eyed hobos" night.

Free drinks, if they share their scoops. . .

= = =

PS - - Forgot my new tagline: And this is Jeff Gannon, reporting. . .

Sooooh much easier to say than Jim Glockert, or whatever.

Edited By BWhite on 1108083790

Grypd · 2005-02-10 19:06:11

By the way, Thursdays are "one eyed hobos" night.
Free drinks, if they share their scoops. . .

Thats a bit "Tell me, Tell me Ill be your friend" is it not ???

But seriously whoever gets it will hopefully give the United States members of this forums a good read on the way things are hopefully panning out. Unfortunatly my knowledge of the ins and outs of the suited sections of NASA are limited. So Im really looking forward to a lively discussion about it.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 19:09:10

By the way, Thursdays are "one eyed hobos" night.
Free drinks, if they share their scoops. . .
Thats a bit "Tell me, Tell me Ill be your friend" is it not ???

Alas, 'tis true. :;):

clark has a history of teasing us with his inside connections.

Palomar · 2005-02-11 09:42:44

*Hey Bill, remember a week or so ago, when you asked me why (in reference to the media and in particular to the "personalities" which populate it, some of whom you quote out of preference) I insist on proof?

I don't expect you to actually remember, btw.

Within just a few hours' time these reports have come in:

1. GWB's approval ratings are UP in the polls (a substantial jump).

2. GWB's approval ratings are DOWN.

3. North Korea claims it has the bomb and won't discuss it.

4. North Korea DEMANDS talks with the U.S.

5. Majority of Brits unfavorable about Charles and Camilla's plans to wed.

6. Majority of Brits approve of C and C's plans to wed.

Sure, the C and C issue is trivial compared to NK having nukes.

But it's these very sorts of continual contradictions (no "maybe" or "perhaps" or "we think"; nope, the media generally makes absolutist-sounding announcements) which certainly erodes (more) my confidence.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-11 09:58:37

Especially today, with the unfolding Jeff Gannon story, it is obvious a propaganda war is being waged. By a large number of parties. But tell me, who has the biggest cannon?

It sure as heck ain't the liberals.

But perhaps no one is telling the truth. Which earns from me both a ??? and a :;):

My comment to you was premised on my perception (perhaps wrong) that you want criticisms of the Administration to be "proven" while giving their version of events the benefit of the doubt. To demand "proof" and then impose an impossible standard before continuing on is a great way to sidetrack a discussion.

= = =

But what is really funny (in a sick sort of way) is how far truth has fallen from favor. On all sides.

Palomar · 2005-02-11 10:12:13

My comment to you was premised on my perception (perhaps wrong) that you want criticisms of the Administration to be "proven" while giving their version of events the benefit of the doubt.

*I want everything to be proven (impossible I know), and I'm very reluctant to give -anyone- in power the benefit of the doubt; in fact, I essentially don't.

Otherwise, I agree with what you said.

In the end, it looks like no one knows what the heck they're talking about (all while insisting they DO have The Truth) and it rapidly becomes pure garble. Which is why some people get fed up and tune it all out.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-11 10:31:38

My comment to you was premised on my perception (perhaps wrong) that you want criticisms of the Administration to be "proven" while giving their version of events the benefit of the doubt.
*I want everything to be proven (impossible I know), and I'm very reluctant to give -anyone- in power the benefit of the doubt; in fact, I essentially don't.
Otherwise, I agree with what you said.
In the end, it looks like no one knows what the heck they're talking about (all while insisting they DO have The Truth) and it rapidly becomes pure garble. Which is why some people get fed up and tune it all out.
--Cindy

Combine this with a very natural and perfectly normal reluctance to acknowledge that our leaders might be lying to us and we then have a well prepared foundation for an effective propaganda campaign.

BWhite · 2005-02-11 10:55:59

I know who the next Administrator is, but I ain't tellin. :;):

Carly Fiorina?

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-11 11:16:34

But what is really funny (in a sick sort of way) is how far truth has fallen from favor. On all sides.

Truth often does not lend itself to soundbites. Subtle shades of grey are difficult to convey in a single sentence.

Combine this with a very natural and perfectly normal reluctance to acknowledge that our leaders might be lying to us and we then have a well prepared foundation for an effective propaganda campaign.

And when politics become polarized each side has leaders that lie to their followers in some sense, depending on the vagaries of one's perception of truth.

Propaganda isn't so much lies as skillful manipulation of truth, that's why it works.

BWhite · 2005-02-11 15:17:25

Cobra, are you aware of this new piece of legislation?

It's about building barriers at the border

"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102© of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
© Waiver-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."

Check out the waiver of laws and no judicial review.

Interfere with building the wall and the Secretary can order you shot. No review.

Edited By BWhite on 1108156708

clark · 2005-02-11 15:21:09

Carly Fiorina?

:laugh:

Not quite... even though she is looking for a new job!

BWhite · 2005-02-11 15:35:22

Carly Fiorina?
:laugh:
Not quite... even though she is looking for a new job!

Brenda Barnes?

No, she's at Sara Lee.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-11 23:02:52

Cobra, are you aware of this new piece of legislation?

