Answering a Crock of Merde

About: see question number 4

Consider the reference material in this pdf while you are trying to pin the nuclear dud(?) on the Bush Administration.  With all of the rewards the Clintons heaped on NK it is no wonder that they believe they will get more by throwing tantrums.


Nothing like
a
real
picture
&
not
an
artist
rendering
as
before.





See also 4637 for the spurious notion of win-win in this situation.
NOTE: Nobody has yet answered the question what has the US gained by negotiating with the NK on the subject of nuclear weapons.


Comments


Mark de LA says
I propose this as #5 in the CrockIslam being taught in the public schools in Oregon apparently NOT in a balanced way; being in the guise of history or something.



Mark de LA says
If you really want to get all of a story - which could be an allied purpose of the group UnhackTheBrain - how would you capture it ? One method was in the style of [macroVu: item 627] - another is mentography in the style of CyberMind ; or perhaps some kind of a combination of the two.  IMHO combinations of linear things like blogs are worse than aggregators of the original news articles which are already available for a price thru Lexis Nexis . Blogs introduce incompleteness, biasses & rumors in addition to those already present from editorials & commentary in the original pool of news.  I invite thought be given to these ideas instead of producing more blogma in 4607 - if indeed there are any scientific motives there.



Mark de LA says
A picture says a thousand words:


The Clinton Administration's secretary of state salutes Kim




Seth says
M 2006-10-10 08:01:51 4626
If you really want to get all of a story - which could be an allied purpose of the group UnhackTheBrain - how would you capture it ? One method was in the style of [macroVu: item 627] - another is mentography in the style of CyberMind ; or perhaps some kind of a combination of the two.  IMHO combinations of linear things like blogs are worse than aggregators of the original news articles which are already available for a price thru Lexis Nexis . Blogs introduce incompleteness, biasses & rumors in addition to those already present from editorials & commentary in the original pool of news.  I invite thought be given to these ideas instead of producing more blogma in 4607 - if indeed there are any scientific motives there.
Google news and places like memorandum do, imho, an adequate job of "getting all of a story". What i feel is lacking, in my own understanding of these stories, is not only the weeding out of propoganda, but most importantly the interpretation.   That interpretation is where automated methods are the weakest.  It can only be done by human beings.  What i am groping for is  not another AI project.  Instead what i am groping for is a human social mechanism that allows a person to widen their perceptions beyond the one single brain that lurks behind their reading glasses.  One way to describe that might be a "reading group".  What you introduce with the group is the idea that the group can come up with rules and procedures which can bring discipline to the group.   One such rule might be strict exclusion of adhominem arguments, etc.  Other rules might focus on language ... what kind of language is permissible to describe events and viewpoints ... eg is the use of propaganda words permissible. 

Btw i no longer expect that you will be helping me with that kind of project.  Nor is there any particular technology that i plan to develop for your UnhackTheBrain group.  Except to note that there is an automated tool that could be relatively easily deployed and applied on any news story.  What it would do would be to indicate a particular cluster of vocabulary from which a story was written.  Those clusters could be named ... through some social group process (sorry that is the only way that i know that would yield anything of value to humans).   For example, i would name the language of the reference material that you pointed me to  here something like "radical neocon".  What would you name the vocabulary of  the Washington Post article which framed for me the context of question 4 ?  Btw I will provide you the particular words list from your article to test against other exemplars, if you will also provide such a vocabulary list from mine  (sans that, of course we would be just name calling).   Me thinks this kind of linguistic analysis is the only practical step that could be taken with todays technoolgy towards an automated approach.  It doesn't work, however, unless you have a group of people following rules and procedures to apply the tool.  It doesn't tell you what the story says ... all it tells you is context from which it is being written ... and even as such it is not fool proof nor should it be taken as gospel ... the group should be able to tune the vocabulary clusters such that the signal from the automated tool was useful to them.  I suspect that Google news is using such a vocabulary clustering tool to group news stories ... but i doubt that they have formed reading groups to introduce the human tuneing that would take it to the next level of utility.

Mark de LA says
Sorry DUDE, the word neocon turns me off - I don't mind the word right-wing or conservative.  Looks like name calling to me. That is what prompted me to write 4344 . I agree our purposes are different. I have no trouble interpreting what I read.  If all the arguments or points of view were to be displayed on a reasonable mentograph - that would be interesting to me.  More of the Same Old Shit would not.



