Jump to content

The Bear's Key

Senior Members
  • Posts

    534
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Bear's Key

  1. I've noticed the left is, historically, able to make fun of itself. Humor is great, and a sense of humor even greater. And that's right, the other guys actually pull all sorts of little crafty tricks to pass off as "real news". Even Bush's White House team passed off scripted commentary which Fox and others replayed as news items. Absolutely brilliant!
  2. If they could get to the subduction zone, couldn't they just draw and use (convert) lots of heat energy from it? More than nuke energy would give us, I'd presume. And safer. Even the movement of tectonic plates could be directly harnessed for energy. A lot of awkwardly fashioned towns do gain quite a charm from their setup, I guess both planned and unplanned have their advantages/disadvantages. For example, in some unplanned areas of the Northeast, traffic is beyond hellish. Further to the West, in areas that got more city planning, the difference in traffic systems is remarkable. Yet like you said, one planning mistake -- especially as a template to be mass produced -- would be not just unwelcoming, but probably too costly to fix. The point is to learn from smaller, tested formulas (i.e. Greensburg), and not to place all bets on a single technology which hasn't even been adequately tested. Might be really idiotic to build large-scale new technologies of insufficient diversity and/or without having tested it all on smaller projects, in order to avoid later getting screwed big time.
  3. But there is...LOTS of evidence. The 60s. Tree-huggers. A wave/army of environmentalists. All spawned from radioactive contamination. Which transformed the ultra-conservative 50s into an entirely reverse 60s counterculture (and worse). Either that, or we'd be forced to admit how flawed conservatism really is, as it couldn't even prevent its deterioration into total liberal mayhem. [hide]/joking [/hide]/really[hide]/or am I? [/hide]
  4. I'll answer more in-depth later, but for now I'll trust people's "distrust" of government when their list expands to include the following governmental distrusts. church mixed with government entrusting business contractors with the $$ opportunities found in war "Patriot" Act existence warrantless spying having to take the government's "word" for the intention of secret activities the promise of small government (with fingers crossed?) noble intentions for Iraq There are lots more. I see more trust in government, not distrust. Unless, of course, if by distrusting the government, those people really mean the Democrats. I'm not being combative, you asked the question in a generally candid manner. I just have a difficult time believing in the distrust, especially since it's been twisted by the you-know-whos to mean anything not of conservative (or really neoconservative) mindset. I like the answers given by INow and Mr Skeptic, though.
  5. I voted "no opinion". It feels like there should be another choice: "No, government needs to put its foot down on separating religion and government -- else liberties are trampled."
  6. It's always possible the "science" has been tainted. With nuke power waste having to be guarded against terrorism use, and with containers having to be rebuilt periodically, its cost efficiency is questionable at best. Plus I can't trust what scientists appointed in the Bush era had to say on the issue, so I'll just wait and see until the new appointments offer some input. However, I'd question any scientist with ties to the relevant industries, especially those operating in secrecy, historically mega-profitable, and with a slice of government in their pockets by long-entrenched lobbyists. In any case, Obama's eyes might be set on another reality. For those who didn't see my post on Greensburg, below are snippets. And results from the Greensburg project can even be integrated by other green city projects like Dongtan (in China), planned to be built entirely from scratch by Arup (the group who just signed the Demonstration Industrial Park for Energy Saving and Environmental Protection {link} -- a UK/China joint effort). my response continued at a new thread... (so as not to break topic here)