HR 418 if I'm not mistaken. Unacceptable.

BWhite · 2005-02-15 09:21:30

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_Eas … .html]Very interesting:

For the Americans, the situation in southern Iraq has turned into a double-edged sword. Iraqis there fully embraced the elections - even if they had to be convinced by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to do so - and this participation was welcomed as a sign of democracy taking root in the country.
But with Shi'ite religious parties emerging as the strongest power, no sooner were the elections over than voices were raised for the creation of an autonomous southern Iraqi region, and for vilayet-e-faqih .
People from different walks of life from Basra and other southern provinces can be heard on television and radio channels demanding a federal system in which southern Shi'ites could govern their oil resources for their benefit.
Notably, Ahmad Chalabi, a leading secular Shi'ite candidate in the Iraqi elections, has called for autonomy for the Shi'ite south, which contains some of the world's largest oil fields. Chalabi, a former US favorite who fell out with Washington after the 2003 invasion, said the move would ensure a fairer share of wealth for a region that provides the bulk of Iraqi revenue but receives only a fraction of state spending. The mainly Shi'ite southern provinces of Amara, Nasiriya and Basra are Iraq's poorest, Chalabi said.

A new round of struggle begins. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1108480950

Palomar · 2005-02-17 10:37:50

*Just read at Yahoo! news that Canadian singer/entertainer Alanis Morissette has become a U.S. citizen (although she's maintaining a hyphen, with "Canadian" first). Last week English actress Jane Seymour became a U.S. citizen; she was dressed in white and photographed at the ceremony waving a U.S. flag. Anthony Hopkins became a U.S. citizen a year or so ago, and Jim Carey (IIRC? -- just recently?).

I'm somewhat surprised anyone even halfway famous would take such a step right now, considering how unpopular the U.S. currently is.

---

Is it just me, or is the word "terrorism" rapidly becoming a non-term? Just about anyone and anything is pronounced "a terrorist" or "terrorism" now.

---

Saw http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/artic … .html]this article (what gall) a few days ago. Have been debating posting it. Yeah, they started WWII, upwards of 10 million people died because of them (at least 6 million by premeditated murder), these particular scumbags would unleash a deliberate racist-motivated blood bath again if they had the opportunity...and they call us terrorists. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Apparently we're supposed to apologize/feel bad for having stopped Hitler and his murderous, rabid 3rd Reich.

I totally agree with the elderly lady quoted in the article: People never learn.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 11:13:48

I'm somewhat surprised anyone even halfway famous would take such a step right now, considering how unpopular the U.S. currently is.

But the US entertainment market is huge. :;):

That and if the celebrities in question really like this country they may sincerely want to make it home, and if they're Leftist kooks they may simply not want to be non-citizens while that fascist George Bush is in office.

As for the Guardian article on the Neo-Nazi march, I probably had an odd reaction to it. Certainly the marchers are revisionist kooks, but I found the comments of the counter-marchers more offensive. At least the Nazis were complaining (whining Nazis?) about bombing of civilians, even if they did start the war, but "Stalingrad was wonderful"? I don't think "wonderful" is the right adjective to describe brutal urban warfare leading to one totalitarian, murdering regime retaking land from another amid a spectacle of atrocities that boggles the mind. Never mind the fact that by all objective measures Stalinist Russia was significantly worse than Nazi Germany. Then the German government apparently has no clear position, being anti-Nazi, anti-American, pro-free speech and free elections except as it applies to Nazis, agonizing over the past they can't quite bring themselves to acknowledge while casting blame for much that is wrong in the world on the very nation that defeated the regime they condemn then gave them their country back instead of ruling it like a conquered foe. Sadly amusing.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 12:56:51

about bombing of civilians, even if they did start the war, but "Stalingrad was wonderful"? I don't think "wonderful" is the right adjective to describe brutal urban warfare leading to one totalitarian, murdering regime retaking land from another amid a spectacle of atrocities that boggles the mind. Never mind the fact that by all objective measures Stalinist Russia was significantly worse than Nazi Germany.

*Thanks for commenting, Cobra. You have such a keen mind.

But what about the Stalingrad comment?

Several anti-fascists waved British, US and Israeli flags. Others chanted: "You lost the war" and "Stalingrad was wonderful".

Maybe they meant it in a snide way?

the NPD, which, he said, portrayed Germany as a war victim

Good grief. I'd sure like to know how they can twist it around and make it sound like they were war victims. Sure, I'm not happy German civilians were killed either; but it was their own countrymen who set it all in motion. Not all Germans at the time went along with Hitler's ideas; probably more than we know were afraid of him and terrified to speak out for fear of imprisonment, torture and death. But to portray the entire nation as being "a victim" of WWII is beyond outrageous.

Support for the NPD appears to be rising, especially in depressed areas of the former communist East Germany, where unemployment averages 20%.

I've read other news articles indicating lots of tensions within Germany, coming from the former East. This doesn't surprise me.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 13:16:12

But what about the Stalingrad comment?
Quote
Several anti-fascists waved British, US and Israeli flags. Others chanted: "You lost the war" and "Stalingrad was wonderful".

