Barack Obama's Real Space Omission

PS - I have read Mark Whittington's posting. We seem to have a totally
cynical candidate who will say anything and lie through his teeth
simply to get elected. What he said to Florida Aerospace workers was
the diametrical opposite of what he has said previously.

Now here is change we really can believe in! Perhaps the ONLY change
we can believe in.


- Ian Parker

On May 23, 9:13 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

It seems to be inspiring them to vote for Obama. Isn't that bad
enough? ;-)

I admit I would prefer them to be voting for John McCain too, at this
critical juncture.

Back *when* John F. Kennedy was President, of course, while there were
political debates over how best to cope with the threat presented by
Communist Russia, it was clear that it was a real threat, and there
was no point in playing political games with that fact.

The Democratic Party wasn't out there trying to tell Americans that
the Soviets were just misunderstood, and they were simply slightly
overenthusiastic idealistic supporters of equality for the common man.
Not under Kennedy or even Johnson.

They couldn't have gotten away with it, any more than the Republicans
could have gotten away with saying we shouldn't be fighting World War
II... during World War II.

People on the Left, though, *can* point out that Pearl Harbor never
led to witch-hunts of former isolationists, and that America had to be
dragged by Pearl Harbor into the war against Hitler... while, in
contrast, the deployment of U.S. troops in Korea and Vietnam was
*not*...

subsequent to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe that had already
been in progress for a year or two, finally triggered by Red China
lobbing a nuke at, say, San Francisco.

The Left can complain that the Right holds an unfair amount of power
because the rich usually do... just as the Right can complain that the
mass media tends to have a left-wing culture, because the arts
departments of colleges, where journalists come from, tend to have a
left-wing culture.

After September 11, 2001, it would be hard for any political group to
claim that terrorism presents *no* threat.

But it's also true that it isn't appeasement not to make war on those
who are not at war with us.

G. W. Bush is criticized from the Left when he recognizes this
principle by trying to work with Sa'udi Arabia and Pakistan, despite
the fact that they are imperfect from our point of view.

The extreme left seems to think that if we just smiled nicely at the
Taliban, they would have eventually come around and extradited Osama
bin Laden.

There is, though, broad support for the notion that the war in Iraq is
being somehow mishandled. Since the invasion, Iraqis trying to lead
normal lives have been getting blown up on a weekly basis, and, while
the terrorists are immediately at fault for that, the idea that even
Iraqis whose minds haven't been twisted by fanatical fundamentalist
Islam might have gotten annoyed at us, long before now, for stirring
up a hornet's nest that we don't seem to be able or willing to deal
with... is not wholly unreasonable.

On the other hand, I can understand that responding to Muslim
terrorists destroying an American building by drafting our nation's
young men in order that they can better protect a bunch of Muslims
from each other - however unfair that characterization might be, since
we would really be protecting other peaceful people from terrorists,
the real enemy - would not be hugely popular.

Everyone wants the fruits of victory, but nobody wants to fight a war.

And so China has apparently developed a second-strike capability, and
so we're going to be hugely disappointed when it invades peaceful,
democratic Taiwan and we can't do anything about it.

We're disapponted that Russia doesn't seem to be ending up as a
democracy after all.

So instead of a new world order like a replay of the Victorian era -
in which the Third World dictatorships are speedily mopped up, and
democracies are required to respect minority rights - the Cold War is
continuing; innocent people will be murdered and enslaved without the
world's democracies being able to put a stop to it, and thus humanity
will be threatened by war for decades or even centuries to come,
instead of the Earth becoming a nice, safe, civilized place in which
artistic and scientific progress is the only real excitement.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On May 23, 9:13 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

It seems to be inspiring them to vote for Obama. Isn't that bad
enough? ;-)

I admit I would prefer them to be voting for John McCain too, at this
critical juncture.

Back *when* John F. Kennedy was President, of course, while there were
political debates over how best to cope with the threat presented by
Communist Russia, it was clear that it was a real threat, and there
was no point in playing political games with that fact.

The Democratic Party wasn't out there trying to tell Americans that
the Soviets were just misunderstood, and they were simply slightly
overenthusiastic idealistic supporters of equality for the common man.
Not under Kennedy or even Johnson.

They couldn't have gotten away with it, any more than the Republicans
could have gotten away with saying we shouldn't be fighting World War
II... during World War II.

People on the Left, though, *can* point out that Pearl Harbor never
led to witch-hunts of former isolationists, and that America had to be
dragged by Pearl Harbor into the war against Hitler... while, in
contrast, the deployment of U.S. troops in Korea and Vietnam was
*not*...

subsequent to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe that had already
been in progress for a year or two, finally triggered by Red China
lobbing a nuke at, say, San Francisco.

The Left can complain that the Right holds an unfair amount of power
because the rich usually do... just as the Right can complain that the
mass media tends to have a left-wing culture, because the arts
departments of colleges, where journalists come from, tend to have a
left-wing culture.

After September 11, 2001, it would be hard for any political group to
claim that terrorism presents *no* threat.

But it's also true that it isn't appeasement not to make war on those
who are not at war with us.

G. W. Bush is criticized from the Left when he recognizes this
principle by trying to work with Sa'udi Arabia and Pakistan, despite
the fact that they are imperfect from our point of view.

The extreme left seems to think that if we just smiled nicely at the
Taliban, they would have eventually come around and extradited Osama
bin Laden.

There is, though, broad support for the notion that the war in Iraq is
being somehow mishandled. Since the invasion, Iraqis trying to lead
normal lives have been getting blown up on a weekly basis, and, while
the terrorists are immediately at fault for that, the idea that even
Iraqis whose minds haven't been twisted by fanatical fundamentalist
Islam might have gotten annoyed at us, long before now, for stirring
up a hornet's nest that we don't seem to be able or willing to deal
with... is not wholly unreasonable.

