[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Why the hate, baby, why the hate? I agree with Veritas regarding your summary on Huxley and Orwell. Interestingly, I just read Hitch’s book on Orwell (“Why Orwell Matters”) earlier this year. I haven’t read “Brave New World” in a while, but it definitely resonates as of late. You can find thousands of articles on Brit’s baby, her addictions, family problems and rehab, but try to find one well researched article on… well, anything and you’re SOL. I would agree with your assessment on Hitchens, but would also say that as a reformed Stalinist, he has a very rare point of view and his articles are a joy to read, simply based on how well they are written and reasoned. You’d be hard pressed to find another writer working in the English language with such a fluid command of it.

gandalf: I agree with you on GM. There is an excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly on the Chevy Volt (it’s in either this month’s issue or last month’s), and how GM is using it to remake their corporate culture and regain their footing in the marketplace. One of the things that really struck me was the sense of rage among the senior GM execs about how Toyota was wiping the floor with them, and that they were prepared to do anything, including overhauling the whole company, to beat Toyota. I felt a surge of admittedly jingoistic pride, but I wouldn’t take GM lightly, especially now that they’re in their “wounded bear” phase.

I would ask when/where was I bashing Obama? You might be thinking of another poster. I simply said that I thought he was a foreign policy dilettante, and lacked the requisite experience.

As far as the Latin goes: Nils illegitimus carborundum, as an old Jesuit teacher of mine used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Why the hate, baby, why the hate? I agree with Veritas regarding your summary on Huxley and Orwell. Interestingly, I just read Hitch’s book on Orwell (“Why Orwell Matters”) earlier this year. I haven’t read “Brave New World” in a while, but it definitely resonates as of late. You can find thousands of articles on Brit’s baby, her addictions, family problems and rehab, but try to find one well researched article on… well, anything and you’re SOL. I would agree with your assessment on Hitchens, but would also say that as a reformed Stalinist, he has a very rare point of view and his articles are a joy to read, simply based on how well they are written and reasoned. You’d be hard pressed to find another writer working in the English language with such a fluid command of it.

gandalf: I agree with you on GM. There is an excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly on the Chevy Volt (it’s in either this month’s issue or last month’s), and how GM is using it to remake their corporate culture and regain their footing in the marketplace. One of the things that really struck me was the sense of rage among the senior GM execs about how Toyota was wiping the floor with them, and that they were prepared to do anything, including overhauling the whole company, to beat Toyota. I felt a surge of admittedly jingoistic pride, but I wouldn’t take GM lightly, especially now that they’re in their “wounded bear” phase.

I would ask when/where was I bashing Obama? You might be thinking of another poster. I simply said that I thought he was a foreign policy dilettante, and lacked the requisite experience.

As far as the Latin goes: Nils illegitimus carborundum, as an old Jesuit teacher of mine used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Why the hate, baby, why the hate? I agree with Veritas regarding your summary on Huxley and Orwell. Interestingly, I just read Hitch’s book on Orwell (“Why Orwell Matters”) earlier this year. I haven’t read “Brave New World” in a while, but it definitely resonates as of late. You can find thousands of articles on Brit’s baby, her addictions, family problems and rehab, but try to find one well researched article on… well, anything and you’re SOL. I would agree with your assessment on Hitchens, but would also say that as a reformed Stalinist, he has a very rare point of view and his articles are a joy to read, simply based on how well they are written and reasoned. You’d be hard pressed to find another writer working in the English language with such a fluid command of it.

gandalf: I agree with you on GM. There is an excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly on the Chevy Volt (it’s in either this month’s issue or last month’s), and how GM is using it to remake their corporate culture and regain their footing in the marketplace. One of the things that really struck me was the sense of rage among the senior GM execs about how Toyota was wiping the floor with them, and that they were prepared to do anything, including overhauling the whole company, to beat Toyota. I felt a surge of admittedly jingoistic pride, but I wouldn’t take GM lightly, especially now that they’re in their “wounded bear” phase.

I would ask when/where was I bashing Obama? You might be thinking of another poster. I simply said that I thought he was a foreign policy dilettante, and lacked the requisite experience.

As far as the Latin goes: Nils illegitimus carborundum, as an old Jesuit teacher of mine used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

equalizer: Why the hate, baby, why the hate? I agree with Veritas regarding your summary on Huxley and Orwell. Interestingly, I just read Hitch’s book on Orwell (“Why Orwell Matters”) earlier this year. I haven’t read “Brave New World” in a while, but it definitely resonates as of late. You can find thousands of articles on Brit’s baby, her addictions, family problems and rehab, but try to find one well researched article on… well, anything and you’re SOL. I would agree with your assessment on Hitchens, but would also say that as a reformed Stalinist, he has a very rare point of view and his articles are a joy to read, simply based on how well they are written and reasoned. You’d be hard pressed to find another writer working in the English language with such a fluid command of it.

gandalf: I agree with you on GM. There is an excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly on the Chevy Volt (it’s in either this month’s issue or last month’s), and how GM is using it to remake their corporate culture and regain their footing in the marketplace. One of the things that really struck me was the sense of rage among the senior GM execs about how Toyota was wiping the floor with them, and that they were prepared to do anything, including overhauling the whole company, to beat Toyota. I felt a surge of admittedly jingoistic pride, but I wouldn’t take GM lightly, especially now that they’re in their “wounded bear” phase.

I would ask when/where was I bashing Obama? You might be thinking of another poster. I simply said that I thought he was a foreign policy dilettante, and lacked the requisite experience.

As far as the Latin goes: Nils illegitimus carborundum, as an old Jesuit teacher of mine used to say.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

As far as Wikipedia goes: This is a self-attributing operation. What does this mean? That it is not completely credible as a source, given that the fact checking can be quite suspect at times. There have been numerous articles written about this, you might want to read a few. Throwing a handful of “facts” from Wikipedia at something and calling it an argument, well…

Lastly, what about Clinton’s intelligence practices? Rendition, NSA eavesdropping, and the failure of his counterintelligence program to sniff out al Qaeda among them. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

As far as Wikipedia goes: This is a self-attributing operation. What does this mean? That it is not completely credible as a source, given that the fact checking can be quite suspect at times. There have been numerous articles written about this, you might want to read a few. Throwing a handful of “facts” from Wikipedia at something and calling it an argument, well…

Lastly, what about Clinton’s intelligence practices? Rendition, NSA eavesdropping, and the failure of his counterintelligence program to sniff out al Qaeda among them. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

As far as Wikipedia goes: This is a self-attributing operation. What does this mean? That it is not completely credible as a source, given that the fact checking can be quite suspect at times. There have been numerous articles written about this, you might want to read a few. Throwing a handful of “facts” from Wikipedia at something and calling it an argument, well…

Lastly, what about Clinton’s intelligence practices? Rendition, NSA eavesdropping, and the failure of his counterintelligence program to sniff out al Qaeda among them. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

As far as Wikipedia goes: This is a self-attributing operation. What does this mean? That it is not completely credible as a source, given that the fact checking can be quite suspect at times. There have been numerous articles written about this, you might want to read a few. Throwing a handful of “facts” from Wikipedia at something and calling it an argument, well…

Lastly, what about Clinton’s intelligence practices? Rendition, NSA eavesdropping, and the failure of his counterintelligence program to sniff out al Qaeda among them. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: Here we go again, huh?

1. I said Clinton enforced the sanctions, and you confirmed this. Again, I never said Clinton instituted them, I simply said he enforced them.

2. The 500,000 number has been used by International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and UN Council for Human Rights. The number may be false, as it is an estimate. However, given that all three of those bodies have cited it at length does give it some credence. And, yes, this happened on Clinton’s watch, so it is directly attributable to him.

3. Raw tonnage of bombs dropped did exceed WWII. I was not using the Counterpunch article regarding the number, I simply said that the article spoke about the tonnage dropped under Clinton was the heaviest since the Vietnam War. If you do a little research (and you seem to think Wikipedia is the end all be all, you can easily verify this), you will find that the US bombing campaign in Vietnam absolutely dwarfed the bombing campaign over Germany during WWII. In point of fact, you can check the raw tonnage of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 (the Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor campaign) and compare that to ALL the bombs dropped during WWII. So, if Clinton dropped more raw tonnage since the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War exceeded WWII by a huge margin, well, quad erat demonstratum Bunkie.

As far as Wikipedia goes: This is a self-attributing operation. What does this mean? That it is not completely credible as a source, given that the fact checking can be quite suspect at times. There have been numerous articles written about this, you might want to read a few. Throwing a handful of “facts” from Wikipedia at something and calling it an argument, well…

Lastly, what about Clinton’s intelligence practices? Rendition, NSA eavesdropping, and the failure of his counterintelligence program to sniff out al Qaeda among them. Any thoughts there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: See the attached article. It speaks to the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Iraq, as well as the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee11212005.html

What parts of my argument were false again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: See the attached article. It speaks to the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Iraq, as well as the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee11212005.html

What parts of my argument were false again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: See the attached article. It speaks to the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Iraq, as well as the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee11212005.html

What parts of my argument were false again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: See the attached article. It speaks to the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Iraq, as well as the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee11212005.html

What parts of my argument were false again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

justme: See the attached article. It speaks to the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Iraq, as well as the loss of 500,000 Iraqi children during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee11212005.html

What parts of my argument were false again?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Veritas: Keep drinking the coffee! I coach youth football, so you don’t need to tell me about the feminization of America.

I blame the Red Diaper Baby/Counterculture movement of the 1960s for all of this nonsensical PC crap. And, yes, I see plenty of kids who want a trophy just for showing up. The concept of hard work is gradually being eroded by the concept of “self-esteem” and everyone is excellent. Well, if everyone is excellent, then no one is.

I like the reference to Huxley. As of late, he seems more relevant then even Orwell, which is truly scary.

[Author]

Posts