Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||
This is worth everythingThe very nature of human beings. War is insane. It is the maddest ugliest thing in the universe that we are aware of and it is beyond the limits of the human mind to imagine anything anywhere that is madder and uglier. We know this for sure because if it could be imagined then we most certainly would have done it. This doesn't present the philosophical dilemma for me that it does for others. We are what we are. Like all life we are the product of a brutal evolutionary imperative. We are what we are because that is what has worked, at least up until now. All must accept this to remain in the realm of the intellectually cogent. Those who believe in God must accept that this is as it is meant to be and I must say that every religious person I know has no difficulty at all with this. So that makes us ...well ... complicated. I once fell into a conversation with the mother of an old girl friend who I had run into by chance. The mother I mean. Not the girlfriend. "She's a very complex person" said the mother by way of explanation about something that had happened. "Aren't we all" I said. I don't deny that the war streak might eventually kill us all. In the meantime it will cause untold misery on a vast scale. But there is another side to our nature and we all know this. I think the old religions are right when they teach there is good and bad in us all. It's just that the mix varies enormously. On balance, I'm a huge fan of humanity. You can list every vile act we have ever committed since we first learnt to use a rock as a club and I still say we are magnificent beyond all language. Please keep in mind how short our story has been. 150 000 years since we first emerged as a distinct species. A bare 20 000 years at most since civilisation dawned. Not even a blink of an eye. Evolution hasn't stopped. Not for us. Not for any form of life. On the contrary, for us it is about to accelerate. As a species we are a debutante and the whole universe is our oyster. Or we will go the way of countless failed species. A design flaw leading to an evolutionary dead end.. Our brains were too big for our reptilean minds or something. Whatever. What Lincoln called the better angels of our nature turn out to be not good and strong enough after all. This is the reason why I get so passionate about people like Ahmadinejad. He could steal it all like others have tried in the past. Trust me with this. I recognise the type. To me they represent a defilement of humanity that may well be our future. We could be everything we ever want to be. We are so close. The scientists have seen to that. The stakes are huge. This is worth everything.
[ category: ]
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Better than Cute
Now that's more like it, so much better than being labelled "cute"; sheesh I'm never gunna live that one down in wombat world, never!
Just the Facts
There is no interference in other countries going on at all, by the way.
Just taking care of old business.
So Geoff, when you say there is no interference, are you now saying that there is no interference except to take care of old business plus no interference except when we believe someone is a tyrant? Do you wish to add other exceptions to the no interference rule? How about the other statements in that posting? Are there exceptions to those as well we should be inferring?
There are exceptions
Saddam was a gangster who had no more of legitimate claim to Iraq than I did. His removal by the UN would have been no more than an act of self defence and a liberation of the Iraqi people. Bush I's failure to follow through with the UN action, which the US led, was an historic mistake of the worst kind. It was a betrayal of the Iraqi people and showed an appalling ignorance of that part of the world. I said so at the time and my attitude has only hardened since.
Justin linked a self serving apologia from Dick Cheney, echoing Bush I, about this. Of course they are defensive. They are right that the overthrow of Saddam would have potentially created a dangerous power vacuum, as ultimately proved to be the case. Kissinger, then in retirement, was a leading exponent of this view. But this overlooks the fact that in 1991, Bush I had not only the UN with him but also the Arab League. From Egypt to Syria, Arab armies and air forces joined the attack on Saddam. Only Jordan and the PLO sided with Saddam, and Jordan only out of survival politics and for appearances sake. The PLO, as usual, outflanked itself. There were a number of options. The League, with a UN organised infrastructure, could have filled the vacuum until the country was stabilised. That opportunity was never to repeat. All of this was predictable. It was in fact predicted. Bush II was supposed to be the moron and Bush I the smart one. He had been CIA chief afterall. Idiot. He was much dumber than Bush II.
Officially sanctioned UN actions, which the first attack on Saddam's military most certainly was, are supposed to be a generally acknowledged exception to the "no interference" rule. There are other exceptions. "Interference" in Rwanda, to stop the genocide, is clearly one. In fact it came far too late. Non-interference in some circumstances can be just as immoral as interference in other circumstances..
A gentleman's word
So, Geoff, when you make an absolute statement such as "no interference", what you really mean is "Any interference that Geoff feels is justifiable".
I enjoy discussions with people who voice opinions different from mine, since I learn most from them. However, if you make a statement while actually believing exactly the opposite, a meaningful discussion becomes quite hard.
Teach your children well...
Jiddu Krishnamurti on education:
Jumping is fun
Strings and Things
Matter like music; the universe is a symphony
Blooming with Bernsteins
Allan Bloom on music:
Dear is Plato, but dearer still is truth - Aristotle. And poor old Nietzche: a walking, talking (and extremely tormented) contradiction of personal behaviour and ideology. That said, methinks Allan completely misses the point (was he a composer, an artist, a student of the empirical sciences?).
However Allan Bloom views on education deserve attention:
One would hope by completion he really means: compleation, in all its fullness, anyway I guess I've have to have a read.
No doubt Allan Bloom has forgotten his childhood, when the mind of a teenage boy (and beyond) is pregnant with non-stop masturbational fantasies, regardless of commerce (hands up all those men who have memories), but that's they way it "is".
You know even this old wombat can still go weak at the knees, when dear little Pumpkin wiggles her wombat bum as we wander down the (metaphorical) beaten track together. Tis but the silent song of our creation, our genesis:
Somehow one can't help but suspect that homo Bloom may do well to have a chat with homo Bernstein - who luck has it has a slightly different approach in the art of musical education and awareness:
Yes indeed Allan.
