at first after world war 2 there was an idealism in the air that marxism/ communism would result in cooperation between russia and china. but this quickly fell victim to the usual imperialistic instincts of such vast empires. there were massive military buildups along the chinese-russian border, over stupid petty disagreements like tiny useless islands in the amur river (border between russia and manchuria). american intelligence got wind of this and sensed an opportunity: the tension between russia and china was one of the reasons nixon's about face on china and sudden seeking of warm relations with china at the time made so much strategic sense: drive a wedge between powerful enemies of the usa
so when vietnam aligned itself with russia, it was sort of china's version of the united states' experience with cuba: a tiny southern country right on its border having the audacity to fall the influence of a powerful enemy. in fact, after the vietnam war, china had its own version of the bay of pigs (on a much larger scale): china and vietnam went to war
100,000 vietnamese civilians were killed by the chinese in that 1979-1980 war. but the chinese lost this war badly, and chinese propaganda has pretty much covered the whole event up and erased the war from chinese history books. because it was embarrassing how badly china lost. to this day, chinese veterans of that war are officially shunned and denied benefits or even recognition
you have to admire the vietnamese: they kicked out a major colonial power, the french. then they took on a world superpower, the americans. and finished it off by repulsing the regional power, china. in one long sustained 30-40 year very bloody struggle, the vietnamese kicked everyone's asses
vietnam deserves much respect, they have suffered heavily for their rightful independence
no paywalls on journals: put it all on an open peer reviewed internet site. allow anyone to comment (who is a serious scientist)
all internal communications, specifically related to the subject matter, placed on an open log
nothing is lost by doing this, nothing can be feared to be revealed. there's nothing to hide
the issue with hard science versus the soft sciences, or, in this case, versus political partisan hack jobs, is that hard science can withstand rigorous analysis. because such rigorous second guessing is the very essence of what science is: its nothing more than the accumulation of the most likely explanations for what we see in our natural world... until anomalous data comes along that requires a new explanation, which is what makes challenging and exciting
fanatical transparency is not a problem at all for what science is supposed to be. therefore, hard science is in a position to be the most trusted set of institutions in all of modern society, were it to actually submit itself to this regime
but you said you were for nonintervention... as opposed to isolationism
so all i've really learned from you is that you support isolationism, but you don't even know what isolationism is
truly a person if infinite wisdom well positioned to develop a logically coherent verdict on obama's foreign policy
in response, you'll probably attack me as an obama supporter just angry that someone would have a contrary opinion of the president
rather, i fully support your right to criticize obama's foreign policy all you want. JUST FUCKING MAKE SENSE. because right now, there is absolutely no logical coherence to anything you've said
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
i did not know obama extending his hand was comparable to military intervention. oh, you didn't say MILITARY intervention? so you meant isolationism. no not that? well then what the hell is nonmilitary nonintervention? what the fuck are you saying?
here's an amazing wacky concept for you: how about obama extend his hand, and we don't intervene militarily? that sound possible to you? i think you mentioned something about constructing false binary choices? i did not know extending a hand to the vile iranian regime to undercut their self-reenforcing hostility was incompatible with military nonintervention. pfffffffft
but if your criticism is fucking stupid, i will criticize you for being fucking stupid
which is just as much my right of criticism as yours, right?
furthermore, bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing. it doesn't mean you support bush. it means: "what you are asking for is what bush did already, and it easily to demonstrate how fucking stupid it was"
and furthermore, if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?
bush's approach was stupid, correct? do you agree or disagree?
based on that, how can you criticize the alternative approach by obama?
and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism. if you think this is the way the usa should proceed in this world, oh man, just go study your history. it is beneath me the remedial historical lessons you should already know about why this approach is so flawed and frankly impossible for ANY country in this world to take
maybe you don't see the evidence because you're not making the slightest effort to see the obvious?
oh, this is where you disqualify all these observations because they are "western media". nevermind the fact you can find this news from all over the world, right? and as for blog posts: they couldn't possibly be from real iranians, its all cia propaganda, right?
all we need is a proper objective fact finding mission of actual abuse by the iranian regime on its own citizens, right? ok genius: lets go and form that fact finding mission. i think we will find the iranian government quite helpful in that regard
the iranian government distorts all media from iran... but you will not find reason to criticize the regime... until you find media that is undistorted from iran. chicken and egg, no?
or put it this way: if you find the evidence to be undependable, an assertion that all is milk and honey in iran is just as dubious as the assertion that all is not right, correct? in which case, you need to apply your mind, and look at the smoke and figure out if there is a fire
look at the amazing effort the cia is making in formulating youtube posts of abuse, of making up blogs and tweets, of all iranian observers of any ideological attitude united in their depictions of what is going on in iran, including expat iranians. and then conclude what? that the cia is really good at making shit up? pffffffft
iraq was a travesty of bad info. because of that, don't conclude ALL info you receive about american enemies is made up. or YOU compound the damage the iraq fiasco was
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea, that one of the three (iraq) was invaded ostensibly because of nuclear research... and none was found. meanwhile, har har, the two that were not invaded have since accelerated their pursuit of nuclear weapons thousandfolds? hey, genius: if bush was more subtle in his approach, maybe the nuclear status of those two vile regimes wouldn't be so far along, did you consider that?
