nerdgirl

As far as philosophers, you might look at David Hume & Soren Kierkegaard's work (Danish philosopher) as Christianity were central themes throughout their work. Apologies that I don't have any specific quotes. Subsequent existentialists (post-Kierkegaard) had human 'agency' as such a central core that I would not expect them to write the kind of words that that I think you're looking for. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Fascinating question. W/r/t Buddhism: The first Noble Truth is that life is suffering (dukkha). Suffering is caused by desire & expectations. One overcomes suffering through the choices and actions one makes in life (karma & more) ... living life through the 8-fold path. I'm not sure that a Buddhist would accept/embrace Paul's admission in Romans or the interpretation/implication that one is 'rescued' from suffering (addiction) through an external force. Buddhists would likely be amenable to the Serenity Prayer (my mom was an RN at an alcoholism treatment hospital). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link. Interesting discussion therein. Nonetheless, for his time (& perhaps for today as well?), Lincoln was very supportive of free labor. Lincoln's Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log)" sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thank you for the thoughtful post. From the lessons that one could learn from these Cold War-era incidents, what lessons would you argue the next president should pay attention to for: (1) dealing w/current nuclear proliferation, i.e., DPRK & Iran's allegedly nascent weapons program, & (2) dealing with radical Islamism/global Salafists? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Does any one have a link to the report on the Nevada test shot done in which water and beer (yes, literally beer) were exposed above ground & buried at various depths in order to determine if still potable/drinkable? I can't find the my copy .... They were above ground so that limits the time window. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Truly great - perhaps President Lincoln. Only President to have a patent (not my sole criteria for Presidential greatness). He was a brilliant man. Second, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. President's Reagan's influence and moral leadership against oppressive Communistic states and the USSR cannot be overlooked. What may be sad is that neither Lincoln nor FDR might be electable today. Lincoln didn’t have a face nor a disposition for television, and FDR would likely be considered too physically sick (regardless of the using a wheel chair.) VR/Marg p.s. President George H.W. Bush will always stand out for me for his commitment to eliminating chemical weapons. During the construction of Johnston Atoll Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility, he said “If I’m elected president, if I’m remembered for anything, it would be this: a complete and total ban on chemical weapons. Their destruction forever.” (He signed the CWC in 1991; the US Senate didn’t ratify until April 1997, which was four days before the treaty entered into force.) Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Quoteapparently you agree with this dreck to disband the Air Force?Quote No. I'm not sure how you came to that assumption. The Aviation News piece was a rebutting of the Farley & Axe's pieces. I do think it's interesting the question is coming up in context of larger issues w/in the defense community, such as but far from limited to asymmetric warfare, China, Russia, GWOT, defense transformation, DoDD 3000.5 (on SSTR), paying for OIF & OEF, RMA, space-based weapons ... W/r/t research, please see my posts on the importance of S&T for national security: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2999426;#2999426 & http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2999455;#2999455 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

QuoteThe secret that really matters, that people should be asking about, is Obama's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (along with all other mainstream candidates from both parties).Quote Why is membership or affiliation with CFR something about which to be concerned? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the clarification. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Quoteare you at all capable of having a discussion about Bush without throwing in CDIF?Quote Okay, I'll admit I'm clueless on this one. What does "CDIT" or "CDIF" mean ? C. diff is a Clostridium bacterial species ... but I don't think that's what any of you are writing about ... but I could be wrong.

