OT: Al Franken

So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

John

 

What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

From the description I looked up on the net, it seems like lutefisk
only made with corn instead of codfish.

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

Well, people who disagree with you strongly are known quantities, and
you can make rational decisions about how to deal with them. If they
turn out to be cowards, you win. It's cowardly "allies" that are truly
dangerous. The problem is, you can't really tell who has guts and
honor until things get tough; that's why old, proven friends are the
most reliable.

It's surprising how many weenies there are, and who turns out to be
brave when it matters. I think humans sort of naturally arrange
themselves in hierarchal structures, with about one leader to maybe 20
followers in each local cluster.

John

 

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <[email protected]
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <[email protected]
4ax.com>) about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

I daren't tell you.

 

Yes, I do. I've only had grits as a breakfast dish with a big pat of
butter. What are fried grits like? Is that the same as "mush"?

...Jim Thompson

 

The term 'liberal' generally seems to imply an open attitude towards
progressive social programs, such as Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society"
legislation. Conservative, on the other hand, seems to imply a more fiscally
conservative attitude, which is usually associated with basing actions on
established economic principles. So, I'll agree with you. Under the Clinton
years, these terms were upended. The Clintons were generally quite a bit
more concered with economics than with progressive social policy, whereas
the Bush administration has shown itself to be dogmatic in the extreme,
giving tax cuts during wartime. This was unprecedented, and almost
universally condemned by economists. So, with regards to the term
'conservative', I'd place the Clinton administration in the role of more
conservative.

However, I'd also place it in the role of more liberal, in the sense that
its policies, while economically viable and based on sound economic theory,
were not geared towards demolishing social programs for the benefit of the
top 5%. Thus, I'd say that the prior administration was both more
conservative AND more liberal than the current administration.

The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' derive from the sides of the aisle
one sits on. Consequently, its by definition a 'political' definition, since
republicans sit on the right side, and democrats sit on the left side, as
seen from the back. Again, I'll agree with you, in this time of utter and
complete war between parties, which party elected a representative is far
more important than what they actually believe. Sadly... perhaps if this
wasn't true, some of the recent insanity, such as the invasion of Iraq,
could have been prevented. However, if a President is willing to lie to
Congress, its difficult for them to make objective assessments;
consequently, its possible that even with a more bipartisan congress, we
would have been dragged into this quagmire.

With good reason. If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh started making those
claims, they would be completely discredited. As it stands, they are simply
comedians. In that role, they work well. Its similar to the Andrew Dice Clay
phenomena, or the "Shock Jock" phenomena, where they say totally outrageous,
unsubstantiated things to get a laugh. Listening to Rush Limbaugh after the
Clark testimony was actually quite entertaining, what with the misstatements
of fact, outright obvious lies, and devious attempts to paint the mostly
right wing media who were reporting on these allegations as having 'left
wing liberal bias'. Like the Wall Street Journal is a left wing liberal
rag... However, I guess it depends on where you are standing. To Rush, the
left is anybody left of the American Spectator...

This is simply wrong. Read the section above, where I compare the liberal
and conservative natures of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You seem
to be somewhat confused about what the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal'
mean.

Again, you don't really know what the term 'liberal' means. Perhaps you
should consult some basic texts on political theory before pretending to
understand these terms?

Ah, you are a 'thinking man'. I like that. Far better to try and figure
things out for yourself than to echo the corrupt thinking of Rush Limbaugh
or Ann Coulter (or Franken, for that matter.) These folks are, after all,
commedians. They aren't asking to be taken seriously. They are entertainers.
You, on the other hand, are asking to be taken seriously.

Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy are well respected members of the Senate. What is
your specific criticism of them, other than the fact that they were elected
as Democrat? You seem to imply that they are 'wierdos' that are unstable and
lack integrity. You provide absolutely no evidence of this. I guess we
simply have to trust you.

An excellent point from a 'radical centrist'. You seem to have difficulty
disguising your loathing for these people. Why not try looking at the issues
objectively, rather than simply attempting to rationalize your point of view
by calling it 'centrist'?

By the way, which criteria have they invented for judging integrity? Perhaps
you are referring to the issue of "Not Lying to Congress about issues that
will cost blood and money?". That one seems to be coming up alot lately.

A good example of the 'history-spin' would be

Apparently, you didn't really understand what he was getting at. Thats the
problem I see with Kerry, he is too smart for the average person to
understand. This is in contrast to Bush, who seems to be understandable by
any smart 6th grader. Also, if you don't really get what he is saying, the
banner behind him is always pretty clear.

Actually, I don't think I'm smart enough to be president, so I really want
the president to be much smarter than I am, more able to undersand complex
issues in this age of terrorism. I'd also like a president who doesn't LIE
TO CONGRESS ABOUT ISSUES OF BLOOD AND MONEY. I think that, based on these
two criteria, I'll be voting against Bush.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Also, your prose style lacks grace.

