Sisyphus

Hehe. It's not often a politician will let his PC guard down and say something openly, unambiguously racist (religionist?). Idiot.

They weren't produced by the GOP, they were produced by "America's PAC," a low profile but highly influential group run by Richard Nadler. It was part of a whole series of them, and it's not a secret. http://www.nysun.com/article/41648?page_no=1 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=America's_PAC http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/21/little-known-group-spends-1-million-on-offensive-ads-to-lure-blacks-to-vote-republican/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rightwingwatch.org%2F2006%2F10%2Flittleknown_gro.html&frame=true

I came across this in Harper's Magazine. It's "a script for one of twenty-four radio advertisements targeting black voters aired during last fall's election campaigns, produced by America's PAC." DENNIS: The night's still young! Come on, let's head to the river and try out the slots! MICHAEL: Naw, I gotta get home. I promised Kathleen I'd help the kids with their homework. DENNIS: You know, the army really changed you. MICHAEL: War does that. It makes you value what you're fighting for... DENNIS: So I suppose you want me to vote Republican, like you and your soldier buddies. MICHAEL: Not at all. You've got no reason to. DENNIS: How's that? MICHAEL: Well, you don't work for a living. So what do you care about keeping taxes low? DENNIS: Hey, that's cold... MICHAEL: You cheat on your wife. So why would you want an amendment to protect marriage? DENNIS: Hey, a man's got to do what a man's got to do... MICHAEL: And I know you're not going to enlist to defend your country... DENNIS: Not everyone's as slow as you are, bro'... MICHAEL: And if you make a little mistake with one of your ho's [sic], you'll want to dispose of the problem toot sweet [sic], no questions asked, right? DENNIS: Naw, that's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed... MICHAEL: Huh? Really? (pause) Well, maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican! The height of discourse!

Yeah, we had a war a long time ago so we wouldn't have to put up with all those extra u's and e's you guys like to put everywhere.

I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. The sheeple, presumably, are politicians?

Trying to stir up bad publicity for Walmart by making them look like hypocrites and religious nutjobs isn't the same as trying to get some kind of law passed.

Yeah, I should think the "something to fall back on" would be half the ex-husband's money. Think of it this way. If the love is genuine, and she means more to him than a pretty car, then your worrying is for nought. If it is not, then he'll be sorely punished by losing half his fortune, and your sister can live comfortably for the rest of her life. If she's already committed to not having a career, the fact that she's living off someone else's money shouldn't bother her. Instead of being a financial burden on someone who loves her, she'd be a financial burden on one who dumped her for a newer model. All that leaves is, of course, the inevitable pain of divorce. But that is hardly unique to the wealthy...

I don't think it's necessarily even about appealing to the red states. Maybe in some cases, but think its just sometimes the "freedom of speach" angle (which I'm not convinced they all really understand, except maybe as a catchphrase) gets swept aside by the "save the children" angle, which is much more visceral for them in their "soccer mom" roots. This definitely represents one of the major fissures in American liberalism, and is a good indication of which kind of liberal you're talking to.

