Comments Posted By sota
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 66 Comments
BUCHANAN AND HIS 'WHITE MAN'S LAMENT'
With all the hyperbole and broad brushing of swaths of Americans, it's really a shock that we can't have a "courageous" conversation on race.
Comment Posted By sota On 22.10.2009 @ 18:40
Religion is the umbrella beneath which all superstitions flourish.
Religion, much like politics, does not flourish because of the extremists. It flourishes because of the every-man in the middle making calculated decisions based on faith.
People who believe in something based on evidence but no proof have faith. Sneering at them claiming superior knowledge is sophomorish and juvenile. It's easy to get carried away, though, because those global warming faithers are such easy targets. I just wonder which religious umbrella that falls under. :)
Particularly in the era of Google and Wolfram Alpha teaching methods aren’t just outdated, they’re absurd. Now more than ever before it’s about how you know what you know, how you weigh sources, how you parse the data. Which is not on the curriculum.
Exactly right. It's nearly pointless to be having teachers commit their students to memorizing dates and names of places rather than teaching them the mechanisms in place to find the answers to the challenges they're going to be facing. Memorization is not knowledge or education. It's a parlor trick at best.
Oh, and I suspect the 2012 garbage will not be near the "let down" that Y2K was. There's just not enough people selling it. I remember watching midnight strike first in Australia (I think) and being shocked that the whole continent didn't just simply go up in a puff of smoke.
Comment Posted By sota On 19.10.2009 @ 19:58
WHY IS THE PRESIDENT GOING TO COPENHAGEN TO LOBBY FOR THE OLYMPICS?
A few have clearly missed the main thrust of this post - political payback and its ramifications. The issue of the President going or not going is a minor debate without much consequence. The WHY of the President going is a debate with significant consequence.
Would Obama be making this trip if the bid WAS for Houston?
Comment Posted By sota On 28.09.2009 @ 17:17
"That would be the man who let his subordinates beat a recruit to death and then lied about it?"
That's him. Bad deeds don't mean someone can't say something meaningful. I also quoted Obama. :)
Comment Posted By sota On 26.09.2009 @ 06:10
"We have no permanent allies, and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
I completely agree.
My "scare quotes" (see what I did there?) weren't meant to apply specifically (or certainly ONLY to France). And I certainly wasn't stretching to say France is the enemy. I was following what Obama said at the UN. Furthermore:
"We have sought - in word and deed - a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Or to quote a tough guy:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - Col. Jessup
Comment Posted By sota On 25.09.2009 @ 19:03
"The poseur who had both Britain and France by his side when making the announcement.
This time around we’ll have France on board for whatever action will have to be taken and not the Island of Palau in the coalition of the willing."
If Obama can get France on board for "whatever action" the US has to take in protecting our allies or our national security, I will be impressed. Until then, having France "by our side" doesn't give me warm fuzzies.
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."
I hope Obama remembers that and echoes it often when the going gets tough for some of our "allies".
Comment Posted By sota On 25.09.2009 @ 16:52
Long time reader, rare poster...I used to have dozens of blogs I followed and read daily, but both my patience (and my time) for reading online drivel has dwindled steadily over the last few years.
I keep coming back here for some reason (maybe it IS Chuck's comments). At any rate, thanks for the work you've done up to this point with this blog. And I wish you and your cats the best (although I'm a dog person and loathe cats).
Comment Posted By sota On 23.09.2009 @ 19:51
MY BELOVEDS FACE THEIR URLACHERLESS FUTURE
"...rooting for Favre and the Vikings."
I've been a Vikings fan for over 20 years. Trust me, rooting for them both isn't easy.
Comment Posted By sota On 21.09.2009 @ 05:11
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS SATURDAY
"A simple yes or no will do for a start. Details can follow."
Sounds like a fun game. I'll give it a shot.
"...could you address the specific issue of paying for mailing lists to magazines that are known to be popular with that who are unquestionably racist (i.e. Spotlight) in order to reach their readers without having to actually say anything racist yourself."
No.
This doesn't lend itself very easily to a yes or no answer, but I'll assume for now that you meant something along the lines of the other questions (Will the GOP stop paying for mailing lists...?).
Frankly, in the end, I don't believe candidates on either side of the aisle care much about the opinions of the people who vote for them. Mailing lists are simply another tool both sides use to drive people to the polls (hopefully, to vote for them). I think we'd all be pretty disappointed in the types of people politicians go vote-hunting for. In fact, I suspect most Democrats would be happy to have those racist GOP'ers pull the lever for them rather than their opponent.
"Will the GOP explicitly take on the issue of the Confederate flag in official government settings?"
Yes.
Eventually. If you think this issue is driven only be race (or even largely by racism at this point), then you need to dig deeper.
"Will the GOP stop using vote caging and voter roll purging tactics in areas dominated by black voters?"
No.
Neither party will stop doing questionably legal things to drive people to or away from the polls if it benefits them. The GOP has no lock on that tactic.
My turn.
Other than racism, do you see ANY possible motive for any of those things you're asking about? Or are these things automatically racist?
Comment Posted By sota On 20.09.2009 @ 17:21
Is there any lengths to which some Obama supporters won't go in order to discredit a particular swath of criticism? I think not. It's sort of like a bad political game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Attributing motives to one's opponents in an attempt to discredit the message is an old and well worn game played by both sides, but as Rick has noted many times eloquently in the past, the "racist" label is a powerful trump card. The "un-American" or "un-Patriotic" label used by some of the right doesn't even come close.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/09/16/its-a-shame-dueling-has-been-outlawed/
Comment Posted By sota On 19.09.2009 @ 18:48
