Plankton, Martha, and Political Tripe
In a way it makes perfect sense, but it's amazing nonetheless. This Wired story details NASA's recent discovery that plankton, of all things, can control weather. If we can figure this one out, and I'm sure we will eventually, imagine the good it could bring.
The prosecution of Martha Stewart is such a joke. She did something that a zillion millionaires have done before: she heard a tip and acted on it. Yes, yes. Insider trading is a bad thing. I'm not saying otherwise. But that's not what happened. What she did is so utterly insignificant in the corporate context that it should whiten the knuckles of anyone with a sense of justice. They made an example of her, and it had more to do with the bizarre hatred for Martha than it does her stock situation. By the way, this whole fiasco has led to more than $100 million in personal losses for this maker of cakes. Martha built a giant domestic empire, and that made her a delicious target. Liberals everywhere have thoroughly enjoyed the process. It's hard to believe what motivates some people. It's hard to believe that so many people can carry such misdirected and unwarranted hate. It's sad. Really, really sad. Martha Stewart in jail? How embarrassing...
If you're of the mind that the current administration went to war in Iraq because they wanted to install a few defense contractors, claim some oil, and generally wreak havok on some Iraqi bodies, then you must be an actor. Or intellectually lazy, whichever. Maybe my memory is better than anyone in Hollywood, but I doubt that. Before Bush was elected, the language coming from the Democratic party about Iraq was, well...this article summarizes it nicely.
Even more interesting is this video experiment.
13 Comments:
As I feared, my departure has left you in a moral and intellectual vacuum. To use the terms "liberals everywhere" and "intellectually lazy" in the same article? How embarrassing.
In the end, Martha Stewart is not going to jail because of her Imclone trade, but because she lied to investigators. Should she have been under investigation in the first place? Being married to a like-minded Martha, I am inclined to think not. What this has to do with "liberals everywhere" I have no idea. I am sure you will explain.
And how astonished was I to discover that I am "intellectually lazy"? Please dear sir, I beg for knowledge: why *are* we in Iraq?
10:40 AM
Ah, my apologies, that last post was from me. I don't feel like giving my precious personal details away to yet another site. -j
10:44 AM
"moral and intellectual vacuum"? I'll assume you're kidding and ignore that.
"Liberals everywhere" and "intellectually lazy" were written in two topically separate paragraphs, but hey - Most liberals *are* intellectually lazy anyway. If you think I've gone Republican or something, no no no...it's not black or white, Dem or Rep, liberal or conservative. I'm all over the map, just as I remember you to be.
I'd be wary of anyone who is "all left" or "all right", because the philosophies and platforms that the Dems and Reps espouse are NEVER philosophically consistent.
Why are we in Iraq? Incorrect or incomplete intelligence, as it's perceived right now. Do I like it? No. Never said I did. My point was that the loud and always annoying placard holders are saying the same tired crap they said back in 1991: oil oil politics Cheney blah blah etc. It's laziness. Don't you think Iraq is better off *without* Hussein? The left has always trumpeted the removal and prevention of abusive governments with a long tradition of human rights and UN violations. I guess not as long as there's a Bush in charge. Everything changes when there's a Bush in charge, or so it seems. If any Dem were in the White House, we'd still be in Iraq. Things would still be messy. Go back and look at the Iraq-related statements of Kerry, Clinton, and other Dems, pre-GWB.
I'm not a Bush guy. I'm not a Kerry guy. Neither of them represent the best and the brightest, IMO. It's disappointing.
11:24 AM
Oh, and I forgot to mention: "Liberals everywhere have thoroughly enjoyed the process" is a reference to the many, many comments I've heard and read in the media from lib pundits and (fuggin) celebrities. They really seem to be enjoying watching her ship sink. If you haven't witnessed it, you haven't witnessed it.
12:44 PM
If I sift through the above, I come up with "incorrect or incomplete intelligence". You neglect to mention the good intelligence that was manipulated, misrepresented, or ignored to futher the cause (first hit on my search: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml). This administration knew it had a weak case for war and pushed ahead anyway. Why? Because GWB has a soft spot for the Iraqi people?
