Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Kafria]

The man is a prat! Nuff said!

But what the hell do I do next election, I went for the lib dems as the best representative of myself..... been sold down the river, for no visible moderation of tory policy...... what do I do (I will never vote labour either, too much rubbish - rural england will suffer no end under them!)

[Pettytyrant101]

Sorry can't help you there Kafria- I'm voting SNP again!

[Pettytyrant101]

Interesting article on the BBC site about sleep patterns. Historians and science has come to the conclusion humans dont naturally sleep for a chunk, the so called ideal 8 hours sleep- but rather in two vblocks of sleep.
This rather accuretly describes my ideal sleeping pattern as if possible I like to get a sleep in after dinnner about 7ish till about 10 then get back up till 2 or 3 in the morning before going back to bed for another few hours- and I just thought I was anisocial and getting on!

'Scientists have been saying for 20 years that the eight-hour sleep may be unnatural, and historians increasingly are backing them up.
In the early 1990s, psychiatrist Thomas Wehr conducted an experiment in which a group of people were plunged into darkness for 14 hours every day for a month.
It took some time for their sleep to regulate but by the fourth week the subjects settled into a very distinct sleeping pattern. They slept first for four hours, then woke for one or two hours before falling into a second four-hour sleep.
Though sleep scientists were impressed by the study, among the general public the idea that we must sleep for eight consecutive hours persists.
More recently, the theory that humans slept in two distinct chunks has resurfaced, but in the rather less likely field of history.
Over the course of 20 years, historian Roger Ekirch at Virginia Tech undertook an intensive study into the human relationship with night for his book At Day's Close: Night in Times Past.
In diaries, court records, medical books and literature - from Homer's Odyssey to the anthropological account of modern tribes in Nigeria - he has found more than 500 references to a segmented sleeping pattern.
Ekirch believes this painting from 1595 is evidence of significant activity at night
Much like the experience of Wehr's subjects, these references describe a first sleep which began about two hours after dusk, followed by waking period of one or two hours and then a second sleep.
"It's not just the number of references - it is the way they refer to it, as if it was common knowledge," Ekirch says.
During this waking period people were quite active. They often got up, went to the toilet or smoked tobacco and some even visited neighbours. Most people stayed in bed, read, wrote and often prayed. Countless prayer manuals from the late 15th Century offered special prayers for the hours in between sleeps.
And these hours weren't entirely solitary - people often chatted to bed-fellows or had sex.
A doctor's manual from 16th Century France even advised couples that the best time to conceive was not at the end of a long day's labour but "after the first sleep", when "they have more enjoyment" and "do it better".
Ekirch found that references to the first and second sleep started to disappear during the late 17th Century. This started among the urban upper classes in northern Europe and over the course of the next 200 years filtered down to the rest of Western society.
By the 1920s the idea of a first and second sleep had receded entirely from our social consciousness.'

[Orwell]

I have for ages been grabbing a sleep when I can get it and when I'm tired enough to accomplish it. As a shift worker it's the only way I survive --- just.

[Pettytyrant101]

Nearly opted to put this in the Amrica is wacko thread it seems so stupid.
The recent 'accidental' burning of Korans at the largest US base in Afghanistan has sparked days of protests and violence.
How exactly given the cultural fragility in that country and how easily it can be upset do you 'accidently' burn several of the single most sacred book in the country?
Coming after the pictures of US soldiers pissing on dead Afghan bodies and an airstrike that accidently struck a village killing 8 it was just the powderkeg thing needed to kick off uprisings.

“This is not just about dishonoring the Koran, it is about disrespecting our dead and killing our children,” said Maruf Hotak, 60, a man who joined the crowd on the outskirts of Kabul, “They always admit their mistakes,” he said. “They burn our Koran and then they apologize. You can’t just disrespect our holy book and kill our innocent children and make a small apology.” -quote from New York Times

The man has a point.

[Eldorion]

He definitely does have a point, but sadly I don't see anything changing from this. I don't think there is enough pressure or attention being paid to U.S. war abuses and civilian casualties. It's the sort of thing that gets reported on and then mostly forgotten a week later.

Coming after the pictures of US soldiers pissing on dead Afghan bodies and an airstrike that accidently struck a village killing 8 it was just the powderkeg thing needed to kick off uprisings.

