Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I get confused between History Channel and History Channel International also, and they have different websites. But mostly they have short teasers like the battle stuff I linked to in the “Greek history paper” thread. One thing that is nice since the advent of the DVR is that I no longer channel surf; I surf by theme to see what shows are coming up in the next week or so and mark things that look like they might be interesting to record. With Time Warner, you have to look at “Learning” and “History”, which are both under “Lifestyles”. Their tagging seems to be hit or miss; there will be some history shows in Learning that are not in History and visa versa. I watch some science shows as well, so it doesn' bother me too much to look at both. Whenever I get a chance to watch something, I just scroll through the list and pick one out. 3 speeds of fast forward make short work of commercials and if I don't get a chance to watch it all at one sitting it remembers exactly where I left off for the next time. This is a major feature in our house with the kids needing homework help or wanting to watch one of their shows. I didn't mean for this to sound like a cable commercial (I still think they charge way too much!), but I get a lot more out of it since we got a DVR.
Scout,You're right; semantics doesn't explain away our differences. It only explains why I used the term "business" to describe a large organization that provides services. But your disagreement seems to go beyond the accuracy of my vocabulary and is more about my acceptance that government provides services.I disagree that people did not starve to death before the services became available. Malnutrition is like AIDS - it is rarely the stated cause of death but makes people significantly more likely to die from something a healthier person would survive. People are still dying.I think we have a collective social conscience and generally agree that we should try to help those truly in need. I don't think that enough individuals will actually contribute enough voluntarily. If you take religious and scientific research out of the equation, charities that use most of their money to provide basic human services don't get a lot. Before anyone gets up in arms, the reason I say to take religious contributions out of the equation is that most churches spend the lion's share of their income on being a church. In the US, the average is over 85% of the budget. That includes building and maintaining facilities, paying staff, spreading their message and various other expenses associated with that. I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that contributing to churches is something you should do if you believe that church's existence is a good thing for the community and world because of the spiritual work it does. If providing for the needy is your primary focus, there are more efficient choices. Scientific research is also very important and may lead to the eventual betterment of mankind and certainly needs some funding as well, but it does nothing for today's needy.So who is going to make sure the needy have options? Individuals and institutions have not met the challenge over the centuries and I have a hard time believing they will start now.
Scout,It seems we always have to warm up with a volley of semantics. 😀Businesses produce goods and/or provide services. Government should be providing some services for our money. They do, but the government conducts business in a fashion that is just mind boggling. The overhead costs they incur on every little thing they do would bankrupt any "normal" business and may yet bankrupt them. If they weren't a step ahead of the paperwork and able to print money as they see fit, they would be bankrupt now.But I will concede the point; government should not considered a business in most contexts.I would definitely support a balanced budget amendment. I am also a proponent of true flat tax with very few exemptions. I believe taxes should be implemented to raise revenue to operate the government, not engineer society.Ski,The small rise and eventual larger fall of the numbers for McCain after Palin joined the ticket seemed to be at least partly due to concern over her qualifications and stance on some issues, but it is a perception and not a fact.
Be careful what you wish for – Obama might happily endorse a Palin candidacy after the boost she gave him last time around. I am doomed to frustration either way. My ideals are very liberal socially – feed everyone, don't shoot anyone and let them do what they please if it doesn't impact others – but 50+ years of exposure to reality (maybe only 45; not sure I should count my late teens and early 20s 8) ) tells me that some people will take advantage and not try to contribute, some people will shoot or bomb us if we don't show some resolve and some activities do have more impact on others than the users believe. On top of that, the government is this ridiculous unwieldy beast of a business when it comes to getting things done for a reasonable cost. Even if I manage to sort through my confused state, it's really difficult to vote my conscience when I am not sure either candidate has one.
I saw this on TBS last night. It is so inaccurate it's funny. The blew right through historical correctness and didn't even seem to worry about things being logically possible.
I haven't seen it but wonder what the point of the movie was. Why not make it "5000 B.C." so at least the Egyptian thing could have been remotely in the ballpark? At least the wooly mammoth thing was right...those were hunted until I believe around 3500 B.C.
