Q. Quick! Count the number of times that the letter F appears in the following sentence:
"Finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experience of years."
A. Did you count 3? The answer is actually 6, but most people will count 3. It turns out that the brain has a hard time correctly processing the word "of" because the "f" in "of" makes a "v" sound in our heads instead of an "f" sound.
58 comments:
Andrew.....6
Most people don't count the "of" F's
Patriot, That is correct. It's interesting. The explanation is above in light-gray. You can see it better by highlighting it.
Question -- what does everyone think of an African Pope? To me, from a marketing perspective, I think it would be brilliant. But I wonder if the Church will do that?
Andrew, I don't think they're particularly interested in marketing. The leading candidate has a lot of qualifications, but I think he's gotten in some trouble for seeming to support elements of Liberation Theology. Not sure, though. At any rate, I do think a pope from the Third World is inevitable, and probably within the next 20-30 years.
Personally, I think it would be hilarious if they picked Timothy Dolan, but if you believe that's really going to happen, I've got a bridge to sell you.
There have been African popes before. Granted, the years were still being numbered with three digits, but the fact remains.
Well, we in NY are pulling for Cardinal Dolan. He is actually has many of same qualities that made Pope John Paul II so popular. But, we know that he will be the long shot. Btw, I am not Catholic, so my opinion on who leads the Catholic church really has no sway.
But, isn't a black Pope named Peter mentioned in one of Nostrodamas' quatrains as the sign of the end times? The Cardinal's given name is Peter Turkson. Hmmmmm.
African Pope: Once you go black, you can never go back. I'd love it.
Saw Jack the Giant Killer last night. Fun little movie that kept the kids sitting right behind us absolutely silent. Sort of a Princess Bride - Hobbit smash up.
Recommended for a nice night of entertainment at the cinema.
T-Rav, I would think they would be concerned with marketing in the sense of making their biggest market happy, and that's the Third World.
trynamx, How about a pope from Antarctica?
Bev, You clearly missed the last line of Nostrodamas's book where he wrote...
"just Kiddeth."
K, I've seen the ads, but never got a sense of what kind of film it was.
I don't think Obama would actually like an African Pope. While he may have melanin in his skin he will be a Christian African and thus might not for instance support Obama's attack against the Lord's Army and might have a harder line against Islam because of all the genocide that goes on against Christians in that part of the world.
Indi, I don't know much about the black guy they are talking about, but I suspect that liberals will be pretty shocked if an African is chosen because they like aren't going to be very liberal.
Andrew,
What do you think about Sequestration?
Kit, I think it's kind of funny actually. It was a game of chicken played by two people driving bumper cars toward each other at low speeds as they both screaming that the collision would end the world.
They were trying to get the public worked up into a panic so they could raise taxes and spend more.
The public saw through it and didn't care.
Now both sides look like idiots for trying to get people worked up over it. And the danger for them is that the public sees no reason to solve this false-crisis. That means they won't get the spending hikes they really wanted.
So, is that good for the GOP?
Or bad?
Or can the GOP make it good?
And what do you make of these polls?
LINK
Kit, I have no idea how it will play it out because I don't know how the Republicans will handle it, but up to now, it's not helping anyone -- they all look bad because they all look like chicken littles and incompetents.
The longer this goes on, the more I think it will ultimately help the Republicans IF the public continues not to notice the cuts in their own lives and if the Republicans don't suddenly start trying to solve the problem. To the contrary, they should embrace it and call it a 3% across the board cut.
As for the polls, polls are largely meaningless, except that I've noticed very little interest in the issue among the public. That's a bad sign for Obama.
I think that Obama's worst case scenario is that no one will notice any difference for all of his "sky is falling" rhetoric about it.
And Boehner didn't blink finally.
Bev, That's exactly the problem. Obama played "doomsday cult leader" and doomsday didn't happen, so now he has a problem. And when even liberal news outlets are saying, "wait a minute, this isn't true!" You know he has a problem.
P.S. I sent you an e-mail.
I preict one of two things to happen (maybe a combination of the two)
1) Obama and the Exec Branch will cut the things that would hurt the most. To try and accuse the EEEVIL Republicans of starving lower and middle income children.