Don't forget the U.S. Marines posing with a Nazis SS flag. They apparently claimed the SS stood for "Scout Sniper", which all the Marines in the picture were, but someone found the site where the flag was probably purchased and it's Nazi memorabilia web store.

[Pettytyrant101]

An MP has broken a record for the longest word recorded in Hansard (the written record of everything said in the House of Commons).

The word is "floccinaucinihilipilification".

For now I will leave it open to guesses as to its meaning (no cheating!)

[Amarië]

Are they sure he didn't actually have a small stroke at the time?

[Pettytyrant101]

He's an MP- how could anyone tell!

But no it is a real word, apparently.

[halfwise]

"my ideal sleeping pattern as if possible I like to get a sleep in after dinnner about 7ish till about 10 then get back up till 2 or 3 in the morning before going back to bed for another few hours- and I just thought I was anisocial and getting on!"

That explains some strange posting hours I've seen from you, Petty. Thought you were on back-to-back bucky benders.

My ideal sleep pattern would be about 5 hours at night, and then an hour or two after lunch. I actually did a week of Ramadan once because I noticed a friend of mine, who was usually very perky, was if anything MORE perky during Ramadan. Had to get to the bottom of it. I discovered that the post lunch slump is due to digestion. So if you skip lunch, not only do you gain time not eating, but you gain time not digesting. I've taken advantage of that ever since when pressed for time.

[Pettytyrant101]

That explains some strange posting hours I've seen from you, Petty. Thought you were on back-to-back bucky benders.- Halfwise.

Sometimes I am!

Sadly sleeping after lunch is not genrally possible, even if I tried to pretend I was a resident and just sat in a chair snoring I doubt I would get away with it (might be worth a go mind).

[Eldorion]

The Huffington Post has a good article about the fear-mongering (and arguably war-mongering) going on in the U.S. media right now about Iran. I don't know how much coverage this has gotten in other countries but Americans are being bombarded with news about Iran's imminent nuclear arsenal despite the fact that the evidence doesn't bear out this interpretation. But there's a disturbing number of public figures and (people who are supposedly) journalists making a case against Iran that sounds eerily like the case against Iraq and it's "WMDs" in 2002-03.

[Pettytyrant101]

Did the remains of unidentifiable bits of people from sept 11th get cremated and disposed of in landfill- or is that just an excuse for geting rid of any incriminating evidence to a conspiracy?

'an investigation by the Washington Post newspaper uncovered evidence that unidentified body parts were being cremated and disposed of in a landfill.
The practice of putting partial unidentified remains in landfill was stopped in 2008.
The official report into the Dover mortuary found that this practice began shortly after the September 11 attacks, when "several portions of remains from the Pentagon attack and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania, crash site could not be tested or identified".
It confirmed that the base's mortuary cremated unidentified fragments, then gave them to a biomedical waste disposal contractor.
This contractor incinerated the remains and then put any material left over in a landfill site.
Officials at the Dover mortuary assumed that "after final incineration nothing remained", the report says.'- BBC

GB- over to you.

[Orwell]

The Huffington Post has a good article about the fear-mongering (and arguably war-mongering) going on in the U.S. media right now about Iran. I don't know how much coverage this has gotten in other countries but Americans are being bombarded with news about Iran's imminent nuclear arsenal despite the fact that the evidence doesn't bear out this interpretation. But there's a disturbing number of public figures and (people who are supposedly) journalists making a case against Iran that sounds eerily like the case against Iraq and it's "WMDs" in 2002-03.

The Iranian Regime is even uglier than was the one in Irak. At least Saddam's Irak (until the end when he was grasping for straws) was a largely Secular Regime. I hope the minute Israel confirm that the Iranians are building a Bomb, they bomb the offending plants. I'm not a fan of the State of Israel, but at leart it is a largely Secular Regime. I'm more trusting of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Brittain, America, Germany and France for the same reason. They could nuke you - but not because God told 'em to, or because Social Unrest risks bringing their countries crashing down and so get all North Korean belligerent and so turn internal hatred outwards.

Also Syria... What will happen if Assad falls? I hope not another Theological Kingdom.... Scary.

[Eldorion]

Israel might not be a theocracy, but I have a hard time describing a country that requires its citizens to swear religious oaths of loyalty as secular.

