winsor

I like Pu Yi, but that is an Emperor's name.

For some reason I am reminded of an edition of "Weekend Update," where Laraine Newman is explaining how deadly plutonium-laden nuclear waste is being permanently disposed by being shot into space - while a rocket is self-destructing in the background. Then you have the theory that was popular those many moons ago, whereby building smokestacks high enough would somehow pump the pollution where would not pose a problem. In any event, my fundamental concern with the natural gas boom is that it supports the delusion that we have "plenty of fuel," and can thus continue to breed and waste with abandon. Junkies can rest assured that poppies can continue to grow and feed their habit. Our addiction to fossil fuels, however, is tying our very survival to a finite and dwindling resource. What could go wrong with that approach? BSBD, Winsor

Ah another conservative treehouse reader. Which race is more likely to wave guns around after a fit of road rage? WTF is a conservative treehouse? Otherwise, what the hell is it that you think you're talking about? If you're going to play "gotcha!," it helps to have some kind of clue. BSBD, Winsor

Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Wars are no longer waged by the will of superior men, capable of judging dispassionately and intelligently the causes behind them and the effects flowing out of them. The are now begun by first throwing a mob into a panic; they are ended only when it has spent its ferine fury. H. L. Mencken

Try to keep up. Avoiding an area because of high crime rate or presence of dangerous characters is prudent. Avoiding an area because there are people of a certain race is racist. It's not difficult for most people to understand. If you want to walk around unaware and unprepared in certain areas that is your prerogative. Some people do it their whole life without ill effect. Seeing as my bachelors degree is in criminology and criminal justice, I'd wager I know more about the topic than you do. Nothing in this field of study supports hating or fearing an entire race. Okay, I'm getting a bit sick of the one-dimensional treatment of "racism," among other things. First off, while all people may have equal rights, they are by no means the same. There are genetic predispositions inherent in various human bloodlines - Tay-Sachs, sickle cell and what have you - and only an idiot would suppose otherwise. Differences among the human population are as significant as in any other species, in the same sense that a Collie and a Malamute are not interchangeable. If you dispute that, I am curious how much you would wager on a Clydesdale in the Kentucky Derby. Second, to add nurture to nature, the effect of one's culture has a massive effect upon what might be expected of them. The difference between a kid born and raised in Scarsdale and his twin who was brought up in Tibet is prone to be massive. There will, of course, be genetic commonality, but the norms to which they are accustomed are vastly different. I have studied and worked with people from Indonesia, Japan, Zaire, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., as well as people of a broad spectrum of ethnicity who were born and raised in the US of A under a range of socioeconomic circumstances. My conclusion is that claiming that one might expect the same responses from any and all of them is nothing short of delusional. This is not to apply any kind of value judgement to the differences between people, but to acknowledge their existence. "Hispanic" includes Castillian, Chicano, Argentine and Peruvian - none of which are interchangeable. Similarly, you can get into a great deal of trouble by lumping together Kikuyu, Yoruba, Mandingo, Zulu and Maasai. Europeans include Albanians, Swedes, Dutch and Czech, whose languages, diet and culture differ greatly. Does this make me a racist? According to some sources, yes. I have been called a "racist honky motherfucker," which still amuses me. I do consider race to be a factor in evaluating an individual, but not in the sense that it is overwhelmingly deterministic, or is good/bad per se. Whether I like it or not, it is a reality. To discriminate is to be able to tell the difference. In some neighborhoods, failure to pick up on whether you are among Bloods or Crips (Trayvon's dad was a Crip, btw) can be career limiting, so discrimination can be a real life-saver at times. The issue is stochastic, rather than binary. Applying fuzzy logic, one should be as leery of a clutch of black youngsters hanging out and sipping 'bird on a street corner as one would a group of white guys with bad teeth and swastika tattoos hanging out at a biker bar. The bottom line is that there is a 92.6% likelihood that person screaming "RACISM!" the loudest is the most fully racist person you might wish to meet (Al Sharpton et al.). BSBD, Winsor

Each is a national embarrassment in his own way. I don't drink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxlO7DLC6p8

Think "illiteracy" w.r.t. numbers. Obamacare.

I am routinely amazed at the innumeracy rampant in this society, of which the ACA is a shining example. Gullibility makes it a perfecta.

I don't believe there are. However, if there is a lack of diversity in come cases, it's taken by government agencies as a likely indication of discrimination, which can result in an investigation by that agency, or which can be used by someone in a lawsuit over discrimination as evidence supporting their claim. For most businesses, it's much easier to ensure that the work population is reasonably similar to the local likely-to-be-qualified population. In the case of the company I worked for, that meant college graduates with science majors. We did not, in fact, have quotas. We did have guidelines, and could be asked to justify a decision to promote a non-minority. I never had an issue with that when I was a manager. Wendy P. Sometimes you have organizations that are "separate but equal." The Black Hockey League comes to mind.