2). If that does't work or the public really doesn't care. Then he might try to take credit for the cuts and accuse the Republicans of opposing them.
Now, the first one can be fought by the GOP if they simply go on every news program and ask "Why, of all the things the fed government funds are they cutting the programs they claim are the most important? There has to be some useless fat they can cut rather than these programs."
The second, just do ads w/ clips of him blaming the Republicans for forcing horrible cuts against clips of him claiming credit for them. Call him a flip-flopper or something like that.
Ditto on immigration, which Obama will not let pass for at least 2 or 3 yrs. The GOP should get support for their plan and then attack Obama for either not negotiating or negotiating in bad faith to tag the GOP as being obstructionist when he himself is being obstructionist for purely political reasons: to win back the House.
And don't leave Sen. Reid out,too. of the fun either. Hit him on this too.Attack him for playing this game as well.
If the Dems put forth a bill that is good (ish) but has a bunch of stuff that will make it too toxic for Repubs to vote for it, like they are doing with the Violence Against Women Act (a bad law already but that's not a battle worth fighting right now)then he the GOP in the House should put forth their own bill,very similar, without all the toxic fluff the Dems put on their bill. Declare the toxic fluff non-negotiable, it must go. Accuse them of putting it on their for one of two reasons: to make our legal system even more of a confused mess, or to make it so toxic the GOP would never pass it and they could then attack the GOP for obstructing a law on women's rights. Point out why this toxic fluff is so bad for this country. Before any negotiations on the law occur those things must MUSTGO! This could allow you to bring up over-regulation. And thereby creating a possible item on your 2014 and 2016 platforms, reducing over-regulation and over-criminilzation and making our legal code a bit less byzantine. .
While at the same time forming a coherent message that Obama and the Dems care more about playing politics and winning back the House than they care about the country
I don't think any amount of ads will give Obama credibility if he tries to take credit for the cuts. He's been so adamantly against cuts for so long, I have a hard time thinking that any but the true believers will buy the switch. I think even the so-called "low info" voters know that Obama is against cuts.
"I don't think any amount of ads will give Obama credibility if he tries to take credit for the cuts. He's been so adamantly against cuts for so long, I have a hard time thinking that any but the true believers will buy the switch. I think even the so-called "low info" voters know that Obama is against cuts."
The GOP shouldn't bet on the voter. Don't wait for the voter to wake up. Grab him by the shoulders and JOLT him awake!
Kit, I definitely see Obama trying to impose cuts that hit as many people as possible and then blaming the Republicans. The problem is that the people who are most likely to get hit will be Democratic supporters. So he has a problem there.
As for claiming the cuts, he won't do that until after they are long gone and no one is angry about them anymore. Then he'll claim credit for his "deficit reduction efforts."
I think the GOP needs to start making the point that life goes on and they need to make the point that with a 3% across the board cut (which is what this is basically) there's no reason for anyone to suffer unless Obama picked them -- basically take credit for the cuts in a generic sense, but blame Obama for the specific cuts he chooses.
Individualist,
I strongly doubt a black pope would embrace the vicious Lord's Resistance Army (whose favorite trick is kidnapping and brainwashing kids and putting them on the front lines). The Catholic Church has been one of the LRA's louder foes. They have as much to do with God as the Jim Jone's cult did.
Anthony, It's not an issue I've followed, but I do have to say that I thought they had rid the church of people who supported Liberation Theology and revolution. I recall John Paul doing a lot of that in the early 1980s to clean up the church, which had become very politicized in the 1960s/1970s.
It will be interesting to see how sequestration plays out. I think it's a little early to tell which way the public is going to jump. It's not a shutdown so opinion won't coalesce as quickly.
Anthony, It is early, but I think the Democrats played this wrong. They made a big deal about how this would be the end of the world and everyone's favorite stuff will get slashed. Now it will turn out that almost no one will feel their own stuff get slashed.
So the public will interpret this as "Ah hah! Everyone else's stuff got slashed!" and I think they will be happy to keep it in place because of that.
If the Democrats want to win on this one, they need to find a way to cause real chaos -- like a shutdown. Without that, I think the public will support these cuts more and more over time.
Andrew,
The LRA is personality cult/rebel group based out of Uganda which doesn't have any fans not named Rush outside of its ranks and many people in its ranks don't want to be there. Liberation theology is a different phenomena in which priests have taken it upon themselves to defend the poor and criticize the state for not doing more for them. The Catholic Church isn't opposed to redistribution but it is bothered by the Marxist lens Liberation Theologists look at the world through and the fact some include the Church itself as a corrupt power structure oppressing the poor.
Anthony, Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't really talking about the LRA as I see them basically as just terrorists and I don't see them having any supporters pretty much anywhere.
I was responding more broadly to the ideas this guy from Africa might subscribe to and the fact I didn't think the church had any Liberation theology (mentioned up-thread) priests left -- something they were awash in during the 1970s.
I didn't mean to connect the two events.
Rush supports the LRA? Why am I not surprised. Let me guess, they call themselves "Christian" and therefor he thinks we should support them?
Rush opposed intervention in Uganda (reasonable though the reasons he gave were mostly BS) and defended the LRA based on their innocuous mission statement, the fact they have Lord in their name and the fact Obama was opposed to them.
With little impact on the lives of the overwhelming majority of Americans, sequestration is going to be a PR war.
Ah, the old "the enemy of my enemy must be saints" idea. That's solid thinking.
Agree on the PR war, but the thing is that if American's don't feel it personally, then they won't oppose it, especially if they think that other people's benefits are being cut.
If the Republicans are smart, they will embrace this as a painless "necessary across the board cut" for "everyone... you're all heroic" and then if something bad does arise from a PR perspective, create a bill to restore the funding for that only.
Andrew......I read somewhere that Rand Paul and Eric Cantor I believe have identified over $150billion (BILLION) in duplicate, unnecessary programs. The eevil repubs need to go on media every day and state "Why don't the dems eliminate these redundant programs that all do the same thing instead of harming the poorest and least protected among us?" Hit 'em with their own rhetoric.
As far as the new Pope, I think a great vote (I love it...a vote for who is closest to God on earth!) would be for someone from South America. The Popes' mission is to increase His flock here on earth. S. Am. and Africa look to be the two areas where the Catholic Church is growing, so it makes sense to "reward" either of those areas with the Papacy. Definitely won't be an American, what with our waning influence, reduced number of Catholics, and primarily, the abuse scandal that has rocked the Church here in N. America. While this has probably gone on for eons, in every country, due to the attempt by the Church to deny men their God-given natural urges, it has been given more negative publicity here in this country than others. Europe has been done for centuries as far as influence of the Church goes. So, S. Am. or Africa it should be.
Having said that, as traditional as the Church is B16 probably left pretty clear recommendations as to who his successor should be. Probably another conservative anti-leftist in the style of JPII and B16, as their fight against the anti-Catholicism of the Left across the globe was their driving force. I'd love to see someone who is as passionate about their faith and could speak clearly about the historical antecedents of Catholicism versus the other major religions ascendant right now.
We sent 100 troops to Uganda to help train the local military in fighting the LRA. The LRA is built around its leader Joseph Kony.
Its "Christian" in the same sense that Jim Jones' People's Temple was "Christian".
Also, sending 100 troops isn't that big. The Ugandans asked for some help, we gave it, the end.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Actually, the LRA was destabalizing countries such as South Sudan, which we helped gain independence as well as the neighboring countries to the south, who are very friendly to us and we're trying to keep out of the complete grip of the Chinese.
So what Rush is really saying is "The enemy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I'm not too angry or disappointed w/ Rush on this one. Just about everyone I talked to on this matter showed an amazing lack of knowledge about what was going on. I remember one person who opposed it saying on Facebook "We should not be invading Uganda to bring regime change." Really.
I should note this guy was a Ron Paul voter.
And supporters of going after Kony weren't much better. After a little needling on questions you realized they had no idea about what should happen. They all wanted Kony arrested (which I don't think is necessary), a few didn't even want us killing the child soldiers, which would probably happen if we arrested him.
re Kony, he should be left to rot into obscurity in his jungle hut.
