The End of an Error ...
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Evolutionary Politics
Why we should care what candidates think about biological evolution.
Ronald Bailey | January 8, 2008 | reasononline
Biological evolution became a hot topic in the presidential campaign last May when Republican presidential hopefuls were asked during a debate if "there was anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?" Three held up their hands, Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.). Evolution deniers Brownback and Tancredo have now dropped out of the race. So what do all the remaining candidates—Republican and Democratic—think about biological evolution? And does it matter?
The rest after the click ...
My comment: The reasoning that is responsible for outlining the Theory of Evolution is the same kind of reasoning and mind set that brought us flu vaccines, space flight (and all of its attendant spin-offs including computers, plastics and an understanding of outer space), the "Green Revolution", chemotherapy in cancer treatment, and the discovery of the roles of DNA and RNA.
To deny the thought process that yields an understanding of evolution is to also deny the thought process that makes our current way of life possible. To deny that thought process is to state that all of the scientific breakthroughs of the last 150 years are not to be relied upon.
Science only accepts things on a provisional basis. That is to say, science recognizes that new evidence may lead to modifications in currently accepted understandings. Religion, on the other hand, finds the underlying answer to all questions to be "the will of God" and strongly discourages any further investigation. Religion is hostile to evidence that may contradict "belief" or "faith". Often, the penalty for questioning religious faith has been death. It has been the case in the history of the Christian world. It is still the case in parts of the Islamic world.
It's the ultimate arrogance to imagine that one has "all the answers", yet that is precisely what religion proposes. Scientific though and method has never suggested that it has all of the answers. What it does state is that the answers it does have are supportable by fact-based evidence as well as tests and experiments that can be replicated. That's how facts are established.
In my opinion, anyone who denies fact-based evidence in favor dogmatic, unquestioning, unsupportable superstition should be barred from holding public office. We don't agree on our superstition sets. Believe me, it's far better to have a leadership that accepts the same facts that can be tested and accepted and supported by the preponderance of real evidence by all of us than to risk having someone in a position of power who's superstitions disagree with yours.
Who's the Saint?
The Moral Instinct
By STEVEN PINKER
New York Times
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?
Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.
It's not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line with the good they have done. Mother Teresa was the very embodiment of saintliness: white-clad, sad-eyed, ascetic and often photographed with the wretched of the earth. Gates is a nerd's nerd and the world's richest man, as likely to enter heaven as the proverbial camel squeezing through the needle's eye. And Borlaug, now 93, is an agronomist who has spent his life in labs and nonprofits, seldom walking onto the media stage, and hence into our consciousness, at all.
I doubt these examples will persuade anyone to favor Bill Gates over Mother Teresa for sainthood. But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish.
The rest after the click ...
By STEVEN PINKER
New York Times
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?
Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.
It's not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line with the good they have done. Mother Teresa was the very embodiment of saintliness: white-clad, sad-eyed, ascetic and often photographed with the wretched of the earth. Gates is a nerd's nerd and the world's richest man, as likely to enter heaven as the proverbial camel squeezing through the needle's eye. And Borlaug, now 93, is an agronomist who has spent his life in labs and nonprofits, seldom walking onto the media stage, and hence into our consciousness, at all.
I doubt these examples will persuade anyone to favor Bill Gates over Mother Teresa for sainthood. But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish.
The rest after the click ...
Thought for the day
"Nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view."
-- Lillian Hellman
Friday, January 11, 2008
From the other side of the pond
A friend of mine, a Brit based in Japan, writes:
We've been glued to CNN over here watching the Bill Clinton prostitute what's left of his good name in a shrill effort to push his wife over the edge in NH. I've been a keen Obama man for months now and genuinely fear for him at the hands (not of the Republicans) but the Clinton machine. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, assuming you are not a die-hard Hillary fan ;o) There are increasing suspicions among intelligent pollsters that Hillary benefited from the old racial "cold feet" syndrome as poorer whites approached the polling booth, if you know what I mean...
Drop me a line when you have a minute and let me know your thoughts on all this.
My response:
Right now I'm one of the undecided. From where I sit, the Democrats have an embarrassment of riches. There isn't a candidate among them who doesn't stand head and shoulders above the Family Values people. Though I'm not a huge Hilary fan - I'm also not anti-Hill. Actually, I think she's the smart one in the family.
Obama looks good and, if he plays his cards right, he could be the heir to the RFK legacy. He has the charisma, to be sure ... and I like what he has to say ... and after 20 years of Bush and Clinton dynasties, I suspect an Obama election would be the opening of a window and a rush of fresh air into the smoke filled rooms of American politics.
