Apparently, Kirk materializes and steps out of the transporter.
Spock, unable to see, asks the question.
If you think the answer might be yes you are ready for practical immortality.
Just saw an old Schwarzenegger movie, The 6th Day.
Close enough?
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The Vietnam Syndrome
In the end, it means the globalist military interventions undertaken by our ruling class get by with volunteer forces.
And could we count on that in Korea, say?
Or against Russia in the Ukraine or anywhere in the new NATO reaching right up the Bear's nose?
Face it, with no draft they would have to back down from a fight or use nukes.
And both Korea and Russia have their own nukes, thanks.
And could we count on that in Korea, say?
Or against Russia in the Ukraine or anywhere in the new NATO reaching right up the Bear's nose?
Face it, with no draft they would have to back down from a fight or use nukes.
And both Korea and Russia have their own nukes, thanks.
Hillary the Hawk stabs O in the back from the right. America a "force for good."
On kissing terms with Joe Lieberman, she is, no doubt.
When interventionists tell you America is and can be a "force for good" they mean they want to use American power to achieve their own personal goals, imposing their own political values on the planet just as far as our power and tax money and blood will allow.
When GW crowed, "I'm the Decider," he was speaking from the heart, giving voice to the deepest longing of all of them.
And what they derive from the myth of America defeating Fascism and Communism (the Russians did both, actually) and "saving the world," a myth Jeffrey Goldberg and Hillary both approve in this article and in response to his invocation of which she apparently positively glowed, is encouragement to do anything but holster their guns and proof that their military interventions will be as wonderful as those of past American leaders.
No matter how different and even conflicting their values are and their projects and interventions might be.
'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The Atlantic subtitle.
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.
She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
By that she means a coherent and organized project of global interventionism.
And every true American knows America is and must be a great nation.
Note well she is still a neocon at heart and says nothing about building secular forces for democracy that would not bring a cheer from that crew.
Here, for another example, she echoes what neocons have said since 2001.
She said that the resilience, and expansion, of Islamist terrorism means that the U.S. must develop an “overarching” strategy to confront it, and she equated this struggle to the one the U.S. waged against Soviet-led communism.
And she has returned to the total support for the Likud of her New York senator phase, putting her to the right even of Joe Scarborough.
And a happy medium between the alleged bellicose posturing of GW and the interventionism of Obama is not a happy medium between bellicose posturing and "a focus on" withdrawal from international engagement.
Confused about what such withdrawal might be?
Talk to Ron Paul or go read a few pieces at Antiwar.com on what American policy should be.
How to extricate from existing commitments?
As was well known when people were asking how America could remove itself from the Vietnam War, there must be "50 Ways to Leave your Lover."
Ask Paul Simon.
And, yes, I note Jeffrey Goldberg also shares with her the CW assumption that "resurgent Russian nationalism" is a problem the world in general and the US in particular have to deal with.
Recall that Zbigniew Brzezinski, he of the global game of Risk, is a Democrat and was Carter's adviser.
He is not dead, nor is his influence, nor are his thoughts.
When interventionists tell you America is and can be a "force for good" they mean they want to use American power to achieve their own personal goals, imposing their own political values on the planet just as far as our power and tax money and blood will allow.
When GW crowed, "I'm the Decider," he was speaking from the heart, giving voice to the deepest longing of all of them.
And what they derive from the myth of America defeating Fascism and Communism (the Russians did both, actually) and "saving the world," a myth Jeffrey Goldberg and Hillary both approve in this article and in response to his invocation of which she apparently positively glowed, is encouragement to do anything but holster their guns and proof that their military interventions will be as wonderful as those of past American leaders.
No matter how different and even conflicting their values are and their projects and interventions might be.
'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The Atlantic subtitle.
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.
She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
By that she means a coherent and organized project of global interventionism.
And every true American knows America is and must be a great nation.
Note well she is still a neocon at heart and says nothing about building secular forces for democracy that would not bring a cheer from that crew.
Here, for another example, she echoes what neocons have said since 2001.
She said that the resilience, and expansion, of Islamist terrorism means that the U.S. must develop an “overarching” strategy to confront it, and she equated this struggle to the one the U.S. waged against Soviet-led communism.
And she has returned to the total support for the Likud of her New York senator phase, putting her to the right even of Joe Scarborough.
And a happy medium between the alleged bellicose posturing of GW and the interventionism of Obama is not a happy medium between bellicose posturing and "a focus on" withdrawal from international engagement.
Confused about what such withdrawal might be?
Talk to Ron Paul or go read a few pieces at Antiwar.com on what American policy should be.
How to extricate from existing commitments?
As was well known when people were asking how America could remove itself from the Vietnam War, there must be "50 Ways to Leave your Lover."
Ask Paul Simon.
And, yes, I note Jeffrey Goldberg also shares with her the CW assumption that "resurgent Russian nationalism" is a problem the world in general and the US in particular have to deal with.
Recall that Zbigniew Brzezinski, he of the global game of Risk, is a Democrat and was Carter's adviser.
He is not dead, nor is his influence, nor are his thoughts.
Obama jumps back into the forever war. On so slight and absurd a pretext.
So Much For The “Limited” Intervention
So far, the liberals are all on his side, that I have seen.
They would never have tolerated him doing this or anything like this expressly to save Christians from Muslim fanaticism.
But Yazidis?
Sure thing.
Too, no doubt he fears the effects if it all appears persuasively in Muslim propaganda to be a mere Christians against Muslims crusade.
Our war leaders of both parties have dreaded that since 2001, when GW took it upon himself to announce to a stunned America that Islam is a religion of peace, and invited a gaggle of Muslim dignitaries to the White House.
There are a lot of Muslims in the world, an astounding number already wish us ill, and the rest are pretty crazy, too, by and large.
It never seems to take much to push the Muslim masses into mad violence, or to push them into siding with rather than against the loons like ISIS who are, on the whole, their enemies, too.
But will O in fact trim this intervention to the purpose of saving the Yazidis while ignoring far greater massacres among Christians, and perhaps even the complete end of the Christian community in Iraq?
So far, he has shown no concern above lip service about the fate of Christians and their communities in the Muslim lands in turmoil.
And the number already killed is considerably greater than the total number of Yazidis.
Must one note, again, that liberals like to privilege non-Christian religious minorities as far more important than mere Christians?
So far, the liberals are all on his side, that I have seen.
They would never have tolerated him doing this or anything like this expressly to save Christians from Muslim fanaticism.
But Yazidis?
Sure thing.
Too, no doubt he fears the effects if it all appears persuasively in Muslim propaganda to be a mere Christians against Muslims crusade.
Our war leaders of both parties have dreaded that since 2001, when GW took it upon himself to announce to a stunned America that Islam is a religion of peace, and invited a gaggle of Muslim dignitaries to the White House.
There are a lot of Muslims in the world, an astounding number already wish us ill, and the rest are pretty crazy, too, by and large.
It never seems to take much to push the Muslim masses into mad violence, or to push them into siding with rather than against the loons like ISIS who are, on the whole, their enemies, too.
But will O in fact trim this intervention to the purpose of saving the Yazidis while ignoring far greater massacres among Christians, and perhaps even the complete end of the Christian community in Iraq?
So far, he has shown no concern above lip service about the fate of Christians and their communities in the Muslim lands in turmoil.
And the number already killed is considerably greater than the total number of Yazidis.
Must one note, again, that liberals like to privilege non-Christian religious minorities as far more important than mere Christians?
They must have got this from the anthropologists
Considering study of them is their bread and butter, it is no surprise field anthropologists panic at the thought of disappearance of any primitive culture.
It is really the disappearance of an entire academic discipline that they are worried about.
Knee-jerk anti-Westernism and anti-capitalism have led leftists to routinely join in, frequently denouncing indifference toward the disappearance of primitive cultures as racism.
The habit has spread to liberals, who now have brought religion (!) under the umbrella of their concern for disappearing Xs.
