1. Thanks so much to Donald McEwan for A Fish Called Wanda, Popeye, and The Man from Snowy River on DVD. Should make for a great weekend.
2. Mark Moore wants help in finding these Magnificent Seven.
3. “Liberals are Unpatriotic,” from retired Navy SEAL Matthew Heidt of Froggy Ruminations. The opening salvo:
Oh yeah, you read that correctly. All you liberals out there that would rather score political points against the President and Vice President than win this war hate your country. Willfully LYING about how the US came to be in Iraq is not dissent; it is sabotage of our national security. Dissenting IN GOOD FAITH is patriotic. All Americans are duty bound to speak up against the actions of our countrymen when we feel they are acting in error. But repeating lies every day to get back at the President that beat you doesn’t make them true; it makes you a traitor to this country and disloyal to the troops who are on this day protecting you.
On the phone the other night, Matt told me he was thinking about writing something provocative like is. I’m happy that he did, and I’m interested to see the feedback he gets for it.
One thing I can say for certain is that he won’t be subjected to the chickenhawk argument.
4. Tom Elia says that Eleanor Clift has embarrassed herself in her latest Newsweek column. And while I’m tempted to say, “uh, so what else is new?”—she really has outdone herself this time, mixing armchair pop-psychology with facile political analysis to produce a flabby array of words that, like a jello mold gone terrible wrong, never quite congeals and stands pathetically in a puddle of its own watered-down fruitiness.
Tom also sends along this post which highlights Richard Posner’s views on Islamic Violence and Immigration policy.
5. BlackJack catches the AP in an early iteration of a Bush poll numbers story making the claim that Libby was indicted for outing a covert agent—something with which no one was charged by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for the simple reason that Valerie Plame was not covert.
Which raises an compelling question: When the press begins overtly lying to you, where do you go for the truth?
6. Muslim scholars scold newspaper for cartoons (h/t Tom Pechinski)
7. Allah send along this link on French action against rioters with the comment that it is “An Onion-worthy example of leftist impotence.”
8. Still on the subject of French rioting, Terry Hastings sends along a Wall Street Journal piece that echoes my earlier take on what lessons we should draw from the riots (subscription only, so I’ll excerpt at length):
[…] some longstanding conceits about the superiority of the French social model have gone up in flames. This model emphasizes “solidarity” through high taxes, cosseted labor markets, subsidies to industry and farming, a “Ministry for Social Cohesion,” powerful public-sector unions, an elaborate welfare state, and, inevitably, comparisons to the alleged viciousness of the Anglo-Saxon “market” model. So by all means, let’s do some comparing.
The first thing that needs illuminating is that, while the overwhelming majority of rioters are Muslim, it is premature at best to describe the rioting as an “intifada” or some other term denoting religiously or culturally inspired violence. And it is flat-out wrong to claim that the rioting is a consequence of liberal immigration policies.
Consider the contrast with the U.S. Between 1978 and 2002, the percentage of foreign-born Americans nearly doubled, to 12% from 6.2%. At the same time, the five-year average unemployment rate declined to 5.1% from 7.3%. Among immigrants, median family incomes rose by roughly $10,000 for every 10 years they remained in the country.
These statistics hold across immigrant groups, including ones that U.S. nativist groups claim are “unassimilable.” Take Muslims, some two million of whom live in America. According to a 2004 survey by Zogby International, two-thirds are immigrants, 59% have a college education and the overwhelming majority are middle-class, with one in three having annual incomes of more than $75,000. Their intermarriage rate is 21%, nearly identical to that of other religious groups.
It’s true that France’s Muslim population—some five million out of a total of 60 million—is much larger than America’s. They also generally arrived in France much poorer. But the significant difference between U.S. and French Muslims is that the former inhabit a country of economic opportunity and social mobility, which generally has led to their successful assimilation into the mainstream of American life. This has been the case despite the best efforts of multiculturalists on the right and left to extol fixed racial, ethnic and religious identities at the expense of the traditionally adaptive, supple American one.
