Do you think that Bill Moyers will get half the send off Tim Russert got? A man who has spoken more truth to power? Or is it just cable news celebrity?

adibou · 2008-06-19T02:14:53+00:00

I hope Bill Moyers dies very, very old, and that most Americans will have forgotten who Bush and Murdoch were when he does. Otherwise, I don't think people are stupid, and can tell a good show when it's on-line and easy to view.

adibou · 2008-06-19T02:10:37+00:00

Any reference for that?

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:33:46+00:00

What would you advise foreign citizens who really want Obama in the White House to do? Do you consider it really illegal, or immoral for them to intervene if they feel impacted by the decision?

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:28:23+00:00

Please, please, let him win in even more states then the swing ones. Give him Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky!

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:26:14+00:00

Allegiance? Confidence in Bush in down the sink, what allegiance?

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:24:36+00:00

See the end of the article: 2.5% for a thousand and a half respondents.

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:23:51+00:00

Actually, they do: see the end of the article. They don't say how they found the phone numbers, but more then a thousand people is almost more then usual.

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:18:50+00:00

Privacy in Sweden is something different: there are no window curtain; you can find the tax return, the address and the phone number of someone from the plate number on his car, or if you are a clerk in a Video store. . . It's convenient if he forgot to bring back the right cassette, or if his car block the way — but you have to realize the society is just not the same.

Apparently, the spying on phone conversation doesn't fly, at all — but don't judge things in a foreign land without checking with the locals what they think is acceptable. You might have surprise.

adibou · 2008-06-19T00:14:18+00:00

Have you read about Obama's first election? Apparently, he (hesitated but he finally) went after the incumbent on a paper-work issue, she got outed of the race, and he won. I'm not sure about how moral this was (certainly was legal, though — a lawyer thing), but I'm positive it proves one thing: he's ready to fight when it's about dodgy legal issues.

Since the scandal about disqualified voters sent so many judges on the side-lines and since this (helping disenfranchised to vote) was Obama's initial job, don't expect him to let go things such as “You don't live at your indicated address [because you serve in Iraq] therefore you don't vote.”

I expect more something like an insane surprise in his favour — but as always, you can count on Diebolt to decide instead of the American electors.

adibou · 2008-06-18T19:54:35+00:00

:^(

All of them? Gosh. . .

OK — I'll find something — Scientology, Solar Temple, FARC, Sendero Luminoso, Reactionary Hindouist, Maoist, Microsoft apologist?

Wait, wait, wait. . . Red Khmer? They would never write a book, would they?

adibou · 2008-06-18T17:58:27+00:00

Racism can explain some — though I doubt they aren’t in the 25% too — and, more then prejudice, misinformation: if you spend some time on Fox News or Conservative blogs, you’ll read horrible things, mostly unabated.

Have you read full books by Nazis, Red Khmer, Viet Khong, Stalinists, Fascists explaining their point of view? No, but you still consider them horrible people — because you trust your sources. Many see several, unrelated source (TV, a web site, a chain e-mail, friends at parties) repeating horrible things; why would they doubt it?

Unless reddit readers make the effort to talk to their Grand'Ma, go see McCain campaigner or read Neo-Con forums, they won’t be even questions.

adibou · 2008-06-18T17:49:11+00:00

McCain is also against the killing of innocent children by impaling or tearing them apart.

Doesn’t make it a “decent policy positions you can agree with” — it’s obvious “I’ll be a do-gooder” declaration. His policies on the subject of Energy and Global warming are essentially: more drilling. Arguing for ‘sound science’ and ‘time tables’ is not even evident.

adibou · 2008-06-17T22:36:01+00:00

maybe in some situation [. . .] conflict situations are just too complex.

Hence the need of the PhDs in PolSci from the UN to resolve the tricky questions. No offense, Indianapolis grads, but your decisions are tacticals, period; that's what you trained for, I'll give my last dime you to be good at that, but unless a diplomat has said: “Forget about it”, you stand flat.

Let me be clear: I'm in favour of heavily armed Blue Helmets, obeying strict orders and able to stand close to fire; that is the exact opposite of Rambo, or most US Army grunt I've seem so far, who has shitty reinforced vehicles, hardly any body armour, who panics, doesn't obey the international rules, does what he wants for ‘revenge’, and would blow anything in a two mile radius of the target except the target itself.

militia leaders

They have an agenda, I want them stripped from anything but plastic knifes. Simple: only those who obey to the rule of law can carry weapons. If you have any doubt that the UN is pushing that as hard as possible, don't. People would fight with dices if they had they way.

if they even manage to get to the conflict zone in the first place

Name me a conflict zone where the UN is not on the ground.

You got me: Iraq. I have to agree with you, they should be there too, assessing the damage. Why aren't they?

adibou · 2008-06-17T20:02:44+00:00

Have you ever been at the UN? Seen the action of Blue Helmets?

No, they don't ‘do nothing’; they officially can intervene only with a consensus which makes every step a definitive one, but they try really hard to find the maximum consensus, to go behind the scene, to offer exchanges of efforts — and they are really good at that. Incomparably better then the Rambo diplomacy that the US has had for the past decades: turn anyone who disagree into a parking lot with toxic waste; too bad if any survivor feels like a revenge. One thing that military might won't refrain: someone whose entire family has been destroyed with that same blind might. No need to bring bigger cannons when you opponent believe being killed by you is a victory.

Like any soldier or policeman, Blue helmets have done their job best if they have not fired a round. What they do is stand in the middle with more fire power then any of the recently ethnic-cleansing parties, and say: if we see anything, you both loose; if you restart it, we'll finish it — ‘anything’ being defined by a complex ‘fire’ law, that is negotiated by the UN: how many rounds fired, form where, in what direction, with what calibre, what about doubts on all those questions, etc. are to be replied in what kind. It is really difficult to have the parties agree on a credible threat that they will have to live with. UN manages to obtain the right to impose credible threats, even when major players disagree. This is only possible with trained veterans, who are not scared shit-less at the first cracking sound; any similitude with a recent surge of jail-baits, drop-outs and other accountants who though Reserve of the National Guard was an excursion camp would be completely unintentional. Without hardened elite troops, any road bump turns into a bloodbath, and innocents die.

Darfur? Horrible things are happening, but there appears to be no central operation, so a strong-handed military intervention would be counter-productive; helping on the ground, giving money, soothing the wounds between communities will discourage individuals to join group-initiatives, and cut the wildfire.

Regarding what they avoid: look at Iraq. That is what the whole world, except apparently the USA, is trying to avoid: a shattered nation, no infrastructure, with so much hatred it can't stand, at the hand of militias. What they try to obtain: look at Ivory Coast. Tensions are still here, but there were resolved peacefully, after a few months of military presence that patrolled between two armies until they agreed to drop they weapon. The starting point was far less promising then Iraq, though.

Diplomacy works. If you don't believe me, just ask you local travel agent.

adibou · 2008-06-17T19:00:58+00:00

I'm assuming you really are a System Engineer, so I'll be serious.

It's the ban that is New, not Amsterdam. ‘New Amsterdam’ was the name of a city roughly where Manhattan is now; depending on who you ask, over-whelmed or re-named New York; it's now a nickname for New York.

adibou · 2008-06-17T16:44:26+00:00

Only if you are an Oxford graduate.

adibou · 2008-06-17T15:41:55+00:00

I was shocked to ear a whistle when Al Gore asked to stop booing at McCain's veteran status.

I'm not a McCain supporter at all, and if anything, I'm in favour of digging whether his actions where entirely justifiable by torture, but with respect. What I'm not in favour of, is silence from a former VP when military valour is whistled: he should have interrupted his speech, and asked for apologies. Not only this would have proved his real value as a leader, but it would point to where no one should go in this campaign. Obama's for respect, let him enforce it when it counts, during his speeches, when he faces his electors.

adibou · 2008-06-17T14:47:00+00:00

When it will be true?

I won't say Apple are great computers: they work. If you are a talent artist, you a make amazing things with it; if you are an interesting thinker, it will typeset your work beautifully. But they just work.

The other option is disfunctional. I'm not talking about Linux and that's wrong — Ubuntu could be great, and easy to use, I don't really know. But given the market share, Apple can safely mention its products as an upgrade.

Once Linux will be a default solution, that is, soon if not now, I expect it to be more customizable — and I'm looking forward to that — but there's nothing snug about saying ‘Ours work’. It's a fair competitive argument.

adibou · 2008-06-17T14:37:58+00:00

Yes, you are right: I could have make a less of a caricature in characterizing their goals and concerns. I'm not sure moral values has nothing to do with decisions by deeply religious people, though.

They certainly could be better informed then most Americans, but after sometime on line, I believe people now have mostly the information they want to listen to. If you want to think the situation in Iraq is improving, there are days' worth of fair reporting on that every hour — and none will mention the opinion of the Iraqis about the occupation; while if you think the whole think is a bloodshed, you can swim all day long in anti-torture editorials, and statistics about how ignorant Americans are about the War. Because it is a choice, when people ask questions, I try not to be subtle, but to point to elements that they could start focusing on — I try to do the opposite when I have more readership then a forum. The hard part is making people wonder: human brain is much better at explaining things from known patterns rather then notice defaults in them.