  7. I have a love for technological advances. But to me, greening doesn't mean the killing/withholding of technology or even blunting the advancement of society. In fact, the old guard methods resisting compatibility with the natural systems of the living world actually seem pretty backwards (in thinking). The future world, upon remembering the technological advancements of this era, likely won't be congratulating those who urged "more of the same" policies in alignment with the industries best positioned to rake in the most $$ from such crafted logic. As beautiful as the marvels of technology are to me, I love the marvels of nature far better -- however, it also seems a waste to have put us on Earth only to savor its natural beauty, as we've evolved an inborn talent to create great marvels ourselves. So both have their place. It's a balancing act (as usual). Some people were meant to enjoy only natural beauty, while some people are mostly happy around constructed environments. And the world can be made so neither intrudes on the other, but just superficially -- we live in nature, and that will never be undone, it can only get somewhat "hidden". Even in the far reaches of space, it's all nature. I doubt the universe makes a distinction of where the Earth's atmosphere finishes and space begins. We've neglected an important element: balance. Our "progress" is limited if we neglect to recognize that the Earth's living and ecological systems are networked in a way that often affects the bigger picture in the manner of dominoes. That's why in the Obama cuts funding for Yucca Mountain thread, when someone offered the middle of the desert as a great place for safely keeping nuclear waste, its fallacy was immediately obvious, and iNow's response confirmed it. There is no place to "dump and forget". So, if our need to reconcile progress with natural stewadship is viewed as a hindrance/obstacle, then we're not advanced enough. Progress isn't about just money and infrastructure -- for our economical system is too likely to crumble if no growth is made. Thus we're still leaps and bounds away from hitting sustainable progress that's not overly dependent on material expansion. Thus I'm listing a few places which might hold the key to more sophisticated advancements, compatible with both natural harmony and futuristic tech. For those who didn't see my post on Greensburg, below are snippets. Results from the Greensburg project can even be integrated by other green city projects like Dongtan (in China), planned to be built entirely from scratch by Arup (the group who just signed the Demonstration Industrial Park for Energy Saving and Environmental Protection {link} -- a UK/China joint effort). More info http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/060223china.asp The next article shows us the effects of a market with little to no environmental regulation. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html Two interview parts with Arup (#1) http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-interview-part.html (#2) http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-interview-part_22.html But Dongtan isn't the only green city project in the works for China. A new eco-city called Wanzhuang Other places Treasure Island Community Development And even in oil-rich places like Dubai, there are glimmers of hope for renewable energy. Its Dynamic Tower is pretty cool, all floors rotate to offer changing views -- and it's all powered by solar and wind energy. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=dynamicarchitecturebuilding-dubai-unitedarabemirates At the following link is an artist's impression video of its floors rotating after the building's completion.
  8. Rush Limbaugh must be doing something right wing (I like my coffee black, like my President)
  9. All I see is the internet becoming more like TV: the main channels (websites) of the big companies will get the most forefront access to viewers, search engines, and overall internet. Think -- how much does it cost to start up a TV station nowadays? The most popular websites are going to tend from the most wealthiest, rather than with the best content, and small joes voicing their opinions will be swept aside by mainstream. Here's a smoke and mirrors argument that's being crafted by highly paid message-decorators. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. We have to make sure they don't sit on our network and chew up our capacity. We need to pay for the pipe. But.....no matter how polished and shiny their "Joe the Plumber"-esque argument becomes, one thing is certain: it's not our fault these "pipe owners" chose a business model within a system they knew full well in advance doesn't give special treatment to any one person, company/institution, or manner of thought -- regardless of how much $$ any of those have. Within the last five years. Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as the lead singer criticized President Bush. AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- a website that opposed AOL's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. A Canadian telephone giant blocked a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union. The Madison River ISP blocked customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace. A chief technology officer for BellSouth Corp said that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat#abuse These very conversations/debates we're having are at risk. If the companies don't like it, they actually had a choice whether to enter the business as is. No one forced them to enter -- just as we shouldn't be forced to accept their internet roadmap.
  10. Highest approval ratings for W in polls. ABC News/Washington Post Approve 92 Disapprove 6 Unsure 1 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Approve 88 Disapprove 7 Unsure 5 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Approve 88 Disapprove 7 Unsure 5 Gallup and USA Today Approve 90 Disapprove 6 Unsure 4 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey Approve 86 Disapprove 7 Unsure 7 (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm) What you might ask yourself is, how does an 85+ % approval rating for Bush translate into major desire to see him fail? Glad you asked So let's illustrate how. The public didn't view the response to 9/11 attacks in a partisan manner. Who, under normal circumstances, ever would? But...once enough of us had seen Bush's party (under Karl Rove guidance/coersion) repeatedly treat 9/11 as a golden opportunity to push/shove their agenda -- the once-in-a-lifetime chance to gain a "permanent majority" -- and calling people traitors/unpatriotic who disagreed, the one thing I'm sure of is: you are correct, many people eventually did want the administraion to fail, because their success would've magnified the constitutional abuses they perpetrated. As Scott McClellan wrote about, the Bush team was in campaign mode from day one in the White House. Nice to know their #1 priority when the nation is on high terror alert is to create a permanent Republican majority. You see, if the Bush Administration hadn't used the attack on U.S. soil as a means to score heavy politically, or hadn't called any opposition to these schemes unpatriotic, or hadn't attempted to solidify many of those plans into law, or hadn't flooded the government positions with inexperienced yes-men in order to ensure their schemes, or hadn't written about the benefits of transforming Iraq, Iran and North Korea (years before Y2K) and then conveniently labelled those nations the "Axis of Evil", it's highly unlikely you would've encountered a poll today claiming 51% of Democrats wanted Bush to fail. Or maybe that's just me (failure of schemes doesn't equal failure of presidency)
  11. I believe in fighting like a man when you do fight an enemy, but more importantly, using our remarkable capacity for problem-solving to find alternatives to violence/killing when it's possible. And believe me, it's more possible than you might give it credit for. And you're right, the nuking can't be undone. However, the levels of attitude for the rightenousness of that act leaves open the good posiblity nukes will be used again. Being unable to predict the future isn't ever a "lack of foresight", but.....thinking violence is one of the best solutions, and not recognizing when there's a line you don't want to cross, that's a lack of foresight. Nuking your enemy became more OK after it was done to Japan, in the eyes of less benevolent leaders/nations with a newfound itch to acquire such a nuke for their own use. And it's not like the WW2 soldiers chose this action, I'll bet a few mouth-watering government higher-ups pushed it fully. The chance of a lifetime, to showcase their power to the world, and to simultaneously justify it. The argument is sweet enough, "we're just trying to save lives." Who wouldn't buy it? At this point, it's impossible to know all the WW2 soldiers' response, if given a choice "to keep fighting until the enemy surrenders, or to avoid the fight and instead wholly level two cities full of everyday people with atomic power that leaves behind radiation sickness for the prolonged death of any survivors?" But it's feasible many would have preferred to keep fighting a more honorable way. It couldn't have been practical to ask them, obviously, but soldiers might've had another thought regardless. In a suitcase, how can the victim nation detect where it came from before others were detonated? Would you just start carpet-nuking all your enemies? I'm rather well aware of the justifications for least casualties. Some things aren't worth the incoming future price, however. And now, mutually assured destruction is no longer a preventative when nations can sneak-attack each other with hand transported nukes. The modern justification has become, nuke before they can respond. And the decision of WW2, and consequent rationalizing of its merits, has led to our situation today -- like a row of dominoes. Yes, they have. My argument has nothing to do with that. It's how Amnesty opposed both weapon choices by Israel and Hamas, when a lot of people here were complaining that Amnesty had different standards for Israel than Hamas. bascule's first post had the link. In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. Hopefully we're clear now
  12. Sure. My point is that the article (in Reaper's link) claims (and shows) it's not the usual view of Amnesty. So where did the complaints of Amnesty siding with Hamas originate from? I deduced it must have been from "the propagandas" (network). It's not the first time such networks have manufactured controversy. From the OP's link. Those are from bascule's original posted link where the journalist quotes Amnesty. I think people can see it's obvious Amnesty did point fingers at both Hamas and Israel. Does everyone see the contradictions from accepted reality? It's not Amnesty's fault if the journalist or media used a badly worded title for The Guardian article. Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza So the propagandas (networks) I mentioned, like to accuse something that's already center-political or balnced, in order to maybe push them further right and have it seem mainstream?
  13. Pangloss, I consider you one of the more fair people in handling views different than your own, at least on these forums. You've shown it plenty of times. So believe me, anytime I say "the propagandas" it certainly doesn't mean you or anyone here. That phrase is just my way of abbreviatinging "the propaganda network, some of which includes Limbaugh, O'Reilley, certain A.M. radio, talking points strategically circulated, etc.". Perhaps there's been a huge miscommunication? Does seem that way. And if so....my apologies for not sensing it or being clearer on what I meant from the beginning.
