nerdgirl

Wasn't that originally said against Winston Churchill (on The Dardanelles Campaign)?.. But would equally apply to him for Norway in 1940 and Arnhem in 1944. It may have been. It's p. 94 in the JLG book I cited. The longer passage on pages 116-118 (which unfortunately are not available through Google books) resonates more strongly with me. On the value of hope (references Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, & FDR); responsibility: "Our ability as a democracy to question all values depends on our faith in and our determination to defend certain values" (he doesn't specify them); the sin of pride: "you can't sustain hegemony without consent" (tempering American exceptionalism ... ealier in the book he cites Fareed Zakaria as well); and strategic communications, although Gaddis doesn't use that term. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Didn't know that. Think that pretty cool.

And when they do they eat at MacDonalds or Pizza Hut, ... ... maybe I'm one of 'those' types ... I've been to MacDonald's on multiple continents: not for the food but for the higher probablility of finding a free, western-style toilet/WC. One of the best views of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramind is from the 2nd floor of the Giza Pizza Hut. [Edit to add: link to a better picture.] /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Oooh ... just relishing the Gaddis quote. In Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, Gaddis does a lot of commenting (as well as hedging on the achknowledgement of need for time to pass) on President GW Bush's approach to spreading democracy and conbating terrorism: "The grandness of a strategy, however, by no means ensures its success." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

(aka meta-, normative, and applied ethics of participatory democracy …) Quoting from a post in another thread that I think brings up some ideas that legitimately deserve thinking about: Yes they do. legally yes morally no. the choice of voting for president is very important, almost the most important choice you could ever make, therefore voting without knowledge of the situation would be disservice to you and the country. There are genuine meta-ethical questions, i.e., one that can be asked without specific normative judgement/conclusions: What are the ethics underlying voting? There are also normative ethical questions, i.e., one that does judge some options better or worse: What are the moral or ethical obligations to participate in voting? And why are ethics/morals of voting important? An applied ethics: How should they be enforced? By whom? Okay, so let’s play this out for a bit as a hypothetical. Start with the range: What should be the requirements to vote in US in your opinion? If you were re-crafting the US Constitution, what would you propose as requirements to vote and *why*? Originally it was white, (effectively Christian), male land-owners. If you are XX, pigmentally-challenged and _rent_, you would not be eligible. Some like to invoke Heinlein’s purported assertion of only those who have served in the military. How about an education requirement? Why is that not a good idea? Or something as basic as the same test required of applicants for US citizenship? Or a PhD requirement? (Tempted to suggest a publication requirement … but that’s most gratuitous … as I signed a contract for my first book today. [happy-nerdgirl-dance] Someone thinks there’s an audience beyond dz.com for my pontificating on science, technology, and security. ) What’s wrong with having a community service requirement attached to voting? How about having show proof that you paid your taxes for the previous year? Or the last 5 years for which you owed taxes? How about limiting voting to black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian (Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia) women over 75 years old? A la the pragmatic wisdom and experience of The Matrix’s "The Oracle". VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What's your point? Travel that occured before you were 10 years old hardly makes you "travelled", and I know as an "adult" McCain was much more Travelled. I concur with the value of foreign travel. And I would concur that things that happened when one is a minor have different value than choices made as an adult. Again, you may want to reconsider your assertion as Sen Obama’s foreign travel is far from limited to Indonesia when he was 7-10 and Iraq “a year ago”? Sen Obama’s official overseas trips include, but are not limited to: 2005 Russia Ukraine Azerbaijan Armenia Turkey United Kingdom (including meetings with then-PM Tony Blair) 2006 Qatar Kuwait Iraq Jordan Israel (including/additionally the Palestinian Territories) South Africa Democratic Republic of the Congo Kenya Djibouti Chad 2008 (partial list) France Germany Israel Iraq Afghanistan Jordan United Kingdom While some dismiss it as ‘book-learning,’ his undergraduate degree is in Political Science with specialization in International Relations (Columbia doesn’t have a distinct, separate IR dept; very few universities do) and might also be considered to have some value w/r/t international affairs. Heck, I can debate the value or _lack thereof_ of being able to speak “rational actor theory” vis a vis offense-defense balance and the arguments of Ken Waltz versus Peter Katzenstein for real-world policy … nonetheless some folks with operational experience do find value. Alternatively, you could take the perspective that folks over at Free Republic did when they criticized him for his frequent travels. They thought he took too many foreign trips. Admittedly they are more critical of Sen Clinton. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What's your point? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sen Obama's first trip to Iraq was 7-8 January 2006. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps for those who are members of the "Church of PowerPoint"? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Iran Iraq Good one. For kittens - "Chaos" and "Anarchy"? ... dimunitized to "Kay" and "Annie"? For parents one might consider litarary sisters from a favorite book, mythology, or movie? In high school, I had two cats called "Odysseus" and "Penelope" aka "Odie" & "Penny". Or Mesopotamian Goddess names: Tiamat (Goddess of Chaos) and Innana (Goddess of love and war)? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's a strong possibility. Sen Obama's lead defense policy advisor, former SecNav Richard Danzig has indicated as much. Danzig is another possible choice ... first suggested one year ago. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm a big fan of former Rep Edwards (R-OK). He smart, pragmatic, bi-partisan, and highly critical of anti-intellectualism in some (not all) parts of the Republican party of the late 20th/early 21st Century. To paraphrase Rep Edwards, being thoughtful, reflective, and educated should not be characterized as a 'bad' thing. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Whether I agree with all the proposed actions or not, I expect he will pursue the specific actions outline in his plan. Also expect that he will articulate a nuclear policy as part of a Nuclear Posture Review. Expect that he will direct the SecDef and JCS to put forth recomendations to end the Iraq War. How and under what timeline TBD in consultation with SecDef and JCS. If a SOFA is not in place by 31Dec08, there may be fewer options. Missed ya!

No. The NPT was signed to limit proliferation of nuclear weapons. Please go look at the NPT text (it’s short). The treaty has 3 ‘pillars’: prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament of current nuclear weapons stockpiles, and furthering peaceful use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes. It’s the last one that relates to the US-India deal. I think that might be the source of the confusion. Disarmament (Article VI) and the expansion of peaceful nuclear energy used (Article IV) are less commonly mentioned in most reports that mention the NPT. Article IV: “1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty. “2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.” The conundrum of the NPT and the US-India nuclear agreement isn't India … it’s the US maintaining our commitments. As a nuclear weapon state (NWS), we agreed to not transfer to non-state parties (e.g., India) Under the NPT anything less than manufacture of a nuclear weapon is allowable for a non-nuclear weapons state (NNWS) party. When the NPT was negotiated, the line for prohibited use of what was to be considered peaceful (allowable) nuclear behavior was anything up to manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Everything up to that was considered allowable by the treaty. There were debates at the time of negotiation (late 1960s) on where to metaphorical draw the line. That the line was drawn so far to the right (toward having a bomb) is largely an artifact of the NNWS that wanted and were technically able to pursue peaceful nuclear energy at the time, e.g., West Germany and Sweden. India has already proliferated – “Smiling Buddha” test of 1974. The IAEA deal, as part of the US-India nuclear agreement, allows inspection of civilian nuclear energy facilities; military nuclear weapons facilities are exempt. I largely concur. But for a different reason (which relates back to Iran) than you seem to be suggesting. Nonetheless, if you have issue with the deal, perhaps you should take it with those who proposed and pushed through the agreement. No, the US-India deal doesn’t. It adds to ambiguity w/r/t enforcement of international law (i.e., this is my non-concur w/the agreement). It gives Iran and Russia an example to which to point in arguing why Iran, an NPT party, should be allowed to pursue what they assert is a peaceful civilian nuclear energy. (Not that I believe them … but that’s what they assert.) When the legislation to repeal the AEA was first introduced, Sen Obama co-sponsored amendments that would have required India to certify/verify it had stopped producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, among other things. This would be a “poison pill” or “killer” amendment. That amendment was voted down by the Senate. Remember the motivations: mangos and limiting Iran. That description of CTR is akin to limiting skydiving to dirt diving on creepers. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sponsor? O Co-sponsor? Hillary Introduced? Dec 2007. Discussed during the campaign... nope. Mentioned on the website... nope. The "Global Poverty Act of 2007,” was originally written in the House. I'm not sure where the assertions you make originate. I can ‘guestimate’ from where the “$845B” figure was generated … it’s a red herring (at a most generous characterization). Please go look at the actual text of the bipartisan bill. There are sections on “Policy,” “Strategy,” “Definitions,” “Findings” & “Required Reports.” There’s nothing on funds. It is not an appropriations bill. In order to appropriate money, an appropriations bill is needed. I don’t know how to write it diplomatically and not be explicitly clear. What you siggested can be called “spin,” intentionally misleading, creative interpretation; in the end, it's just incorrect. There are 30 bi-partisan co-sponsors to the Senate version and 84 to the House version. At best, it's an effort to direct State Dept to coordinate (across the interagency) & strategize how to leverage it current programs that may relate (or be 'rationalizable' as relating) to poverty reduction. One could characterize it, at worse, as an unfunded mandate (altho' the only real deliverable is a report to Congress). Summary of the bill: “Global Poverty Act of 2007 - Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” The bill’s language direct the US to develop a strategy to support “Continued investment in existing United States initiatives [emphasis - nerdgirl] related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act” and to submit a report to Congress NLT 1 year after Act becomes law on the strategy and the effectiveness of the programs listed above toward reducing poverty. There does not appear to be a Presidential Budget Request (PBR) or a Congressional Addition (i.e., an “earmark”) appropriation connected to it. The FY09 PBR has already submitted to Congress; some agencies have approved budgets. Some will be on continueing resolutions (CRs). Additionally, the full text of the bill also cites: “The [White House’s –nerdgirl] 2002National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of United States international policy.'.” & “The [White House’s –nerdgirl] 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.” & “The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States [aka ‘the 9-11 Commission report’ – nerdgirl] recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.” This is also thematically reflected in vision (if not the actual mission) of DoD’s AFRICOM. This bipartisan House & Senate legislation appears to be fully in line with the highest level documents reflecting President Bush’s goals and strategies, as well as being in line with his Millenium Challenge Corporation. From the official White House release: “President Bush called for ‘a new compact for global development, defined by new accountability for both rich and poor nations alike. Greater contributions from developed nations must be linked to greater responsibility from developing nations.’ The President pledged that the United States would lead by example and increase its core development assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual increase of $5 billion by FY 2006.” It was a potential win-win for President Bush w/r/t establishing a legacy & for Congress for supporting his anti-poverty goals. Now the next administration may chose to incorporate such in a furture budget request, but it's not there now. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Read the thread on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty carefully. The Obama is for the control of nuclear material. The Dem party sponsored and had several Dem co-sponsors for a bill to give nuclear material to India. I'm going to respond under the assumption that you've only recently heard about the India-US civilian nuclear agreement. The India-US nuclear deal is a product of the Deptment of State initative in line with changing foreign policy objectives of current President's Initiative. The deal is considered to be part of President Bush's foreign policy legacy. In July 2005, President Bush announced the proposed agreement. The announcement followed just six weeks of very quiet negotiations with India during which Congress was not consulted. The prcess of the agreements -- cuz there are multiple parts -- has been occuring over the last 3 years. The State Department acts as agent for the US; if you have issue with the deal that should be your primary target. The US-Indian civil nuclear cooperation agreement represents a transformation in American nuclear nonproliferation policy. This