I am far less concerned about which Democrat gets the nomination than I am with the possibility of a religious nut case who relies on the guidance of bronze age cattle sacrificers who believed every species of animal on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house and who feels that the last 150 years of scientific breakthroughs cannot be trusted. And then there's Mr. Magic Underpants! - the shape shifter who can take any position on any issue and still keep a straight face and who imagines (perhaps correctly) that we have the best government money can buy.
McCain has gone over the edge. There was a time ... until 2004 ... that I thought, of those on the right, he might be someone I could live with. After a few choruses of "Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" sung to the tune of an old Beach Boys hit ... well, I'm one of those old, dyed-in-the-wool peaceniks who believes there are no winners in war ... only those who loose more and those who loose less. It's one thing to defend yourself ... it's quite another to go looking for trouble when you don't have to.
And then there's Rudy "One-note" Giuliani who's claim to fame was standing at ground zero in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 ... impotently shaking his fist at the sky. It's gratifying to watch his recent tanking in the polls ... demonstrating that the American public is finding out what New Yorkers have known all along ... that the more you get to know him, the less you like him! Even The Conservative, a right wing mag here in the States, featured Rudy on the cover ... dressed in a brown shirt, with a 9-11 arm band and belt buckle, and striking a pose right out of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will".
I have some thoughts about whom Obama should be fearful. You can find them here.
We've been glued to CNN over here watching the Bill Clinton prostitute what's left of his good name in a shrill effort to push his wife over the edge in NH. I've been a keen Obama man for months now and genuinely fear for him at the hands (not of the Republicans) but the Clinton machine. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, assuming you are not a die-hard Hillary fan ;o) There are increasing suspicions among intelligent pollsters that Hillary benefited from the old racial "cold feet" syndrome as poorer whites approached the polling booth, if you know what I mean...
Drop me a line when you have a minute and let me know your thoughts on all this.
My response:
Right now I'm one of the undecided. From where I sit, the Democrats have an embarrassment of riches. There isn't a candidate among them who doesn't stand head and shoulders above the Family Values people. Though I'm not a huge Hilary fan - I'm also not anti-Hill. Actually, I think she's the smart one in the family.
Obama looks good and, if he plays his cards right, he could be the heir to the RFK legacy. He has the charisma, to be sure ... and I like what he has to say ... and after 20 years of Bush and Clinton dynasties, I suspect an Obama election would be the opening of a window and a rush of fresh air into the smoke filled rooms of American politics.
I am far less concerned about which Democrat gets the nomination than I am with the possibility of a religious nut case who relies on the guidance of bronze age cattle sacrificers who believed every species of animal on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house and who feels that the last 150 years of scientific breakthroughs cannot be trusted. And then there's Mr. Magic Underpants! - the shape shifter who can take any position on any issue and still keep a straight face and who imagines (perhaps correctly) that we have the best government money can buy.
McCain has gone over the edge. There was a time ... until 2004 ... that I thought, of those on the right, he might be someone I could live with. After a few choruses of "Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" sung to the tune of an old Beach Boys hit ... well, I'm one of those old, dyed-in-the-wool peaceniks who believes there are no winners in war ... only those who loose more and those who loose less. It's one thing to defend yourself ... it's quite another to go looking for trouble when you don't have to.
And then there's Rudy "One-note" Giuliani who's claim to fame was standing at ground zero in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 ... impotently shaking his fist at the sky. It's gratifying to watch his recent tanking in the polls ... demonstrating that the American public is finding out what New Yorkers have known all along ... that the more you get to know him, the less you like him! Even The Conservative, a right wing mag here in the States, featured Rudy on the cover ... dressed in a brown shirt, with a 9-11 arm band and belt buckle, and striking a pose right out of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will".
I have some thoughts about whom Obama should be fearful. You can find them here.
Middle-Class Capitalists
By DAVID BROOKS / New York Times
In 1974, a group of economists and journalists got together in a bar and launched supply-side economics. It was a superb political and economic package. It addressed a big problem: stagflation. It had a clear policy focus: marginal tax rates. It celebrated a certain sort of personality: the risk-taking entrepreneur. It made it clear that the new, growth-oriented Republican Party would be different from the old, green-eyeshade one.
Supply-side economics had a good run, but continual tax cuts can no longer be the centerpiece of Republican economic policy. The demographics have changed. The U.S. is an aging society. We have made expensive promises to our seniors. We can’t keep those promises at the current tax levels, let alone at reduced ones. As David Frum writes in “Comeback,” his indispensable new book: “In the face of such a huge fiscal gap, the days of broad, across-the-board, middle-class tax cutting are over.”