  14. Your point lacks something. Their claims on what Amnesty said are verifiable. There's even footnotes -- more accurate than the propaganda I spoke against -- the made-up kind. So my point stands. Curious, though. Which of the following do you say occurred? I made reference to a webpage that described fairly accurate quotes (regardless if at times the website's been known to have stupid contributors write propagandas). Or, did I state that Counterpunch is professional journalism with integrity, every page trustworthy -- and it's why Reaper's link is spot on? The irony is, Amnesty's choice of words do reveal the inaccuracy of your own sources -- but only *if* Amnesty has a track record of phrasing the casualty talk just as was evidenced in the article. We don't know yet. But you haven't even shown that Amnesty's comments in Reaper's link were "propagandized" by Counterpunch to begin with. Thus, if Amnesty's statements at the link are consistent with their usual statements (meaning you'd be wrong), then Counterpunch is saying Amnesty favors U.S. and Israel tactics over Hamas. But even if you were right, then Counterpunch is actually doing propaganda for your side -- the complete opposite of what you and others have implied of Amnesty. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Fair enough, it does make sense the way you put it, but I wasn't strawmanning, more like addressing the kind of thinking quoted below. The triumphant at all costs philosophy still has meaning if your intention is to reduce your own casualties first. Of course, it's still monstrous for Hamas to bomb civilian targets, yet some Israel military personnel are guilty of their own share of monstrous behavior. This is the worrisome part. The reasoning has tunnel vision -- because it gives legitimacy to a terrorist exploding nuclear bombs against an undefeatable nation in order to minimize casualties on their end. But how can't it? From the people who made up the "saved lives" argument, we've inherited a stockpile able to obliterate the world, and due to their lack of foresight, we lost the power of deterrence when nukes became transportable by foot in suitcases. The air defense system is now useless. Retaliation impossible. If we rationalize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary decisions, we'll possibly never escape the future use of nuclear weapons. Does it ever occur to us that certain people in free nations love the power nukes give them? Maybe it's a different version of what having billions of dollars would feel like.
  15. Sure The propagandas that I mentioned like to attack their opposition. Far as I can see, a quick browse of Counterpunch showed them attacking both right and left. I'm not familiar with Counterpunch (tend to avoid sites overdone with big ugly screaming lettering at top), but it doesn't mean you can't verify the statements referred to. They have enough footnotes, so what's the problem? What they claimed Amnesty said is pretty much fact. That portion really does show Amnesty's language having a bias for the U.S. and Israel. Maybe the total number of statements by Amnesty tell a different story, but I was just making reference to the link. I'm not quite sure why it got you to roll on the floor laughing. But hey, more power to you. Laughter's good medicine, eh?
  16. bascule, I like the picture you included. It really speaks out. Having an image that keeps the human factor of war real in our minds is always a good thing. Actually, in a way you did say that. At first you might have said "potential" but then your last sentence cements the accusation. Perhaps you should own up to it. Could've been an innocent oversight....when emotions run high or one writes in haste, that might occur. Whatever the case, it's usually best to be fair and admit the error, if there was one. First, there are good people. Really. The rotten ones just have a way of infecting such organizations. It's to their best interest. Second, to others here: Reaper's link clearly illustrates how Amnesty's usual stance isn't even close to what the propagandas have made it out to be. It's an old trick -- by the same propagandas who highlight far-right interests as "Mainstream America" and center-left politics as "far left extremists". Both these deceptions' goals are practically identical, to gradually make their pet extreme ideology seem normal/desirable.
  17. We may see an example of a town rebuilt on green principles and drawing strongly from wind power. If you haven't seen the Weather Channel doc on Greensburg, the town ruined in 2007 by a tornado and being rebuilt into a "green town", check it out. In order of appearance dates, below is a list of news coverage on the transpired events. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17643060 http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/02/greensburg.green/index.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-01-greensburg_N.htm Obama acknowledged Greensburg in his speech to Congress last tuesday (near end of article). http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/02/24/Obama-calls-for-defense/1235533534.html The Sundance Channel also has five 2-4 minute episodes detailing the greening of the town of Greensburg.