It's not that I think there was NO plan. That was an exaggeration, of course. Obviously people were concerned about it. I just think the plan was vague, unrealistic, and of low priority, when it should have been 90% of the focus before the war. So how could that happen? I think the neocon idealists in the administration got carried away with their own pet theories and view of the world, and foolishly dismissed everyone who had what were actually intelligent and legitimate concerns as "silly liberals" and the like. In their view, the world is divided into good and evil, and democracy is good (and everyone wants it), and Saddam was evil. Hence, the Iraqis would be overwhelmingly grateful for the toppling of Saddam, and would promptly set up a functioning democracy more or less on their own, with perhaps some advice from the United States. People like Ahmed Chalabi, with a strong interest in an invasion, told the administration exactly what it wanted to hear, what it already believed. This included, of course, stuff about WMDs, which more reliable sources claimed did not exist. But for such blind idealogues, what counts as "reliable" gets greatly distorted. And so we were told some fibs in order to convince the skeptical among us, because they just knew they would find them. And so, when the war actually came, we destroyed their military, and that's it. We didn't move step by step, securing each area, guarding the abandoned armories, factories, and civic centers. We didn't patrol or bring law and order to regions in the wake of our advance, because the idea of such chaos was inconceivable to the administration, because it conflicted with their dogmatic idealogy. And so we allowed much, easily preventable chaos. The other issue, as I thought I already explained, was related: Rummy's military strategy. For those who don't know, he was all about streamlining large military forces into smaller, high tech, highly trained strike forces that could go anywhere, do the job, and get out before anyone could respond. And this is very effective at killing people, it's true. But, like the initial lack of realistic planning, it assumes a friendly and cooperative populace. All we have to do is find the terrorists and kill them, and then we can safely leave the area! Never mind that the population might be sympathetic of the insurgents and resentful of the Americans bringing violence but failing to bring safety. Never mind the retributions that would come to those who cooperated as soon as the Americans left. The Americans live on their impenetrable military bases, while actual Iraqis live, basically, in anarchy. This is the essence of despotism. Killing enemies brutally, but ignoring everyone else. But how preventable was all this, you ask? Surely there would still be an insurgency! Yes, probably. But consider. The arms looted in those first few days of chaos still amount for more than the total firepower of IUDs exploded since the conflict began. More importantly, what of the public perception? Could we have even said more effectively that we don't care what happens to them, we just want Saddam's head? Remember, leftover Saddam loyalists account for a negligible portion of the violence in Iraq today - that's why it didn't diminish when he was captured. Most of it is former civilians taking up arms against a perceived oppressor, or foreign terrorists taking advantage of the continuing nationwide anarchy in all regions, or, most damning of all, the militias which formed to protect particular ethnic groups (since the Iraqi government couldn't, and the Americans wouldn't), operating just like American mafia families of an earlier era, thuggishly claiming territory and waging war on one another. Our lack of stable presence in any area is what allowed these groups to arise, and that lack of presence is part of our stated strategy!

Non-assimilable is a strong word. Perhaps they themselves won't assimilate, but what about their grandchildren? Also, static extrapolation from current demographic trends is probably misleading. It will always tell you that whatever the current immigration wave is will become the majority in a couple generations or so.

Technical words shouldn't count, since they can just be indefinitely large. The longest non-technical, non-proper noun, non-joke (a word created specifically to be long) word in the English language is flocci­nauci­nihili­pili­fication. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_word

I would avoid the Paris Hilton. I keep hearing about how trashy and annoying it is.

I'm an American, but I'm curious about European perspectives on this. Should Turkey be admitted to the European Union? Personally, I think it's probably a bad idea. Half of turkey wants to be a modern, secular state, but the other half are basically Islamicists. Not a good ratio, and quite unstable. In America, "Evangelicals" (our closest equivalent to Islamicists) account for only about 20% of Americans, and they cause all kinds of trouble, as they are uncompromising and highly motivated. I don't think I need to make the argument that similar adjectives apply to a large percentage of Islamicists... Second, as I understand it, the major current standoff is about Cyprus. Both sides want the other to concede their demands before talks continue. Who is actually in the wrong is not even the point. How can Turkey simultaneously make overtures to try to join an organization of unprecedented international cooperation while simultaneously trying to hold one of its members hostage as a bargaining chip? There are other issues as well, like the Turkish government's treatment of the Kurdish population, or just the huge number of UN censures against them. Basically, it just doesn't seem like they've demonstrated any commitment to cooperation or to the secular liberal ideas of other European states. I foresee nothing but trouble.

I suppose, if one recognized that the occupation, not the war itself, would be by far the greater difficulty, the invasion itself could have focused less on wiping out the existent power structure as quickly as possible in a mad rush across the desert (with total lack of law and order in its wake), but instead a more careful, immediate occupation, where important areas and sites would only be captured if they actually be guarded in a reasonable way. In other words, treat it as an actual regime change, instead of merely a "regime destruction, then we decide what to with them later."

I told you what it meant. They defeated the Iraqi military easily and splendidly, and then sat there and said "now what." As far as I can tell, they assumed everything would just kind of take care of itself, because that's what they were being told by the only people they would listen to, the people telling them what they wanted to hear. Basically, they threw the country into anarchy, and THEN looked around and tried to decide what to do about it. But by that time, armories were empty and their contents in the hands of terrorists, infrastructure was blown up, and everybody was pissed at the Americans. We got some damn inspiring photo ops out of it, though.