The point was elusive, 😉 but I think they were just spinning yet another version of an age old story. The evil overlords took the hero's scantily clad woman and he had to undertake a dangerous journey against overwhelming odds to get her back. There was a back story of family honor redemption to try to make him a little more interesting. The ancient critters were just CGI eye candy.
The following are the current forum membergroup rankings, from lowest to highest.
Ranks Required Posts Auxiliary................0 Legionary.............15 Signifier...............30 Optio..................50 Centurion............100 Tribune...............500 Legatus..............1000 Senator..............2000 Tetrarch Emperor...3000 I just posted this to hit 3000 to see if my Forum Rank would change because this is 3000.
And now for something far less impressive, I should become a Centurion with this post...
Good point about Germany and Japan, particularly Japan. Even though they had a long stable peaceful period before they went on the conquering spree, they had a very long tradition with ancient roots of ruling by force. One thing we often don't realize in the US is how long some of these traditions live on past their last practice in other parts of the world. Warlord families pass down the stories for several generations with the promise to future generations that their time to rise in prominence will come again.
What I meant was, no one other than those I reveal my choices to will know how I voted and even if it were public knowledge, I would be looked more as sheep than shepherd.
I think there seems to be unity in Iraq only because in the recent past they had a dictator (an ultra-warlord, if you will; still fits the model). The current situation is more bearable because we are on a time table (whether there was an announced one or not, they know we will leave) so the warlords who will fight for power once we are gone are not chafing at the leash the way they are in Afghanistan.
Iraq is way too soon to tell, but it seems the western form of government they are trying to adopt is beginning to work for them.
I am curious as to what you base this on. I realize you have a major disclaimer at the beginning of the statement, but I am really disheartened by the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me we have propped up the facade of a "western form of government" in both countries. I think they are going through the motions because the US is the virtual equivalent of the current warlord in power. So they do it our way until another warlord is in power, which will probably be in fairly short order after we pull out.
I think he [Truman] made a reasonable choice from the limited options he had.
That is the point I am trying to make as well.
I thought of yet another analogy with respect to this. Pres. Truman must have felt like I do when I am in the voting booth. None of the choices are/were optimum. But at least people won't be debating the wisdom of my choices 65 years later...
The Sword of Damocles over civilization indeed.
Or the modern equivalent...[img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxQGK8WK0QZbm8nyaS7aqfANu07JCi9gLRlWBqz37yYZk6RRc&t=1&usg=__vGOc-eaFO1Im-0VxVtp-MikfaQg=[/img]
Even though the crime of genocide remains universally condemned by the international community, the United States government, its agencies, and its personnel have been effectively granted de facto immunity.
This is partially due to the fact that the term genocide was coined in 1941 and a resolution was adopted in 1948.Also partially due to a lot of the conquerors responsible for many of deaths coming over well before there was a US.Also partially due to a lot of this happening outside the US or what was the US at the time.Despite all the disclaimers, some blame can be placed on the US government. But I think they handled some things poorly only because their understanding was limited, not because they were driven by hate and trying to eradicate the race. There are individuals who are exceptions.I agree that the actions should not be whitewashed in history texts. But I don't think the international community is giving the US anymore leeway than other countries. The nature of man is such that (nearly?) all nations have checkered pasts. The important thing is to learn from it as we move on.
IMO, the good that discussions of morality of past actions can do is to guide our future actions. There is no need for guilt. Whether there is a time limit on trying to set things right is a different discussion. In the US, I think that time period has passed because opportunities are there for those that choose to participate in the modern culture and have been for some time.There is one other potential benefit of further discussion; if we keep debating this, by the end of the day I will be a Centurion. ;D
I am also trying to say that debate about nuclear weapons and their use is at best, tangential to a discussion about the article claiming that humanity has reached the end of the era of conventional war between states.
Given roughly equal tacticians as leaders, the larger or better equipped army will generally win a conventional war. The race is not always won by the swift nor the battle by the strong, but it is best to bet that way. In conventional warfare, a small force generally cannot stand in the way of a much larger one. But if destruction of the small force carries the consequence of a nuclear reprisal, then it can. IMO, this changes the way a conventional war can be waged dramatically.However, I must concede you are correct with respect to the specific article in question. I am off on a tangent.