Why is there is speculation/concern Iran may be “the next war”? Because there is considerable building rhetoric in political circles regarding the case of Iran as an imminent threat. ---- ---- ---- John Bolton, in an interview in today's NY Times magazine: Q. “Lately members of the Bush administration have been making newly menacing-sounding comments about Iran. What do you think they’re planning?“ A. “I think diplomatic approaches are not going to stop Iran from continuing to perfect its nuclear-weapons programs. Our options are very limited and not all that attractive, one being regime change in Tehran, the other being the use of force.” In an earlier interview, Bolton is reported as “confidently predicting that George W. Bush will launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office.” ---- ---- ---- AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht back in April 2006, “To Bomb, or Not to Bomb—That is the Iran Question” “The opponents of military strikes against the mullahs' weapons facilities say there are no guarantees that we can permanently destroy their weapons production. This is true. We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants [sic] a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice. “No matter what happens, it is long overdue for the Bush administration to get serious about building clandestine mechanisms to support Iranians who want to change their regime. This will take time and be brutally difficult.” “So we will all have to wait for President Bush to decide whether nuclear weapons in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps are something we can live with. Given the Islamic Republic's dark history, the burden of proof ought to be on those who favor accommodating a nuclear Iran. Those who are unwilling to accommodate it, however, need to be honest and admit that diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations probably won't succeed, and that we may have to fight a war—perhaps sooner rather than later—to stop such evil men from obtaining the worst weapons we know.” [emphasis nerdgirl] ---- ---- ---- Another AEI scholar, with a long history of illustrious involvement from Iran-Contra to alleged yellow-cake uranium from Niger, a more recent Op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal “Victory Is Within Reach in Iraq” that made some cogent arguments w/r/t Den Petraeus’s efforts in Iraq but concludes with two paragraphs: “They [Gen David Petraeus & Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno] know that Iran and Syria still have a free shot at us across long borders, and General Petraeus told Congress last month that it would not be possible to win in Iraq if our mission were restricted to that country. “Not a day goes by without one of our commanders shouting to the four winds that the Iranians are operating all over Iraq and that virtually all the suicide terrorists are foreigners sent in from Syria. We have done great damage to their forces on the battlefield, but they can always escalate, and we still have no policy to direct against the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran. That problem is not going to be resolved by sound counterinsurgency strategy alone, no matter how brilliantly executed.” ---- ---- ---- Joshua Muravchik’s Nov 2006 Op-Ed “Bomb Iran” Nota bene: in all likelihood, the author did not choose the Op Ed's title. “If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples. In the end, we would no doubt win, but how long this contest might last and what toll it might take are anyone's guess. “The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. [emphasis nerdgirl] Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.” “Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.” “Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.” [emphasis nerdgirl] ---- ---- ---- From Fox News, “An Inside Look at the FNC Special Investigation, Iran: The Ticking Bomb”, by the author of The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis , published in January 2007 “The U.S. military has been emphatic that the deadliest attacks against U.S. troops come from Iran-made bombs used by Iran-backed militias. “The stunning and detailed evidence presented in the program, reveals the depth of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and chaos in Iraq. Using satellite images, I will walk you through the districts of Tehran containing manufacturing sites for sophisticated Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs), run by the elite units of Iran’s military. “This special will expose the terrorist training centers in Iran where Iraqis are trained in guerilla warfare and explosives before they are sent back to target the coalition forces. It reveals details about the real agenda of the terror-sponsoring ayatollahs’ regime in Iraq and the escalating role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp in advancing this agenda. You will learn how Iran calls for the departure of the United States military so that Tehran can step in and fill the vacuum.” ---- ---- ---- From the President’s 17 October 2007 press briefing. THE PRESIDENT: “I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. “But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.” ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Iran – or any fundamentalist theocracy – as a nuclear weapons state scares me. The question which I don’t yet have an answer to is does the rhetoric to push for a US military action in Iran scare me more? And as always, trying to be cognizant that truly binary options exist extraordinarily rarely; what are the other options? I don’t want either the thread-titled bumpsticker or above-mentioned pundits to limits discussions to ‘bomb’ or ‘don’t bomb’ options only. Senator John McCain interviewed today on CNN’s “Late Edition” commented “We need to get the Europeans, who they seem to be interested in joining us in meaningful sanctions, whether it be diplomatic trade, economic and others, and put enormous pressures on Iran.” I would additionally assert that the Saudis, the Turks, and other Middle East states need to take a much more active role in the international community on Iran’s nuclear program. Hopefully that’s not as “moronic” as those who objected to the cited bumpersticker; as has been noted, however, it doesn’t quite fit the pithy requirements. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And that's part of its charm. In SC there will always be someone who will intellectually challenge you ... or challenge your patience,

From an 19 October 2007 interview in Financial Times: “He concedes that their views [the neoconservatives & his] coincided on the need to remove Saddam Hussein – Bolton felt it was in America’s interest to eliminate a potential threat. But he parted ways with the neoconservatives on the objectives of the subsequent occupation. ‘I am all in favour of democracy in Iraq,’ he says. ‘I don’t know what else I would say. But our national interest today is to stop any part of Iraq from becoming a base for terrorism and if that is accomplished with a less than Jeffersonian type of democracy, then that’s OK with me.’ “Mistakes were made, he concedes – only not the ones most people would identify. ‘In terms of Iraq’s governance I would have put the Iraqis in charge as soon as possible,’ he says. ‘I’ll exaggerate for effect, but what we should have done is said to the Iraqis: “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”’ [emphasis nerdgirl] [speculation & tongue firmly planted in cheek] Fully & equally exaggerated for Speakers Corner, apparently Bolton’s plan would have looked like: 1. AF bombs & Army invades, 2. Something related to those alleged WMDs .... 3. Capture Saddam Hussayn, 4. Distribute 3 million translated copies of Federalist papers … (must specify translated), 5. Depart for Kuwait/Qatar/etc/ [/speculation & removing tongue from cheek] From Bolton’s comments, it would also seem to imply that he is in favor of pulling US troops out, which may be the only foreign policy point on which he, Senator Dennis Kucinich, and Gov. Bill Richardson agree. Bolton's scheduled to speak about his new book, Surrender Is Not an Option, later tonight on C-Span radio's "Q&A" Program (podcasts available) - I'm genuinely looking forward to listening. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you point to a non-hearsay or non-speculative, extrapolative source that has referenced the “desecration” aspect? According to the “longtime friend” quoted in the AP article (posted on MSNBC) : “Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.” Desecration is not equivalent to protest, as the latter has been seen at the DC mall & monuments from the times of WWI veterans (the “Bonus Army”) through the civil rights era and forward, as well as back to colonial protests against the British monarchy & taxes. As Americans, protest is part of our heritage.