Yeah, at which point the entire Middle East, and probably other countries as well, declare war on us. And the crazy suicidal Jihadists bring it on themselves gleefully, as vindication of everything they've been saying. Oh, bull. If I was going to invade Iraq I would at least plan for the occupation ahead of time. Coalition forces concentrated entirely on destroying the Iraqi army, I guess under the assumption that they'd be embraced with open arms, and everything would somehow work out. If it had occured to anyone (or if those in charge had actually listened to anyone who it had occured to) that there would be looting, lingering resistance, terrorism, and "inter-sectarian violence" (as we like to call it), then we would have planned well ahead of time to seize armories, power plants, cultural institutions, etc. as soon as possible. But no. Instead, the administration was determined only to listen to the silly black and white story told by the likes of Chalabi, wherein every Iraqi just wants to be free of Saddam, and would immediately hold hands and dance around together as soon as he was gone. And so the occupation plan seemed to consist mostly of staging photographs of toppling statues and the like. Further, Rummy's obsession with minimal but highly trained and vastly technologically superior forces is great for killilng people, but downright horrible at preventing people (that is, civilians) from getting killed. The mentality is one of the puppet-master, drunk with power, sending "strike teams" on isolated missions, and not noticing the aftermath when they're gone. Insurgents are not completely safe anywhere, but they're also not prevented from going anywhere. It is, in fact, remarkably similar to Vietnam. Instead, what they should have done, if not at first then at least at ANY point over the years we've been there, change to a strategy of hold and expand. Get enough troops into Baghdad, say, to actually control it, and KEEP them there. As is, the road to the Baghdad airport, what ought to be the most heavily protected road in the country, is STILL regularly attacked.

No, I don't think even Saddam could bring order to Iraq at this point. Various other forces, be they sectarian militias, or Al Qaeda, or the new democratic factions, have gained too much of a foothold, and couldn't be put down by the kind of methods Saddam Hussein used. Also, that would completely obliterate whatever (admittedly small) credibility we have left. Also, are you INSANE?

I would think it would depend on what field you're trying to get into, and what your undergraduate study was (even though it wasn't science). It's my understanding that different fields have greatly different levels of specific undergraduate requirements. I'm actually in kind of a similar predicament. Come the spring, I will have a double major in philosophy and the history of mathematics, with minors in physics and French. In other words, I'll be just slightly underqualified for a huge range of careers and educational choices. I'm really curious what people think about this.

Maybe even the road to Baghdad International Airport!

What kind of demonstrable accuracy could you possibly have in mind?

I think it's probably safe to assume they have much more advanced means of temperature control and of air delivery than a system of open air ducts. For one thing, they can apparently set up airtight seals with force fields in any part of the ship, and the people inside don't suffocate.

But does it have fencing? I haven't tried a wii, but from what I hear, the technology seems like it could support a realistic fencing sim, automatically making it much cooler than 360 or PS3.

This highlights my point. I'm from the northeast. Lived there all my life. Never heard anything like a "transportation specialist." Why? Because they're bus drivers. This just illuminates the fact that the more ridiculous aspects of PC don't really exist, they're just perceived as existing. "Sure, we don't say that, but those other people do." No, we don't. One of my best friends is from the rural midwest, and I'm continually amazed about what she thinks the northeast is like. What the hell do they TELL you people out there? BTW, what's wrong with "flight attendant?" Isn't that a more accurate and specific job description than "steward/stewardess?"

That's a fair point. Or it would be, if it were only those people making such predictions, and if the predictions were only as vague as "another Vietnam." But neither is true. Also, you can always find people who predict pretty much any conceivable scenario, and after the fact somebody was bound to have been right. True enough. But it doesn't follow that they just "got lucky." The argument you're making is that nobody can ever predict anything. And if THAT is true, then what the hell is the basis for ANY decision? Hide what? What has been found? Decade-old garbage? No, there were no WMDs, which is what the inspectors and the experts were saying, just not the "experts" who desperately wanted the U.S. to have a reason to invade. We were told Iraq was clandestinely buying uranium from Nigeria, which was the primary damning evidence that they were pursuing a nuclear program, and, frankly, the thing which convinced me. Thing is, at the time we were told that, the administration already knew it wasn't true. So yeah, that pissed me off. We were told everything was certain. Colin Powell holding up a bottle of "anthrax" in the United Nations. Etc., etc. No, war is horrible. Duh. But Bush seemed to think it would be a food fight, and only very recently has started admitting that it isn't, really. For three years it was, "we're almost done!" I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yeah, American casualities have been far less than other wars. So? It's not that. It's that things are getting worse instead of better. Why don't we have a choice? If Americans can't stop an insurgency, then why are we still there?

There's got to be something missing from that question...