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support. wow, you're such a credit to the country, thanks
mindlessly declaring your animosity to clearly vile regimes might make your chest thumping feel good, but it actually doesn't help. it in fact makes things far worse. because this atavistic animosity actually HELPS the regimes in north korea and iran: it gives them reason to crack down further yet on their long suffering populations in the name of fear of american intentions, and it actually increases their support in feelings of nationalism in the people living there. all they have to do is point at the actual words bush spoke, rather making up their own fearmongering, and everyone circles the wagons
so our current president, meanwhile, takes the INTELLIGENT and SUBTLE approach to defeating these vile regimes
but not good enough for you. he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER
both countries are recent breakway provinces. eritrea used to be in ethiopia until 1993. east timor used to be in indonesia until 2000. eritrea was a largely muslim area in a largely christian ethiopia. east timor was a largely catholic region in a largely muslim indonesia
its a shame that religious strife holds the basis for so much grief and fragmentation in this world
i doubted the suggestion, modded insightful, that media control in iran is just like in the usa. a further insightful reply to my trollmodded comment started discussing the idea of "manufacturing consent." which i actually don't have a problem with as a description of a real negative issue with the media in the usa. however: as if such a concept is remotely like anything what they do with the media in iran
why do people not understand that no matter how much you dislike the usa or big media in the west, or how many real and genuine problems you can find with the media and civil rights enforcement in the west, that what iran is doing is far, far more vile, according to the widest range of subjective and objective measurements, and not even remotely comparable?
what iran does to its citizens and how it handles rights internally can't possibly compare to the status quo in the west if you claim the slightest amount of intellectual honesty. iran is off the charts. there is no equivalency, period
no matter how much you hate the usa or how large your grievance is with the FOREIGN policies of western governments, when you try to equate what happens in the west DOMESTICALLY with what iran does with its citizens, you only cheapen and disqualify the moral and logical basis for your opposition to the west. you make a fool of yourself, because you do not appear to be someone who is truly speaking from moral principles, you only appear to be geopolitically posturing. you're not concerned with making the world a better place. you're concerned with vendettas. you do not demonstrate a mental ability to appreciate concepts like scale, perspective, and context when formulate an equivalence between domestic rights and media manipulation in the west and iran. do you really understand what iran freely engages in in the suppression of its citizens? do you honestly want to compare that to anything the west does to its citizens?
you need to demonstrate an actual well-defined set of moral principles. if you do that, you will find a need on your own part to criticize iran for what it does to its citizens. or at the very least, if criticism of the west is your only concern, you need to stop trying to steer a discussion of the horrid crimes iran commits internally into a discussion of the far smaller set of domestic crimes committed in the west. the west is NOT innocent. however, the crimes the west commits domestically isn't even remotely as vile as what iran commits domestically. really
in regard to the subject matter of abuse of citizens and media manipulation, if in your mind you cannot help but to confuse iran and the usa's domestic policies, you only demonstrate an irrational bias on your part, not any real moral principles or logical backbone
please, by all means, be my guest, continue to criticize the west. as someone who truly and genuinely holds free expression of opinion as a bedrock principle, i support your right to speak your mind, even if i disagree with it. but one wonders how you handle the cognitive dissonance of pointing out anthills while the mountain looms in the discussion
my argument isn't with you. my argument is with those who think "think of the children!" is a modern invention of the media/ {insert your favorite political bogeyman here} and that the impulse can be easily discard
the source of that comment of yours is simply an inability on your part to perceive and/ or to take into account the positive effects of the irrational impulse: healthy and surviving children
i admit every single one of the negative effects of this irrational impulse on society
however, unlike you i see the balance: i make note of the positive effects, and see that those more than counterbalance the negative effects
additionally, i come to the logically inescapable conclusion that due to evolution, the impulse is utterly inseparable from our existence as homo sapiens, so deeply rooted it is in our minds. such that even if on balance it was a negative effect, that doesn't mean we could get rid of the impulse. whether a net positive effect or net negative effect, the best we could do is merely attempt to mitigate the consequences of the impulse, incompletely and forever, as a simple maintenance function of civilization
its never going away. you need to accept it and incorporate it in your worldview. rejecting it is unsuccessful
the impulse has existed longer than we have been homo sapiens, and isn't remotely unique to us as a species. take two mating pairs, of any species that has few children:
mating pair A has 4 children and walks away from them as soon as possible
mating pair B has 4 children and zealously protects them until adulthood
mating pair A has 1 out of 4 children who survives to mate and reproduce
mating pair B has 3 out of 4 children who survives to mate and reproduce
do you understand evolution?
