ParanoiA

If Bush had stayed home with his head buried in his hands, giving speeches and busying himself about the globe concerning himself with this crisis he would then be beaten up for always being ready for matters of war and hegemony, but no time at all for our fine athletes that have put aside their political and cultural differences in an event that gathers the entire world and their leaders. Bush doesn't get, nor give himself, many opportunities to remind people that he's a pretty jovial guy and america could sure use some positive exposure that shows our leader in a more positive, relaxed role - as opposed to a pent up, war fever that he seems to emanate.

Really? I didn't get the impression they were succombing to international pressure. I figured they did exactly what they wanted to do - stop the invasion, push them back and punish Georgia. Interesting though, nonetheless. I noticed they didn't talk about it during the olympics, or at least during the performances. I was really hoping I didn't have to listen to them go on about it while watching the Russian athletes and so forth, so that was nice.

Yes and no. We tip the strippers more than tall dudes, but we don't tip over as much as the tall dudes.

I guess this is anecdotal, but I actually went through that phase for a few months when I started middle school. Believe it or not, being the shortest kid in school, I was actually a bully for a short period - backed up by big friends of course. Bullies always seem to be sure they outgun their opponent unfairly, and I was no different. After all, I couldn't have gotten away with it otherwise. Which is exactly what happened. I got humiliated by a kid that refused to take my bullying - he struck me a couple of times in front of everyone and then paused to see what I would do - I left in disgrace. I never bullied another person the rest of my life. And, now I'm ashamed that I ever did it. But yeah, obviously I was overcompensating for my size - trying to be masculine and significant using the wrong tools and the wrong approach. I changed directions and went to humor and attempted intellect to achieve these things and it's worked out so much better.

A friend of mine left this in my chair when I came to work this morning, and I thought I'd share it, see what you guys think. He left a note saying he doesn't believe this was actually written by the Chairman, but rather Porter Stansberry - to make a point. I don't know much about GM or how they've conducted business over the years. Maybe some companies are better at prolonging this, keeping their head above water, and maybe GM squandered their money but the exponential increase in retirees and health care costs are legitimate enough to suggest inevitable destruction, I would think, for any business. What do you all think?

I'm about 5'6" and I almost never notice. I've never really "felt" short. Of course, I will crack "short" jokes on myself to break the ice if the subject comes up so people will know not to worry about offending me. And I certainly don't feel the need to overcompensate for anything. And actually, I wonder how much of this is really just specious reasoning. I mean, like most males, I'm not going to take unnecessary shit from anybody. I don't feel the need to back down in a confrontation just because the other guy might tower over me. So, I wonder if people then say "Yep, short man syndrome. He's overcompensating" - when really, I'm just doing what most of the rest of you "normal" heighted males would do. I don't really know what is meant by the statement "learned to talk to taller people in a way..." - that tells me it's an issue for you. Why do you feel you need to self consciously "direct" yourself around tall people? Any people? The only two drawbacks I've found in being short, so far, is that statistically we don't live as long, and women (including shorties) seem to be drawn to taller guys. (As a matter of fact, it seems inversely proportional to their height - the shorter they are, the taller and bigger the guy they're usually with). Interesting study though, and I'm really not surprised, although I think Tom Cruise is an exception - he's overcompensating with his tendency toward tough guy roles.

I certainly do not have more insight. And, I was a bit confused as to who is being accused of the ethnic cleansing. My take was that Georgia was being accused of doing it. Which makes our alliance with them problematic. Incidentally, if that is the case, this is a perfect example of what I've spouted in the past about alliance based on present merit, rather than prenegotiated obligations - we should not play with them. Of course, I don't know much about our agreements with them either. Also, Russia is justifying their involvement as protecting their citizens in South Ossetia. Is that really all there is to it? And how are they considered russian citizens if South Ossetia is independent from Russia?

Yeah, I actually used Athens as my rebuttal. Well, to be clear, I'm dissappointed that Athenian direct democracy failed, not the "random draft" bit. Although, I don't know too much about it, I was "taught" that the direct democratic style was the inherent problem. I also remember reading though that it was very successful for their short run, which led to the coveting by enemies. And yet another parallel to add to the list of our resemblances....

Hmm, so did the movie do this book justice? I loved the whole political "sublayer" and how the media was portrayed - it looked just like how cable news might evolve, with all the spin and silliness. But, sadly, I had no idea at the time that Starship Troopers was based on a good book by a good author. I had thought it was just a cheap sci-fi movie to exploit CGI. Now, I wished I would have read the book first. Anyway, to the OP. That joke came from a suggestion by a very liberal friend of mine that sits in the cube next to mine. At the time I sure enjoyed the contemplation. It was brought up in the context of corruption though, and his idea did not use an intelligence qualifier, but rather everybody would be required to be in the selection pool. That's where my initial criticism started from - potentially stupid people holding office. And there's no way around that either without introducing a subjective measuring stick. You couldn't use an IQ test, because then it could be disputed as a tool for corruption to manipulate the test to produce only certain ideologies or culture preferences. But more importantly than all of that, even if you could somehow objectively only pick the super smart people - most political policy isn't really about what's "smart" but rather what's "preferred". Capitalism isn't "wrong". Liberalism isn't "better". Conservatism isn't "smarter". They are just preferences. There are benefits and consequences to the left and to the right - it's all about selecting which set of benefits and consequences are preferred. So, it would appear to me that high intelligence is not incredibly useful, by itself. More like a tool to be used in predicting future events, consequences and benefits associated with various proposed solutions and policies - but not for final decisions on preferred policy.