The political situation has changed, too. Republicans used to appeal to the investor class with economic policies and the working class with values, crime and welfare policies. But that formula has broken down. The workers are walking away from the G.O.P., and the only way to win them back is by listening to their economic concerns.
As a result, smart Republicans are groping for a new economic model, and as they do, Republican economic policies are shifting. The entrepreneur is no longer king. The wage-earner is king. As the presidential campaign rolls into Michigan, it’s clear that Republicans are adjusting their priorities to win back the anxious middle class.
The rest after the click ...
My comment: If this is the shift, its hugely important. However, none of the candidates seem to have caught on. Like the current administration they echo, they believe they can solve all problems we have with tax cuts ... even problems that don't have anything to do with taxes.
As I've said many times before, government has only two ways to generate revenue. Government can either tax or government can borrow. We are currently living in the maelstrom created by their borrow-and-spend approach ... the belief that somehow one can borrow one's way to wealth and prosperity. It has left us in a position similar to that of the underdeveloped nations that owe the bulk of the GNP to the World Bank ... and haven't a chance in hell of digging out of debt ... ever.
Maybe it's time to try a little pay-as-you-go.
Here's a bit more on tax cuts and how they "pay for themselves" ... or don't.
In 1974, a group of economists and journalists got together in a bar and launched supply-side economics. It was a superb political and economic package. It addressed a big problem: stagflation. It had a clear policy focus: marginal tax rates. It celebrated a certain sort of personality: the risk-taking entrepreneur. It made it clear that the new, growth-oriented Republican Party would be different from the old, green-eyeshade one.
Supply-side economics had a good run, but continual tax cuts can no longer be the centerpiece of Republican economic policy. The demographics have changed. The U.S. is an aging society. We have made expensive promises to our seniors. We can’t keep those promises at the current tax levels, let alone at reduced ones. As David Frum writes in “Comeback,” his indispensable new book: “In the face of such a huge fiscal gap, the days of broad, across-the-board, middle-class tax cutting are over.”
The political situation has changed, too. Republicans used to appeal to the investor class with economic policies and the working class with values, crime and welfare policies. But that formula has broken down. The workers are walking away from the G.O.P., and the only way to win them back is by listening to their economic concerns.
As a result, smart Republicans are groping for a new economic model, and as they do, Republican economic policies are shifting. The entrepreneur is no longer king. The wage-earner is king. As the presidential campaign rolls into Michigan, it’s clear that Republicans are adjusting their priorities to win back the anxious middle class.
The rest after the click ...
My comment: If this is the shift, its hugely important. However, none of the candidates seem to have caught on. Like the current administration they echo, they believe they can solve all problems we have with tax cuts ... even problems that don't have anything to do with taxes.
As I've said many times before, government has only two ways to generate revenue. Government can either tax or government can borrow. We are currently living in the maelstrom created by their borrow-and-spend approach ... the belief that somehow one can borrow one's way to wealth and prosperity. It has left us in a position similar to that of the underdeveloped nations that owe the bulk of the GNP to the World Bank ... and haven't a chance in hell of digging out of debt ... ever.
Maybe it's time to try a little pay-as-you-go.
Here's a bit more on tax cuts and how they "pay for themselves" ... or don't.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Yeah, right ...
“I’m going to raise the level of political dialog in America,” McCain, R-Ariz., said at a campaign rally in central Michigan, “and I’m going to treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect.”
Here are a few samples of what the good senator from Arizona has in mind:
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently a resident of the State of Arizona ... the state that McCain hasn't bothered to represent in Congress for the last year and a half.
Here are a few samples of what the good senator from Arizona has in mind:
- In a “heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul” last year, McCain screamed at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), “F— you!” He added, “This is chickens- - - stuff. … You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.” [5/19/07]
- In a discussion over the “fate of Vietnam MIAs,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked McCain, “Are you calling me stupid?” “No,” replied McCain, “I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]
- Discussing his recent trip to Iraq on The Daily Show in April, McCain told host Jon Stewart, “I had something picked out for you, too — a little IED to put on your desk.” [4/24/07]
- After Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) criticized McCain for his comment to Stewart, McCain told ABC News, “And all I can say is, to Murtha and others, Lighten up and get a life.” [4/26/07]
- Speaking to Fox and Friends in March, McCain noted that he allows “jerks from the media” to come on board his bus, the “Straight Talk Express.” [4/28/07]
- At a GOP meeting in fall 1999, McCain “erupted” at Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and shouted, “Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.” When Domenici expressed his outrage, McCain responded, “I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.” [Newsweek, 2/21/00]
- In September, a high school student asked McCain whether the senator was “too old to be president and too conservative to be respected.” McCain “jokingly” responded by calling the student “a little jerk” who ought to be drafted. [9/4/07]
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently a resident of the State of Arizona ... the state that McCain hasn't bothered to represent in Congress for the last year and a half.