then you tell me what happens next over succeeding generations
you tell me about the possibility of a world without an irrational overbearing drive to protect children
a crocodile knows the answer to this question
this hysteria has only been around for a decade? how old are crocodilians as a zoological order? try 220 million years, into the triassic period
"think of the children!" irrational hysteria has been around for at least 220 million years, and is a foundational human impulse rooted deeper into our brains than our existence as simians, or even mammals, nevermind as homo sapiens
evolution has bestowed us with a hierarchy of reactions. tap your knee, it kicks. your spinal colummn takes care of that. higher than that, we have fight or flight: given a shock, the adrenal glands kick in with cortisol, etc. emotions like fear are GOOD: they keep you alive. driving sleepily in the middle of the night makes you afraid of crashing, you pull over, and sleep (another basic biological function you can't simply wish away). this is not a rational decision. or rather it IS a rational decision, prompted by the need to take into account your natural organic biological fears
in other words, your rational world exists atop a pyramid. if you for some reason ignore or disavow the lower baser levels of the pyramid, the edifice of the very top of the pyramid so important to you simply topples over
"the idea that humans will become extinct for not freaking out is itself irrational, and false"
fight or flight keeps you alive. and only when you are alive is everything else you hold dear in terms of a rational world even possible. you've lost touch with the biological foundation upon which you sit. that you are not aware of the foundation of lower impulses and emotions does not nullify their existence or their importance to keeping you around and breathing. in fact, ignore these baser impulses at your peril, or it is your existence that is nullified
being against the iranian REGIME is not being anti-iran. as illegitimate in the eyes of its own people as the regime is, being against is therefore pro-iranian
but why do i even waste my time stating fucking obvious logical inferences to abject morons?
let's put it this way: a society that pits your "rational" concerns againt primitive impulses is a society that will soon be extinct
you are mortal. you will die. you must work to recreate a new generation to replace you. you must fill them with the values you cherish. part of doing that involves protecting them from the wider adult world until they are emotionally, psychologically, physically, and mentally mature enough to handle the adult world
in other words, a SYNTHESIS of the primitive impulses you reject and a concern for a more rational world is the only valid approach. but if you pit your rational world against primitive impulses, i have sorry news for you: primitive impulses prevail, every single time, and always will
because those impulses are 100% necessary for the society and the rational values you cherish to even exist in the first place. primitive impulses can exist without your precious rational world. meanwhile, your precious rational world cannot exist without primitive impulses
so take heed of those primitive impulses, accept them, and incorporate them into your world view. opposing them or ignoring them leads to the extinction of every concept you value
"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds
"think of the children" is never, ever going away. in any society today, or in any hypothetical society that exists in the future (that actually works). if you "outgrow" your desire to be protective of children, you've simply declared your intention to go extinct as a society
every higher faculty you value is irretrievably held hostage by lower primitive impulses. recognize that, or forfeit logical coherence on the subject matter
try to reason with the six foot scaly mother that shows up to defend those eggs. you have just as much chance of defeating the "think of the children!" irrational impulse of homo sapiens. because as members of the ancient order of crocodilians has discovered, like many mammalians, is that if you invest in only a few offspring (as opposed to the fish and amphibian strategy of "fire and forget" 10,000 eggs), then it is a survival advantage to be overprotective of your children
the irrational desire to protect children from the various dangerous scenarios of adult IS an irrational desire. much like the irrational desire to feed. or the irrational desire to fornicate
in other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your children
biological imperatives trump all high minded concepts. principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives. as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice
no police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are busier trying to procure some food
so pay attention to biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot. ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human society
one of which being: "think of the children!" there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves. evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring, where that set of offspring is small, such as us humans. so "think of the children!" is an overbearing, overwhelming, messy, intrusive impulse that cannot be reasoned with. and yet it makes 100% sense biologically
all i'm saying is that "think of the children!" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away. because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a completely different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of view: the biological imperatives
look at it this way: without children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve. the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level. so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect children until they can fend for themselves
this simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make on the matter
"think of the children" reigns supreme. it is your job to simply accept this biological imperative, as messy and intrusive as it is, as messy and intrusive as the need to visit the bathroom, the desire to fornicate, and the need to shove sustenance into your mouth: creatures that have few offspring and act protective of their children have an evolutionary advantage over those that don't
no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going away
what i take issue with is equivocating manufacturing consent with the brutal tactics used in china and iran to maintain control over their media, which is what the granfather poster was asserting
surely you do not assert that the process is you describe is the same as the tactics used in iran and china?