Your rhetoric matches theirs and fits perfectly with the partisan climate today - no one can say anything real to each other without these petulant rebuttals of political exageration. And it's beneath you. I've seen you formulate actual opinons and ideas sifting through several layers of thought and analysis, so you're more than capable. So, for you to even imply 9/11 Terroists = Saudi Arabians = Saudi Arabia is a terror state, as some kind of rebuttal is single level thought processing that I'd expect from my teenager, not a self proclaimed literary junkie. And your view is discredited by its own lack of sense; it doesn't actually need me to point it out or change it in any way. You know exactly what your'e doing here, and if any conservative-ish member here was using that kind of logical fallacy on your precious Obama you'd be arguing from the same view as I. The difference is, I'll argue it for Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, your mother, anybody - not just my candidate.

Batman wouldn't work out either. People already bitch about how much time Bush spends at his ranch in Texas. Batman stays holed up in the Bat Cave way more than that. Of course, he'd probably have already nabbed OBL all on his own.

Oh I know. I wouldn't be so upset about a president that's ideologically different from me when I know he's thoughtful and intelligent. At least I can rest assured that it's thought out, and maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong.

You've got a lot of nerve referring to faux news points when you're spitting out petulent Moveon.org tripe about Saudi Arabian terrorists = Saudi Arabia terror state. Give me a break. If you're that easy to manipulate, then you're just another sheep. Like I said, I guess New York can be added to the list of terror states since that's where Timothy McVeigh came from. Baaaa...Baaaa

Maybe we should try a draft of super smart people. Kinda like jury duty, but only nerds can be selected.

I voted for Paris and I don't recognize the age issue. Nobody else is following the constitution these days, so why start now? At least she's hot, and she'll paint the white house pink - The Pink House. That's more of a friendly, love kinda color - got to be great for diplomacy.

And Timothy McVeigh was from New York. Obviously New York is a terror state, lining GWB's pockets to avoid being included in the Axis of Evil. Nice logic there, Bascule. Really put on your thinkin' cap there didn't you buddy? Funny...I'm visualizing Bush at the podium declaring war on Saudi Arabia because the terrorists were of that nationality while this forum erupts in histarics about how utterly stupid and ignorant he is with Bascule leading the charge for his removal from office due to self evident insanity. Yes, dude, Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. No, I didn't say Saudi Arabia was a successful state. I said that Iran sucks worse.

I can't help it, I've always liked Paris Hilton. Why? Not because she's a dumb blonde type (I'm not buying the whole act anyway), but because she's a dumb blonde type that doesn't try to actually share a serious opinion and pretend as if she's qualified to lecture the american sheeple like other celebrity idiots. This commercial is funny and carries no serious political message. It's great. She just relishes the role of village idiot - well "hot" village idiot - and doesn't pretend to be anything more. I like that attitude.

Well, hopefully we move to a more non-interventionist policy since most of the "mistakes" in Iraq are fairly inevitable. Technology and skill cannot yet provide for mistake free, smooth running war with no consequences and no innocent blood. The best fought war with the best decisions still leaves a mess of things and people to blame. More importantly it would be nice to learn from congress's disaffection to responsibility for the war with their war powers resolutions - it would be nice to make them declare war, as was originally intended, and be answerable for their decisions from that point on. And lastly, I hope we learned something about how damn expensive wars are to wage, even with our techno wonder armed forces. We have this great, bad ass military and we can't make it do anything without spending so much money we jeopardize the economic integrity of the nation.

Yeah, but it might be worse than the "energy policy = no to everything" that the right is labeling him with, (like Gingrich and his domestic energy agenda), so maybe this muffles some of that rhetoric.

I used to be a little excited about the fair tax proposal, but they managed to muck it up with "prebates" and the like. I guess it would be better than the IRS, but it misses the point administratively.

That makes sense. But is it possible for the conditions to be just right so that a planet could orbit a multiple star system and be relatively stable in terms of temperature, climate?

No kidding. I had no idea. How about more than two?

Also ironic since Paul is an economist - the economic expert of the lot.

I'm glad you guys knew I was joking. Smiley's can ruin the effect so I usually leave them off - just to add that extra bit of tension and awkwardness.

Cool. Hmm..I guess I didn't think it was possible for stars to get too close together without their respective gravatic forces locking them in orbit together - or whatever they call that. (I remember seeing it on the science channel or something but I don't remember). So, basically it's possible for a group of stars to sort of...uh, form a "virtual" single source of gravity for a planet to then get locked into? That's how I'm picturing it anyway. A ball of stars, as if they were one big star. Of course, I guess you have to consider how hot that planet is going to be. I don't suppose you could get a distance away that would give you the same effective result as Earth's one sun...