The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior

You mean like LYING TO CONGRESS AND STARTING A WAR? Was that one of the
issues the Dems invented? You don't actually list any issues, you just keep
saying that there are issues. Perhaps _you_ have issues with them?

Again, this is a lie. You either made this up, or have been listening to
somebody like Rush Limbaugh. Did I mention that Rush Limbaugh is a COMEDIAN?
You probably shouldn't be taking what he says seriously...

When the attack is fully staged and

Again, you apparently haven't been paying attention. This is simply wrong.
Its clear that Clinton had 'other problems', in the form of a concerted
attempt by his political rivals to impeach him. However, they knew the
danger, and were paying attention. They simply didn't have the political
clout to take out the taliban, which they WANTED to do, according to Richard
Clark. You are misinformed, and slant everything to your own personal
political agenda. You sound like you get your news from Rush Limbaugh. You
do know that he is a comedian, don't you?

Also,

This is a damned lie. Nobody impeded Bush, rumors to that effect were all
discredited by later statements by Bush's staffers. Where do you get your
news? (sigh...)

However, nobody blamed the recession on Bush. Everbody knew that the bubble
had burst, and that there was going to be a downturn. The real question is
what they did about it. Using their dogmatic approach, income tax cuts, did
nothing to help (nobody really expected them to help.) 9/11 clearly didn't
help, but another tax cut during wartime clearly didn't help. The fact that
we are now recovering, slowly, after 3 (or 4) years is more a statement
about the resiliency of the american economy despite bad fiscal management
than anything else.

Ah, another 'radical centrist' statement. I hope you are really in the
center. If you are, that means that there are only a few actual right
wingers out there, and that the November election will be a breeze for the
Democrats.

I find it difficult to trust your ability to judge integrity in others.

My advice to you is go write some more wonderful BSD code. Thats appears to
be a much more productive use of your time.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
<snip>
: > They didn't like
: >"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be
the
: >"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.
:
: Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and
around
: here, occasionally, dinner) food.
: Anybody body my recipe for fried grits?

Now THAT is a threat to destroy your diet! RUN while you still
can!

When we are reduced to grits and greens we do have a depression!

 

X-No-Archive: yes
"John Larkin" wrote
: Fred Bloggs wrote
: >Jim Thompson wrote:
: >>
: >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like
TORY.
: >>
: >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more
Libertarian than
: >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards
;-)
: >> ...Jim Thompson
: >
: >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in
wars.
<snip>:
: So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

Because it isn't true

 

Funny! But grits isn't like that. Trust me.

Grits is just a down-home, slightly granier, white version of polenta:
bleached corn meal. Cooked right, it has a slightly wheaty, faintly
bitter flavor and a soft but still granular, not gummy, texture. It's
wonderful with lots of butter, salt, and black pepper, with a couple
of runny fried eggs on the side.

If you cook a *lot*, you might have some leftovers: refrigerate
overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter the next day;
serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum.

"Grits" is always singular.

Send me your address and I'll ship you a box.

John

 

Maybe it is. You'd have to ask "compared to what". By insect
standards, we're probably very cowardly. By dog standards, less so.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they
didn't help the grits.

 

So my "mush" recollection was correct?

...Jim Thompson

 

Okra is like asparagus held together with Elmer's Glue, and my
experience with wild-shot chicken-fried rabbit is that it tastes like
a ditch-diggers glove. Terrible things to do to perfectly good grits.

Navy grits was probably over-cooked; that makes it gummy and gross,
sort of like oatmeal.

John

 

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples'
hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.

John

 

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite
threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

---
Actually, boiled okra is like tapioca held together with snot, but
slice it into disks and and heat it up with diced tomatoes and onions
that have been sauteed along with a little garlic (the onions, not the
tomatoes) and you'll be in for a treat!

Cooking oatmeal for too long is what makes it gross, but even that can
be rescued by stirring in a handful of raw oatmeal just before it's
served.

 

Ever had two female employees get into a fight? I have. I'd rather
try to separate two mad dogs ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

The only really serious (and I mean work-stalking, home-stalking,
love-letters-and-death-threats-sending) sexual harassment thing we've
ever had was between two women. The victim was twice the age of the
pursuer. Kinda, umm, different. Worked it out, though.

John

 

No, not a physical fight, just the relentless cruel calculated sniping
that females are socialized to do so well. I'm not sure which would be
worse.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

I've had that sort of thing as well, but a male and a female, arguing
over *religion*. Needless to say I just asserted that one more
mention of religion was grounds for firing ;-)

...Jim Thompson