![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Greetings, world of those seeking equals! Danica Patrick finished sixth in her stock-car debut,
For those who doubt the influence of libraries in the world, OCLC deploys their Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics Department.
Internationally, a first hand account of Scientology in Haiti, showing the major dangers of letting the unprepared into a third-world country, and especially those who aren't there to provide medicine.
A church in the Netherlands has retained a preacher who believes G-d is not a personal deity, a position that earned him a moniker as "the atheist preacher", despite not actually believing in the nonexistence of G-d.
Domestically, after delivering her rah-rah $100,000 plus remarks to the Tea Party crowd, where she said platitudes about the need for another revolution, led by them, Sarah Palin left the door open for a Presidential run in 2012, suggesting she's still hoping both the Tea Partiers are there (having not extinguished themselves in a fit of political purification) and that she's still going to be their darling.
Also at the Tea Party, delivering the opening remarks, was Former Congresscritter Tom Tancredo, who yearned for the return of "civics literacy tests" and declared that people who can't write or speak English elected a socialist, Barack Obama. Well, that certainly sunk anyone's chances of not being branded as a racist if they're a tea partier, didn't it? Especially if you remember what sort of purposes the literacy tests of past years were put to.
Last out of this section, the Constitutional question of whether lying about having received military honors or medals is free speech if it doesn't hurt anyone.
In technology, a tailor making bulletproof suits, able to weave the requisite material without making excess bulk, the Pentagon's interest in breeding bioweapons, reportedly with kill-switches integrated, and The OpenNetIninitative's year in review post, where they highlight an estimate of 32 per cent of Internet users are being filtered in some manner.
Rolling into the opinions, Mr. Krauthammer opens the tone of our opinions with a piece about how liberals supposedly believe they're better than everyone else and have the right and beneficial way of leading. Or, put more bluntly by Mr. Alexander, "Why are liberals so condescending?" Mr. Alexander's belief: Condescension takes four forms: Liberals believe they're right and that conservatives only succeed by deploying brilliatly underhanded campaign tactics (demonic sheep, anyone?) that disseminate misinformation, even through major media sources; the belief in the stupidity of the populace and the Inherent Superiority of the Liberal platform to guide those stupid people; that conservatives play to the racist and classist beliefs of the populace; and conservatives campaign primarily on fear and emotional appeals instead of policy or platform or rational ideas. Even worse, they apply their brush broadly, while Real Conservatives point out ideology only in specific segments or issues (Glenn Beck, for example, who does paint broadly, is not a Real Conservative). Thus, liberals are the reason why we don't have a dialogue, and they ignore conservatives at their peril in their rush to take over everything.
Excepting that self-identified Republicans and conservatives are not always the highest point of sanity themselves. Based on polling data from Research 2000, there's plenty of crazy going on in conservative-land, with 2-to-1 responses that Barack Obama is a socialist, a quaerter that want their state to secede, and a whole lot else. And that's coming from the mouths of the self-identified Republicans. (They're probably not the Real Conservatives, according to Mr. Alexander).
The more sane voices, as Ms. Noonan puts it, are asking Can't we all just get along? (Sort of.) Instead of spending endless amounts of time squabbling about this, that, or the other thing, can't lawmakers drop the pretenses of being vicious enemies to have civil discussions and show how committed they are to actually making the machine of government work? (Of course, that runs the risk that they will get down to business and flatten the average American in a steamroll, but in some ways it feels better to be flattened by a working machine than by an errant one.) After all, when senators decide to put blanket holds on nominees until their pork is funded, it doesn't take a genius to realize both parties will get whipped by a populace tired of their obstruction and delay.
Elsewhere, Mr. Hayes insists that the Obama administration leaked sensitive information and then lied about doing so to push back against Republican assertions that the administration mishandled the Pants on Fire bomber, thus politicizing national security and putting those politics above national security. So, wait, the system is working as intended as a matter of law, but that's not good? And the responders are doing the politicizing, despite responders have to, by definition, have something to respond to? And that's not political? As far as I've seen, too, no names have been named, so why wouldn't you want to say that things are working against untrue accusations that extralegal proceedings are superior and protect your interests more? If there's anyone politicizing national security, it's all the yahoos who keep saying that no matter what the Pesident does, it's wrong and makes him weak no national security.
Ms. Bowers suggests that President Obama failed his history courses in saying that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy talked to their opposition (and digs that he's a typical liberal in this instance), because FDR went to war and Truman dropped atomic weapons. Kennedy he can be closer to, because Kennedy was a soft weak on defense liberal who ran away from hard decisions, according to Kruschev. In the end, yes, they didn't find diplomatic solutions to their problems, but in all the intervening time, you're telling me that none of those Presidents made any sort of diplomatic overture, or threats, or demands, or anything else before unleashing the troops? Really? That Truman wouldn't have told Hirohito to surrender before he used the atomic bombs? That sounds like a fairly short-sighted view of history, too, because I'm pretty sure that more happened in those time periods before and after the big events that may very well have been resolved with diplomatic efforts.
Last out of opinons, Ms. Wente prematurely declares global warming dead, based on the amount of scandals around the data and neutral positions, while ignoring the base points behind them that say humans do have to learn how they affect the world and how to avoid affecting it in a ruinous way. Even if CO2 emissions turn out to be a flop.