transformation is a result of a new US strategic vision from the Executive's office chosen to reflect a rapidly changing global security environment. It's also tied to oil, mangos, and new allies ('friends' in India parlance) in geopolitically important areas of the world. The key concern over the deal is to balance nonproliferation goals with other foreign policy objectives. There's also an American business and agricultural export interests piece to it: "atoms for mangos." I'm not being facetious about the mangos. Congress had to pass legislation to change the 1954 Atomic Energy Act to exempt India from US laws that prohibit providing nuclear technology to countries that have not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The deal also required approval from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group and the IAEA. A non-state party (India) testing nuclear weapons is not a violation of a treaty. They can't violate a treaty to which they are not a party. (This is one reason why Isreal has not signed the NPT, the BWC, or the CWC; they're not in violation.) Not everyone in the administration or Congress was amenable to the deal; internal tensions within the State Department led to bureau reorganization in 2005, which accelerated the pace of policy implementation considerably. Basically, all those who objected were 're-org'd'. The agreement also ties back to Iran, and the US wanting India to align with us over Iran. The US wants leverage against a major Iran-India natural gas pipeline. The US is imposed to the pipeline because it is thought to undermine sanctions against Iran. India needs more energy. The US deal is to facilitate energy through a means that doesn't support iran. In late 2004 or early 2005, foreign policy experts within the Bush administration expressed concerns over India’s relations with Iran. If you want to know more about Sen Obama's view and accomplishments w/r/t nuclear issues, I would point you to the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation (via Sen Lugar's (R-IN) website or Sen Obama's website), which was signed into law by President Bush in January 2008. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Both speeches were well-crafted, well-delivered, gracious, and im-ever-ho, honestly spoken and truly intentioned. Both candidates made me proud to be an American last night. Well what did you expect from McCain? A 'fuck that nigger for winning" speech? Of course he said what he said, the entire nation was watching. Of course not. There is a spectrum of possible responses that both could have taken rather than the binary choice you suggest. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, read the first 2 or 3 in the Left Behind series. What indicators do you see to suggest the now is "that time"? I found most revealing & insightful the portrayal of the Jewish scientist. 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 additional information. I don't watch a lot of tv, so didn't see that. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A few folks are already ahead of you: fried chicken near White House. One is just down Pennsylvania Ave toward Congress. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

While others may offer different interpretations and opinions, I was saddened to see Rep Chris Shays (R-CT) lose his re-election bid. He represents a moderate, collegial/non-ideologically adversarial Republican who is willing to work in a bipartisan manner and is a smart legislator. I mean no disrespect for his opponent, Mr. Himes, knowing little other than that he ran as a Democrat and made his fortune as a Goldman-Sachs trader. Imo, this is an example of negative trend furthering the 2006 loss of Sen Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in dearth of moderate Republicans. One could make a similar argument w/r/t loss of Sen Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Was glad to see Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY) keep his seat. While he’s been a proverbial pain in the ass for the chemical demil program, he’s got authority and seniority to keep the pressure on the Army and OSD to complete (once they get it started) demil of Blue Grass Depot chemical weapons (CW) stockpile. Eliminating the remaining stockpile of offensive CW around the planet is one of my issues. Rep Heather Wilson would have been a good moderate Republican candidate for Senator to replace Sen Pete Domenici (‘St Pete’ to LANL & SNL), imo, but she lost to far right wing Republican in the primary. Sen-elect Tom Udall looks to be a moderate, mountain state Democrat. The midterm of election of 2006 saw a number moderate ‘blue dog’ democrats. Most disappointing and still not-called is the likely win of incumbent Sen Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) over Jim Martin (D). While not surprised at the outcome, I was also watching the Enzi-Rothfuss race in Wyoming – Chris is a PhD chemical engineer with good real-world experience to address issues of energy dependence and a friend.