In France, the opposite applies. Mass Muslim migration to France began in the 1960s, a period of very low unemployment and industrial labor shortages. Today, French unemployment is close to 10%, or double the U.S. rate. Unlike in the U.S., French culture eschews multiculturalism and puts a heavy premium on the concept of “Frenchness.” Yet that hasn’t provided much cushion for increasingly impoverished and thus estranged Muslim communities, which tend to be segregated into isolated and generally unpoliced suburban cities called banlieues. There, youth unemployment runs to 40%, and crime, drug addiction and hooliganism are endemic.
This is not to say that Muslim cultural practices are irrelevant. For Muslim women especially, the misery of the banlieues is compounded by a culture of female submission, often violently enforced. Nor should anyone rule out the possibility that Islamic radicals will exploit the mayhem for their own ends. But whatever else might be said about the Muslim attributes of the French rioters, the fact is that the pathologies of the banlieues are similar to those of inner cities everywhere. What France suffers from, fundamentally, is neither a “Muslim problem” nor an “immigration problem.” It is an underclass problem.
[…]
The larger problem for the prime minister is that France’s underclass is a consequence of the structure of the French economy, in which the state accounts for nearly half of gross domestic product and roughly a quarter of employment. French workers, both in the public and private sectors, enjoy GM-like benefits in pensions, early retirement, working hours and vacations, sick- and maternity leave, and job security—all of which is militantly enforced by strike-happy labor unions. The predictable result is that there is little job turnover and little net new job creation. Leave aside the debilitating effects of unemployment insurance and welfare on the underclass: Who would employ them if they actually sought work?
For France, the good news is that these problems can be solved, principally be deregulating labor markets, reducing taxes, reforming the pension system and breaking the stranglehold of unions on economic life. The bad news is the entrenched cultural resistance to those solutions—not on the part of angry Muslim youth, but from the employed half of French society that refuses to relinquish their subsidized existences for the sake of the “solidarity” they profess to hold dear. So far, most attempts at reform have failed, mainly due to a combination of union militancy and political timidity.
[…]
There are lessons in France for the U.S., too. Advocates of multiculturalism might take note of what happens when ethnic communities are excluded (or exclude themselves) from the broad currents of national life. Opponents of immigration might take note of the contrast between France’s impoverished Muslims and America’s flourishing immigrant communities.
Above all, those who want America to emulate the French social model by mandating health and other benefits, raising tax burdens and entrenching union power might take note of just how sour its promises have become, especially its promises to the poor. In the matter of “solidarity,” economic growth counts more than rhetoric.
9. Tim Worstall’s “Warring Against the Drug Warriors” offers a fresh take on civil disobedience. And bagels.
Hey, on that much we agree! See, the divide isn’t nearly so broad as all that. We both think half of the country is actively engaged in treason.
Only my half is bigger, according to Fox News.
Jack buys into the circular logic – begging the question. Let’s see, lie, lie lie and keep repeating the lie then cite the polls that supposedly proves the lie.
Let’s see….Jack fucks skunks, Jack fucks skunks,Jack fucks skunks,Jack fucks skunks,Jack fucks skunks. Lo and behold, the latest poll shows that 98% of those polled believe that Jack fucks skunks…..therefore it must be true.
Jack, I don’t think we want to associate with skunk fuckers….so, ‘bye.
I think there was some mix-up with the link credited to me, Jeff. Here’s the correct link. Sorry for the crossed signals.
To atone, I’ll spare you the trouble of directing Jack Roy to update 2 of this post and direct him there myself.
Which update 2?
With these brewing attacks on the patriotism of those challenging the honesty of Bush’s pre-war WMD claims, it is critical to note that the precise kinds of challenges against Bush being made by Democrats now were routinely made by Republicans every time Clinton used the military. As revealed by this post (via Daily Kos today):
Compilation of GOP statements in the 1990s attacking Clinton’s motives and honesty with regard to Kosovo, bin Laden attack and Iraq bombings
The GOP incessently made the exact kinds of attacks on Clinton’s honesty and motives when it came to deploying the military which the GOP is now claiming are “unpatriotic.”
I’d love to know what the difference is. Why is it OK for the GOP to do that to Clinton – for years – but it’s suddenly “unpatriotic” when the Democrats do it to Bush?
Curt-
Great. Everybody’s assholes. Hence Dems are immune from criticism for being assholes. Asshole.
I can’t disagree that half the country thinks the other half is treasonous, but one side is based on evidence and a standard definition of what constitutes a “lie,” while the other half is just angry they aren’t getting the universal health care, abortion rights, and gay marriage parades they keep trying to vote for. Further, I suspect a significant portion of respondents to the poll believe that when they assert Bush “misled” the country, they mean he rhetorically stated the evidence in a way designed to persuade the public in the righteousness of the cause, which in retrospect, they now call into question. IOW, he wasn’t being an objective font of information. And with that, I completely agree. Like anyone trying to accomplish something and convince others to support it, he rhetorically framed evidence as compellingly as possible to support his case for action. That’s not lying. That’s persuasion. That’s leadership. Does Pepsi mislead when it says Pepsi’s better than Coke? Sure. There’s nothing objective about that judgment. Pepsi sets out its case and asserts Pepsi’s better than Coke. You can’t sue Pepsi for lying, even if you swallowed a gulp and decided Pepsi sucks.
As for the French riots, I’m having a hard time understanding whether it’s a victory for, or an indictment of mulicultualism as social policy.
Jeff,
thank you.
ron
Matthew is a CHICKENFROG! Or maybe a FROGCHICKEN!
CurtJacobs, you linked to a series of quotes of Republicans basically accusing Clinton of letting the tail wag the dog, of invading Kosovo to distract the media and populace away from his problems. What problems exactly did W need to distract us from when he invaded Iraq? He was on top of the world with the success in Afghanistan, invading Iraq has become the issue, rather from distracting from it. I guess what I am asking is what the hell does your post have to do with anything?
Sigh. Are all the commentators here this dense?
The patriotism attacks as cited by Jeff, as well as those coming from Jeff (in defense of his patriotism-impugning Godfather, Insty), are based on the premise that attacking the honesty and motives of the President with regard to bringing the country to war is unpatriotic and harms the troops.
The quotes from the post I cited demonstrate that the GOP did exactly this – called into question Clinton’s honesty and motives with regard to his military deployments as a way of harming him politically because they couldn’t beat him at the polls.
Put simply for you, the GOP did exactly to Clinton what they are now screetching constitutes a lack of patriotism when the Democrats do it to Bush.
Get it now?
You aren’t likely to make friends acting like a supercillious ass, Curt.
First, I was not a Republican during the Clinton years. Second, the difference you seem to forget between the two scenarios is that a Senate intelligence committee has shown Bush didn’t exert influence on the intelligence community, and that the intelligence community consensus supported the administration’s reading of the intelligence. The Dems are now say REGARDLESS OF THIS, AND IN BAD FAITH, that he lied.
Were Clinton’s actions the subject of a SIC report?
I think the Republican charges against Clinton—which weren’t the official position of the Party, if I remember correctly, and were criticized by many Republicans at the time—were unhelpful and , in some cases, delivered in bad faith.
But that is a much different scenario than what we are now seeing coming from the Dems as a strategy.
I’m with Matthew Heidt. These stupid lefty mothers have been skating over the line for years and getting away with it. By this, I mean they’ve been spewing treason and getting away with claiming it’s patriotic, constructive criticism.
John–’Uncle Ho’–Kerry is their mentor. We should all have a special exhibit in a North Vietnamese museum attesting to our help in fighting against the Americans–and still be able to keep our Senate job.
Not only is the left’s language unpatriotic, it is often treasonous. (Squawks, screams, gnashing of teeth.)
TEST: You want to know if a remark is unpatriotic or treasonous? Ask yourself this: If it were intended to be treasonous, would it sound any different? If it doesn’t differ from what your worst enemy would say, then it’s unpatriotic and possibly treasonous.
Unlike you, whose attacks on people’s patriotism because of their political beliefs are sure to make you universally beloved.
But you are now. So do you think that the people attacking Clinton in that manner while he had troops deployed were acting unpatriotically?
I know this will shock you, but it is possible to disagree with a Senate Committee and still not be a lying traitor.
Moreover, as I’m sure you are aware, Phase I of that investigation did not even purport to examine the question of whether intelligence was manipulated and deliberately ignored. That is the Phase II aspect which Sen. Roberts had to be forced into finally allowing to proceed.