Does Fox News being an internet and cable media-only play any role in Fox News’ asserted prosperity? Are not traditional print newspapers, including ones like The Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, feeling the biggest impact in the form of drop in print circulation, even while making substantial profits just not the high margin of profits that’s desired by shareholders? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Very unfortunately, we lost one of our SC moderators, Tonto, recently who was South African. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It appears that the grounding has now been limited to non-mission critical aircraft: ”Air Force suspends some F-15 operations.” At the risk of thread-stealing … Not good timing in in consideration of recent proposals to abolish the Air Force in “The American Prospect”: “It's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.” & Dave Axe’s proposal to Disband the Air Force, which got a lot of attention when it was cross-posted on military.com, which actually brings forth some very provocative issues, e.g., Sec AF Wynne and his comments w/r/t China. “Aviation News” online responded last week. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Cool! I can think of a lot more toys (of non-carnal nature for those whose minds immediately go to the wantonly visceral ) that would be more interesting to bring along than my BASE rig. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hmmm .... how about the Rushmc & Kallend nightly radio commentary on politics, culture, and skydiving? You could even do a round table inviting other regulars to speak? I would definitely listen in!

How about the "War on Cancer"? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually I do think it's untrue ... but not in the way that might be intially suspected. No, Republicans do not value women only for superficial appearance. And furthermore, where's Secretary of State Rice in her long black coat and high-heeled black boots? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting discussion. The Investor’s Business Daily “Editorial” - their designation - is perhaps illustrative of the value of going to the primary data and is also supportive of Carl Bernstein’s comments referenced in another thread. The 55-page Shorenstein report on The Invisible Primary No Longer: A First Look at 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage is more nuanced than the IBD editorial suggests. Among the “major finding” of the report: “Different media segments covered the election in distinct manners: Newspapers were more positive about Democrats; talk radio was more negative overall and network TV tended to spotlight the personal aspects of the candidates.” Which illustrates what some might call ‘cherry-picking’ in the IBD editorial: E.g, from IBD “Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.” The IBD editorial did not mention that while Hillary Clinton “received the most [coverage] (17% of the stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume,” (p.2). “Clinton was the focus of nearly a third of all the campaign segments among the conservative talkers studies [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Michael Savage]. Clinton is not nearly as a popular subject among liberal radio talk show hosts,” (p. 10). The tone of coverage side bar (box) on the IBD editorial is interesting to try to reconcile with the graphic on page 12 of the report. Illustrates vividly how a single factor (i.e., overwhelming positive treatment in stories studied of Senator Obama) can skew the data when compressed: “Most of the difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47%) positive” (p.3). Note, however, “Democrat Barack Obama … enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year – followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running.” (p.1). The report does note that “Overall, Democrats also have more positive coverage than republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were [sic] neutral or balanced,” [emphasis mine] (p.12). The largest percentage – most stories – weren’t bias in any direction. Pages 11-13 of the report go into how tone was extremely candidate-dependent. Furthermore, the report notes that “the tone of coverage may also mirror the fact that Republican voters in polls express greater dissatisfaction with their candidate than do Democrats” (p. 14, w/reference to Pew poll, Sept07, “the survey found that 64% of the Democratic voters’ impression of Democratic candidates was excellent/good, while 49% of republican votes’ impression of Republican candidates was excellent/good.” So the overall tone of media coverage reflects - very roughly – the overall view of self-designated partisans about their candidates. I would be more concerned if the media was presenting a “tone” that did *not* take the opinion of the electorate into account; obviously that should not be the only factor in media presentation. Heck, I’d like to see more critical analysis and less ‘fluff.’ And that was another major finding of the report, which didn’t make it in the IBD editorial (that’s okay – that’s why it’s an editorial

And so it goes. Do you mean that something unstoppable is coming? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I heard it too. Good story. Here's a link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15854465&ft=1&f=1001 Thanks for the link. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Anyone else been following the recent statements by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and former Ambassador to the US, now-Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan about intelligence sharing and terrorist attacks? In an interview w/BBC, the king asserted that Saudi Arabia sent information to UK that was not acted upon and that he intimated could have help to prevent terrorist attacks in the UK (related BBC article). Bandar bin Sultan spoke on Al-Arabiya yesterday: [translation] “Saudi security was actively following the movements of the most of terrorists with precision … if US security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened.” Even if coordination between US intelligence community and international counterparts was less than steller -- (perhaps true)-- it's a long step to rationalize culpability for not preventing the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on the US Intelligence Community, e.g., CIA. The British assert that the alleged information was not useful. VR/Marg p.s. At least the Saudi's finally seem to be stepping up to address Iran's nuclear program: e.g., http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2787799.ece & http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307497,00.html/world/middle_east/article2787799.ece Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying