ABSOLUTELY NOT, according to the administration. At least that is what we've heard so far. Instead, we've heard various other purported reasons, such as the following: Because Saddam Hussein has shown contempt for the United Nations and for his deceptions and cruelties. Because Iraq has failed to co-operate with United…
You’ve just noticed several people carrying signs that say “Down with Ice Cream.” You approach them to ask what is so bad about ice cream. After listening to them for a few minutes, it becomes clear to you that there is a misunderstanding. To them, the phrase “ice cream” actually means kicking dogs. They are against kicking dogs.
“Oh, you mean that you’re against kicking dogs?” you ask.
“Down with ice cream!” they nod.
It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation without a common understanding of the words being used. “Evolution” is a good example. When I hear someone speaking disparagingly about evolution I can trigger the following exchange:
Q: What’s so bad about evolution?
A: It’s just a theory (#1) that says that everything here is just an accident (#2) and that people came from monkeys (#3).
Zero for three, every time. In short, most people who “oppose” evolution are against something other than the scientific theory of evolution. Further, most anti-evolutionists I’ve encountered don’t know what scientists say about evolution and don’t care [Good places to learn what scientists think would be here and here.]
The irony is that most people who oppose evolution are not opposed to any of the major facts upon which evolution is based (e.g., that random mutations occur, that some of these mutations make organisms more likely to survive long enough to bear offspring, or that a parent’s traits tend to be passed on to its children). In fact, opponents don’t usually …
What more can one say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/an-evening-with-ann-coult_b_18529.html http://midwestvaluespac.org/blog/156/an-evening-with-ann-coulter-with-full-speech
What if a co-worker told you both of the following things: A) She was leaving the company to take a new job; and B) She was not leaving the company to take a new job.
You would probably assume that she was playing a joke on you or that she was struggling with an illness that affected her memory. Or maybe that you caught her in a lie.
But these sorts of contradictory statements are now the norm in American politics.
See the following:
Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice stated the following in Iraq: “I don’t know who the prime minister is going to be, and it’s not our role to try and determine who the prime minister is going to be.”
Then again, it seems like we are trying to determine who the prime minister should be:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on an unannounced visit to the Iraqi capital amid a months-long political crisis, publicly questioned the leadership of interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, the strongest indication yet that the United States wants him out of contention as head of Iraq’s permanent government.
Such American interference in Iraqi politics is also corroborated by this recent statement by the Iraqi prime minister:
Facing growing pressure from the Bush administration to step down, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari of Iraq vigorously asserted his right to stay in office on Wednesday and warned the Americans against interfering in the country’s political process.
Perhaps there’s no lesson here, only frustration that our …
When did careful planning and execution become un-cool in real life? Probably about the same time it became un-cool in Hollywood.
Think how the American hero has evolved. He used to be smart, principled and disciplined. Not anymore. Where we used to have student-of-the-game Ted Williams, we now have Barry Bonds. Where we used to have Atticus Finch, Rick Blaine and Jefferson Smith we have hot-headed Lt. Daniel Kaffee (played by Tom Cruise). Planners and careful executers include heroes as diverse as Rocky Bilboa and Gandhi. Heroes-who-plan include soldiers from starkly different backgrounds, such as the soldiers in The Great Escape and The Dirty Dozen.
Modern television and movies don’t offer heroes who intelligently plan and collaborate with others to save the day. A television show offering this in the 60’s was Mission Impossible. The Impossible Mission Force was a group of specialists who actually sat down to plan their mission at the beginning of each show.
Modern heroes rarely sit down to plan their missions. They bristle at the thought of collaborating. Modern protagonists are reactive, not planners. Think of Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Terminator II. These are individualistic hot headed rejecters of collaboration. When they succeed in the end it is because they got lucky at that last desperate moment, not because they pondered contingencies before setting out. Interestingly, if you want planning and execution, look to Hollywood’s villains, people such as Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader or Batman’s Joker.