There is ample evidence (see today’s Washington Post story for instance) suggesting that the Administration knew that many of the claims it was making were exaggerated or called into serious question, and yet they still made them emphatically and without qualification. How that conduct should be characterized is subject to debate, but those are facts.
The real point is that people on both sides engage in all sorts of irresponsible and excessive political rhetoric for all kinds of reasons that fall far, far short of a lack of patriotism.
Just as there were conservatives who went too far in attacking Clinton’s motives and integrity (rather than just his judgment) BECAUSE they were so zealous in their belief that Clinton was a disaster for their country, so, too, are there liberals who go too far in their rhetoric becasue they think Bush is a disaster for their country.
Both camps might be guilty of a lack of restraint, spewing irresponsible accusations, and general hysteria. But that is a far cry from accusing them of failing to have the best interests of their country in mind AS THEY PERCEIVE THOSE INTERESTS when acting.
curt,
how does equating the statements of the democratic leadership with those of individual republicans from the nineties prove your point. it is the same as equating the statements of the republican leadership with those of cynthia mckinney and dennis kucinich(on any subject). .
Don’t underestimate the stupidity of those who a) can’t form a coherent rebuttal and find it much easier to hurl an epithet and/or b) can’t/won’t do their homework.
I’ve been called a chickenhawk more than once. Amazing how one can still be a chickenhawk after twenty-one years of military service. /sarc
But you didn’t serve in IRAQ, did you? Did you??? Chickenhawk!
[then if they find they’re dissing someone who, in fact, has served in Iraq]:
But you weren’t in FALLUJAH, were you? And you didn’t get blown up by an IDE, did you? Did you??? Chickenhawk!
[et cetera. If they run out of qualifications, they will doubtless call the 2 tours in Iraq, patrolled in Fallujah, blown up by an IDE, etc. hypothetical vet a “baby-killer”. This is a game that it’s not possible to win.]
I just want to chime in briefly on a lovely fall afternoon and say that I encourage Curt and his ilk to keep this silly fucking shit up right through the mid-terms and on into 2008.
You stupid mother fuckers are the only reason that Bush keep his conservative base animated and behind him. If it weren’t for the fact that opposing Bush is nothing but an idiot rabble of leftist retards, his conservative base would splinter in light of his many domestic policy missteps.
Seriously. More than Rove, more than Bush, more than the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the reason the GOP keeps winning is because the insane are running the asylum over in the Democratic party.
CurtJacobs:
“it is critical to note that the precise kinds of challenges against Bush being made by Democrats now were routinely made by Republicans every time Clinton used the military.”
First off, a good number of powerful Republican politicians and conservatives (Frist, McCain and others; the editors of the Weekly Standard) supported Clinton on his actions in the Balkans, and supported his actions in Iraq despite domestic political differences. This kind of support for Bush from Dems has been conspicuously rare lately. (Yes, I know: that’s all his fault.)
Speaking only for myself: I didn’t like President Clinton one bit. But I was outraged when some on the right (and even some cynical Dems) accused him of playing “Wag-the-Dog” in December of 1998. And I was disgusted with politicians whose criticism was rooted in opportunism rather than in good faith.
I didn’t like it coming from my side, so I really don’t owe it to the Dems to give them a pass for what you’ve written is the precise same behavior, against a president who’s put himself on the line politically, far more than Clinton ever did, to do what he thought right, and to see his actions through.
Amidst the fray, Jeff, in regard to item#1 above – hope you enjoy The Man From Snowy River! Also, I hope you’ll let us know what you think of it, and whether it measures up to the verses of “Banjo” Patterson that provided the inspiration.
I think you’ll really dig Popeye as well – Altman showed a fidelity for the original comic incarnation of the character of that one that I always felt wasn’t properly appreciated at the time.
CurtJacobs:
Off-topic, your original comment was also posted, verbatim, over at FroggyRuminations by a Tracy. What gives?
Sorry, was off getting new glasses and doing food shopping, etc.
Where was I?