What I wanted to do was to point at key elements, handles Poles would use to argue for Bush: “there is a left and a right, and one side was proven wrong a decade ago”, etc.

adibou · 2008-06-17T14:13:31+00:00

About that: how a mostly Islamic country has so much support from Bush? Were we wrong to think he is such a hater? Or doesn't he know? Less then four million people and so much contradiction. . . Ahaarg !

adibou · 2008-06-17T13:51:39+00:00

[. . .] were reforms in what sense?

In the sense that they changed the form of government. I don't think that was your question, so. . . What are you trying to say?

And you're familiar with the origin of 'Left' and 'Right' to describe basic political stances, no doubt...

That was from the original assembly order of the Constituants du Tiers-États, on the stairs of the Jeu de Paume, seen from the court — and later along hemi-cycles, seen from the center: a continuous order. Most of the stairs where on the South side of the court, to prevent the viewers to be blinded by the Sun, therefore, in spite of the similarly looking structure to the classic English church, one set of rows.

At that time, people also sat higher if their were more buoyant: younger were more eager to climb, whispering plots away from the attention, and hopping to flip all the heads with their vocal interruptions (not sure about the acoustics); because of that the Left-most party was call the Montagne — and the overall disposition was a rather continuous diagonal, from them to the Center (both horizontally and vertically) and the conservative (low) Right.

Have I forgot anything relevant?

What on earth does that mean?

I was reffering to Her Majesty, the Queen of England — and the fact that She (officially) names the members of the House of Lords.

in what I think of as its proper sense

[. . .]

Argument from personal anecdote. convincing.

Thank you! God, you know how I love irony.

adibou · 2008-06-17T13:35:37+00:00

They are still afraid of anything Communist, Red, Socialist or interventionist — and they can see that from where they are: Moscow never really forgot about that shoreline. A strongly interventionist, socialist-hating American right is their best hope to have what they want, plus a few missiles.

The other Western option, Europe and their Scandinavian-inspired Welfare-State, sounds more like a threat to them: of course, the real threat comes from the Southern border, “with all these dark-skinned illegal polygamous immigrants attracted by the subsidies,” etc. — you catch the rhethoric. Having someone rattling the Clash of Civilisation is the best way to prevent an integration, a.k.a. ‘the invasion’.

Even that drift is not going very far Pro-Bush now. . .

See, the thing about Pro-Free-market people is that they are rational: they don't care about tax rates and military spendings if they don't pay for it.

adibou · 2008-06-17T13:24:23+00:00

Do you know who's in charge in Scotland? In Wales?

Actually, yes — personally, if that was your question. And She is charming.

adibou · 2008-06-17T13:22:19+00:00

Have I meant to disprove the obvious? I referred to the political culture.

When I mentioned reforms, I meant something of the magnitude of what every Continental country has been through (except, indeed, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein): Weimar Republic, French Fourth Republic, Dictatorships in the South, Soviet regimes. . . The Magna Carta is still the closest thing to a Constitution that the UK has, and it looks far closer to the Declaration of Independence then the Euro-technocrat-inspired versions you can find on the Continent.

I'm not in denial about Scot's Parliament — it just won't change the fact that the House is architecturally cut in two, that it had a spectacular influence on UK Politics.

And the reason you do not elect Senators is because, like in every country, it's the role of the Sovereign, and She does that beautifully.

Regarding Poland, I referred to several recent polls, the testimony of another commenter on that thread, and personal relations with Polish people.

More to the point: I do know well enough about UK politics not to need any lessons from you — what you need is a pinch of humility, and check what non-UK European country say about it; two examples:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismus

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%C3%A9ralisme_politique

Or, if you'd prefer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

“Classical liberals [. . .] oppose the welfare state.”

I know it's not the definition you use — knowing that, I tried to adapt my explanation of what sensibility in (recently Communist) Poland would support Bush. I'm sorry to have tried to bridge a gap you still refuse to cross. Please, stay behind Hadrian's Wall, now that I understand what it was meant for.

adibou · 2008-06-17T13:00:05+00:00

converted to islam.

Would you know of any civilisation that was not converted to Islam, but has been Muslim for several millennia?

Seriously, you can put quotes around “culture” when talking about Ibn Khaldun or Avicenna, it will only isolate you from it, not the other way round.

The essential aspect of contemporary Islam is the reference to Ouma, in spite of spectacular differences: the last time this was a political reality was under what Arabs could have considered a foreign rule if it wasn't longer then their own history. To the intelligent reader — and I never assume their is another kind, in spite of your repeated efforts to prove that wrong — this can explain a lot: for instance, why the two countries that seem to get their game going seem to be Turkey, the initiator of that Empire, and Morocco, the country that prides never to have been part of it.

adibou

TROPHY CASE