And you think oil prices are a problem NOW ...
NEW DELHI —
India's Tata Motors on Thursday unveiled the world's cheapest car, bringing new mobility within the reach of tens of millions of people and nightmares to environmentalists, traffic engineers and safety advocates.
Company Chairman Ratan Tata, introducing the Nano ... price tag $2,500 ... during India's main auto show, drove onto a stage in a white version of the tiny four-door subcompact, his head nearly scraping the roof.
With a snub nose and a sloping roof, it can fit five people ... if they squeeze. And the basic version is spare: there's no radio, no passenger-side mirror and only one windshield wiper. If you want air conditioning to cope with India's brutal summers, you need to get the deluxe version.
But it's cheap. The Nano's closest competitor here is the Maruti 800, a four-door that sells for nearly twice as much.
More after the click ...
My comment: What happens to the price of oil when India and China produce 3,000,000,000 new drives, all wanting to toodle down the block to the grocery store?
The 'Good War' Is a Bad War
by John Pilger on AntiWar
I had suggested to Marina that we meet in the safety of the Intercontinental Hotel, where foreigners stay in Kabul, but she said no. She had been there once and government agents, suspecting she was Rawa, had arrested her. We met instead at a safe house, reached through contours of bombed rubble that was once streets, where people live like earthquake victims awaiting rescue.
Rawa is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which since 1977 has alerted the world to the suffering of women and girls in that country. There is no organization on earth like it. It is the high bar of feminism, home of the bravest of the brave. Year after year, Rawa agents have traveled secretly through Afghanistan, teaching at clandestine girls' schools, ministering to isolated and brutalized women, recording outrages on cameras concealed beneath their burqas. They were the Taliban regime's implacable foes when the word Taliban was barely heard in the west: when the Clinton administration was secretly courting the mullahs so that the oil company UNOCAL could build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian.
Indeed, Rawa's understanding of the designs and hypocrisy of western governments informs a truth about Afghanistan excluded from news, now reduced to a drama of British squaddies besieged by a demonic enemy in a "good war." When we met, Marina was veiled to conceal her identity. Marina is her nom de guerre. She said: "We, the women of Afghanistan, only became a cause in the west following 11 September 2001, when the Taliban suddenly became the official enemy of America. Yes, they persecuted women, but they were not unique, and we have resented the silence in the west over the atrocious nature of the western-backed warlords, who are no different. They rape and kidnap and terrorize, yet they hold seats in [Hamid] Karzai's government. In some ways, we were more secure under the Taliban. You could cross Afghanistan by road and feel secure. Now, you take your life into your hands."
The reason the United States gave for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 was "to destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11." The women of Rawa say this is false. In a rare statement on 4 December that went unreported in Britain, they said: "By experience, [we have found] that the US does not want to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of their economic, political and strategic interests in the region."
The rest after the click ...
My comment: No comment.
OK ... one comment.
"Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils."
More about Thucydides in this blog ...
I had suggested to Marina that we meet in the safety of the Intercontinental Hotel, where foreigners stay in Kabul, but she said no. She had been there once and government agents, suspecting she was Rawa, had arrested her. We met instead at a safe house, reached through contours of bombed rubble that was once streets, where people live like earthquake victims awaiting rescue.
Rawa is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, which since 1977 has alerted the world to the suffering of women and girls in that country. There is no organization on earth like it. It is the high bar of feminism, home of the bravest of the brave. Year after year, Rawa agents have traveled secretly through Afghanistan, teaching at clandestine girls' schools, ministering to isolated and brutalized women, recording outrages on cameras concealed beneath their burqas. They were the Taliban regime's implacable foes when the word Taliban was barely heard in the west: when the Clinton administration was secretly courting the mullahs so that the oil company UNOCAL could build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian.