Would a different administration have taken us to war? Well, if Congress agreed to the war because they felt Iraq posed a threat, and if that reasoning was based on misleading intelligence, then the question comes down to: "would a different administration have manipulated the evidence?" I'm not so sure.
Is Iraq better off without Hussein? If the country devolves into bloody civil war, as many Iraqis fear, is that better or worse? What if the Shiites take it upon themselves to avenge sixty years of repression? What if a new Hussein arises?
If removing Hussein was the rationale for war, then what about North Korea? Yemen? Heck, what about Cuba? Or China? Why aren't we in Sudan? And if this was all for the benefit of the Iraqi people, then why were we so completely unprepared for our civic responsibilities once Hussein fell?
What if we had gone after al-Qaeda instead? Or finished the job in Afghanistan? Or tried to wipe out the root causes of terrorism (such as poverty and education)? Or rebuilt our own country (http://www.costofwar.com/)?
I have yet to hear a justification for the war that outweighs the alternatives, or even comes close. Except that a number of people in and around the current administration stand to make a boatload of money over the long haul. But apparently, I'm just lazy. Nonetheless, I don't find your "lefties are stoopid" argument very convincing.
As for Martha, I'm somehow missed all of the liberal revelry that surrounded her trial. Can you send me a link? Unless of course you were just referring to the "liberal media".
I look forward to your intellectually buff response. -j
3:23 PM
Oy... You're filling in A LOT of blanks there, J. Read what I wrote and only what I wrote. I'm calling the "no blood for oil" and Halliburton cliches intellectually lazy because they are, if you think they are the ONLY reasons we went into Iraq. The events and concerns that led to the...war-like thing...in Iraq were more complicated than that. There's this bizarre supposition of evil on George Bush and Cheney, and it's pretty scary. If the CIA had given ANY President the information they gave to Bush, I doubt things would be much different now.
And like you, I don't like what's going on over there. Who could? Almost 1000 dead Americans, declining world opinion, no easy way out, etc. But there just might be some upside to all this. Ten years from now we might look back and see that this whole thing successfully seeded democracy, however culturally limited it might be, in that region for the first time.
If citing CBSNews (the most openly liberal news outlet in the country) can lend credibility to this discussion, then I'll direct you do these:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200407131251.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126124,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-15-oppose_x.htm
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/302724|top|07-15-2004::08:09|reuters.html
That William F. Buckley article is as fair and accurate as it gets.
In my experience, anyone who doesn't think that the Network news programs and CNN are slanted left get their news only from those sources. The stories they choose to cover and the stories they choose to ignore paint a clear picture. You're more likely to see 400 Iraqis marching down the street holding up pro-Saddam signs than you are to see the march of thousands calling for his assassination. It's not what Journalism is supposed to be.
-------
If removing Hussein was the rationale for war, then what about North Korea? Yemen? Heck, what about Cuba? Or China? Why aren't we in Sudan? And if this was all for the benefit of the Iraqi people, then why were we so completely unprepared for our civic responsibilities once Hussein fell?
-------
Those countries haven't been out of UN compliance for years re: WMD inspections. YEARS of thumbing his nose at UN inspectors.
-------
What if we had gone after al-Qaeda instead? Or finished the job in Afghanistan? Or tried to wipe out the root causes of terrorism (such as poverty and education)? Or rebuilt our own country
-------
Uh, we did go after al-Qaeda. They don't have a single convenient location with buildings you can bomb. They're all over the place. They're in Florida. New York. Africa. Yemen. Jordan. Afganistan. Indonesia.
The root cause of THIS brand of terrorism is an insane interpretation of the Koran, and there's no talking to terrorist minds. You can't reason with them. Tell me how we can use education and bags of rice to prevent al-Qaeda from recruiting 12 year old boys and girls, promising young men 72 virgins in the afterlife if they kill Americans, etc. Are we gonna hand out fliers? Perhaps planting a seed of democracy, at long last, is how you *begin* to take care of the education issue. Is there another magical way?
BTW, the US spends more on feeding the world and general worldwide charity than the rest of the world combined.
-------
I have yet to hear a justification for the war that outweighs the alternatives, or even comes close.
