KacyRay

I think "durable" is a suitable antonym for "fragile". Resilient works, too. And it's true, military offices are held to an excruciating standard. I heard the Command Master Chief of the ship I'm assigned to say, on more than one occasion, "Gents, all I ask is no one does anything to get my face put on the cover of Navy Times." When I started out in the military, I remember looking at the rank on the collar of senior personnel... I remember exactly what my thoughts were. Man, that must so awesome to be that senior. God, what a cool life they must lead! There must be so many perks they enjoy. It must be so nice to be able to walk down the hall and be senior to almost everyone you pass! I'll bet no one messes with him! Now, as a guy who enjoys most of those perks and is senior to most of the folks I pass in the hallway, I see a very different people when I looka t folks senior to myself. God, I can't imagine the headaches they have to deal with. I wonder how much time away from their family *they've* spent. That poor bastard... he'll be in this weekend for sure. Jesus, he doesn't look like he slept at all last night. I don't ever want that guys job. I was talking to a guy a couple years ago... he was the Operations Officer for the unit I was at - a LtCol (prior enlisted), and we were both talking about our potential futures. When he talked about possibly becoming a full-bird Colonel, I asked him if he thought becoming a General was a real possibility for him. I was a bit surprised at how emphatically he scoffed. "I wouldn't be a general if you paid me a million dollars a year." He went on to explain that once you're a general officer, he military owns you in a way you could never imagine. Everything you do is scrutinized. Every foreign dignitary that visits your area, you and your wife will be having dinner with. You can get fired for things done by people you've never even met. You have to look perfect all the time - everyone is watching and looking to you to set the example of excellence. Judgment must be exact. Character must be beyond reproach. Do you like porn? Better not bring that up in public. Ever smoked a j? Bury that secret. Are you an imperfect human? Better not be. You are not a general only while at work, you are a general at all moments of every day. The President and senior politicians lead similar lives. It's ridiculous. I can't stand reality TV. It doesn't surprise me that Palin thrives in that environment. If by some fluke she were to make it back into some relevant political position, I guarantee she would bring the reality TV cameras in with her. She fits that "antifragile" description perfectly - all she has to do is keep using her catch phrases, winks, and "you betcha's" and no matter how many times she's caught bumbling when she goes off-script will matter. She's going to have a loyal legion of followers for the rest of her life.

Golly you types love to project your imagined emotions onto others, don'tcha? What is the deal with telling other people how they feel about something? It would never occur to me to do that, but I see it all over the place.

Greg, what would you do if you had a business relationship with someone who you were certain shared your values, only to find out a few years later that they had changed and were now publicly expressing views that ran contrary to your values? Would you continue your business relationship with them? Or would you cut ties? I think there is some cross-posting going on due to RB being in the moderation process. Makes dialogue difficult, I think.

Jon Stewart, on how angry Fox News gets when people try to act like the word police. And, of course, how selective their outrage is.

The Constitution doesn't mention guns either. I don't see anyone pointing out that irrelevant fact.

"Wall of Separation" is a phrase Jefferson used to describe the purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights (1st Amendment). The fact that the exact phrase doesn't appear is irrelevant.

Wow. Nice composition. Definitely from the heart.

From that site: So far so good... Still tracking... I'm behind it so far... So if the progressive movement identified unfettered capitalism as the biggest obstacle to progress, and drew a line from that to straight-up socialism... that would be an error of calculation, not of fundamental progressive theory (identified in earlier quotes). I do believe that reason and evidence should serve as the foundation for our convictions. I do believe that, insofar as we move away from faith and force, we create a better world for ourselves. I do believe in taking steps toward a just society for all (equality under the law). I suppose that, if the ideology identified as the core fundamentals of progressivism (commitment to reason, etc) by this website are to be believed, I am a progressive by definition. But that also means that MSK's characterization (provided to me earlier this year) of progressivism is sorely lacking.

I do notice that most forums seem to share a common boogeyman, be it atheists, bigots, fundamentalists, meat-eaters... It is clear to me that the boogeymen on this forum are progressives, liberals, and the mainstream media.