Mark de LA says
The point of view expressed in the pdf mentioned in the item is part of the story. If those points of view are left out of the picture in any consideration of the question #4 your study is very incomplete & just SOS.

Mark de LA says
I doubt it.  IMHO there is no such thing as my truth & your truth. There is only your opinion & my opinion about the truth. 


Seth says
M 2006-10-10 11:14:37 4626
The point of view expressed in the pdf mentioned in the item is part of the story. If those points of view are left out of the picture in any consideration of the question #4 your study is very incomplete 
I said nothing about excluding facts and opinions from any particular text.  If you combine A1 with A2 ... An, then you must express that "better truth" in some vocabulary.  You must be aware of the message carried with the vocabulary when you read a story.  When a neutral vocabulary is used to express facts and opinions, it is far easier to read and comprehend.  I agree with you that question 4 is badly written.  Were i to spend time with that question i would start by finding a time line of events ... those events are public record and should not be contraversial ... those events can be chosen by consensus and recorded in neutrual language.  Then the hard part begins.  You need to agree on various policy scripts ... then you run the actual events against the policy scripts and determine if things could have ended in a better end state rather than NK allegidely having a tested bomb and threatening to put another on the tip of a missel and hurdel it into the ocean.  That is not an easy process to go through.  There is no way that i would embark on such a process without allocating the focus and energy necessary to complete it and of having others to help me who would not be figiting me but would rather be fighting the details of the question at hand. 

Seth says
M 2006-10-10 10:32:27 4626
Sorry DUDE, the word neocon turns me off - I don't mind the word right-wing or conservative.  Looks like name calling to me. That is what prompted me to write 4344 . I agree our purposes are different. I have no trouble interpreting what I read.  If all the arguments or points of view were to be displayed on a reasonable mentograph - that would be interesting to me.  More of the Same Old Shit would not.

It doesn't matter what you call the cluster ... the reading group would name the cluster by consensus.  That particular name was not my point. 

Certainly you can interprete what you read, we all can and do.  But your interpertation is limited to your own particular biases ... let us call your interpertation "truth A1" ... sombody else will come up with another, perhaps slightly different, interpertation ... call it "truth A2".  The question is, if you combine A1 with A2 ... An, can you not arrive at a better truth?

Seth says
M 2006-10-10 11:33:28 4626
I doubt it.  IMHO there is no such thing as my truth & your truth. There is only your opinion & my opinion about the truth. 
That formulation is just fine ... there is no important difference from mine.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-10-10 11:36:13 4626
M 2006-10-10 11:33:28 4626
I doubt it.  IMHO there is no such thing as my truth & your truth. There is only your opinion & my opinion about the truth. 
That formulation is just fine ... there is no important difference from mine.
WOW! Let there be trumpets!







Seth says
Don't blow the trumpets too loud, just yet ... i said no importan difference ... ie no difference that makes a difference.  There is a difference:  your formulation, "There is only your opinion & my opinion about the truth." contains a term that can never be evaluated. But that is just a quibble. 

- says
BTW, has anyone noticed the similarity between the following two pictures ?















in any case if you see them 1-on-1 in real life you are probably fucked!



Mark de LA says
And now a spoof advertizement (?) made by the director of Scary Movie shows up on YouTube
see picture above (not that, - the third comment)


Seth says
I think the you-tube production was interesting to watch even though the message was fundamentally flawed as i have indicated above.  Here is some context about it ... it may not have been a spoof, just somebody going too far in a negative ad.  

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-10-10 13:59:18 4626
I think the you-tube production was interesting to watch even though the message was fundamentally flawed as i have indicated above.  Here is some context about it ... it may not have been a spoof, just somebody going too far in a negative ad.  
One can, I suppose, ignore the facts of what happened & spin it as spin. Perhaps it is a good thing for you to put more study into the interpretation of what you read.  Exactly what wars have we stopped by negotiation? What have we really obtained by talking with any of our current or previous enemies? What have the Palestinians & Jews obtained from negotiation?

Japan & Germany seem to be somewhat our friends in spite of our victory in WW-II.  Truman prevented McArthur from finishing the job in Korea giving us the problem we have now.  Ditto for Viet Nam. Ditto for not completing the job in Gulf War I.  Woe unto the US if we follow suit & quit in Iraq.  In dealing with enemies, Victory works every time it is tried. Thanks for sharing.









