Well, the last time I saw Bill Gates on television his hairstyle seemed worringly Hitlerian, I must admit. Why? I wondered. He actually has quite a pretty, wholesome face, a fact which is not mentioned all that often. Years ago he could have probably put his face on his software. But now his hair needs feathering.
Saddam is the closest we’ve come to a Hitlerian tyrant in fifty years. And if we hadn’t stepped on him when we did, he could have really caused problems. The richest oilfield (at least in the region) was only a few miles south of Kuwait, and if Saddam found out he couldn’t take it and keep it, he would have taken it and burned it on his way out. Either way, he would have really put a damper on the world’s economy and stability. Globalization doesn’t work too well if your fuel is being wasted by tinhorn dictators. BTW, Kuwait itself produces 5% of the world’s petroleum. We could have gotten along without it, but the risk of Saddam moving just a little bit south was too great.
JamesCarroll:
I’m glad the Soviets sold Iraq weapons. Those outdated Russkie tanks and fire control systems were no match for our hardware. We could hit Baghdad all day and plink tanks all night, and that was just the air war. When the ground war came, the Iraqis, not even the Republican Guard, simply could not stand up to any kind of engagement with the Coalition. I seem to remember one confrontation where the Coalition tanks took on a whole division of Republican Guard tanks and only sustained one casualty. So don’t get too angry that our enemies are using Soviet weapons: The Soviets stopped improving a deacade ago and the rest of the world has continued marching on.
The “Quiz Show Bitch” on The Weakest Link
Trisk mentioned Burma early on. Now, I’m not sure which generals who’ve coup d’tat-ed their way to power at the moment, but that place is sad. About the only thing they make their money on is drugs and tourism. AIDS is out of control and all the leaders seem to do is restore old temples for tourists.
> This point of view is appallingly race-centric but
> consider this:
It’s actually appallingly racist, but as you like.
> If it’s true that in 1000 years only 3 out of a 100
> people on earth will be caucasians Russians start to > seem like useful and desirable companions of
> Americans, Canadians, the British, the Irish,
> Australians, New Zealanders and Europeans generally.
Why? What about the idea that some Russian citizens circa 2001 fall into the fall skinned western Eurasian phenotype makes them “useful” or “desirable” above all “1000” years from now when hopefully idiotic race based ideas will be replaced by other idiotic ideas of why and how to hate your fellow man?
> I mean, they’re Christians, they know how to play
> classical music and put on ballets if you like that > kind of thing.
So do Koreans for that matter. Never mind 1000 years from now. And why presume being Xtian makes them any more kosher than anything else? (I leave aside G Nome’s typically opaque logic in re ballet and classical music, derived as they are from bad stereotypes to start with)
> They don’t mind drawings of human beings either.
This however is just plain boggling.
> But how would I know.
Lord knows.
The fact that you can see no worth in biodiversity doesn’t make me a racist. If Caucasians make up 3% of the human race in 1000 years and that is still too many for you that makes you a racist. Even panda bears and tigers are thought of as worth preserving.
The fact that you don’t know Islam forbids representations of the human form in art is kind of boggling, yes I agree.
Although genetic similarities between races are greater than differences racism has always been one of mankind’s greatest problems. My answer to that is to confront any cultural and physical appearance differences head on. Don’t pretend they don’t exist at all - that’s where it all goes wrong. Accept the fact that, at first, some psychological orientation may be necessary and natural in relationships with people of other skins colours and cultures. I think that is the secret to racial harmony. That is my opinion for what its worth.
If that’s the message you were trying to get across, I suggest a less cryptic formulation, G. Nome. Ah, wait. I’ve been suggesting you post less cryptically for a year now. Never mind.
How is it then that Virgin Airways has not become a Moslem target? Have Moslems ever expressed displeasure over Richard Branson’s business name and colour themes? I have a very liberal mindset but I find myself pondering from time to time just how pornographic the whole Virgin thing might once have seemed. There are a lot of demur women still running around the world all dressed in yasmaks and in desperate need of soundproof public conveniences.
Is Mr Branson considered an affront to that sort of person by fundamentalists of any persuasion?
Coldfire: If I didn’t post cryptically I’d have nowhere to live.
Maybe you’re right though. I am aware that conversation techniques which work fine with real people in real time often don’t fare so well over the internet. I am also aware that a lot of the time I speak rather than write without deference to grammar and punctuation. I think that will become more allowable though as the internet evolves in the same way text messaging has abandoned spelling rules.
Um, I might be misinterpreting your cryptics here, but were you reading the papers a few months ago? It said that scientists have found that there are very few genetic differences between races. (Can someone help me out with a link here?)
Of course, I’m not completely convinced. I’ve always thought of science as a product of the times. Eighty years ago, the eugenicists were saying exactly the opposite. They convinced many that they had evidence, too. I mean, only a few people in any time period can comprehend the cutting edge of science. For example, when people started believing that the universe didn’t revolve around earth? This was an important time in history, since the authority of the Catholic Church was being undermined in the Reformation. Does anyone follow what I’m saying?
What about Castro? While he’s probably weaker than many, and not as bad as the Taliban or Suddam, he’s not the kind of guy I’d want as my nextdoor neighbor.
BTW, how old is Princess Juliana? I’m a royal enthusiast, so I do know she was born pretty early in the century, when her mother was queen.
3% white? 1% white? How about 0%? The sooner the illusion of “race” disappears, the better.
No sooner does Russia chuck in the towel in the cold war than the US has to go and find another bogeyman and picks Islam it seems.
SD visitors seems an inteligent bunch yet even here I read this same old rubbish about “rogue states” and random attacks on Islamic belief.