-------
I agree. But only because I haven't heard or read ONE SINGLE realistic alternative. Just Bush this and Cheney that.
-------
As for Martha, I'm somehow missed all of the liberal revelry that surrounded her trial. Can you send me a link? Unless of course you were just referring to the "liberal media".
-------
Over all those months, I saw it everywhere. Not just this past week. Talking head-type shows with some NOW rep spouting venom at Martha stewart - even *before* it was determined that she lied to investigators. It made me wonder what they hell was motivating the hate. If a NOW executive had been embroiled in the same deal, do you think it would have been handled differently? I don't think all media is liberal. But CNN and the 3 networks are, and have been for a long time.
4:39 PM
I'm afraid I can't blow another day debating you point by point. Too much time spent on this nonsense already. You said anyone who thought we were in Iraq for oil was intellectually lazy ie. ignorant, ie. if they would just educate themselves they would come to the correct conclusion, ie. yours. I pointed out that the information to justify the war appears to have been intentionally manipulated. There was an unexplained rush to war -- it was public pressure from both parties that stopped them from invading only months after Afghanistan. There are numerous ties between the administration and the oil and defense industries. Iraq sits on the largest untapped reserves of "easy" oil on the planet. You are willing to take the administration at their word, bully for you. After watching them behave like children (I would google "republicans comfort enemy") who frequently say one thing while doing another (google "bush clear skies"), I'm not inclined to be so favorable.
Note that, being a good "liberal", I am not saying you are wrong. I *am* saying that your blanket dismissal of everyone with an opposing viewpoint is hypocritical, at best. Kind of like me saying "anyone who believes in UFOs is a kook." Not that we know anyone in that category. To get that from someone I had considered to be fairly open-minded is a sore blow.
I'll concede for lack of evidence the poverty/education bit. I still consider your condemnation of "liberals everywhere" to be obnoxious.
I'd love to take a shot at your "liberal media" nonsense, but alas I am out of time. I'll leave you the last word -- this is your site after all -- and then we can continue on our rapidly diverging ways.
-j
8:45 AM
Glenn Beck? Are you kidding me? He represents the kind of people who eat freedom fries, if you catch my drift.
10:16 PM
You wrote:You said anyone who thought we were in Iraq for oil was intellectually lazy ie. ignorant, ie. if they would just educate themselves they would come to the correct conclusion, ie. yours.This interpretation that lazy = ignorant is an interpretation that you've decided you're gonna make. It's not what I was saying, but hey. Apparently that doesn't matter. That second bit is just left-field silliness. What? It has nothing to do with my opinion about the war. I'm not even sure how I feel about it. Is feeling ambivalent about a difficult issue that's constantly changing such a bad thing? But I'll say it again: It's lazy to assume that the war came down to those three things alone. You've apparently decided that those words are a direct affront to you. I don't believe they were, so I'm not sure why you do. I don't believe it because you've laid out your case for why you think the war and Bush are a failure. I respect that. But your reasons, at least the general ideas of your reasons, represent more than the three protest cliches that we (okay, I) have heard day in and day out from the likes of Celebrity A through Z, D & C hacks, CNN pundits, et. al. By the definition of my point, that arrow missed you completely.
Then you said:
To get that from someone I had considered to be fairly open-minded is a sore blow.What specifically have I said that constitutes closed-mindedness? I said I keep hearing the same damn things and there's more to it than those things. Ergo, the anti-Bush arguments that *I've heard* have been lazy lazy lazy. Maybe you haven't seen the celebs coming out of the woodwork, speaking out (poorly) as if anyone cares, as if their two cents was $4,443.02.
RE: your last sentence...I don't understand.
12:09 AM
Andy...re: glenn beck, I've only heard his show a few times, and each time, the stuff he was doing was hilarious. I never disagreed with anything he said. It was all common sense commentary. Maybe I caught him on a good day, I don't know. I don't know much about him or his show. I had found that summary page as a link on another site. From what little I *do* know, it seems a little unfair to consider him a "representative" of freedom fry eaters...(They'll always be French Fries, man...don't worry.)
12:22 AM
Great article! Thanks.
12:43 PM
Thanks for interesting article.
6:22 PM
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
9:28 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home