Also, the entire point of the article I linked to is that it's not a given that Iran is trying to build a bomb. And while I'm not thrilled by the idea that they could have one, the fact of the matter is that the scare-monger's doomsday scenarios will not come true even if Iran does have nuclear weapons. It's the same dangerous, slippery slope mentality that led to the disastrous loss of human life in Iraq. I'm not saying that either Saddam or the Iranian leaders are good rulers or that they should be praised, but militaristic rhetoric frightens me.

The idea that it's okay to invade, bomb, or assassinate the citizens of another country that you don't like without good reason is contrary to all notions of democracy, sovereignty, and international cooperation. I think Western politicians realize that, which is why they tried to convince everyone that Iraq represented an imminent threat to the rest of the world in 2003 and why they're trying to convince people of the same thing about Iran in 2012. But it was bullshit then and -- according to the most recent reports -- it's bullshit now too.

[halfwise]

Despite all the posturing and nonsense, Iran was a regime strong enough to resist the Arab Spring. I hate to say it, but that probably means they are stable enough to join the nuclear club without being a threat. No stable government will ever use a nuclear bomb - it's suicide. Israel needs to worry more about root causes and support of suicide bombers than nuclear bombers.

[Orwell]

Israel might not be a theocracy, but I have a hard time describing a country that requires its citizens to swear religious oaths of loyalty as secular.

No less Secular than America, Eldo. For all the naysaying, America is a largely Secular State in it's system of government. Though this conversation shows how 'broad' statements can never be totally correct.

Also, the entire point of the article I linked to is that it's not a given that Iran is trying to build a bomb. And while I'm not thrilled by the idea that they could have one, the fact of the matter is that the scare-monger's doomsday scenarios will not come true even if Iran does have nuclear weapons. It's the same dangerous, slippery slope mentality that led to the disastrous loss of human life in Iraq. I'm not saying that either Saddam or the Iranian leaders are good rulers or that they should be praised, but militaristic rhetoric frightens me...

You're just the kind of guy then who would have believed everything Hitler preached. You know, the ones who can be fooled by some but not by others.

The idea that it's okay to invade, bomb, or assassinate the citizens of another country that you don't like without good reason is contrary to all notions of democracy, sovereignty, and international cooperation.

Of course with good reason! Democracies have to flex their muscles when necessary, Eldo - or fall prey to Dictatorships. Are you showing your Neville Chamberlain (leopard) spots again?

I think Western politicians realize that, which is why they tried to convince everyone that Iraq represented an imminent threat to the rest of the world in 2003 and why they're trying to convince people of the same thing about Iran in 2012. But it was bullshit then and -- according to the most recent reports -- it's bullshit now too.

And so says you. Saddam was an opressor of his own people and an ever present threat to other countries around him. Good riddance. Who cares really if there were actually WMD's or not. What, wait until he gets them so he can have a 'fair' fight with Iran again? Or invade Kuwait again? Democracy is something worth fighting for in my opinion, Eldo - for all it's warts. Btw when tyrants take over, usually with the support of Intelligentsia like you, the first folk they get rid of... can you guess? Yes, Intelligentsia like you.

[Orwell]

Despite all the posturing and nonsense, Iran was a regime strong enough to resist the Arab Spring. I hate to say it, but that probably means they are stable enough to join the nuclear club without being a threat. No stable government will ever use a nuclear bomb - it's suicide. Israel needs to worry more about root causes and support of suicide bombers than nuclear bombers.

Don't agree. It's an oppressive regime crying out to be Democratized. Their leader is a nutter (and possibly even a genuine Muslim) who would not baulk at nuking folk if he thought he could preserve his position.

[halfwise]

I think most of what he says is just because he likes to stir the West into a tizzy, and he's smarter than his trash talking makes him seem. He knows that dropping that kind of bomb will be the end of him. And he's not a dictator, he serves at the whim of the clerical council, who would like to keep their skins.

I'm not in any way defending the Iranian government, I'm in fact surrounded by refugees from Iran and they are totally fed up with the hard liners and wouldn't shed a tear if they were gotten rid of. I'm just saying their stability is due to something other than being militaristic.

The best thing to do is follow the Powell doctrines (all three of them) - adhered to in the Gulf war and the results were as wished. Ignored in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and we are still suffering the consequences. Iran does not fit the framework and attacking them would be a mistake.

[Eldorion]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you actually believe this stuff. At the risk of outing myself as humorless I'll go ahead with a serious response, but color me skeptical.

No less Secular than America, Eldo. For all the naysaying, America is a largely Secular State in it's system of government. Though this conversation shows how 'broad' statements can never be totally correct.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel is behaving in a decidedly non-secular manner when it requires non-Jewish citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to a specifically Jewish state.

You're just the kind of guy then who would have believed everything Hitler preached. You know, the ones who can be fooled by some but not by others.

Did you even read the article I linked? I'm not saying we should just take the Iranians at their word, end of story. But do tell what reason would the CIA would have for lying about Iran's nuclear program?

Of course with good reason! Democracies have to flex their muscles when necessary, Eldo - or fall prey to Dictatorships. Are you showing your Neville Chamberlain (leopard) spots again?

Sorry to pee on your militaristic parade, but "we don't like you so we don't think you should have nukes" is not a good enough reason to make the commitments of human life (as well as equipment, money, and energy that could be spent on more beneficial programs) of military action. Now if Iran was actually a serious threat to the rest of the world, that would be a good reason. But a fair look at the evidence does not suggest this is the case at this time.

And so says you. Saddam was an opressor of his own people and an ever present threat to other countries around him. Good riddance. Who cares really if there were actually WMD's or not.

Yes, Saddam was a horrible, brutal dictator. Unfortunately, the death toll from the invasion, the wholesale destruction of infrastructure, and the subsequent insurgencies/civil war have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people as well. I haven't done enough research to find reliable comparable numbers, but this is an important consideration that pro-war people rarely stop to consider. The destabilized aftermath of a war is not necessarily a better scenario for the people involved than the dictator was. One of the reasons I was in favor of NATO's involvement in Libya but not the U.S. invading Iraq (although there were a number of reasons) was that there was a viable, native Libyan rebel movement and government that could step in to fill the void caused by war. Of course, there's a very real risk of Libya descending into theocracy, but it was a safer move than Iraq was or Iran would be.

Also, there is no coherent legal or moral theory that I am aware of that justifies invasion of another country solely because it is ruled by a brutal or oppressive regime. As horrible as it is to admit it, there are a lot of countries that are ruled by horrible regimes. But (as noted above) that doesn't necessarily mean that invading would improve the situation. It also doesn't mean that other countries have the right to invade. You said that "democracy is worth fighting for", but you fail to realize that many tyrants come to power because of democracy, or at the very least on a wave of popular support, even if there aren't democratic political mechanisms in place. This is even more dangerous in a recently destabilized country where people are likely to rally around a strongman who looks like he can restore security, even at the expense of liberty (and lives).

TL;DR I really do understand the desire to just be able to invade countries that are messed up and make everything right, but it's an incredibly naive and ultimately counterproductive way of looking at the world. Again, I don't know if you're seriously advocating this or not, but whatever.

[Eldorion]

I think most of what he says is just because he likes to stir the West into a tizzy, and he's smarter than his trash talking makes him seem. He knows that dropping that kind of bomb will be the end of him. And he's not a dictator, he serves at the whim of the clerical council, who would like to keep their skins.

Out of curiosity, are you (and/or Orwell) referring to President Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei? I get the sense that Ahmadinejad is the one who is most vocal and aggressive in his rhetoric, but he also lacks much real power. It feels that, in the U.S. anyway, a lot of the strongly anti-Iranian people don't realize that the real power is with Khamenei and the clerics.

Also, I think it's worth noting that no regime has every carried out a nuclear attack since the end of WWII. Not even North Korea (though AFAIK their nuclear arsenal is relatively weak) has tried to do something like that. No matter how nutty a dictator may be, they realize the dangers that using nuclear weapons pose to themselves. That's not to say that I think we should just hand out nukes or anything like that, but it's important to keep a sense of perspective when dealing with issues like this.

[halfwise]

Before she became infamous as the Tiger Mom, Amy Chua wrote a brilliant historical study (World on Fire) that pointed out some of what you say, Eldo, and I'm impressed that you can see what so many policy leaders could not.

Unless the ground is properly prepared, democracy is often destabilizing. If there is a small controlling elite, the first thing a young democracy does is get rid of them. But this was the group that knew how to run the country, and such institutions take time to grow. Throwing them out creates an organizational vacuum that usually destroys the economy. Nelson Mendela was enough of a genius to realize that throwing the Afrikaaners out of the economy would destroy south africa, and because of his guidance it's doing pretty well. Malyasia threw out the Chinese business class, and for a while collapsed, leading to dictatorship.

You can't just magically replace one system with another, it takes time, and the aftermath of an invasion doesn't allow the time needed. Democracy has to grow from within.

[halfwise]

"Out of curiosity, are you (and/or Orwell) referring to President Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei?"

Ahmadinejad. Talks a big game, no real power. I think the clerics just like having someone saying all the chest-puffing stuff that they feel is below their dignity to spout.

[Orwell]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you actually believe this stuff. At the risk of outing myself as humorless I'll go ahead with a serious response, but color me skeptical.

How offensive! Gloves off, hey!

That doesn't change the fact that Israel is behaving in a decidedly non-secular manner when it requires non-Jewish citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to a specifically Jewish state.

I swerve by religious oaths. Even though I'm not religious. It's a form. The genuimness of what your oathing is what's important.

Did you even read the article I linked? I'm not saying we should just take the Iranians at their word, end of story. But do tell what reason would the CIA would have for lying about Iran's nuclear program?

No. Why would I need to. I know yopur mentality by now, Eldo.

Sorry to pee on your militaristic parade, but "we don't like you so we don't think you should have nukes" is not a good enough reason to make the commitments of human life (as well as equipment, money, and energy that could be spent on more beneficial programs) of military action. Now if Iran was actually a serious threat to the rest of the world, that would be a good reason. But a fair look at the evidence does not suggest this is the case at this time.

Should read "as Iran is actually a threat..."

Yes, Saddam was a horrible, brutal dictator.

Oh good you noticed.

Unfortunately, the death toll from the invasion, the wholesale destruction of infrastructure, and the subsequent insurgencies/civil war have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people as well. I haven't done enough research to find reliable comparable numbers, but this is an important consideration that pro-war people rarely stop to consider. The destabilized aftermath of a war is not necessarily a better scenario for the people involved than the dictator was. One of the reasons I was in favor of NATO's involvement in Libya but not the U.S. invading Iraq (although there were a number of reasons) was that there was a viable, native Libyan rebel movement and government that could step in to fill the void caused by war. Of course, there's a very real risk of Libya descending into theocracy, but it was a safer move than Iraq was or Iran would be.

Gotta break an egg or two to make an omlette.

Also, there is no coherent legal or moral theory that I am aware of that justifies invasion of another country solely because it is ruled by a brutal or oppressive regime. As horrible as it is to admit it, there are a lot of countries that are ruled by horrible regimes.

Indeed, and I think we should at least çriticise' them - when we can spare some time from off-loading on our own countries a little.

But (as noted above) that doesn't necessarily mean that invading would improve the situation. It also doesn't mean that other countries have the right to invade. You said that "democracy is worth fighting for", but you fail to realize that many tyrants come to power because of democracy, or at the very least on a wave of popular support, even if there aren't democratic political mechanisms in place. This is even more dangerous in a recently destabilized country where people are likely to rally around a strongman who looks like he can restore security, even at the expense of liberty (and lives).

There is much of your silliness to dismantle -- but the bit I enlarged above. Yes. Weak Democracies. Soft-spined Democracies. The ones that allow Evil to grow until the pimple becomes a plague. Right you are.

TL;DR I really do understand the desire to just be able to invade countries that are messed up and make everything right, but it's an incredibly naive and ultimately counterproductive way of looking at the world. Again, I don't know if you're seriously advocating this or not, but whatever.

Are you sure I'm the naive one? Talk to anyone in Germany during Hitler's rise (the ones who kept their heads down and only whispered their fears in the dark) and you'll see why Democracies need to be fair dinkum against Dictators - and early on, not when they get entrenched in their power.

If the Iranians are making a Bomb, I say blow up the factory. Yes, that's my actual view. There will be an Iranian Spring sooner or later --- I don't want a nutter with a Bomb to be getting desperate.

[Orwell]

Out of curiosity, are you (and/or Orwell) referring to President Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei? I get the sense that Ahmadinejad is the one who is most vocal and aggressive in his rhetoric, but he also lacks much real power. It feels that, in the U.S. anyway, a lot of the strongly anti-Iranian people don't realize that the real power is with Khamenei and the clerics.

Do you rerad what you write Eldo - and then analyze it logically ?