Is it something to do with the mindless American support for the Israel that drives this or what? I recall a bunch of mindless Hollywood films in which nameless Islamic states replaced Russian as the “enemy” which I take as at least a low brow insight to what money makers think will sell to the great American public - just like the xenophobic rubblish put out during the Reagan era.
The sooner American “grows up” and respects nation states for what they are and the culture and context of their development the safer place the world will be.
Although President Bush’s support of the Chinese Falun Gong organisation is quite admirable.
I’m sure it’s comforting to you to think that the rest of the world will change to meet your standards. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Guinastasia, Princess Juliana is currently 92 years old.
Well, as far as I can tell only one poster on this thread has made any random attacks on Islamic belief. On the other hand, you hardly have to be a knee-jerk supporter of everything Israel does to find the Taliban despicable. In fact, someone’s feelins about Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict probably have virtually nothing to do with their view of the Taliban. Americans also have major issues these days with Islam as a result of our relations with Iran since the Revolution, where the Israeli-Arab conflict has been only one factor. The U.S. supported the Shah for decades, for a variety of reasons (and not just to strengthen Israel); our heavy-handed support for an autocrat (if sometimes an “enlightened” one) led to understandable anti-Americanism by Iranians. That anti-Americanism expressed itself in a way which deeply shocked Americans, and it was done in the name of Islam. And the whole Salman Rushdie affair further worsened the image of Islam in the eyes of Westerners. Of course you can’t judge all Muslims by the actions of some, but a lot of bad stuff is done in the name of Islam, and criticizing those things is not “random attacks on Islamic belief” (which I think you’ll find tend to get hooted down pretty fast around here).
I know, I know, bothering to correct G Nome is an excerise in the greatest futility, but sometimes just for fun.
Racist statements make you racist. Just as stupid statements make you stupid, as painfully obscure and badly thought out statements… etc. “Biodiversity” as no meaning in re the trivial differences between people.
As anyone with half-a-brain here can tell you, we have discussed the fallaciousness of race in great deal before. The 1000 years thing just makes this more absurd.
Those are different species my dear genetically confused person.
Rather, I know the opposite my dear. As usual, unfortunately, your knowledge seems to be composed largely of half-baked stereotypes.
Islam forbids protraying the human form in a number of (religious) conditions, but not utterly. You just have to take a look at illuminated manscripts from the Middle Ages: guess what? Humans are depicted. Now, fast forward our era. Plenty of depictions of human forms, although again not in religious contexts, which are indeed forbidden. True, painting and the like of human form remains not very popular as an art form, but that’s not forbidden. So, next time reflect before getting smart with me.
Repeat this three times, the Taliban are not all Muslims.
Now, further
There are no identified “racial” differences, population based differenes are trivial and do not break out by race. This has been thoroughly dicussed before. Search on my username and race and genetics. You know that of course.
As for “racism has always been one of mankind’s greatest problems” that’s pure poppycock. Racism (as opposed to the other multitude of varieties of ways to hate your neighbor) is something developed in the 19th century.
No, your answer is to make half-baked assertions based on strange associations you make in your quasi-functional grey matter from poorly understood texts you may have heard about.
Not terribly much.
But further,
SpinneZiege
Search on my user name and race and genetics. You will find a wealth of information including on line links to primary literature in genetics.
Genetics is not comparable with prior attempts at classifying humans. It provides an objective, measurable yardstick with testable, repeatable results. Far different from the subjective and ultimately failed attempts of late 19th and early 20th century eugenics.
Well, in fact their house of cards really came crashing down early in the century as their data could not be reconciled and no clear methods or standards could be developed.
Cutting edges in some sciences are often hard to grasp. However that does not make the basic science impossible to comprehend. When folks are willing – I stress willing-- to put in the effort, I believe most of the data on human populations is fairly understandable. In any case, one can get a sense of the development from the trends in the literature. Insofar as human population genetics methadologies are also shared in great extent with genetic research in other fields, one has an automatic check on the data.
Collunsbury: The biodiversity thing? Just a joke. The panda bear thing? Just a joke. The 3% caucasian thing? Just light banter. You? Just a joke.
OK Dinglebury, I’m sorry. I am the way I am because information is so easy to come by. Anyone can fabricate an expert identity at the click of a mouse. Anyone can search and cut and paste information into this site. I just don’t see the point. I prefer discussing ideas and values rather than facts I guess. Since I’ve been rude to you I’ll create a faux expert self for you by the cut and paste method.
OP: HOW IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF ATOMS IN THE UNIVERSE? DO THEY JUST KEEP ADDING NOUGHTS WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT?
EXPERT ME: A typical star weighs about 2x10^33 Grams, which is about 1x10^57 atoms of hydrogen per star… That is a 1 followed by 57 zeros. A typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has 1x10^57 X 400,000,000,000 = 5x10^68 hydrogen atoms in a galaxy. There are possibly 80 billion galaxies in the Universe, so that means that there are about: 5x10^68 X 80,000,000,000 = 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the Universe. But this is definitely a lower limit calculation, and ignores many possible atom sources. That number, is a 4 followed by 79 zeros.
THE REAL ME: The Klingon tally must be way off then.
Collounsbury, I don’t think you see my point. I’m more talking about how the masses interpret these sciences. any jackass could tell you he’s an expert on genetics once he starts spewing out a bunch of jargon. I don’t (and I’m sure you don’t, nor most other people) understand barely anything that the Human Genome Project has yielded for us, besides the watered down descriptions in the media. Until then, I’m not trusting what I hear any more than what the eugenicists were saying back then.
That is, not until I get my degree in molecular biology 