i however would like to know how that is equivalent to the brutal tactics china and iran use to control information in their countries, which is what the grandfather poster asserted
please explain these miraculous invisible mechanisms
see in china, or iran, there are actual laws about everything being approved and monitored, there are actual large and well-staffed/ well-funded offices for doing exactly that, and severe punishments are doled out if the government doesn't like what it sees online or in print, and the strict party line has been brutally enforced on hundreds of occasions in the last couple of years
so please tell us how this is EXACTLY how it works in the usa. see as a simple sheeple horribly under the foot of american propaganda, i cry out for your "insightful" enlightenment on this matter
but don't take my word for it: allow an actual iranian to complain about ill-informed american armchair analysts who spout stupidity based on crap assumptions like yourself:
For instance, some American analysts assert that the demonstrations are taking place only in the sections of Tehran -- in the north, around the university and Azadi Square -- where the educated and well-off reside. Of course, those neighborhoods were home to the well-to-do... 30 years ago. The notion that these areas represent "the nice part of town" will come as a surprise to their residents, who endure the noise, congestion and pollution of living in the center of a megalopolis.
People who haven't visited a city in decades are bound to give out bad directions. But their descriptions of where the protests are taking place, and why, also draw on pernicious myths of an iron correlation between religion and class, between location and voting tendency, in Iran.
This false geography imagines South Tehran and the countryside as home only to the poor, those natural allies of political Islam, while North Tehran embodies unbridled gharbzadegi (translated as "Weststruckness" or "Westernitis") and is populated by people addicted to the Internet and vacations in Paris. It is as if political Islam withers north of Vanak Square and the only residents to be found are "liberals" who voted for the opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi.
We must not assume that the engagement of members of society with their religion is uniform or that religious devotion equals automatic loyalty to a particular brand of politics. To do so is certainly to deny Iran's poor the capacity to think for themselves, to deny that the politics of the past four years may have made their lives worse -- and plays right into Mr. Ahmadinejad's dubious claim to be the most authentic representative of the 1979 revolution. Mr. Moussavi was, let's not forget, a favored son of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and a member of Iran's original cohort of revolutionaries, and he remains a firm believer in the revolution and the framework of the Islamic Republic.
But the United States seems able to view our country only through anxieties left over from the 1979 revolution. In the "how did we lose Iran?" assessments after the overthrow of the shah, many American intelligence agents and policy makers decided that their great mistake was to spend too much time canoodling with the royal family and intellectual elites of the capital. Commentators now are worried that, by siding with the opposition today, the United States will once again fall into the trap of backing the losing side.
But the fact is, Tehran is not the Iranian anomaly it was 30 years ago. It has become more like the rest of the country. Internal migration, not just to Tehran but to other major cities, has accelerated, driven in part by the growth of universities in places like Isfahan, Tabriz, Mashad and Shiraz, and now nearly 70 percent of Iranians live in cities. The much vaunted rural vote represents not a decisive bloc for Mr. Ahmadinejad but a minimum, one that was easily swamped by the increased turnout of city dwellers, who normally sit elections out.
And, of course, Iran in 2009 -- better yet, Iran on June 12, 2009 -- is not the same as Iran in 1979. Just as Tehran's neighborhoods cannot be fixed in time, the cultural lives of Iranians have greatly changed in the past 30 years. The postrevolutionary period has seen the expansion of education, the entry of women into the work force in large numbers, and changing patterns of marriage and even of divorce. These have all shaped Iranian society. The pseudo-sociology peddled by so many in the West would easily dissolve with a week's visit....
he was an exile, an expatriot. he gathered financial support and philosophical encouragement from ideas outside china. he spent a lot of time in hawaii, finding inspiration in things like lincoln's gettysburg address. then he went home to china, and helped overthrow the backwards qing dynasty. he is revered by both the mainland communists and the nationalists on taiwan as the father of modern china
national borders are artificial constructs, and the seeds of revolution often come from outside a country, not from within it. ideology is ideology ideology: if it works in one country, it can work in another. its not like you go over the border of china or iran and suddenly you are in a magical land where human nature is fundamentally different. no: human beings are human beings. an idea that inspires someone in rio de janiero can just as easily inspire someone in hamburg. you give far too much power to something as flimsy as a tribal, arbitrary dividing line
my point is: there is very much we can do to help an angry and energized rich iranian expat community to give birth to the iranian sun yat-sen
its not just people outside the country whining and complaining. that's not all they are doing, you can be sure of that. and the iranian government knows this: they jail relatives of iranian expats they perceive as being active in fighting the illegitimate iranian military dictatorship (the ayatollah is only a pawn now):
the iranian government certainly recognizes what you do not: its not the cia, or mi-6 that is there most potent foreign enemy. it is the iranian diaspora: raising funds, keeping alive hope, influencing opinion at home
the iranian regime has heard of sun yat-sen, and they are on guard against the iranian one
everything is equivalent, all governments in the world are equal. there's no difference at all between the iranian government and the american government
is that the point you were trying to make? i wouldn't want to accuse you of being disingenuous, after all
see i knew this guy once who REALLY hated the government of zimbabwe. whenever a discussion came up about the crimes of this government or that government, he would say "yeah but in zimbabwe..." and try to steer the conversation back to the issue of the vast evil of the government of zimbabwe. which i guess is ok, as long as he admitted he had a colossal chip on his shoulder, and wasn't at all pretending to be unbiased or intellectually honest, and that he wasn't actually interested in bettering the world, instead that he was just holding a grudge and seeking a vendetta. right?
Slashdot Mirror
in the year 2110, the mizar-alcor system will be discovered to actually be a septuple star system
at first after world war 2 there was an idealism in the air that marxism/ communism would result in cooperation between russia and china. but this quickly fell victim to the usual imperialistic instincts of such vast empires. there were massive military buildups along the chinese-russian border, over stupid petty disagreements like tiny useless islands in the amur river (border between russia and manchuria). american intelligence got wind of this and sensed an opportunity: the tension between russia and china was one of the reasons nixon's about face on china and sudden seeking of warm relations with china at the time made so much strategic sense: drive a wedge between powerful enemies of the usa
so when vietnam aligned itself with russia, it was sort of china's version of the united states' experience with cuba: a tiny southern country right on its border having the audacity to fall the influence of a powerful enemy. in fact, after the vietnam war, china had its own version of the bay of pigs (on a much larger scale): china and vietnam went to war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
100,000 vietnamese civilians were killed by the chinese in that 1979-1980 war. but the chinese lost this war badly, and chinese propaganda has pretty much covered the whole event up and erased the war from chinese history books. because it was embarrassing how badly china lost. to this day, chinese veterans of that war are officially shunned and denied benefits or even recognition
you have to admire the vietnamese: they kicked out a major colonial power, the french. then they took on a world superpower, the americans. and finished it off by repulsing the regional power, china. in one long sustained 30-40 year very bloody struggle, the vietnamese kicked everyone's asses
vietnam deserves much respect, they have suffered heavily for their rightful independence
no paywalls on journals: put it all on an open peer reviewed internet site. allow anyone to comment (who is a serious scientist)
all internal communications, specifically related to the subject matter, placed on an open log
nothing is lost by doing this, nothing can be feared to be revealed. there's nothing to hide
the issue with hard science versus the soft sciences, or, in this case, versus political partisan hack jobs, is that hard science can withstand rigorous analysis. because such rigorous second guessing is the very essence of what science is: its nothing more than the accumulation of the most likely explanations for what we see in our natural world... until anomalous data comes along that requires a new explanation, which is what makes challenging and exciting
fanatical transparency is not a problem at all for what science is supposed to be. therefore, hard science is in a position to be the most trusted set of institutions in all of modern society, were it to actually submit itself to this regime
did you mean llama?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama
or perhaps lamia, a child-eating female demon? that would be sexy but would certainly mess up cern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia_(mythology)
they were attacked by hawaiian trees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diospyros_sandwicensis
they were attacked by a ukranian pop band?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(band)
ohhh, you meant tibetan religious leaders! why won't those damn buddhist fundamentalists leave science alone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama
unfortunately, they may know lama, so they'll certainly kick your ass after knocking out cern with a tibetan white crane style kick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(martial_art)
but you said you were for nonintervention... as opposed to isolationism
so all i've really learned from you is that you support isolationism, but you don't even know what isolationism is
truly a person if infinite wisdom well positioned to develop a logically coherent verdict on obama's foreign policy
in response, you'll probably attack me as an obama supporter just angry that someone would have a contrary opinion of the president
rather, i fully support your right to criticize obama's foreign policy all you want. JUST FUCKING MAKE SENSE. because right now, there is absolutely no logical coherence to anything you've said
1. obama's nuanced approach. intelligent
2. bush's blunt approach. stupid
3. non-interventionism. DIFFERENT FUCKING SUBJECT MATTER
i thought the issue was obama's extending a hand to the iranian regime?
i did not know obama extending his hand was comparable to military intervention. oh, you didn't say MILITARY intervention? so you meant isolationism. no not that? well then what the hell is nonmilitary nonintervention? what the fuck are you saying?
here's an amazing wacky concept for you: how about obama extend his hand, and we don't intervene militarily? that sound possible to you? i think you mentioned something about constructing false binary choices? i did not know extending a hand to the vile iranian regime to undercut their self-reenforcing hostility was incompatible with military nonintervention. pfffffffft
but if your criticism is fucking stupid, i will criticize you for being fucking stupid
which is just as much my right of criticism as yours, right?
furthermore, bringing up bush is perfectly reasonable in this context. because it is a direct demonstration of the alternative approach to the one obama is taking that you are criticizing. it doesn't mean you support bush. it means: "what you are asking for is what bush did already, and it easily to demonstrate how fucking stupid it was"
and furthermore, if you were alive during the bush administration, why didn't you perceive that the approach bush took was so flawed? and if you could have made this observation, which really should be obvious to anyone by now, how can you find the rationale to criticize obama's approach?