Going back to sequester, of course any statements about how the GOP can take the advantage come with the automatic caveat that if they sit on their hands, it will all come against them. I have personally held a much higher opinion of Boehner than the right-wing media all along. Me may not be the most effective fighter, but I still see him as a fighter. He's certainly not rolling over like he's accused of.
But actually, the fact that he isn't seen as a fighter is to his ultimate advantage. You'll note that the White House is always blaming "the Republicans" rarely "Boehner" which is a sharp contrast from the 90s when Newt was the focus of opposition. That seems to give Boehner slight sympathy with libs, who see him as the negotiator b/w two impassive parties, of which one has to be acknowledged is Obama.
In short, by not appearing stubborn himself, Boehner magnifies Obama's stubbornness.
Also, agreed that sequester hurts primarily Democrat supporters. While that may not cause many of them to change their political stripes (they'll blame Republicans if a Democrat punches them directly in the face) they're not voters that the GOP has a chance at anyway. Independents, meanwhile, will likely not notice anything.
There is a remaining threat, however. Since most government agencies are packed to the gills with Democrat partisans, any time someone complains about poor services, the peon at the window will be all too happy to tell the patron that it's the Republicans' fault.
Another thought: I have no way of knowing whether the Repubs are thinking this way, but now that sequestration is reality, the House can pass legislation to tweak it. Obama's primary complaint is that sequestration is "a hatchet" that gives department heads no flexibility on how cuts are made. I have no idea how true that is, but regardless, the House can now come back and legislate that flexibility. Politically, it wouldn't have been feasible to do this ahead of sequestration anyway, but now the GOP can take the line that they were working on sequester ahead of its passage and coping with it afterward. It's hard to lose points for taking the reactionary stance when everything done so far is seen as reactionary already.
I don't know much about the Lord's Army except rhetoric. I do know that it was started in Africa as a response to the genocide in that area by tribes supported by militant muslims.
To the extent that they are "terrorists".. Well what is the left's line about one man's Freedom Fighter. If peopple would tell me that they are engaging in terrorist activities I would not disbelieve it. That is what happens when one side decides to start killing woman ands children. It becomes nasty on both sides.
Obama is very "supportive" of muslim regimes and not just the fact that he bows to Saudi Shieks. His rhetoric especiallyh in these countries seems to be subtley apologetic for the crimes of the British and by default America.
The fact of the matter is that in Egypt Coptic Christians are persecuted. In Lebanon Hamas and Hezbollah have been making moves against christians. In southern Africa Muslim tribes wipe out whole communities of Christian tribes with Saudi money.
In Sudan they started killing Christians and then the light skinned Muslims started killing the black Muslims.
Helping out against the Lord's Army is probably 100 people but millions in arms and other support. In the end it is nothing to America but it is a statement to the wahhabi Saudi's that America is going to leave them alone.
Maybe this is in our best interest short term. Maybe if we get out of Afghanistan. Appear to be abandoning Israel and make gestures to stop the "radical" christian groups in Africa then the support for Al Qaeda to stop the Great Satan will dry up and the Jihadists will find newer people to hate more... my guess outside of the Shia Sunni divide .... India.
But I think this is short term and it is wrong. It basically is saying in the interest of dealing with the people that rule there we will support murdering regimes. We did this with the Shah of Iran and we are dealing with the aftermath of that "revolution" today.
The problem whether the adminsistation wants to admit it or not is that portion of Islam that believes they can convert by the sword. Masybe we end this conflict but the next generation will end up dealing with it.
In the meantime however Christians in Africa will suffer most. I don't believe a Black Pope3 from Africa is going to be happy with the situation and he may be more inclined to listen to Old Testament versus of Jashua breaking down the walls than new testament versus of truning the other cheek. So no I am gussing he will dissent agaisnt the OBama foreign policy.
"In the meantime however Christians in Africa will suffer most."
Then why is it the country we sent 100 troops to help is 84% Christian including the' President and Prime Minister?
Patriot, That would be a great idea for the Republicans to talk about eliminating duplicate programs. Now is the time to talk about cutting "waste, fraud, abuse and duplicate spending".
On the Pope, I read an interesting thing about why they won't pick an American. Apparently the Church has tried to shy away from picking people from the prevailing superpowers because they didn't want the Church to be seen as aligned with those powers. Interesting. I don't know if it's true, but it makes sense. Personally, I would go South as well to reward the people where the Church is growing.