Oh yes, Curt:
Actually, my attacs on people’s patriotism was not because of their politcial beliefs—unless you count opportunism and lying when you know the truth to be otherwise a political belief.
I think they were acting terribly, but they weren’t accusing Clinton of lying knowing that he wasn’t. And for what it’s worth, I supported the military actions
I guess so. But it helps if the disagreement is based on something more substantial than “BUSH LIED, NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS SAY.”
I’ve addressed this before, but for your benefit I’ll address it again. Phase II doesn’t matter to me. The intelligence community coerced into coming to a conclusion one way or the other. They came to the conclusion, by consensus, that the intelligence supported a case for war. How Bush then “packaged” that for the press, etc., is irrelevant.
Actually, I blogged on that WaPo piece. And what the argument is is that there were competing intelligence reports on many different individual pieces of “evidence,” and—it being a post-911 world—Bushco worst-cased the intelligence. As they should have. Let’s not forget the context, here.
The Brits still insist the 16 words are defensible; the French, of all people, stand by the aluminum tube assessment. And the consensus of the intelligence community was what it was—with no coersion. Why would Bush want to then DOWNPLAY the need to go to war, if that’s what the intelligence told him needed to be done?
True. But irrelevant. Just because this occurs, doesn’t mean there then can’t be behavior that puts party and politics above country and defense.
Again—that was not the official GOP position, and as others have already pointed out, many in the conservative movement backed Clinton. Whereas this attack on Bush is the official party position—from Reid to Kennedy to Rockefeller to Dean to Pelosi to the liberal pundits and media enablers.
Of course. But just because this COULD be the case doesn’t mean it is. And my argument is not against those who honestly believe the President lied; its against those who pretend to think so—those who are willing to redefine a lie to mean a mistake made on the preponderance of the evidence.
You can keep yammering until the dogs come home, claiming I’m calling all those who are anti-war unpatriotic; but this is just more of the same faux outrage and dissembling. Unless you honestly can’t distinguish between the two arguments—in which case, time to hand over that mantle of nuance to somebody who’s actually earned it.
Nobody who served in the military posts here, only their wannabe cheerleaders. 1-800-465-ARMY. Walk your talk, paper tigers.
Look at them cute little pink lips flap!
Devastating comeback.
Umm, Early, have you actually read anything on this site?
The fact is that quite a lot of current and former military folks (and apparently a few people from the intel community) post here quite frequently.
Perhaps you might care to use the search function and read what some of them have to say – like, for example, FileCloser, or Major John. It might prove enlightening for you.
OKAY. I’m Major Early… a little gullible are we?
Look at him glisten! He’s excited, our little early pussy is!
The Bush speech was remarkably effective. How do I know? Leftist morons like “early” are dusting off the “chickenhawk” meme in an effort to quash dissent from their extreme, doctrinaire positions regarding Iraq and defense policy.
Why are you trying to stifle the debate, “early”? Why do you fear the dialogue? WHY CAN’T YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS?!
On a serious note, I wish to plead the Allah doctrine, recently enunciated on these threads. Further interaction with the Left is a zero sum game. There will be no consensus, compromise position. We either defeat them, or they defeat us.
Excited. I’d be more excited watching the Man from
Snowy fuckin’ River. Which reminds me, Goldy, could I borrow that when your done?
You’re a bitch early.
My advice – go take a dump.
We’ll all feel better.
word, “audience” – without one of those, will you still stink? oh yeah.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t salute – me, I’m just a civilian. May I take your response to indicate that you indeed haven’t noted the comments of the persons in question, or that, if you have, you dispute their bona fides?
Because the persons mentioned are, from what I can see, exactly what they represent themselves to be.
What are you?
It means somebody slipped. Like a lot of Lefties, Curt isn’t a commenter; he’s a sock puppet, doling out appropriate bits of the Word from On High to the red-state dolts. Somebody cut-and-pasted the same text from the file of Official Talking Points a little too close by.
I suggest that you make a routine of wandering through the comments on the milder right-wing blogs. You’ll see an astonishing amount of Lefty boilerplate being repeated. The Smart Party actually only has one or two people able to think this sort of thing up, and they have to make it go as far as they can.
Regards,
Ric
Stifle debate. Consensus. Compromise.