Last for today, the plane with helpful diagrams about itself, to teach "Flying 101".
For those who doubt the influence of libraries in the world, OCLC deploys their Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics Department.
Internationally, a first hand account of Scientology in Haiti, showing the major dangers of letting the unprepared into a third-world country, and especially those who aren't there to provide medicine.
A church in the Netherlands has retained a preacher who believes G-d is not a personal deity, a position that earned him a moniker as "the atheist preacher", despite not actually believing in the nonexistence of G-d.
Domestically, after delivering her rah-rah $100,000 plus remarks to the Tea Party crowd, where she said platitudes about the need for another revolution, led by them, Sarah Palin left the door open for a Presidential run in 2012, suggesting she's still hoping both the Tea Partiers are there (having not extinguished themselves in a fit of political purification) and that she's still going to be their darling.
Also at the Tea Party, delivering the opening remarks, was Former Congresscritter Tom Tancredo, who yearned for the return of "civics literacy tests" and declared that people who can't write or speak English elected a socialist, Barack Obama. Well, that certainly sunk anyone's chances of not being branded as a racist if they're a tea partier, didn't it? Especially if you remember what sort of purposes the literacy tests of past years were put to.
Last out of this section, the Constitutional question of whether lying about having received military honors or medals is free speech if it doesn't hurt anyone.
In technology, a tailor making bulletproof suits, able to weave the requisite material without making excess bulk, the Pentagon's interest in breeding bioweapons, reportedly with kill-switches integrated, and The OpenNetIninitative's year in review post, where they highlight an estimate of 32 per cent of Internet users are being filtered in some manner.
Rolling into the opinions, Mr. Krauthammer opens the tone of our opinions with a piece about how liberals supposedly believe they're better than everyone else and have the right and beneficial way of leading. Or, put more bluntly by Mr. Alexander, "Why are liberals so condescending?" Mr. Alexander's belief: Condescension takes four forms: Liberals believe they're right and that conservatives only succeed by deploying brilliatly underhanded campaign tactics (demonic sheep, anyone?) that disseminate misinformation, even through major media sources; the belief in the stupidity of the populace and the Inherent Superiority of the Liberal platform to guide those stupid people; that conservatives play to the racist and classist beliefs of the populace; and conservatives campaign primarily on fear and emotional appeals instead of policy or platform or rational ideas. Even worse, they apply their brush broadly, while Real Conservatives point out ideology only in specific segments or issues (Glenn Beck, for example, who does paint broadly, is not a Real Conservative). Thus, liberals are the reason why we don't have a dialogue, and they ignore conservatives at their peril in their rush to take over everything.
Excepting that self-identified Republicans and conservatives are not always the highest point of sanity themselves. Based on polling data from Research 2000, there's plenty of crazy going on in conservative-land, with 2-to-1 responses that Barack Obama is a socialist, a quaerter that want their state to secede, and a whole lot else. And that's coming from the mouths of the self-identified Republicans. (They're probably not the Real Conservatives, according to Mr. Alexander).
The more sane voices, as Ms. Noonan puts it, are asking Can't we all just get along? (Sort of.) Instead of spending endless amounts of time squabbling about this, that, or the other thing, can't lawmakers drop the pretenses of being vicious enemies to have civil discussions and show how committed they are to actually making the machine of government work? (Of course, that runs the risk that they will get down to business and flatten the average American in a steamroll, but in some ways it feels better to be flattened by a working machine than by an errant one.) After all, when senators decide to put blanket holds on nominees until their pork is funded, it doesn't take a genius to realize both parties will get whipped by a populace tired of their obstruction and delay.
Elsewhere, Mr. Hayes insists that the Obama administration leaked sensitive information and then lied about doing so to push back against Republican assertions that the administration mishandled the Pants on Fire bomber, thus politicizing national security and putting those politics above national security. So, wait, the system is working as intended as a matter of law, but that's not good? And the responders are doing the politicizing, despite responders have to, by definition, have something to respond to? And that's not political? As far as I've seen, too, no names have been named, so why wouldn't you want to say that things are working against untrue accusations that extralegal proceedings are superior and protect your interests more? If there's anyone politicizing national security, it's all the yahoos who keep saying that no matter what the Pesident does, it's wrong and makes him weak no national security.
Ms. Bowers suggests that President Obama failed his history courses in saying that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy talked to their opposition (and digs that he's a typical liberal in this instance), because FDR went to war and Truman dropped atomic weapons. Kennedy he can be closer to, because Kennedy was a soft weak on defense liberal who ran away from hard decisions, according to Kruschev. In the end, yes, they didn't find diplomatic solutions to their problems, but in all the intervening time, you're telling me that none of those Presidents made any sort of diplomatic overture, or threats, or demands, or anything else before unleashing the troops? Really? That Truman wouldn't have told Hirohito to surrender before he used the atomic bombs? That sounds like a fairly short-sighted view of history, too, because I'm pretty sure that more happened in those time periods before and after the big events that may very well have been resolved with diplomatic efforts.
Last out of opinons, Ms. Wente prematurely declares global warming dead, based on the amount of scandals around the data and neutral positions, while ignoring the base points behind them that say humans do have to learn how they affect the world and how to avoid affecting it in a ruinous way. Even if CO2 emissions turn out to be a flop.
Last for today, the plane with helpful diagrams about itself, to teach "Flying 101".
