. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Thursday, April 01, 2004
Wow that's
audacity. Kerry on MTV:
"Question:?"In the clearest terms what would be the principal difference between the foreign policy of your administration and that of the Bush administration?"

Kerry:? "Ah, hah, the principal difference will be almost everything.? This administration has been arrogant. I think they've been reckless.They have been overly ideological, they've pushed our allies away.? I will bring our allies back to us.? He turned his back on global warming, walked away from a treaty that a hundred and sixty nations worked ten years on.? We haven't done what we need to do for AIDs, globally.? The president talks about it but we still haven't passed the kind of comprehensive program that would help the United States lead on the one the great crises of our time.? I mean there are countless numbers of things that we could be doing to enhance the world's view of us, and to minimize the kind of anger and, and, aaah, an almost recruitment that's taken place in terrorist organizations as a result of the way the administration has behaved."
Well considering that Clinton signed Kyoto after congress had said that they'd never ratify it without massive changes...
Considering that Bush has done more for AIDS than anyone else...
Considering the quality of our "allies"...

I mean France sold Saddam a nuclear reactor for chrissake. Why don't they get the same "You armed them in the first place" guilt trip?

This approaches self-parody if you're paying attention.

Update: Lileks points out the same and more.

(This is the third time this week I've posted something almost identical to a major blogger. Oh well. I've got timestamps. I know I'm original. Great minds think alike, and so do ours.)

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .
Mark Steyn points out that the atrocity in Fallujah is actually a positive sign. I guess I agree. I don't think it will have the intended effect on the American public. It does have the advantage of clearly illustrating the depravity of the "resistance." Now anyone who supports them will have to rationalize this. I have no doubt that some will. But it shows the thinking people here and in Iraq what the other side is capable of. Though I don't agree that "They?re getting more depraved precisely because they have no strategic value." I think they were always that depraved. It's just a question of showing the world.

On the other hand, this didn't change many minds about the Palestinians.

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .
Notice that I'm not arguing that we intervene in Sudan for our own security interests, though they do apply. Bin Laden operated in Sudan. We bombed an
aspirin factory over it. Stability in Sudan can only help our interests. But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that thousands of people are being killed, it's been going on for years, and no one else is willing to do anything. The UN is worried that the genocide will derail the peace process. If that doesn't reveal eveything you need to know, I have nothing else to say.

No blood for oil. This is the wrong approach unless it's just buying the time to act. Why on earth is there no peacekeeping force on the ground already?

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .
Happy Feast of Fools. Walk wary.

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .
Wow. This is first class knock-you-on-your-ass
thinking. Relativism is the opiate of the intellectual.

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .
Many years ago
Ayn Rand said:
You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often that not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified whishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

You might say, as many people do, that it is not easy always to act on abstract principles. No, it is not easy. But how much harder is it, to have to act on them without knowing what they are?
This is the cognitive dissonance created by the failure to do so and it's utterly terrifying considering the position of the source.

posted by Rachel 4/01/2004
. . .

. . .


web site traffic statistics