bush's approach was stupid, correct? do you agree or disagree?
based on that, how can you criticize the alternative approach by obama?
and please don't bring up the abject stupidity of isolationism. if you think this is the way the usa should proceed in this world, oh man, just go study your history. it is beneath me the remedial historical lessons you should already know about why this approach is so flawed and frankly impossible for ANY country in this world to take
http://news.google.com/news?q=iran%20crackdown
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
etc
maybe you don't see the evidence because you're not making the slightest effort to see the obvious?
oh, this is where you disqualify all these observations because they are "western media". nevermind the fact you can find this news from all over the world, right? and as for blog posts: they couldn't possibly be from real iranians, its all cia propaganda, right?
all we need is a proper objective fact finding mission of actual abuse by the iranian regime on its own citizens, right? ok genius: lets go and form that fact finding mission. i think we will find the iranian government quite helpful in that regard
the iranian government distorts all media from iran... but you will not find reason to criticize the regime... until you find media that is undistorted from iran. chicken and egg, no?
or put it this way: if you find the evidence to be undependable, an assertion that all is milk and honey in iran is just as dubious as the assertion that all is not right, correct? in which case, you need to apply your mind, and look at the smoke and figure out if there is a fire
look at the amazing effort the cia is making in formulating youtube posts of abuse, of making up blogs and tweets, of all iranian observers of any ideological attitude united in their depictions of what is going on in iran, including expat iranians. and then conclude what? that the cia is really good at making shit up? pffffffft
iraq was a travesty of bad info. because of that, don't conclude ALL info you receive about american enemies is made up. or YOU compound the damage the iraq fiasco was
that since bush pointed out his axis of evil of iraq, iran, and north korea, that one of the three (iraq) was invaded ostensibly because of nuclear research... and none was found. meanwhile, har har, the two that were not invaded have since accelerated their pursuit of nuclear weapons thousandfolds? hey, genius: if bush was more subtle in his approach, maybe the nuclear status of those two vile regimes wouldn't be so far along, did you consider that?
but i don't think subtly is your strong point. heavy handed arrogance appears to be the only american international attitude you appear ready to support. wow, you're such a credit to the country, thanks
mindlessly declaring your animosity to clearly vile regimes might make your chest thumping feel good, but it actually doesn't help. it in fact makes things far worse. because this atavistic animosity actually HELPS the regimes in north korea and iran: it gives them reason to crack down further yet on their long suffering populations in the name of fear of american intentions, and it actually increases their support in feelings of nationalism in the people living there. all they have to do is point at the actual words bush spoke, rather making up their own fearmongering, and everyone circles the wagons
so our current president, meanwhile, takes the INTELLIGENT and SUBTLE approach to defeating these vile regimes
but not good enough for you. he has to be criticized by idiots like yourself, who don't understand that obama's approach SERVES YOUR SAFETY AND YOUR COUNTRY BETTER
like east timor
both countries are recent breakway provinces. eritrea used to be in ethiopia until 1993. east timor used to be in indonesia until 2000. eritrea was a largely muslim area in a largely christian ethiopia. east timor was a largely catholic region in a largely muslim indonesia
its a shame that religious strife holds the basis for so much grief and fragmentation in this world
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1468788&cid=30347904
i doubted the suggestion, modded insightful, that media control in iran is just like in the usa. a further insightful reply to my trollmodded comment started discussing the idea of "manufacturing consent." which i actually don't have a problem with as a description of a real negative issue with the media in the usa. however: as if such a concept is remotely like anything what they do with the media in iran
why do people not understand that no matter how much you dislike the usa or big media in the west, or how many real and genuine problems you can find with the media and civil rights enforcement in the west, that what iran is doing is far, far more vile, according to the widest range of subjective and objective measurements, and not even remotely comparable?
what iran does to its citizens and how it handles rights internally can't possibly compare to the status quo in the west if you claim the slightest amount of intellectual honesty. iran is off the charts. there is no equivalency, period
no matter how much you hate the usa or how large your grievance is with the FOREIGN policies of western governments, when you try to equate what happens in the west DOMESTICALLY with what iran does with its citizens, you only cheapen and disqualify the moral and logical basis for your opposition to the west. you make a fool of yourself, because you do not appear to be someone who is truly speaking from moral principles, you only appear to be geopolitically posturing. you're not concerned with making the world a better place. you're concerned with vendettas. you do not demonstrate a mental ability to appreciate concepts like scale, perspective, and context when formulate an equivalence between domestic rights and media manipulation in the west and iran. do you really understand what iran freely engages in in the suppression of its citizens? do you honestly want to compare that to anything the west does to its citizens?
you need to demonstrate an actual well-defined set of moral principles. if you do that, you will find a need on your own part to criticize iran for what it does to its citizens. or at the very least, if criticism of the west is your only concern, you need to stop trying to steer a discussion of the horrid crimes iran commits internally into a discussion of the far smaller set of domestic crimes committed in the west. the west is NOT innocent. however, the crimes the west commits domestically isn't even remotely as vile as what iran commits domestically. really
in regard to the subject matter of abuse of citizens and media manipulation, if in your mind you cannot help but to confuse iran and the usa's domestic policies, you only demonstrate an irrational bias on your part, not any real moral principles or logical backbone
please, by all means, be my guest, continue to criticize the west. as someone who truly and genuinely holds free expression of opinion as a bedrock principle, i support your right to speak your mind, even if i disagree with it. but one wonders how you handle the cognitive dissonance of pointing out anthills while the mountain looms in the discussion
your approach is exactly the right attitude
my argument isn't with you. my argument is with those who think "think of the children!" is a modern invention of the media/ {insert your favorite political bogeyman here} and that the impulse can be easily discard
the source of that comment of yours is simply an inability on your part to perceive and/ or to take into account the positive effects of the irrational impulse: healthy and surviving children
i admit every single one of the negative effects of this irrational impulse on society
however, unlike you i see the balance: i make note of the positive effects, and see that those more than counterbalance the negative effects
additionally, i come to the logically inescapable conclusion that due to evolution, the impulse is utterly inseparable from our existence as homo sapiens, so deeply rooted it is in our minds. such that even if on balance it was a negative effect, that doesn't mean we could get rid of the impulse. whether a net positive effect or net negative effect, the best we could do is merely attempt to mitigate the consequences of the impulse, incompletely and forever, as a simple maintenance function of civilization
its never going away. you need to accept it and incorporate it in your worldview. rejecting it is unsuccessful
the impulse has existed longer than we have been homo sapiens, and isn't remotely unique to us as a species. take two mating pairs, of any species that has few children:
mating pair A has 4 children and walks away from them as soon as possible
mating pair B has 4 children and zealously protects them until adulthood
mating pair A has 1 out of 4 children who survives to mate and reproduce
mating pair B has 3 out of 4 children who survives to mate and reproduce
do you understand evolution?
then you tell me what happens next over succeeding generations
you tell me about the possibility of a world without an irrational overbearing drive to protect children
a crocodile knows the answer to this question
this hysteria has only been around for a decade? how old are crocodilians as a zoological order? try 220 million years, into the triassic period
"think of the children!" irrational hysteria has been around for at least 220 million years, and is a foundational human impulse rooted deeper into our brains than our existence as simians, or even mammals, nevermind as homo sapiens
evolution has bestowed us with a hierarchy of reactions. tap your knee, it kicks. your spinal colummn takes care of that. higher than that, we have fight or flight: given a shock, the adrenal glands kick in with cortisol, etc. emotions like fear are GOOD: they keep you alive. driving sleepily in the middle of the night makes you afraid of crashing, you pull over, and sleep (another basic biological function you can't simply wish away). this is not a rational decision. or rather it IS a rational decision, prompted by the need to take into account your natural organic biological fears
in other words, your rational world exists atop a pyramid. if you for some reason ignore or disavow the lower baser levels of the pyramid, the edifice of the very top of the pyramid so important to you simply topples over
"the idea that humans will become extinct for not freaking out is itself irrational, and false"
fight or flight keeps you alive. and only when you are alive is everything else you hold dear in terms of a rational world even possible. you've lost touch with the biological foundation upon which you sit. that you are not aware of the foundation of lower impulses and emotions does not nullify their existence or their importance to keeping you around and breathing. in fact, ignore these baser impulses at your peril, or it is your existence that is nullified
much like the iranian people
being against the iranian REGIME is not being anti-iran. as illegitimate in the eyes of its own people as the regime is, being against is therefore pro-iranian
but why do i even waste my time stating fucking obvious logical inferences to abject morons?