Freddybaby, those are our words. Chickenhawk is a rightwing accusation your side liked to throw around way back when. Clearly it’s a zero sum game. It always was. Peace.
I will give Early this – he does at least offer a back-handed tribute to The Man From Snowy River – some fine film-making from the Land of Oz there. The “Clancy” character was especially well done.
But then, I’m a “Banjo” Patterson afficionado. Early – well, I still don’t know what Early is.
And judging from the content of his post preceding mine above, I doubt if we’ll find out. Drive-by chickenhawking, as it were?
Good on yer, RS. Maybe we’ll go a waltzing when your side come to their senses, mate.
Oh look! It’s ‘early,’ arriving late to the party.
Okay, I didn’t really serve and neither did Froggy. We’re both hallucinating, in my case, for the past twenty-one years. I’ve even hallucinated my DD Form 214 and my (3) certificates of graduation from DLI and becoming a medic. You win. Everything you say is true. Even that you are a Major. /sarc
Now that you’ve been sufficiently humored, can you please go back and play with the small children?
Sheesh! Sometimes I wonder how such people have enough brain function for the operation of their autonomic nervous systems, much less operate a computer.
TW: ideas; The left much be out of them if ‘early’s’ routine is what such believe to be convincing.
BTW, early, your response won’t be seen until much later. It’s Saturday night and I’m going out. You ought to try it sometime.
tw: Yes; you should.
’fore you go, Juliebaby, does a medic really count as military? Used to be for co’s. Have a nice night out there.
Early, so far your comments are complete lies. Good track record.
Freddybaby, those are our words.
I know. That’s why I used them. Dumbass.
Why should your ilk have all the “fun” with the loaded questions. That is, when you’re not begging them.
RS:
Juliette:
You haven’t figured it out yet? Maybe you just aren’t old enough.
There used to be a program called “Eliza”. It simulated a directive therapist, by picking up a few keywords here and there and embedding them in a few stock phrases forming challenging questions. Doesn’t sound like much, but if you don’t know what’s going on it can be maddening.
“Eliza” ran on early computers; it worked fine on an AN/UYK-8, which had roughly the raw computer power of the microcontroller in your USB interface. It’s possible to do a lot better now, but the strategy is still the same: look for keywords to pick a general category, followed by a hash function to select the individual response. Then you add a good-sized text file, like the .sig collections some people have. Voilà! Early and his clones.
It can’t pass the Turing test, but it doesn’t have to; it only has to get people mad, and it does that very well. I’m not sure the average member of the Smart Party can pass a Turing test, come to think, so that adds verisimilitude.
Regards,
Ric
Sheesh!Wow, ya got me that time
. But we don’t have all the fun. Your leaders have all the fun; they rip you off and play you against my side. We’re too smart not to see this. Your loyalty is amusing.
thanks for the laugh. if only rto were here to see it, oh that’s right, he’s at drill this weekend. wouldn’t want him unprepared when he goes back to afghanistan next year.
oh, and jeff, can we see you in the glasses? please?
Ric – brilliant! And that would explain why so many of the monikers are so random, and why they all seem to emanate from Australia. Maybe a Down Under version of Eliza -Sheila 2.0, perhaps?
Or “You Can Call Me Bruce 1.5,” for all you Monty Python fans.
When were you hospitalized, Richard. Did you have insurance? Did it cover your bills?
Gonna be 10 business days before I get the glasses, Maggie. But maybe then I’ll sneak a pic up quietly.
As for early, I think he’s wasted enough of my time. Somebody say the word and I’ll ban him and his little sensitive lips.
I have not yet begun to have intercourse, Goldy.
will the new pair be rose-coloured again?
Flappity flappity pussy flappity.
Jeff – will this be your first viewing of A Fish Called Wanda? Because, if so, you’re in a for a major treat on that one as well.
Jeff,
I don’t think you should ban Early. What you should do is compose one of your adventures in Zen semiotics
and post it as a comment. Let’s see if we can make “early” GPF.
Regards,
Ric
No, I actually own the British SE DVD of that one, but because it only plays on a special player, I’m very happy to have it in Region 1. Great flick. Very very funny.