Seth says
M 2006-10-10 12:39:06 4626
And now a spoof advertizement (?) made by the director of Scary Movie shows up on YouTube
see picture above (not that, - the third comment)
Over 60 years ago Neville Chamberlain forged a policy of appeasement against Germany.  Ever since we have been hearing that miscalculation as an excuse to call agression self defense.  Me wonders just how much milage one can get out of one failed policy.  Several score years ago some far eastern analyst observed that some Chinease potentate misinterperted the willingness to negotiate as a sign of a weak military position.  Ever since we have seen that observation cited as a reason not to negotiate.  And strangely enough, this observation has been magically extended to the Middle East.  I think that neither the 60 year old failed policy, nor the centuries old observation have any bearing whasoever on current international situations.  Those are just habitual though processess which have been over worked.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-10-10 15:08:32 4626
-snip- (not much there)
  The idea that if we lower our flag and stop the bravado, these rogue nations will suddenly show up attacking within our shores is just an irrational baseless fear that our politicians are using to manipulate us. 
Osama opined that we were paper tigers because of Clinton's Blackhawk Down incident. That you would actually think you answered a question by changing the question that you responded to is a typical liberal trick.  Clintonistas appeased North Korea & look what it got.

Let me put it more bluntly.  Where has appeasement worked ?

Thanks for sharing.

Seth says
M 2006-10-10 15:21:52 4626
  The idea that if we lower our flag and stop the bravado, these rogue nations will suddenly show up attacking within our shores is just an irrational baseless fear that our politicians are using to manipulate us. 
Osama opined that we were paper tigers because of Clinton's Blackhawk Down incident. That you would actually think you answered a question by changing the question that you responded to is a typical liberal trick.  Clintonistas appeased North Korea & look what it got.

Let me put it more bluntly.  Where has appeasement worked ?

Thanks for sharing.
The concept of "appeasement" comes from the vocabulary of a hawk or a bulley.  The effective actions of a pacifist should never be described with such a word ... we use a different paradigm.  Labeling something "appeasement" already implys that you are playing a zero sum game (of which rwg is a subclass).  Our objective is no to play such a game.  Rather we play  win-win games.

Seth says
M 2006-10-10 14:36:30 4626
[uninformative rhetoric snipped]  Exactly what wars have we stopped by negotiation? What have we really obtained by talking with any of our current or previous enemies? What have the Palestinians & Jews obtained from negotiation?

Japan & Germany seem to be somewhat our friends in spite of our victory in WW-II.  Truman prevented McArthur from finishing the job in Korea giving us the problem we have now.  Ditto for Viet Nam. Ditto for not completing the job in Gulf War I.  Woe unto the US if we follow suit & quit in Iraq.  [...]. Thanks for sharing.
Your welcome

Me thinks that "what wars have we stopped by negotiation?" is the wrong question.  Such a question might better be asked "what have we achievd by going to war?".  My reading of history is that (at least) the Viet Nam war was absolutely unnecessary and in no way contributed to defending our country.  In the case of the Palestinians & Jews i can only observe that peace (like democracy) is not easy ... the cases where it fails should not be used as an excuse to abandon it.  And, btw, i believe that most of the strif in Palestine can be traced to Israel using the same appeasement-non-negoiationg arguments which i disparaged in my comment above (see seth: 2006-10-10 13:35:54 this item), rather than taking the actions necessary to forge a peace.  US wants to be the the biggest toughest nation in the world.  That is a setup for a world which is against the US.  When we step back from that stance , then our image to the rest of the world will change, and many of our problems will dissolve.  The idea that if we lower our flag and stop the bravado, these rogue nations will suddenly show up attacking within our shores is just an irrational baseless fear that our politicians are using to manipulate us. 

Seth says
M 2006-10-10 15:21:52 4626
 Clintonistas appeased North Korea & look what it got.
Again the word "appeasement" is just a label which you are attaching to a policy.  It really does not point to any extensional examples.  A policy that, btw, did not end with NK threatening us with nukes.  To completely understand what happened we would need to embark on the course of study that i scoped above.  I suspect that 20/20 hindsight can discern several policy changes spanning both administrations that would have lead to a different result. 

Seth says
seth 2006-10-10 15:50:14 4626
Where has appeasement worked ?
I suspect that there are many examples where finding a win-win solution to a conflict avoided violence.  Unfortunately i don't have them on the tip of my toung.

Mark de LA says
Appeasement is a word in the English dictionary. Look it up here. It describes what was done;   your spin & state of denial notwithstanding.  The RWG is NOT a subclass of zero-sum games.  Some things are zero-sum games like for example a tug-of-war.  Show me an example of some problem that has been solved in your pacifist way so that I might reach one of those great epiphanies that you surely must already have achieved.

Thanks for sharing.




Mark de LA says
Show me of that book named Great Pacifists Leaders of the World ~ beginning of history to 2006.  

The only pacifist I know of was Jesus Christ & he got nailed - even the gospels speak of swords & vengeance.


Seth says
M 2006-10-10 16:19:41 4626
The RWG is NOT a subclass of zero-sum games.  Some things are zero-sum games like for example a tug-of-war.  
Tug of war is in fact an example of zero sum.  Rgw is on its face, zero sum.  Insepect the following equation if you doubt it:  I'm right (+1) + Your wrong (-1) = 0.  There are many other such games, one of which is being played in Palestine:  Palestine is Jewish territory (+1) + Not Palestenian (-1) = 0. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-10-10 16:25:51 4626
M 2006-10-10 16:19:41 4626
The RWG is NOT a subclass of zero-sum games.  Some things are zero-sum games like for example a tug-of-war.  
Tug of war is in fact an example of zero sum.  Rgw is on its face, zero sum.  Insepect the following equation if you doubt it:  I'm right (+1) + Your wrong (-1) = 0.  There are many other such games, one of which is being played in Palestine:  Palestine is Jewish territory (+1) + Not Palestenian (-1) = 0. 
This should probably go somewhere else.  The RWG first of all is not really a game & it has no score. It is a psychological & emotional phenomena of imperfect human beings.

Mark de LA says
There's a wise old saying in the legal world that goes like this: "If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. If you have neither, just argue!"
(Maybe like the meaning of words)



Mark de LA says
Denial is said to be the first step of processing psychological trauma:

As an example, apply the 5 stages to a traumatic event most all of us have experienced: The Dead Battery! You're going to be late to work so you rush out to your car, place the key in the ignition and turn it on. You hear nothing but a grind; the battery is dead.

  1. DENIAL --- What's the first thing you do? You try to start it again! And again. You may check to make sure the radio, heater, lights, etc. are off and then..., try again.
  2. ANGER --- "%$@^##& car!", "I should have junked you years ago." Did you slam your hand on the steering wheel? I have. "I should just leave you out in the rain and let you rust."
  3. BARGAINING --- (realizing that you're going to be late for work)..., "Oh please car, if you will just start one more time I promise I'll buy you a brand new battery, get a tune up, new tires, belts and hoses, and keep you in perfect working condition.
  4. DEPRESSION --- "Oh God, what am I going to do. I'm going to be late for work. I give up. My job is at risk and I don't really care any more. What's the use".
  5. ACCEPTANCE --- "Ok. It's dead. Guess I had better call the Auto Club or find another way to work. Time to get on with my day; I'll deal with this later."
Just redefining words to suit your taste is a nice trick (see previous discussion on your use of the word & Bill Clinton on the meaning of the word IS). That dog won't hunt!  You seem to be on step 1 above. Please get well soon.
   (Thanks for sharing )




Seth says
Well ok, perhaps this is more targeted to the persuit of a better truth regarding US vs Kim Il's firecracker ...
M 2006-10-10 16:19:41 4626
Appeasement is a word in the English dictionary. Look it up here. It describes what was done;   your spin & state of denial notwithstanding. 
I prefer the pertinent and informative definition found at Wikipedia:
source: Wikipedia
Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.
There is not doubt that one could interpert some of the events of the Clinton administration and affix that label to them. But the word "appeasemant" is not a descriptive term ... it does not "describes what was done" ... like "red" or "round" or "imposed conditions" or "sacrificed  principles".  It does, however, label or classify what was done.  If it is not a propoganda label, then you should be able to prove the essential criteria.  You should be able to read into the record the specific events in question.  Then show how the conditions were "imposed" and  which principles were "sacrificed".  Sans that the usage of the word is simply "propoganda" intended to associate weakness or cowardice with the administration without justification.

There is no doubt that Clintions actions were persuing non-proliferation without armed resistance to NK making nukes.  He used carrots rather than sticks.  What principles were sacrificed?  What conditions were imposed?  How does the win/win of carrot/no-nuke become appeasement?  Are we, now, to disallow carrots in foreign relations in fear of being labeled cowards? 

The same in deapth study would apply to what has been labeled "Cowboy diplomacy" towards  Bush's "Axis of Evil".  Then, me thinks, only after studying both the time line and the diplomatic messages, could we arrived at a better truth.