Maybe they meant it in a snide way?

Most likely they were just being pricks rather than red-blooded communists, but then again most likely they'd take offense if the Nazis had used similar glowing terms to describe the conquest of France. Neither can claim a victory for "their side" is wonderful and at the same time have any defensible objection to the opposition making similar statements. If neo-Nazis talk about how wonderful it was conquering half of Europe Europe and killing Jews they're viciously condemned but using the same terms to describe non-Nazis... conquering half of Europe and killing whomever they damn well please is barely noteworthy.

War sucks all around, and in this case I would have preferred if both participating powers at Stalingrad had fallen.

At any rate, we'll have to see how it turns out. While I don't expect a return of Nazism I won't be in the least bit surprised if Europe's development follows a course other than the peaceful united economic powerhouse EU that's been hyped over the years.

And it seems this thread is getting quite large. Let's see if we can make it to 275 without imploding.

BWhite · 2005-02-17 15:20:31

At any rate, we'll have to see how it turns out. While I don't expect a return of Nazism I won't be in the least bit surprised if Europe's development follows a course other than the peaceful united economic powerhouse EU that's been hyped over the years.

I am uncomfortable with a hypothetical new axis of power running from Paris through Berlin to include Moscow even if I admire the European stance on capital punishment.

The US has the world's largest military, spending more on defense that every other nation, combined. It is in our interest not to rub people's noses in that too overtly.

I don't believe it is in our interest to encourage the European public to believe that acquiring military power is a good, or necessary idea, for the reasons Cobra Commander cites.

= = =

On a related note:

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRelease … uage=en]EU Space policy

Edited By BWhite on 1108675524

Palomar · 2005-02-17 20:15:14

If neo-Nazis talk about how wonderful it was conquering half of Europe Europe and killing Jews they're viciously condemned but using the same terms to describe non-Nazis... conquering half of Europe and killing whomever they damn well please is barely noteworthy.

*I see your point, but you know how it goes: The Nazis constantly reinforced their image and visibility via slogans, visual symbols (simple yet instantly recognizable [and therefore all the more "powerful"], i.e. the swastika), marches/parades, pageantry, uniforms which "stood out", etc. They made a target of themselves in more ways than one. Other more subtle/low-profile (deliberately or otherwise) groups tend to stay more easily out of the crosshairs (of public scrutiny, memory, etc.). It's not fair to the victims that others have committed similar atrocities and been -less- vilified for it, but Machiavelli had a few things to say about people being impressed by appearances (or lack thereof). The Nazis made a spectacle out of themselves.

I won't be in the least bit surprised if Europe's development follows a course other than the peaceful united economic powerhouse EU that's been hyped over the years.

I agree.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-17 21:34:21

I won't be in the least bit surprised if Europe's development follows a course other than the peaceful united economic powerhouse EU that's been hyped over the years.
I agree.
--Cindy

And I also agree (at least as to potential developments) which is why Euro-bashing by US media is counterproductive, or "not useful" to use a term I sometimes hear today.

Galileo is NOT a purely commercial space asset.

Edited By BWhite on 1108697701

Palomar · 2005-02-18 15:24:05

*I see your point, but you know how it goes: The Nazis constantly reinforced their image and visibility via slogans, visual symbols (simple yet instantly recognizable [and therefore all the more "powerful"], i.e. the swastika), marches/parades, pageantry, uniforms which "stood out", etc. They made a target of themselves in more ways than one. Other more subtle/low-profile (deliberately or otherwise) groups tend to stay more easily out of the crosshairs (of public scrutiny, memory, etc.). It's not fair to the victims that others have committed similar atrocities and been -less- vilified for it, but Machiavelli had a few things to say about people being impressed by appearances (or lack thereof). The Nazis made a spectacle out of themselves.

*Hmmmmm. Either those comments were spectacularly good or spectacularly bad. :laugh: Silence gives assent or discretion is the better part of rebuttal? Teehee.

Okay, usually I don't prompt a reply (it infers obligation, which should be avoided) -- in fact this is a first I think -- but I'm REALLY curious...

???

--Cindy Hmmm...hmmm...hmmmm (think I'll go check another web site in the interim)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2005-02-10 15:16:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#252 2005-02-10 16:09:33

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#253 2005-02-10 17:41:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#254 2005-02-10 19:00:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#255 2005-02-10 19:06:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#256 2005-02-10 19:09:10

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#257 2005-02-11 09:42:44

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#258 2005-02-11 09:58:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#259 2005-02-11 10:12:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#260 2005-02-11 10:31:38

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#261 2005-02-11 10:55:59

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#262 2005-02-11 11:16:34

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#263 2005-02-11 15:17:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#264 2005-02-11 15:21:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#265 2005-02-11 15:35:22

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#266 2005-02-11 23:02:52

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#267 2005-02-15 09:21:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#268 2005-02-17 10:37:50

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#269 2005-02-17 11:13:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#270 2005-02-17 12:56:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#271 2005-02-17 13:16:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#272 2005-02-17 15:20:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#273 2005-02-17 20:15:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#274 2005-02-17 21:34:21

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#275 2005-02-18 15:24:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer