We had fought in wars not yet dreamed of…in vast nightmares still unnamed


On the pros and cons of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and some comparisons to Wikipedia. ‘Information … Slightly Coloured by Prejudice’

When clowns get in your face and squeak their little red nose while accusing you of not being serious about battling terrorists your might be in the WingNut Zone. These are very serious clowns. You can tell because instead of supporting the difficult work of ferreting out small terror cells spread around the world, they decided that it was best to attack Iraq and make up some very entertaining lies about connections to 9-11 and Al-Queda. Some of us, who are not that fond of serious clownishness thought it was a huge and tragic mistake and we were right. The whole Iraq scenario as front for the “war on terror” will make for a generation of bitter clowns and even more conspiracy theories because serious clowns stink at having humility. The whole Iraq debacle, the pushing of Iran to the front burner of middle-east power and influence (US interventions have boosted Iran), and the general weakening of America’s international status is very serious. We know that it is serious because so many have died because of the serious bloody wet dreams that have gotten so many innocent people killed. If they weren’t serious then it must be a joke, a sick demented joke, but a joke never the less. I am just guessing, but in order to be as serious as Bush and his supporters one must get tens of thousands of innocent people killed Based on ‘An Outrageous Pile of Lies’
. Wait, I think I see the problem, its that whole framing thing. Conservatives gave America and the world one giant cluster f*ck and making amends, changing course, just isn’t on the doublethink agenda so they’ve taken the stinking pile that passes for foreign policy wrapped in a nice red bow and called it seriousness, This Modern World: Taking terror seriously. Michael Scheuer is probably not regarded as serious, Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security

1. We’re coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?

On balance, more vulnerable. We’re safer in terms of aircraft travel. We’re safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we’ve spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that’s just a body count, not progress. We can’t capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.

In the long run, we’re not safer because we’re still operating on the assumption that we’re hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we’re hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There’s our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we’ll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn’t recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we’re supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don’t have a strategy because we don’t have a clue about what motivates our enemies.

I fully expect The Angry Bear to be hung by his spreadsheet in the first break of morning light by the Conservative Inquisitors for this heresy, Taxes and (After Tax) Income

Thus, over the long haul, it would seem that we are better off with taxes at the high rather than the low end of the sample we observed over the 1979 to 2003 period. Assuming I haven’t made a mistake and/or this is not an artifact of the data, what is probably going on is that the government is actually providing services that over the long run boost people’s incomes by more than it costs them in taxes

I knew it on the roof that night.
We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!
Combat models of the highest order.
We had fought in wars not yet
dreamed of… in vast nightmares
still unnamed. We were the new
people… Roy and me and Rachael!
We were made for this world. It
was ours!

About these ads