The list of endangered Xs, by the way, to the disappearance of which liberals are opposed now includes all animal and plant species, all ethnic groups and races, all primitive cultures, and now all religions.
They stand athwart history, natural and human, yelling "Stop!"
None of these weird obsessions is countenanced, by the way, by utilitarianism - the liberals' favorite ethical theory - or altruism.
The former subordinates all else to the greatest good of the greatest number of individuals and the latter at least one's own good to the good of individuals other than oneself.
In Iraq, An Entire Religion Faces Extinction For Something It Doesn’t Believe
Liberals now support military interventions only for the most bizarre reasons having nothing to do with the vital or even noticeable interests of Americans.
Afterthought.
Perhaps when liberals say "Yazidis" we should be thinking of Jews.
It certainly seems like they are.
No going back
Season 1 of True Detective.
I watched when it was initially broadcast and loved it.
Not last night when I watched episode 1 again.
Cohle's character seemed far too outre and even absurd.
I watched when it was initially broadcast and loved it.
Not last night when I watched episode 1 again.
Cohle's character seemed far too outre and even absurd.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
An intentional signal to Putin that there would be no US war with Russia to defend Ukraine?
Obama on the World
Some people think it's sometimes best for others not to know your intentions.
But sometimes, on the other hand, the risks of misunderstanding are much too great.
From the piece.
Despite Western sanctions, he [President Obama] cautioned, President Vladimir Putin of Russia “could invade” Ukraine at any time, and, if he does, “trying to find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with Russia during the remainder of my term will be much more difficult.”
Or is this a blunder, like Acheson leaving South Korea on the wrong side of the boundary within which the US was pledged to "contain" Communism?
Or that silly woman who gave Saddam a "green light" to invade Kuwait?
I note in passing that, unsurprisingly, neither liberal interviewer nor liberal president entertains the notion that the fundamental blunder in Syria, like that in Egypt and even in Libya, was the same as the blunder in Iraq.
Knocking off a secular and moderately irritating dictator when it is foreseeable that he will only be replaced by worse is just stupid.
Faced with the fact that Assad in Syria will not be replaced by anyone much more acceptable than ISIS, neither of these fellows admits that our destabilization of his regime was an error and that even now we must hope that he will win, whether or not we actually do anything directly to help him.
Some people think it's sometimes best for others not to know your intentions.
But sometimes, on the other hand, the risks of misunderstanding are much too great.
From the piece.
Despite Western sanctions, he [President Obama] cautioned, President Vladimir Putin of Russia “could invade” Ukraine at any time, and, if he does, “trying to find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with Russia during the remainder of my term will be much more difficult.”
Or is this a blunder, like Acheson leaving South Korea on the wrong side of the boundary within which the US was pledged to "contain" Communism?
Or that silly woman who gave Saddam a "green light" to invade Kuwait?
I note in passing that, unsurprisingly, neither liberal interviewer nor liberal president entertains the notion that the fundamental blunder in Syria, like that in Egypt and even in Libya, was the same as the blunder in Iraq.
Knocking off a secular and moderately irritating dictator when it is foreseeable that he will only be replaced by worse is just stupid.
Faced with the fact that Assad in Syria will not be replaced by anyone much more acceptable than ISIS, neither of these fellows admits that our destabilization of his regime was an error and that even now we must hope that he will win, whether or not we actually do anything directly to help him.
Peggy Noonan on 1914
The World the Great War Swept Away
On the whole, a good piece.
But Spain was not part of the Great War - nor indeed of its continuation, World War Two
Oddly, though she laments with historian John Keegan that the war was started in 1914 by European politicians who could and should have avoided it, she does not lament that Woodrow Wilson in 1917, a Democrat and a progressive, dragged American well out of its way to get into it.
Find an American pundit anywhere near the conventional wisdom who deplores American participation in either or both of the World Wars, if you can.
And how is it this conservative writer draws no more immediate lesson from these, her own remarks on what led to the war in 1914, than a pompous affirmation of the Dogma of Original Sin?
