Pangloss

Bush?! Or Saddam?

I think the culture of the US is greatly enhanced by the increased use of another language (Spanish) on a regular basis. I don't really want Spanish to supplant English as the predominent language, but I've never really sensed that the Spanish-speaking peoples are trying to accomplish that anyway -- they're not trying to "take over", just assimilate while retaining their own cultural identity. But I digress -- the point I wanted to make here is that in the past we've always had plenty of languages around, but now we have one particular language seeing heavy usage. This changes things a bit, and I think the change is potentially very positive. - More Americans are learning a "foreign" language than ever before - Latin culture has introduced new elements to the entertainment industry, adding such diverse elements as new musical genres and new movie plot devices (perhaps giving some very tired old formulas a chance to "lie fallow" for a few years, only to be ressurected later?) - Other immigrants benefit as well because of Americans becoming more accepting of the Latin culture Nobody can see the future of course, and maybe I'm being too politically correct, but it sure seems to me like a good thing. Sorry if this is a little off-subject, but it seemed like a good peripheral point to what you were saying.

On the contrary, I know that you're willing to justify something that by your own admission you know is morally wrong simply (and admittedly!) because of another, completely unrelated moral wrong. I can't even imagine what else there might be that I would need to know about you.

I still don't see what we're going to accomplish by "freeing Saddam". Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because our purpose in going to Iraq was flawed doesn't mean we should exonerate him for his crimes. And I don't particularly care whether he gets a free trial -- it's simply not my problem. Heck, he's not even our prisoner. He's Iraq's.

Saddam isn't being tried for his connections to 9/11.

Arabic is certainly a beautiful-looking language, that's for sure.

Amusing that people just assume that it's more eloquent in native language. It couldn't possibly stink more than Sadaam after a week in his "underground bunker"! Oh no, it MUST be "eloquent" -- we're just not equipped to understand it, that MUST be it. ;-)

(grin) You don't know how many times I've tried to acquire that domain! And the guy's never done hardly anything with it. For a while it was a storefront and then eventually he turned it into that quote-a-day nonsense. I've been using this moniker in online discourse since the early 1980s. Back then nobody used it and it was a nice literary reference that only a few people got. But now with the WWW the info's only a click away, and everyone is a literary genius. (chuckle) Ah well. (Geez, I'm getting more curmudgeonly by the year....)

Yeah, that was working out really well. Millions of programmers learned LISP and BASIC and Pascal and created a vast, interconnected world of information that was accessible to everyone. New programming environments made LISP easy to learn and use, and that enabled vast new kinds of applications, creating whole new areas of knowledge and understanding. Oh wait. *rubs eyes* Never mind.

Yeah, cuz only the US is interested in oil, and only the US would ever do something so horrible as invade a foreign country just for oil! And they do it all the time, too!

Crooks & Liars still has it up, available for download in WMV and QT formats. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/14.html#a8280 Here's a transcript in case that gets removed: Announcer: And now, a message from the President of the United States. President Al Gore: Good evening, my fellow Americans. In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead. In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win. Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history. We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting. I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash. I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us. On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today. But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars. And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it. Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again. But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged. There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand? What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop. But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox! As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job. There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney. Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!" In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real. Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East? And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!

Above link corrected (the "a" was left out of "space"). Was taking clickers to a spam site.

Seriously, run, do NOT walk, over to the mouse and click that link.

It IS because the latter group gets special treatment, and IMO nobody EVER gets to "pass skeptical review". Skepticism is never a one-shot, pass/fail deal, where you get your license and move on and never get treated with a jaundiced eye ever again. Every proposal should be scrutinized with exactly the same level as skepticism as the one before it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the theme of this thread -- the power we endow special interest groups with, when we fail to be skeptical about their motives and whether or not their goals actually ARE "what's best for everyone". I'll be even more evangelical about this: I believe that if you give an ideological pass to any special interest group, regardless of its current motives and goals, they will BECOME corrupt and dangerous, no matter who they are. I have to acknowledge the point that Sayo made earlier about SIGs having a role to play in our society. Doesn't mean I have to like it. They're a cop-out to serve people too busy to do the dirty work themselves. We shouldn't need them. Maybe we do, but we shouldn't. So I'm not saying that all special interest groups are evil and dangerous. I'm saying that they all have that potential, and must be watched carefully and kept in check. As Ike put it when talking about one specific SIG, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." He could just as easily have been talking about any and all SIGs. And probably would have, had he been asked.

Since we were talking about the recent White House Correspondant's Dinner, I thought you all might appreciate this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCTN12cRT0I&search=gore%20snl It's Al Gore doing last night's opening act for Saturday Night Live. VERY funny stuff -- possibly the funniest opening act in SNL history.

Sure' date=' that's a fair point, but when the leader of the largest and most influential skeptical organization in the world labels anybody who is skeptical about global warming as a "global warming denier" then I think that's something we have to be wary of. It's a fair point, and worth considering, I agree. But it doesn't ultimately counter my point about the need for skepticism. Well I'm not sure that's the case, but if it is, then isn't that a full-stop, end-of-discussion agreement with my point? I think that the specific example I chose in Post #1 must have been a really good one, because it seems to have really made some folks nervous! Again, full-stop, end-of-discussion agreement. Why go on from there? Oof, there goes the wind from the sails. You say that as if there's no history of the gay and lesbian community having any kind of controversy in their agendas! Nothing like, oh I don't know, deliberate outings of celebrities, involvement in military personnel issues, legitimizing gay parenting, opposition to research that doesn't suit the gay agenda, oh no, nothing like that!

What's your opinion on that story, please, Bascule?

True, but there are just a few more issues covered by the Constitution than merely the separation of church and state.

LOL! I hadn't noticed that. I think it's kinda cool, actually. Get yo minds outa da gutter, boys! =) I don't think I'm doing that. I think what I'm doing is pointing out that special interest groups are special interesting groups, not citizens, and they have agendas, and those agendas aren't about the common good or the overall benefits to society. They're about achieving those agendas by any legal means necessary. You don't see it that way? Tell me where I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

You didn't get sex-ed in high school? Maybe that's gone now, I don't know. When I was in high school I got a very graphic, literal class on how sex is physically performed. I just assumed it was still done that way. My main point here is that a special interest group is a special interest group is a special interest group. Whether it's creationism, anti-tobacco, environmental, or whatever, doesn't really change the fact that the general approach of these groups is always more or less the same. The goal is the only variable. That being the case, shouldn't we be every bit as leery of a "gay activist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum as we are about a "creationist" group telling our local school board what to do with the curriculum?