Kit, I don't really care one way or the other about Uganda, but I think Anthony's point is well taken. Rush isn't really using facts anymore, he's just using "I will oppose whatever the Democrats want" as his reasoning.
tryanmax, I agree about Boehner. He is not what the right wing media want you to believe. He had rarely caved in throughout the last five years and he's had some good idea -- which have been scuttled by his right flank.
I don't trust his judgment, but I do trust his judgment a lot more than I trust any of the wild-ass morons on talk radio.
In terms of tweaking the sequester, I said that above -- I think that to the extent that a PR problem arises, the Republicans could find that part alone and send the bills to Obama with attachments and then dare him to veto them.
In terms of the independents, I think the key here is that (1) they will see this as genuine cuts because of Obama's whining, (2) they won't get hurt personally, (3) they will think that other people's pet programs will get cut. That's actually a pretty ideal state for us.
I was responding to Individualist's statement.
My support for the movie is largely based on shoring up some support among the African countries. Granted they'll play us and the Chinese for who can get them the most dough. But if it is something the Chinese can't get credit for and use to expand their spheres of influence that is fine. In short, it screws the Chinese.
That and he was undermining the stability of the Christian majority countries, including the newly independent South Sudan, which is opposed to the Muslim majority northern Sudan.
Screwing the Chinese and shoring up Christian African countries so they can screw the Muslims are my reasons for supporting them.
"My support for the movie"
Meant "move" not "movie". Typo.
Kit, I know it's popular to belief that Obama supports Muslims and opposed Christians, but honestly, there's no evidence for that theory. It's one of those things where conservatives have cherry picked facts and spun those into the theory they want to believe. But hate blinds and conservatives are very blind at the moment on a lot of fronts.
As I understand it the situation in that part of Africa has to do with religous persecution. The Lord's Army was started as a defence agaisnt tribes that were Muslim. They devolved into the African version of the IRA which may be bad but opposing them only helps out Muslim militants. The only reason that we are getting involved that I can think of is to curry favor with the people running the countries around there.
Personally I think that when you aid people in military operations you create the kind of problems we have had ading the Shah, Sadaam prior to the Gulf War and manuy other countries where a generation after we had problems with the people there.
Fact of the matter is that the reason for the starting of groups like the LRA was because of geo politics with China, It is because preists were being burnt alive in their churches. Getting involved with this would be kind of like getting involved with the fight between the Protestant and Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland in its hey day.
IF the government of Uganda needed help Obama could have quietly sent 100 advisors and not announced it. That dids not happen. It was highlighted in a speech because he wanted it to be known we go after them. That I beleive was a message to Saudi Arabia and the Arab street.
I think I understand why OBama wants to go in there but I don't trust that it is well thought out. I think the whole thing is a political play and I think it just alienates one more group of people in that region.
I have a problem with going in and picking winners and losers in this regard because I don't think that the governemnts there are all that trustworthy themselves. Especially if there are any officials there in power that are the legacy of Idi Amin who were supportive of the Gaddhafi government. Uganda is kind of known for corruption.
Andrew....open thread question.
Who is the leader of the "conservative" movement in America right now?
Patriot, I don't think we have one at the moment. The closest we have is Rush or the talk radio groupthink machine.
The Republicans have a leader in Boehner, and I suspect more Republican leaders are emerging in Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Cantor and possibly Jindal.
Who do you see as the conservative leader?
(And as an aside, I'm starting to see a real break with the current groupthink. The gay marriage thing in particular seems to have become a dividing line between the future and the past of conservatism.)
Indi, The LRA formed in 1986, long before China was a player. They've been fighting across four different countries, so they are not fighting a civil-war. Their methods have been abduction of children and child-sex slavery. They are a mix of mysticism, cult of personality and Christian fundamentalism. This is not some religious version of George Washington. This is an armed version of Jim Jones.
Whether or not we should be fighting them is not something I have an opinion on because I don't know enough about them. BUT that's the point, when you don't know, you don't take a strong stance. And that is Anthony's criticism, that Rush doesn't have a clue what he's talking about but he's taken a strong stance based simply on the theory that these people must be good because they chose a name which appeals to him and because Obama doesn't like them.