Too scary?
Too very far from conservative in the light it throws on America, our leaders, and our wars?
[See Original Sin.
Every part of this article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia is very interesting and very revealing.
See especially the discussions of Aquinas and collective guilt, rejected by 19th Century liberalism but an essential part of the moral armory of the contemporary brand.]
Europe as a cultural entity was coherent and becoming more so.
By the beginning of the 20th century tourism "had become a middle-class pleasure" because of railways and the hotel industry that followed.
But Europe was also heavily armed.
All countries had armed forces, some large and costly ones led by influential, respected figures.
What do armies in peacetime do?
Make plans to kill each other just in case.
Keegan: "[A] new era in military planning had begun; that of the making of war plans in the abstract, plans conceived at leisure . . . and pulled out when eventuality becomes actuality."
What do soldiers who've made brilliant plans do?
Itch to use them.
Europe's armies came to see their jobs as "how to assure military advantage in an international crisis, not how to resolve it."
Soon enough they had their chance.
On the whole, a good piece.
But Spain was not part of the Great War - nor indeed of its continuation, World War Two
Oddly, though she laments with historian John Keegan that the war was started in 1914 by European politicians who could and should have avoided it, she does not lament that Woodrow Wilson in 1917, a Democrat and a progressive, dragged American well out of its way to get into it.
Find an American pundit anywhere near the conventional wisdom who deplores American participation in either or both of the World Wars, if you can.
And how is it this conservative writer draws no more immediate lesson from these, her own remarks on what led to the war in 1914, than a pompous affirmation of the Dogma of Original Sin?
Too scary?
Too very far from conservative in the light it throws on America, our leaders, and our wars?
[See Original Sin.
Every part of this article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia is very interesting and very revealing.
See especially the discussions of Aquinas and collective guilt, rejected by 19th Century liberalism but an essential part of the moral armory of the contemporary brand.]
Europe as a cultural entity was coherent and becoming more so.
By the beginning of the 20th century tourism "had become a middle-class pleasure" because of railways and the hotel industry that followed.
But Europe was also heavily armed.
All countries had armed forces, some large and costly ones led by influential, respected figures.
What do armies in peacetime do?
Make plans to kill each other just in case.
Keegan: "[A] new era in military planning had begun; that of the making of war plans in the abstract, plans conceived at leisure . . . and pulled out when eventuality becomes actuality."
What do soldiers who've made brilliant plans do?
Itch to use them.
Europe's armies came to see their jobs as "how to assure military advantage in an international crisis, not how to resolve it."
Soon enough they had their chance.
A liberal Mullah on Ebola fighting
Fighting Ebola for Us All
Even when offering a clear and reasonable appeal to our self-love, this priest of liberalism cannot resist moral pontification and praise of life-risking altruism.
So annoying.
And his story of what happened to him in Japan does not encourage trust that medical professionals will get this right.
Not even close.
Even when offering a clear and reasonable appeal to our self-love, this priest of liberalism cannot resist moral pontification and praise of life-risking altruism.
So annoying.
And his story of what happened to him in Japan does not encourage trust that medical professionals will get this right.
Not even close.
The Gray Lady wises up?
Preventing a Slaughter in Iraq
Thus the Times.
After so many years in Iraq, Americans are justifiably skeptical about what military involvement can accomplish anywhere — and the Middle East is so complicated that even seemingly benign decisions can have unintended consequences.
Ooo, dicey.
World Wars One and Two?
The Cold War?
The Vietnam War?
Just to mention a few of our very own that generated spectacular unexpected and much lamented consequences.
Thus the Times.
After so many years in Iraq, Americans are justifiably skeptical about what military involvement can accomplish anywhere — and the Middle East is so complicated that even seemingly benign decisions can have unintended consequences.
Ooo, dicey.
World Wars One and Two?
The Cold War?
The Vietnam War?
Just to mention a few of our very own that generated spectacular unexpected and much lamented consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)