let's put it this way: a society that pits your "rational" concerns againt primitive impulses is a society that will soon be extinct
you are mortal. you will die. you must work to recreate a new generation to replace you. you must fill them with the values you cherish. part of doing that involves protecting them from the wider adult world until they are emotionally, psychologically, physically, and mentally mature enough to handle the adult world
in other words, a SYNTHESIS of the primitive impulses you reject and a concern for a more rational world is the only valid approach. but if you pit your rational world against primitive impulses, i have sorry news for you: primitive impulses prevail, every single time, and always will
because those impulses are 100% necessary for the society and the rational values you cherish to even exist in the first place. primitive impulses can exist without your precious rational world. meanwhile, your precious rational world cannot exist without primitive impulses
so take heed of those primitive impulses, accept them, and incorporate them into your world view. opposing them or ignoring them leads to the extinction of every concept you value
"Think of the children" belongs in the past. We should strive to outgrow it rather than let it take over our lives -- and our minds
"think of the children" is never, ever going away. in any society today, or in any hypothetical society that exists in the future (that actually works). if you "outgrow" your desire to be protective of children, you've simply declared your intention to go extinct as a society
every higher faculty you value is irretrievably held hostage by lower primitive impulses. recognize that, or forfeit logical coherence on the subject matter
try to reason with the six foot scaly mother that shows up to defend those eggs. you have just as much chance of defeating the "think of the children!" irrational impulse of homo sapiens. because as members of the ancient order of crocodilians has discovered, like many mammalians, is that if you invest in only a few offspring (as opposed to the fish and amphibian strategy of "fire and forget" 10,000 eggs), then it is a survival advantage to be overprotective of your children
the irrational desire to protect children from the various dangerous scenarios of adult IS an irrational desire. much like the irrational desire to feed. or the irrational desire to fornicate
in other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your children
biological imperatives trump all high minded concepts. principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives. as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice
no police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are busier trying to procure some food
so pay attention to biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot. ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human society
one of which being: "think of the children!" there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves. evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring, where that set of offspring is small, such as us humans. so "think of the children!" is an overbearing, overwhelming, messy, intrusive impulse that cannot be reasoned with. and yet it makes 100% sense biologically
all i'm saying is that "think of the children!" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also an irrational "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away. because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a completely different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of view: the biological imperatives
look at it this way: without children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve. the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level. so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect children until they can fend for themselves
this simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make on the matter
"think of the children" reigns supreme. it is your job to simply accept this biological imperative, as messy and intrusive as it is, as messy and intrusive as the need to visit the bathroom, the desire to fornicate, and the need to shove sustenance into your mouth: creatures that have few offspring and act protective of their children have an evolutionary advantage over those that don't
no matter how overzealous that protective instinct is, it will persist due to the laws of evolution, and you need to make peace with it and accept it: its never going away
with the scenario you describe
what i take issue with is equivocating manufacturing consent with the brutal tactics used in china and iran to maintain control over their media, which is what the granfather poster was asserting
surely you do not assert that the process is you describe is the same as the tactics used in iran and china?
you describe
i however would like to know how that is equivalent to the brutal tactics china and iran use to control information in their countries, which is what the grandfather poster asserted
but how is that equivalent to the kind of control china and iran exerts, which is what i was responding to as an assertion by the grandfather poster
please explain these miraculous invisible mechanisms
see in china, or iran, there are actual laws about everything being approved and monitored, there are actual large and well-staffed/ well-funded offices for doing exactly that, and severe punishments are doled out if the government doesn't like what it sees online or in print, and the strict party line has been brutally enforced on hundreds of occasions in the last couple of years
so please tell us how this is EXACTLY how it works in the usa. see as a simple sheeple horribly under the foot of american propaganda, i cry out for your "insightful" enlightenment on this matter
k thx
but don't take my word for it: allow an actual iranian to complain about ill-informed american armchair analysts who spout stupidity based on crap assumptions like yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19shane.html
he was an exile, an expatriot. he gathered financial support and philosophical encouragement from ideas outside china. he spent a lot of time in hawaii, finding inspiration in things like lincoln's gettysburg address. then he went home to china, and helped overthrow the backwards qing dynasty. he is revered by both the mainland communists and the nationalists on taiwan as the father of modern china
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen
my point?
national borders are artificial constructs, and the seeds of revolution often come from outside a country, not from within it. ideology is ideology ideology: if it works in one country, it can work in another. its not like you go over the border of china or iran and suddenly you are in a magical land where human nature is fundamentally different. no: human beings are human beings. an idea that inspires someone in rio de janiero can just as easily inspire someone in hamburg. you give far too much power to something as flimsy as a tribal, arbitrary dividing line
my point is: there is very much we can do to help an angry and energized rich iranian expat community to give birth to the iranian sun yat-sen
its not just people outside the country whining and complaining. that's not all they are doing, you can be sure of that. and the iranian government knows this: they jail relatives of iranian expats they perceive as being active in fighting the illegitimate iranian military dictatorship (the ayatollah is only a pawn now):
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/05/2044243
the iranian government certainly recognizes what you do not: its not the cia, or mi-6 that is there most potent foreign enemy. it is the iranian diaspora: raising funds, keeping alive hope, influencing opinion at home
the iranian regime has heard of sun yat-sen, and they are on guard against the iranian one
everything is equivalent, all governments in the world are equal. there's no difference at all between the iranian government and the american government
is that the point you were trying to make? i wouldn't want to accuse you of being disingenuous, after all
see i knew this guy once who REALLY hated the government of zimbabwe. whenever a discussion came up about the crimes of this government or that government, he would say "yeah but in zimbabwe..." and try to steer the conversation back to the issue of the vast evil of the government of zimbabwe. which i guess is ok, as long as he admitted he had a colossal chip on his shoulder, and wasn't at all pretending to be unbiased or intellectually honest, and that he wasn't actually interested in bettering the world, instead that he was just holding a grudge and seeking a vendetta. right?