  18. http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_04/alia/A3041703.htm I bet someone feels silly... Below is a quote from one such armchair general. It goes both ways, methinks. The way I decipher their real situation, is you'd have powerhouse Israel on the left, tanks and U.S. supplied weaponry, and on the right you'd have someone much closer to the slapping nerd (Hamas) than Israel is. So what I glean from it: Hamas is just using a tactical strategy. It's be a really dumb strategy for Hamas to engage Israel completely head on -- as Israel would obliterate them. For all you "war isn't supposed to be humane" comments, why are you disgusted at Hamas tactics? It's simply the manner you've accepted war -- to be triumphant at all costs. (I'm not defending either side, but Israel's propaganda is much subtler)
  19. I don't have to look it up. Right here on this page waitforinfo supplied one example. That is against the law. It's meaningless either way. The important thing is government not be interfered with or high-ranking officials getting away with breaking the law -- especially as it affects us. But our entire argument stemmed from iNow's post and the response by Pangloss, "And yet most of the issues currently aimed at Bush were present in the 2004 election cycle." Sisyphus, I tend to ignore manipulated public opinion. It's less manipulated now as we have more coverage of the facts, it's more widespread. Intelligence doesn't always matter. In the follow-up to 2004, I encountered plenty of intellectuals (I mean freakin smart people) that dismissed warnings about the Bush team, defending everything and repeating talking points. It was disgusting. Yet in 2005-2006, they made a complete and utter turnaround. Cognitive dissonance is what's at play. No one got smarter now than in 2004, it's just they lost the battle happening in their mind, for the propagandas could only keep stoking its fires so long. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The effects of dissonance wears off in time. Sometimes.....because the propandas aren't the only ones with tricks. A friend liked to dig out a report of abuse made on the Bush administration, then replace all mentions of Bush and Republicans with that of Dems, and show it to Pro-Bush Republicans. After they go on a rant against the Dems, she'd hand them the original. It's fun to watch their reactions. However, soon enough cognitive dissonance takes over, and excuses for the Bush team start to come out anyway. But who cares, she's accomplished the task: forcing the person to decry something their beloved party did -- a quite almost impossible task. She does enjoy having paradoxes explode in their hopelessly stubborn minds. If the person adopts her trick and uses it against Dems, so much the better. It's really great when people recognize *all* politicians are just that -- politicians. Not something to be idolized. The main difference between her and the propagandas, is that she doesn't let the person walk away believing the falsehood.
  20. If that what you call having more evidence available. You might want to reread the post.
  21. Manufactured opinion. Less evidence available back then, with the strategic/mock outrage by propagandas cornering their market of opinion. And people were still afraid to look unpatriotic for questioning the President.
  22. Do you really think everyone needs a history lesson spelled out? I thought people would already know our forefathers wanted: 1) a government, 2) freedom from tyranny, 3) a bill of rights, 4) granted freedom to the Press, and 5) granted freedom to citizens -- more powerful than special interests and/or parties. I thought you did, because of the statement quoted below.
  23. Yeah, with the propagandas framing the debate so it was about the Iraq war to many people's eyes, and claiming a vote for Dems is surrendering to terror, and with Republican governor Schwarzenegger calling those opposing the war "girlie men". I think it was much different. Back then, the abuses into our government was a trickling stream barely heard.
  24. If you really feel that Somalia has the level of freedoms as envisioned by our (the U.S.) forefathers, then say it and I'll remove the question mark. But I think you understood what I meant.
  25. If you have any suggestions, I'll welcome them. For now, consider it a test of how many people feel that we still have what our forefathers envisioned as freedom. In that light, defining is unecessary. It's more like saying: do you feel free (more than all other nations?) Or if you're not from the U.S., do you feel that it's the most free? Do you think the Press is also free (as envisioned by U.S. forefathers)?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.