Sorry to pee on your parade, but the country's economic woes are due largely to the lowering of lending standards in the mortgage industry during the 90's. The (democrat led) congress forced legislation that allowed people to buy homes they couldn't afford with no down payment, and not even an income verification process, and then banks that bucked the laws were politically beaten down by the likes of organizations like ACORN. In fact, Bush asked congress three seperate times to review and tighten lending standards to a reasonable level to reverse what economists called a looming disaster. Just the facts. That's a popular version of 'facts' that doesn't necessarily reconcile with other observations of 'facts' on causal factors, underlying structural changesof banking, credit, and financial institutions; shifting of risk; spending (including, yes, the GWOT): (1) Joe Stiglitz (Nobel Prize Winner in Economics) “There is ample blame to be shared; but the purpose of parsing out blame is to figure out how to make a recurrence less likely. “President Bush famously said, a little while ago, that the problem is simple: Too many houses were built. Yes, but the answer is too simplistic: Why did that happen? “One can say the Fed failed twice, both as a regulator and in the conduct of monetary policy. Its flood of liquidity (money made available to borrow at low interest rates) and lax regulations led to a housing bubble. When the bubble broke, the excessively leveraged loans made on the basis of overvalued assets went sour. “For all the new-fangled financial instruments, this was just another one of those financial crises based on excess leverage, or borrowing, and a pyramid scheme. The new ‘innovations’ simply hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent; it is these innovations that have made this collapse so much more dramatic than earlier financial crises. But one needs to push further: Why did the Fed fail? “First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron. “Second, the macro-economy was in bad shape with the collapse of the tech bubble. The tax cut of 2001 was not designed to stimulate the economy but to give a largesse to the wealthy -- the group that had been doing so well over the last quarter-century. “The coup d’grace was the Iraq War, which contributed to soaring oil prices. Money that used to be spent on American goods now got diverted abroad. The Fed took seriously its responsibility to keep the economy going. It did this by replacing the tech bubble with a new bubble, a housing bubble. Household savings plummeted to zero, to the lowest level since the Great Depression. It managed to sustain the economy, but the way it did it was shortsighted: America was living on borrowed money and borrowed time. “Finally, at the center of blame must be the financial institutions themselves. They -- and even more their executives -- had incentives that were not well aligned with the needs of our economy and our society. They were amply rewarded, presumably for managing risk and allocating capital, which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the economy so much that it justified their generous compensation. But they misallocated capital; they mismanaged risk -- they created risk. They did what their incentive structures were designed to do: focusing on short-term profits and encouraging excessive risk-taking.” (2) Alan Greenspan on new economic schemes and regulating risk & the reality that regulation will never keep up with innovation and new methods of hiding and manipulation in financial schemes: “risk models and econometric models – as complex as they have become, are still too simple to capture the full array of governing variables that drive global economic reality.” Add globalization and interconnected/interdependent international markets into the mix and the situations becomes even more complicated. (3) Recognition of the correlation between defaulting on home mortgages and inflated housing values, e.g., as this Kansas City, MO, column discusses “Where did the mortgage mess come from?”[/url] (More detailed discussion here) Foreclosures rates in urban and rural areas of Mississippi (lowest per capita State income), *where the housing prices are reasonable,* has been on par with historical averages. Where housing prices have skyrocketed, e.g., California, which leads w/8 of the highest foreclosure communities, the foreclosures rates are the highest. If a lower-income" mortgage is $150,000, it takes 3 of those loans defaulting to equal one $450,000 mortgage default or 6 of those loans defaulting to equal one $900,000 McMansion default (altho’ parts of California, $900k is a 1500ft^2 single-family home). Historically, some very small percentage of home loans have defaulted and led to foreclosures (~1.5%, iirc), when the average default was some relatively smaller value, the impact could be adsorbed by the larger economic system; as mortgage defaults grew larger both in absolute number and average value, it’s a larger pressure on the system. What would be very interesting, imo, is to compare and contrast across countries (both those in turmoil and more stable) banking systems, regulations (both existence and enforcement), inflation of property values, saving rates, ease of extension of private credit, and connectedness on the global market. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This part bothers me. When I see people waiting hours in line, or facing the prospect of not being able to vote before the polls are supposed to close, I want to know how this happened. Counties may be strapped for cash, but there should be adequete capacity to allow people to vote. I wouldn't wait 4 hours, or even 1 hour, and that seems like a very effective disenfranchising technique. Concur that as a single data point it is something that may be worth investigating and exploring w/r/t exactly the implicit disenfrachisement that you suggest. More questions than answers: is this a largely urban phenomenon or rural as well? Is it Georgia specific? E.g., as a counter-example, when I voted in south central Los Angeles in the 1990s, I didn't have similar waits. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

p.s. I loved all the American flags flying at Grant Park too! Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Both speeches were well-crafted, well-delivered, gracious, and im-ever-ho, honestly spoken and truly intentioned. Both candidates made me proud to be an American last night. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying