BS: Proof by Absence

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: sledge
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:29 AM

Was there ever a good Stalin, my reading of a recent history of the Gulag says not.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:56 AM

Why yes, Stalin was a good guy when he was a vital ally from late 1941 to late 1944. He changed back when we began to realize that, in winning the Eastern Front, the Red Army was going to occupy the eastern half of Europe and Stalin might not want to give it back.

Hollywood even made war movies depicting the heroic Soviet stand against the Nazi invaders during that period. Those movies didn't get run on TV much in the 50s and 60s like the other war movies, though.

My real point was that Stalin's career set an unparalleled low in the 30s when he wiped out all of his potential rivals including most of the senior army officers, the bulk of the small but growing Soviet middle class and farmers who had actually owned any land. The numbers of people killed were reported in the millions. That period defined the style he was going to use the control the Soviet Union through out his career.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: sledge
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM

He may have been an ally but anyone who will imprison/work to death millions of his own people, just to meet arbitrary quotas does not deserve the description good guy. He was a monster of the highest order.

Don't forget that just prior to the great patriotic war he was nicely in bed with Hitler, just ask the Poles who ended up under his rule and the 20 thousand or so polish officers murdered and later found in the Katyn wood.

Not to mention the huge chunks of eastern Europe that were later run by the communist governments imposed on them by heroic Uncle Joe.

And its a good job he died when he did, his final madness in the early fifties was a new anti jewish pogrom fueled by the so called Jewish Doctors conspiricy. It was quietly shelved on his death as it was known to be a complete fiction.

Much of this is forgotten now or ignored.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:30 AM

No disagreement. Just pointed out that for a brief period official US and British policy held that Stalin was a "good guy" and we didn't mention some of his bad habits.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Slick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:02 AM

There's a difference between being good and sharing a common enemy. The United States government doesn't seem to be very good at making that distinction. If they'd treated the Saudis the Baathists and the Israelis at arms length maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM

I don't know, Rob. Remember that the Soviet Union defeated Germany, the western allies only helped (really, it's true).

Have we forgotten how Israel got to be such an important factor in US foreign policy? The US was the first nation to recognize Israel's independence, I'd say out of a feeling that they deserved a homeland after what they went through during WWII. Unfortunately the one they were evicted from in 70 A.D. had been occupied in the mean time. In classic fashion the US sided with the underdog in the wars that followed and the Israelis finally convinced their enemies that they couldn't be defeated on the battlefield. During this period there several movies made that tried to show the justice of the Israeli cause, "Exodus", "Cast a Giant Shadow" being two I remember. American sympathes grew.

It wasn't until Israel realized they could use their newly developed power and invaded Lebanon that things started to change if very slowly. It went down hill from there. It's hard to like the Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians, but even today no politician could be too openly critical of Israeli policy. Ask Hillary Clinton. She sure backed down quick.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:56 AM

I'm sorry. We're not talking about the New American Century anymore?

Yes, but in a tangential sort of way.

Doesn't your point make their success seem all the more unlikely?

My point wasn't that they would be successful. My point was, and is, that they will make the attempt. And that a lot of death and destruction will be the result. It seems that some people never learn from the mistakes of others.

Re: Saddam. I agree that his loyalties were only for his own agendas. But that is also true of the US (we are only loyal to our own agendas). We used Saddam for our purposes as much as the Soviets did. They may have provided him with the hardware he used against Iran, but we provided him with the deadly gasses he used against them and also against the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:31 PM

No, I like a southern accent. I was trying to emphasize the proper pronunciation of the word compared to what I hear every time the President says the word. From him it comes out New Q Lur. It makes me flinch.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:38 PM

"From him it comes out New Q Lur."

Interesting. I was raised a couple of miles from bunker after bunker filled with thermonuclear weapons and danged if that isn't exactly how everyone I knew, Air Force personnel included, pronounced "nuclear". Heck, at least in my imagination that's how I recall LBJ pronouncing it. Maybe I'm wrong because I only heard him speak in person once.

Like I said, must be the accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Crick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:08 PM

Bush is a transplanted Texan, a New Englander, who attended Harvard and Yale. There is none so ignorant as those who have every advantage and still refuse to learn.

It appears he was as serious about his education as he was about his National Guard service.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:33 PM

"Bush is a transplanted Texan, a New Englander, who attended Harvard and Yale. There is none so ignorant as those who have every advantage and still refuse to learn."

Fellow might take those words unkindly. Are you suggesting a Texas accent is a sign of ignorance? I'd point out that my 17 year old's SAT scores would probably not only beat yours, he could probably beat him up, too. (Sorry, attempted humorous reference to a bumper sticker common here.)

I live in a "commuter" neighborhood, where it's common to find people who move to Texas for their jobs and only stay here a few years. They're often shocked to find their younger kids say "fixin' to" and "ya'll" and such. Even the adults discover their friends think they've picked a bit of an accent even though we natives know better.

My kids have picked up some interesting grammar, too. It's really hard to understand why. My wife and I are fairly formal speakers. The kids are well read and spend enough time watching TV to pick up the standard American Mid-Western accent most people think isn't an accent at all. Must be just hanging out with the local school kids, all from affluent, well educated families. I don't think the accent has anything to do with intelligence or making use of your advantages.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:35 PM

Besides, everyone knows a Southern accent is the true language of Shakespeare. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:52 PM

the pronunciation - 'nucular' isnt just accent, it's plain ignorant.
- its not a regional variation like, aluminum - aluminium.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM

heres what dictionary.com has to say.

[From nucleus.]
Usage Note: The pronunciation (nky-lr), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-kl-r), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-ky-lr), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:29 PM

As a native Texan and someone descended from a long line of Southerners, I heartly disagree. Your attitude is insulting to all Southerners and reflects the worst kind of class bias.

And, as I pointed out, no one was that upset when Southern Democratic presidents prounounced the word that way (including one who has a degree from Anapolis in the subject), so I have to assume it's a politically based slur at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Quick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:31 PM

Like Petr says....

Bottom line. The man should know better, he is either ignorant or feigning ignorance, I don't know which is more contemptable for a president but both are bad.

He's not just the president of Texas. He's the president of the whole country. As much as Clinton disgraced his office with fornication and lies, Bush is disgracing it by glorifying ignorance. He brags about not reading the papers, he refuses to learn to pronounce simple words, he unashamedly uses poor grammar.

Which brings back to your first pointless point about whether or not he intentionally lied. His sixteen words in his penultimate State of the Union address were carefully chosen to give the impression that there was new compelling evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. UK sources were quoted to give plausible deniability. If he had quoted the CIA, he would have had to say that the CIA had looked into these allegations and drawn a blank. Instead he chose to tell a "Clinton" lie. A falsehood which is defensible against perjury charges. It has nothing to do with "Proof by Absence" It has everything to do with what the definition of is is. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Hick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:44 PM

Your attitude is insulting to all Southerners and reflects the worst kind of class bias.

Class bias? Against George W. Bush? HAHAHAHA

He's in the highest possible class for a US citizen, by family and by position. You are saying Petr is biased against him because he is too ignorant to correctly pronounce a word? So we're talking about middle class bias against upper class for talking like lower class?

Bush is living proof that ignorance can transend class.

BTW I thought the way Carter pronounce Nukular was amusing. I was too young to know the difference for LBJ

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM

You're kidding right? Not only does a candidate have to have a full head of hair, they can't speak like they're from anywhere TV network Mid-Western English?

So when my friend, a gentleman with a master degree who lives in Syracuse, NY, says "youse" instead of "you", it's out of ignorance, not an accent? And when someone from Brooklyn says they live on "turty-tree and a turd street", they're ignorant and not speaking with an accent? JFK's "pawk the cawr" accent was less ignorant? Kerry doesn't have an accent? You're kidding right? Or is it that only Southern accents are ignorant? Forgive me if I'm tempermental, but I've run across that kind of bigotry in the past.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

These are your infamous "16 words", right?

"In a July 11 statement, The Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet took responsibility for not removing the questionable sentence.

"Tenet said 'the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.'

"'From what we know now, [Central Intelligence] Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa,' Tenet said in his statement.

"'This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed, he said."

It isn't a lie if you have every reason to believe it's the truth. You're right, Tenent should have been dismissed long ago.

(italics added)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Slick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 06:00 PM

No I'm not kidding. I wish you were.

So when my friend, a gentleman with a master degree who lives in Syracuse, NY, says "youse" instead of "you", it's out of ignorance, not an accent?

If he were speaking in front of the UN and he said "Youse guys from Eastern Europe" Hell yes that would be ignorant. I'm sure he's learned proper grammar somewhere along the way.

There a difference between a regional pronounciation of a sound and mispronouncing a word, especially a technical scientific term. Its not like they had nukular weapons at the alamo. If there is one person on this planet who should have some reverence and respect for the word nuclear, it is the President of the United States.

Can you even tell me with a straight face that it is a regionalism rather than ignorance? This is the man who said "Is our children learning?". I really doubt that your 17 year old would make that mistake. If he plans to make any presentations or speechs to people other than those unfortunate Texans who are unwise enough to wear their ignorance like badges of honour, than I'd advice him to use the correct pronounciation of technical and scientific terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:20 PM

On the contrary, I contend it is a valid pronouciation common amoung some 75 million Southerners and apparent other English speakers. Who am I to diagree with Merriam-Webster?

"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers."

Merriam-Webster link for "nuclear" -- check the right most pronounciation

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:28 PM

BTW, I throughly approve of double negatives and the use of the word "ain't" as well. As you may have heard, double negatives are archaic but not invalid English usage. Before the advent of a common understanding of the principles of logic the double negative reinforced a negative intention rather than the negation of a negative. Who's to say that a usage common in 17th and 18th century England is inherently invalid just because it's old, particularly on a folk music forum such as this? Southern English, particularly in areas where there was less contact with Northern influences, merely retains the older form as it does the older pronouciations.

And of course we all know that "ain't" is still used by the English Royal family even today. I've heard Prince Charles use it. Given all the other English uses we Southerns have held on to, it's not surprising some of us who had less contact with the outside world continued this usage either, now is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:02 PM

a double negative is a no-no.

to quote Bush in his own words 'they misunderestimated me'
'make the pie higher'
'put food on your family'
and countless others, are all examples of improper uses of the english language and idioms.

do you say nuculus? or nucleus?

- speaking of the last state of the union address..Bush said
'no will one can now doubt America's word'
one wondered whether one was hearing correctly - in fact
Americas word has been cast deeply in doubt..
of course what he really meant was no one should doubt Americas
willingness to go to war.

speaking of those 16 words on the (uranium from Africa) when a former ambassador travelled to Africa to check out the story and found no evidence, - but poorly faked letterheads etc. Someone in the whitehouse exposed the ambassadors wife as a cia-agent (which is illegal) and if you ask me far more serious than Clintons indiscretions with Monica.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:14 PM

As I said, this hardly seems the place to get too upset over an anachronistic use of language.

"nuculus", though Merriam-Webster shows both pronounciations.

Never worried about Clinton's indiscretions, just the perjury he commited over them that resulted in a heavy fine and the loss of his law license. A little unseemly in a sitting President. If it weren't for there being several accusations of sexual harrassment and at least one rape levied against him, I wouldn't care less about Clinton's love life. He's welcome to all the voluntary he can get. It's just with that many accusations, you kinda wonder if the man understands the definition of the word "no". He admitted to trouble with "is" after all.

Roust out the leaker and provide adequate proof a crime was commited. That's how the game is played in both parties these days. Just as both parties hire plenty of professional mud slingers.