Gee, if I said anything that seemed to support that observation, it was not intended as such. The Children of Israel are exactly that - the progeny of Jacob. Judaism is a tribal identity, with significant religious overtones. The Tanakh and Talmud are writings assembled over a reasonably long time, and much of this has been deemed The Word of God (tm), depending upon who you ask. The intended audience of these writings was internal ONLY, and the 613 Mitzvot were specific to members of the Tribe. The folks in Rome/Constantinople and in Mecca/Medina made use of the Tanakh as the basis for their Universal Religions, with modifications (by "revelation") to suit their political realities. There is a story of a French officer who infiltrated a group of English officers to obtain intelligence, in the days when wars between Britain and the Continent were commonplace. It seems that the French officer used the occasion of a fox hunt to make a break from the English host. As he galloped off, he dispatched the fox with his sword thinking "aha! I have beaten them at their own game!" Of course, from the English perspective the act of killing the fox demonstrated nothing but ignorance of the whole process ("we'll catch the fox and put him in a box, and then we'll let him go!..."). Similarly, reading the take of Europeans and Arabs who used the Tanakh as the basis for their move from pagan to monotheism gives the impression of "uh, we're flattered, but you guys just don't get it." I am not claiming that one religion is better than another; that is a different issue altogether. My point here is that the Tanakh, as described in the Koran, for example, is viewed from a vastly different standpoint than that of those who wrote it (Ezra the Scribe, et al.). I think it was Yassir Arafat that said that religious wars were disputes over who had the best invisible friend. Whatever his faults, he was no idiot. BSBD, Winsor

Quite what is it that you bring to the party? Is there something in particular with which you disagree, or is being snarky sufficient?

If you want to stick up for moslems, read the koran and get back to me. While you're at it, peruse a copy of Mein Kampf and explain its relative merits on a comparative basis (hint: they're operationally interchangeable). As is the bible, particularly the old testament. But don't let that colour your judgement. The Hebrew Scriptures do not recognize any "new" addenda. They constitute the Bronze Age family history of one very, very dysfunctional family, and they were never written for general consumption. Any Rabbi worth his/her salt will take care to distinguish between the elements that have merit and have served to hold us together these thousands of years, and those whose time has long come and gone. A Parsha reading from the Torah will often include discussion of the sociopolitical realities of the time of the writing, as well as the political intent of the writer as reflected in the content of the passage. Admitted, there are those who consider every word to be The Truth (tm), but my experience is that if you present it as such, many Rabbis will roll their eyes and ask if you are kidding. "Look it's Bronze Age writing. Take it for what it's worth." Within the family, the writings have been a mixed blessing indeed; as adopted by others (Christians, Muslims, et al.), their interpretation has been particularly virulent. Grimm's Fairy Tales are similarly horrific, have about as solid a basis in fact, and are used by those who do not advocate any of the actions contained therein (e.g., baking and eating children). In any event, I agree that the Tanakh is a collection of lore and mythology from a time when life was brutal and short, and the capricious cruelty it describes reflects this. As a period piece it is of interest; as a be-all and end-all it leaves much to be desired. BSBD, Winsor

If you want to stick up for moslems, read the koran and get back to me. While you're at it, peruse a copy of Mein Kampf and explain its relative merits on a comparative basis (hint: they're operationally interchangeable).

Napoleon reportedly said something to the effect that one should not attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explainable by incompetence. This appears to be a good rule of thumb outside of Hollywood.

Bloody soccer players/hooligans. They take this bullshit waaaaay too seriously. It's just a fucking game, for fucks sake. Hey, if it can't kill ya, it's a game, not a sport. Soccer, it turns out, is a full-fledged sport.

All praise be unto allah for that...

So there is a homosexual RACE now? There are a bunch of them. The Provincetown 5k, for example.

Yeah, being a bigot is so fucking hilarious. I agree, it's funnier than hell. The 'bigot' part is where you lose me. If you have any doubts that LDS, Scientology or Islam are FUBAR, you need only read The Book of Mormon, Dianetics or the Koran respectively. The Tanakh is the Bronze to Iron Age history of one very, very dysfunctional family, and is taken with a serious grain of salt by most Rabbis of my acquaintance. Plagiarism from other sources (Sumerian et al.) is largely acknowledged by Torah scholars and put into context. It is the wannabes that use this tradition as their foundation that make every Holy Typo the Misstated Word of God. The Koran uses the Tanakh and the Christian Scriptures as bases, with some redactions and editorial. Isaac is replaced by Ishmael, 3 prayers a day are upped to 5, and so forth. It is easy to respect something if you know nothing about it and to give it the benefit of the doubt. However, going all Godwin here, the Koran is every bit as bad as Mein Kampf in every sense - significantly worse in many. If someone is basing their existence upon either text, it is hardly bigotry to take into account the implications. To look askance at someone wearing head to toe robes with just the eyes showing is viewed as prejudice, though the track record of the people who dress their women as Ninjas is every bit as bad as the guys in white robes with the burning crosses. To say to either group "you suck" is not an accusation but a simple observation. When someone has size 42 shoes, orange hair, a red ball nose and face paint, there is no value judgement involved in referring to them as a clown. Telling these people that ammo has pig fat in it is a wonderful idea if it helps them behave themselves. BSBD, Winsor

This addresses the issue.

Argumentum ad Populum. Science is not amenable to verification by quorum. Religion, OTOH, is - the Nicene Creed comes to mind.

The thread is about politics. The majority of the politics is about politics. The majority of the science is about science. Except when it's funded by politics.

More margin! We need more margin!

"Not I," said the duck.

I think he is just another Democrat.