On the other hand, I can understand that responding to Muslim
terrorists destroying an American building by drafting our nation's
young men in order that they can better protect a bunch of Muslims
from each other - however unfair that characterization might be, since
we would really be protecting other peaceful people from terrorists,
the real enemy - would not be hugely popular.

Everyone wants the fruits of victory, but nobody wants to fight a war.

And so China has apparently developed a second-strike capability, and
so we're going to be hugely disappointed when it invades peaceful,
democratic Taiwan and we can't do anything about it.

We're disapponted that Russia doesn't seem to be ending up as a
democracy after all.

So instead of a new world order like a replay of the Victorian era -
in which the Third World dictatorships are speedily mopped up, and
democracies are required to respect minority rights - the Cold War is
continuing; innocent people will be murdered and enslaved without the
world's democracies being able to put a stop to it, and thus humanity
will be threatened by war for decades or even centuries to come,
instead of the Earth becoming a nice, safe, civilized place in which
artistic and scientific progress is the only real excitement.

John Savard

These days, if a nation doesn't involve itself in the business
of developing weapons of war, it will then be developing ways to
defend itself against threats that use violence as act(s) of war.

There is a "third way" that doesn't bet on the weapons themselves
to win wars, but on a technology that "circumvents" the use of
deadly weapons. It's called "the disappearing act".

Someone once said that "a good offense is the best defense, but has
"the best offense" ever consisted of an escape route that would
always bet on the "enemy" not having the ability to "find" WHERE
or WHAT HAPPENED to their "hunted"?

In either case, either enemy just "disappears" from the face of
their "foe" without recourse or having to engage them in battle.
They just "pop up" somewhere else, living out their lives
"anonymously". Unfortunately, this "anonymity" comes at a price.

The "price" is losing one's "national identity" at the expense
of one's "national sovereignity". The people that do this may also
remain unaccountable to the extent that there can be no responsi-
bility on their part for a nation's personal property, i.e.,
"infrastructure", because the "people" that occupy these systems
of infrastructure are not "beholden" to the building and/or
maintenance of these systems.

Question: Does the State become the slave to the anonymous person,
or does the anonymous person become a ward of the state?

-

On May 24, 1:08 pm, American wrote:

It's called "the disappearing act".

That works nicely for terrorists, but it isn't really an option for
civilian populations.

Unless we *do* invent antigravity and/or an FTL drive, for which items
I'm not holding my breath.

John Savard

On May 24, 5:09*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 24, 1:08 pm, American wrote:

It's called "the disappearing act".

That works nicely for terrorists, but it isn't really an option for
civilian populations.

Unless we *do* invent antigravity and/or an FTL drive, for which items
I'm not holding my breath.

John Savard

Interesting. That would present us with the perspective that one's
own existence has resulted in the creation of the PERCEPTION
of time, and not the other way around!

“change in thought induced by matter is consciousness.
Consciousness is not possible in quantum theory. It is a post-
quantum effect.” - Jack Sarfatti

I've diddled a bit with this thought to reword it as follows:

“change in thought induced by matter is consciousness.
Consciousness is not possible in quantum theory. It is a post-
quantum effect” to the following: “change in thought induced
by matter is AWARENESS but not necessarily SELF
CONSCIOUSNESS. CONSCIOUS AWARENESS is not
possible in quantum theory. ONLY UNCONSCIOUS
UNIQUENESS IS. It is both a pre- and post-quantum effect.”

Perhaps there remains in our DNA a program that manifests a pre-
destined uniqueness for every individual personality. This uniqueness
is built into the way the DNA program operates, as the life building
sequence of events unfolds. The closest thing to "conscious" might
be in the way that a particular gene might adapt to its environment
- a "noisy" environment might cause high frequency deafness, as a
"quiet" environment might "enhance" one's hearing range.

So I'm guessing that if the "machine" for FTL travel is already
built in to ourselves, then somewhere in the pre-natal - post-natal
period must affect the overall programming for physical, ionically-
driven growth simultaneously as the "machine" itself.

American

On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.



Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.
And Rand knows it.

The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.

On May 26, 4:34 pm, wrote:

The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.

He _didn't_ actually compare Obama to Hitler. He only gratuitously
mentioned Hitler in the same breath as Obama. Which is still not a
nice thing to do, but you've fallen into his trap, since his fiendish
scheme was to make Obama's supporters look like fools for failing to
make that particular subtle distinction!

John Savard

wrote:

:On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
: :
: :
: : If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: : waiting for for a long time.
: :
: : Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?
: :
: :That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
: :Hitler, right?
: :
: :What's YOUR point?
: :
:
: His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
: actually thinking.
:
: His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
: for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.
:
: It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. In
: fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.
:
:
:
:Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.
:And Rand knows it.
:
:The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.
:

Asked and answered. Counterexample showing why 'inspiring oratory' is
not necessarily a great thing.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On May 26, 7:31 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: wrote:

: :
: :
: : If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: : waiting for for a long time.
: :
: : Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?
: :
: :That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
: :Hitler, right?
: :
: :What's YOUR point?
: :
:
: His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
: actually thinking.
:
: His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
: for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.
:
: It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. In
: fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.
:
:
:
:Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.
:And Rand knows it.
:
:The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.
:

Asked and answered. Counterexample showing why 'inspiring oratory' is
not necessarily a great thing.


Heh heh. Sorry , no balloon.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:34:47 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

On May 23, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.



Those are good points, but the comparision with Hitler is unnecessary.

It makes the point.

The question was what the point was in comparing Obama to Hitler.

I made it.

Why does it upset you so much to compare Obama to Hitler? Take away
the racism, the genocide, the militarism. Just what is it about
Hitler that you don't like?