When i first got on OL, you defined "Progressive" as a person who advocates for the progressive encroachment of government into our lives. I didn't dispute the definition, because I thought maybe I was just ill-informed. I am often guilty of taking other people's words for things when I really should be more confident in my own understanding. Bing dictionary defines Progressive as follows: By this definition, just about everyone on the firum is a Progressive. The wikipedia entry on the Progressive movement describes it as such: Reading the article, it does appear that the term is often used to describe folks who do support progressive taxation, etc... but I don't see anything that ties the idea of progress to the idea of increased taxation. I'm no longer convinced that your definition of "progressive" or your concept of it represents a necessary reality. It may represent the way progressivism plays out in most cases, but no necessarily to all of them. I'm a guy who wishes that the drug war would end, that there was a flat tax that was the same for everyone, that the government would shed the fat, that government assistance should be available for those who give back something in return (that can be another thread), that all people were treated equally under the law, that vice laws were abolished, that businesses were free to conduct business as they see fit (as long as they do not endanger anyone else along the way), that religion was kept firmly and forever out of government, that the criminal justice system was fully reformed in order to take away all incentive to prosecute (other than guilt!!), that government was truly transparent, that fraud was aggressively prosecuted, that all law enforcement officials wear cameras and recording devices, and that people should not be allowed to bear children they cannot support. Does that make me a progressive? I don't know. What I do know is that the label means nothing to me. As I've told RB - drop it on me if you like. Or not. Don't care. With all that said... the answer to your question is that I have no mental image tied to progressivism or progressives. None at all.

MSK, It's interesting that you bring this up as a critique of my behavior. Interesting, because it is, I think, a perfect example of the tribalism of which I'm speaking. Remember this thread? In it, Jerry Biggers made a pronouncement about a "Devastating Billboard" that angered and upset the MSM and "others"... that the MSM was screaming about it. Now, remember that the narrative here was not about the billboard itself (which Jerry accurately pointed out was not a major issue) but about the MSM's alleged outrage. THAT was the point of Jerry post. And then remember that I made exactly one comment demonstrating that there was no measure by which the MSM could reasonably be said to be any more "angry" about that story than about any of the other pointless, mundane stories it was pushing out that week. Then remember that I had to spend a dozen or so other comments attempting to convince everyone that just because a story shows up on many different news sites, that doesn't mean the MSM is outraged by it. In fact, I had to spend a lot of time and effort just to keep people focused on my original point which was that there was no measure by which the MSM could be said to be outraged Or, as Jerry put it: Ready for the punch line? After going through all that trouble to demonstrate what should have been a relatively easy, slam-dunk point - I got accused of nitpicking. I even explained very carefully to you why the very crux of Jerry's post was factually inaccurate. But I don't recall you being very concerned about it So when I see you saying this like this: ... to me, but not saying it to guys like Jerry.... let's just say it pretty much cements my assessment.

lol. when isn't it? Interesting question. I don't know if it was asked seriously, but it does draw attention to something I'd been thinking about. When I speak of the type of tribalism that takes place in, say internet forums, I'm speaking of the tendency to overlook glaring issues that come from "regulars" while pinpointing (or witchhunting) anything that remotely sounds like it deviates from the party line when it comes from "outsiders". It's particularly bad in one of the left-leaning forums I frequent, and I've been banned from several blogs there as being a sexist/misogynistic/victim-blamer/troll. It's not *so* bad here, but I do see it happening. As far as security - Trust is something that must be earned, and to earn it takes time. From a primitive, tribal perspective, I see no problem with being suspicious of outsiders for security reasons, at least until those outsiders have had an opportunity to earn trust. Of course, I'm not suggesting that outsiders should be guilty until proven innocent (I agree with Rand's 'benefit of the doubt' approach on this), but where security is concerned, outsiders simply have not had the opportunity to earn he type of trust that (hopefully) exists within a tribe/household/community. So anyway, the short answer is... OL is an example of where it isn't about security.

heh... MSK, you're really starting to sound a little bit nuts. Hey, let's play a game a chess. You go first.

SB: FTW

"Like tribal as epistemology"? I'm afraid I don't follow. But for the record... I tend to avoid tribalism unless it's an issue of security. That includes tribal social tendencies.

MSK - You've made it clear that you don't like being pigeon-holed into the right-wing label, so I won't do that... but I will say that when that routine bout of hypocrisy comes rollin' down the pipe from the Tea Party darlings, the silence from the right is deafening. My news feed has been filled today with meme's from my right-leaning friends about how unfair it is that poor old Robertson got suspended from that show for just speakin' his mind about them queers. They sure love their reality-show stars... poor old duck-call millionaire suspended from his reality TV show for making bigoted comments against the policy o the network he's signed to. But when a pundit makes a bit-too-strong comment in retaliation to something he found offensive - wow, nothing but crickets. The outrage machine is in full force today. Just goes to show it isn't free speech they're defending... it's the expression of bigotry they seek to defend. RB is being generous by saying "false controversy". It's a full-fledged outrage machine at work. Just watch Fox News on any given day and imagine if you had to give me a quarter for every time you heard the word "outraged". You'd be going bankrupt pretty soon.

Kacy, Do you ever discuss any actual ideas when these issues come up, or is your new thing just to play rhetorical games that are so cliché and worn out they yawn? (Here's the substance of these games, just for the record: A. You guys are poo-poo heads. B. No. You guys are poo-poo heads. A. No. You guys are poo-poo heads. B. No. You guys are poo-poo heads. A. No. You guys are poo-poo heads. B. No. You guys are poo-poo heads. ... and so on.) Michael MSK, Pointing out hypocrisy is bringing up an idea. Notice no one else brings it up. Could it be that there's a bit more tribalism among the hard right than you would like to believe?

Robertson passed moral condemnation on an entire demographic. He also said that homosexuality is basically a gateway to bestiality and so forth, the same bullshit you hear at an average fundamentalist church (or Westboro Baptist). Bashir stated his personal opinion too. How is it any different? (I mean.. other than the fact that's it's ok to trash those yucky gay people, and really mean to trash Sarah Palin.)

Remember when Martin Bashnir said something really nasty about Sarah Palin and all the hard-right-wingies rushed to speak up in defense of his right to free speech and expression? Remember how outraged they were at how he lost his job for expressing an opinion? Yeah, neither do I.

When did I ever claim unbias? I'm absolutely biased against racism. And that's just one post. I don't have all day to do this I said you said crap. My charge of racism was against the comment, not the commenter. And before you start claiming that it's a distinction without a difference, the point is that I've been consistent about this the entire time. Making racist comments does not (necessarily) make one a racist, just as making religious comments does not (necessarily) make one religious. No, I've not edited anything for content ever since I've been on this forum. The only editing I've ever done was for formatting and spelling errors, and I generally only do that immediately after reading my post and realizing I goofed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this comment... ... has no racist undertones? Are you really going to try to sell that bill of goods? Can you even assert that without flinching in your seat? Do you seriously think that substituting "n-word" for "nigger" changes the nature of the statement? I guarantee that if SB had made that statement, but substituted "Jew" for "n-word", you'd have him in moderation quicker than he could say "Zeig Heil".

Kacy, Maybe I misremember, but I seem to recall you ranting at Greg that he does not know a thing about what you know or don't know in response to an assumption he made. You might be talking about the time someone assumed that everything I knew about Palin was nothing more than what the big bad MSM wants me to know. Ah yes, the obligatory assignment of emotions. Can't get through a thread without someone telling me how angry or upset I am. At least it's predictable at this point. I said his comments contained a racist undertone. I said they were a feature of his position, not the essence of it. The only reason you might believe I perceived an emphasis is because I have had to spend roughly a dozen comments explaining why a comment that clearly had racist undertones clearly had racist undertones. Notice he didn't say "blacks". He said "n-words". No racist undercurrent there, right? (I know, I know... only a liberal would notice such a thing.) At no point have I called him a racist nor have I ever claimed certainty on that. Now you're making stuff up. I know. That's why I haven't called him a racist. That's an interesting analysis of my motivations for doing something I did not do and claiming to know something I did not claim to know. Come on man, I know your reading comprehension skills are better than this. I have said that his comment had racial undertones. I demonstrated that they did. I did not call him a racist. In fact, I have not passed judgment one way or the other... yet. The only claim I made was that his comment had racist undertones. And that's NOT something I cannot have knowledge of. Interesting that a commenter has made an observation regarding a specific behavior that seems to be dominated by a specific demographic (race), and you threw it in the garbage pile and put him in moderation. And then another did the exact same thing and you rush to his defense. I think SB's comments were dripping with racist undercurrents. So do you. I think Greg's comment were dripping with racist undercurrents... but for some reason, you don't. "Notice that all of the [Knockouts/Socio-economic Powergrabs] seem to be done predominantly by [n-words/Jews]" I wonder how able you are to turn the looking glass in your own direction here? Do you really think you're being consistent?

MSK - I'm assuming that was an attempt to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency? I don't see it.

They had only one thing in common:rotten values I doubt that there's much more to be said. You have already fully described and supported your view of people as helpless powerless victims who can do nothing to prevent evil people from harming them. Heh... yeah... my actual words notwithstanding. I agree... not much more to be said. Stay aware, brother.

I'm not being evasive, I just don't like silly amateur games. Of course it's not in the constitution. You know what else isn't in the constitution? Democracy, among many other things. Here, since you think they question is somehow relevant, take a look here and get back with me. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Greg, Because, unlike you, I don't lay claim to knowledge I do not possess.