Indeed, Rawa's understanding of the designs and hypocrisy of western governments informs a truth about Afghanistan excluded from news, now reduced to a drama of British squaddies besieged by a demonic enemy in a "good war." When we met, Marina was veiled to conceal her identity. Marina is her nom de guerre. She said: "We, the women of Afghanistan, only became a cause in the west following 11 September 2001, when the Taliban suddenly became the official enemy of America. Yes, they persecuted women, but they were not unique, and we have resented the silence in the west over the atrocious nature of the western-backed warlords, who are no different. They rape and kidnap and terrorize, yet they hold seats in [Hamid] Karzai's government. In some ways, we were more secure under the Taliban. You could cross Afghanistan by road and feel secure. Now, you take your life into your hands."
The reason the United States gave for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 was "to destroy the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11." The women of Rawa say this is false. In a rare statement on 4 December that went unreported in Britain, they said: "By experience, [we have found] that the US does not want to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of their economic, political and strategic interests in the region."
The rest after the click ...
My comment: No comment.
OK ... one comment.
"Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils."
More about Thucydides in this blog ...
What's Love Got To Do With It?
SINGAPORE -
Male macaque monkeys pay for sex by grooming females, according to a recent study that suggests the primates may treat sex as a commodity.
"In primate societies, grooming is the underlying fabric of it all," Dr. Michael Gumert, a primatologist at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said in a telephone interview Saturday.
"It's a sign of friendship and family, and it's also something that can be exchanged for sexual services," Gumert said.
Gumert's findings, reported in New Scientist last week, resulted from a 20-month observation of about 50 long-tailed macaques in a reserve in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Gumert found after a male grooms a female, the likelihood that she will engage in sexual activity with the male was about three times more than if the grooming had not occurred.
And as with other commodities, the value of sex is affected by supply and demand factors: A male would spend more time grooming a female if there were fewer females in the vicinity.
"And when the female supply is higher, the male spends less time on grooming ... The mating actually becomes cheaper depending on the market," Gumert said.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Another dumb comment ...
Portsmouth (NH) Seacosst OnLine
OK ... So now I'm confused. Does that mean McCain DOESN'T want to be Commander-in-Chief? He doesn't even have the job yet and already he's trying to duck responsibility.
Here's a guy who is supposed to be a serious contender and he doesn't even know what the job description is!
The military gives orders to the civilian authorities in all those right-wing, banana republic, dictatorships we've been propping up for the last century. In our democracy the military takes its orders from the civilian authorities. At least that's the way it was structured in OUR Constitution.
As for pulling out of Iraq, McCain said there is only one man who will determine when that is appropriate and the name he mentioned was not his own.
“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said.
OK ... So now I'm confused. Does that mean McCain DOESN'T want to be Commander-in-Chief? He doesn't even have the job yet and already he's trying to duck responsibility.
Here's a guy who is supposed to be a serious contender and he doesn't even know what the job description is!
The military gives orders to the civilian authorities in all those right-wing, banana republic, dictatorships we've been propping up for the last century. In our democracy the military takes its orders from the civilian authorities. At least that's the way it was structured in OUR Constitution.
'Subprime' named Word of the Year
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) --
Even the American Dialect Society knows how risky home mortgages are these days.
The group of wordsmiths chose "subprime" as 2007's Word of the Year at its annual convention Friday.
"'Subprime' has been around with bankers for awhile, but now everyone is talking about 'subprime,"' said Wayne Glowka, a spokesman for the group and a dean at Reinhardt College in Waleska, Georgia. "It's affecting all kinds of people in all kinds of places."
About 80 members of the organization spent two days debating the merits of runners-up "Facebook," "green," "Googleganger" and "waterboarding" before voting for an adjective that means "a risky or less than ideal loan, mortgage or investment."
The choice signifies the public's concern for a "deepening mortgage crisis," the society said in a statement.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Bush sums it all up in seven seconds
"In the seven years that I've been the President we've had a recession, corporate scandals, the 9-11 attack, major national disasters... uhhh... two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--all that created was uncertainty."
-- Bush from the Rose Garden, today.
My comment: Well, now, that's quite a list of accomplishments. But you missed a few. We've also had Alberto-gate, Torture-gate, Wiretap-gate, E-mail-gate, and a bunch of other stellar moments.
Is it too late to add "Impeachment" to the list?
Given a history that includes the inability to find oil in Texas and a National Guard career capped with an A.W.O.L. it would make for an absolutely unrivaled perfect record!
A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler
A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.
This has not happened.
There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.
Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.
The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.
Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.
The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.
Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.
As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.
On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.
In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.
The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.
How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.
Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!
The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.
In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.
Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.
The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.
(Source)
A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.
This has not happened.
There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.
Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.
The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.
Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.
The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.
Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.
As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.
On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.
In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.
The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.
How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.
Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!
The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.
In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.
Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.
The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.
(Source)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)