I also liked Altman’s Popeye (up until the battle with the Octopus; and I agree, it captures the tone of the early cartoons very well).
Haven’t yet seen MFSR, but I’ve heard good things about it. About time I watched it.
Too late, Ric. He’s been skating on the anti-semite edge for a bit here, and I can tell by the frequent “Goldy” comments that he’s ready to launch into it again.
And frankly, I’d rather not have to listen to his bullshit anymore this weekend.
I wonder if this is because of his age or his tedency to be…
early.
Jeff – WORD.
There, it’s said.
Get rid of the little bitch. The smell, and those stupid little smiley faces make me gag.
Thanks.
“peace” – Need I say more?
Jeff,
I understand, and it’s probably the best course. But the mere fact that it’s so predictable tends to confirm what I said. Note, too, that certain strings tend to repeat from thread to thread —
It needs a bigger random.txt file to be really convincing. Perhaps the next one will have more programming time put into it.
Regards,
Ric
Turing word: plans.
Parting words of wisdom for the late, unlamented Early, if he happens to be reading this.
RS, I didn’t respond to you earlier. Apologies.
Australians are a decent hypothesis; reading the comments at Tim Blair’s tends to add supporting evidence, as does the quality of the program itself. I’ve had several experiences with Australian programmers, and my resulting stereotype is brilliance, even occasional genius, mixed with more than a bit of somewhat-arrogant slapdash. I remember one that had the most remarkable color sense… a “snarky commenter” AI with a too-short .txt to support it would fit right in.
Regards,
Ric
Ric – Again, I think you’re onto something here. It’s both amusing and frightening to consider, a Moonbat AI roaming the digital realms. One imagines George Soros and Markos Moulitsas huddled around a glowing monitor, screeching “It’s alive! It’s alive!”
TW Clearly – A little too clear, that vision.
You should see my email. I have moonbats calling me every name in the book including chickenhawk if you can believe that. They say my military service was sucking off the government’s tit and that it didn’t mean anything. They dropped the NeoCon/Jew baiting charge even though I am a full on WASP. What they haven’t done, and cannot do is launch a convincing counter argument against the charges I have proffered. Imagine that.
Excellent. The “talking vulva” is gone. It did hint that it was Australian, what with the Waltzing Matilda allusion and all.
But all that matters is that you got rid of it: whether it was a sociopath or an AI program, the bottom line is, it wasn’t adding anything to the discussion. Thanks.
early had no arguments. No facts. No logic. Not a leg to stand on. Only snide and snarkey attempts to insult. I wonder how long it will take him to circumvent the ban and re-appear as ‘lately’?
I would like to point out I was an independent who voted for Perot and we probably gave Clinton his time in office. It seemed like a noble cause and the way Bush fails to tighten borders, get refineries built or drilling done off of Florida and Alaska, it still does seem like in interesting idea.
Nevertheless, I completely supported Clinton in Kosovo. As I remarked in my email to the WH at the time I wondered why it took him so long? He should have gone four years earlier when our own US members of the blue helmets were caught busying themselves by being clients at the Bosnian rape camps. It does seem he picked his time to distract from Monicagate. But it was still well past time to do it and he did do it. So I let him know that I completely supported the move. Now if we can only get a constitution adopted in Kosovo and start having elections; the UN is charge there and it is unlikely Kosovo will have elections again in our lifetimes. Go Figure.
Oh! Did I have to mention that I have voted for W in both elections? As a Republican?
“Nobody who served in the military posts here, only their wannabe cheerleaders. 1-800-465-ARMY. Walk your talk, paper tigers.”
Then please explain to me where the hell I was between March of 2004 and March of 2005 – the Universal Studios backlot? If so, the special effects were GREAT, and the extras very convincing.
Mmmmm…Sigrid Thornton. Strangely attractive in an Elizabeth McGovern sort of way.
Dear me, good people, you all seem to have missed the best part.
Bush is not only been terrorism’s best friend, he is now the Democrats best friend. he’s like shit on a stick that no GOP candidate will touch.
You really have to get rid of him to have a hope.
Are 60% of the country unpatriotic?
Did you bother reading through the comments? Here, try this. See update 2.