Andrew...I am thinking more along the lines of intellectuals ala Buckley. I don't think politicians are leaders of movements more so as the leeches who attach themselves to a movement. Just as I don't think of Obama as the leader of the leftist movement in America, he is just the face and workhorse to accomplish the movements goals.
So, I think someone like Thomas Sowell or even Anthony Scalia could fit the bill. The politicos you mention are just tools and see a vehicle to further their own ambitions. Jindal has the chops to become an influential voice but I think he needs a bigger forum then a Southern state Governorship.
I'm also looking forward to read/hear what Jim DeMint comes up with as he leads the Heritage Foundation....an incubator of conservatism and conservative ideas.
Patriot, Ok, I see what you're saying and I don't disagree with you.
I think, unfortunately, that right now we have very few true leaders. Talk radio really is defining the conservative movement and setting its "agenda" through their daily molehill-into-mountain-outrage. That's what's so depressing to me. Blogs, conservative magazines, people who should be using their brains aren't... they just monkey the garbage they hear on the radio whether it makes sense or not. That's a problem because most of what the radio spews out now is factually wrong, and tries to turn minutia into earth-shattering historical moments... buy my book, I'll save you from the gay commies under your bed. So I'm not sure there is much going on in the way of intellectual thought at the moment because all the people who should be thinking are just playing parrot fools.
That said, Sowell is a great thinker, but I'm not sure how influential he is. Heritage remains THE think tank, and Club for Growth/CATO are influential as well. But those groups are lost deep in the wonky policy weeds and I think they are using a bad definition of conservatism as their base -- they see conservatism as Religious Right + Neoconism. I am hopeful that De Mint can change the culture at Heritage, but I'm not sure.
Andrew...You know, I think true conservatism is exemplified by the individual up against the state....or individualism versus communal-ism. Thais is not to say that the individual is not part of a community, of course they are. But I think conservatism is the individuals relationship with the state.
Limited government role that allows the individual to succeed or fail based on their individual abilities and abilities to get along in a community.
Thoughts?
"IF the government of Uganda needed help Obama could have quietly sent 100 advisors and not announced it. That dids not happen. It was highlighted in a speech because he wanted it to be known we go after them. That I beleive was a message to Saudi Arabia and the Arab street."
How is helping a CHRISTIAN country (84%) led by CHRISTIANS sending a friendly message to the Arab Street? Explain.
"Especially if there are any officials there in power that are the legacy of Idi Amin who were supportive of the Gaddhafi government. Uganda is kind of known for corruption."
4 Facts:
(1) Israel has been building relations in Central Africa, this included countries being attacked by Kony and the LRA (such as neighboring Kenya and South Sudan) in order to have allies against the Muslim countries in the North.
In fact, not only has Museveni (Uganda's Christian President) visited Israel twice (2003 and 2011) and met w/ Israeli leaders on both visits but is rumored to be a good friend of former Mossad director and current Israeli businessman, who sat in on the most recent meeting between PM Netanyahu and Museveni.
LINK
(2) US-Ugandan relations have been good since the fall of Idi Amin (a brutal Muslim leader of a Christian country) and since the 1980s have been steadily improving.
(3) just about every African country has corruption in some form or another. Finding one that isn't known for corruption is the harder task.
(4) Do you know why Idi Amin died in Saudi Arabia and not Uganda?
Because the current President (again, a Christian) was the one who refused to let Idi Amin back into Uganda when he was dying despite pleas from Amin's wife telling her that "Amin had abused Ugandans' human rights and so had to answer for his sins the moment he is brought back". Which means that if he did he would face a Ugandan court.
So he didn't come back.
Now, Indi, explain how your claims work in accordance with the facts I've just stated.
Oh, and Idi Amin has been out of power since 1979.
Patriot, I think that's absolutely true. I think that's the fundamental basis of genuine conservatism. And conservative policies are those that help individuals achieve their potential.
Unfortunately, right now, much of the conservative world has lost sight of this principle and they are basically assuming that conservatism means anti-liberal.
Post a Comment