But one has to know where (intellectual/idealism) thinking stops, and (psychological/empirical) reality begins; and how to gently/peacefully come to terms with, and enjoy both perspectives.
If science really does begin as philosophy and end as art; then Plato could be the philosopher, Aristotle the scientist, and dear old wombat Bernstein the artist compleat.
Yes indeed Geoff, those gentle homos (with identifiable names) have certainly enriched us all, at least this old wombat - it's just a shame that it only takes a very small minority of moron homos, on both sides of the ideological rainbow, to strain our humanity, by imposing (violently) their wills to power over us.
Wouldn't it be wonderful, if our universe was blooming with Bernsteins.
and that's your bloomin' lot..
I just find myself rearranging the Bloom first sentence, in my head. Did he mean give "form and beauty", or did he mean "explain". I agree with you, in the end comes the appreciation of beauty and that is suggestive of teleology. For my part, a sort of Pascal's wager, as to wider implications, neither ex or inclusive or compulsorarily linked to meaningexcept as something the mind can make of it. From then on, with soul and ego, the dialectic of experienced life is started up.
Hope for the best, prepare the worst, as they say..
Wombat Dreaming introduces Leonard Bernstein
Wombat Dreaming introduces Leonard Bernstein: or trees don’t talk - they sing the song of IS.
In my earlier post I wrote the following:
Back in the days of my wombat youth I loved nothing morethan to snuggle up safe within my whole, andexperience the songs of the woods. Of course trees don't talk but they doreveal the what “is” with their music – conducted by the breeze and composed bythe “is”. One would not only become lost within that music, one would becomethat music – a composition, a metaphor if you wish, enabling one to experiencethe “is” (to be the “is”) in all its power - and all its glory, beauty andrage.
This of was not lost on a dear old homo (sapien) by the name ofBernstein; his music lectures are compulsory listening for all wombat kids. Ifirst remember him communicating to a group of students about oneness – from memoryhe said: you already know what it is, you have all had those experiences, it's justthat you have not been aware of such, sadly that lecture was a long time agoand I can't find the text on the net.
Anyway back to my whole for a bit more wombat dreaming, butwhy not do yourself a favour and have a peek at a homo who, in wombat mythology,is somewhat of a hero, one Leonard Bernstein who has been accepted as anhonorary wombat – and there's nothing wrong with that.
NB don't overlook the link - it will be a delightful and revealing 4 minutes, it will leave you wanting more...
Thank you for that link
One Lennie Boynsteen, from
One Lennie Boynsteen, from Noo Yoik, this is, Jus?
Actually a great post, with spring just breaking in Adelaide.
No more from the great Joan Sutherland, either, after news of her death yesterday- but its true these were people substantial enough to leave monumental testaments to their abilities and character, in recorded music and film clps that hint at their energy and vibrance.
Lysistrata - Disbander of Armies
Lessons from a Master:
"Greek Tyrant"??
Aristophanes, who had the temerity to portray the ruling Greek tyrant, Cleon, as a dog...
That's a stretch. Cleon was an Athenian demagogue actually. He was the most 'popular' politician following Pericles' death for some six years. Thucydides hated him and so he got very bad press - bit like Demosthenes.
Father Park
Rubbish - we are the universe.
Rubbish, iJustin has been a rat, a snake, a dragon, an albatross and now I'm a f*cking wombat. Sheesh, the arrogance of those homos.
Is it illogical to assume that only homos are aware of the universe - how can one prove such a proposition?
How does one know there is not a God, or a pantheon of gods. Reason instructs homos that to entertain such folly is illogical, yet the proof or disproof of god/s is "beyond the bounds of pure reason". Of course this probably upsets many, but those of us who are non-homos find such mind games at best quaint, and at worst irrelevant.
So think about this: get yourself a kite, a little one will do and rip out all the navigational instruments. Then fly your kite (by the seat of your homo arse - that's a wombat joke) from 42, 52 S, 147, 19 E to 33, 55 S, 18, 22 E. then up to 31.47 N 35.13. and back again.
Once iJustin used to do similar on a regular basis (without the bloody kite or toys) although it was only when I was really thirsty that I visited the last destination, however, a visit to the King David was always worth it - but I digress.
You see for an albatross to navigate itself around the globe takes pure awareness and a relationship with the universe that is uncluttered by the stuff of (homo) mind. Such an uncluttered relationship with reality is what albatrosses call clarity and freedom. Something homos are still coming to grips with; although iJustin doubts if they ever will.
The problem with homos is that they have practically know awareness at all; especially about the universe they inhabit.
And there's the rub dear homo travellers:
Homos actually believe they inhabit (and observe) the universe, when all other fauna and flora not only believe (experience) same, but are also aware that the universe equally inhabits (and observes) them. We become/are one of the same universe (inseparable). In short non-homos have not been encumbered with a sophisticated and evolving censor called the "self".
You see if one does think about it one comes to realise that homos are obsessed with discipline/indoctrination, both self -imposed and institutionally imposed, generally for security reasons. However security (and especially the fear of insecurity) usually inhibits freedom, especially freedom of the senses, which in turn contaminates awareness and confuses the "self".
Yet in reality the universe knows no such thing as discipline, like morality it is a creation of homos. Our universe knows only rhythm and harmony ( Einstein's and Spinoza's universe); chaos and chance ( Bohr's and Heisenberg's universe) destruction and renewal (the all powerful, intellectually unknowable and ever present dialectical dance of the aforementioned - Lao Tzu's universe) .
When one abandons discipline and surrenders to the natural processes of rhythm and harmony, chaos and chance, destruction and renewal, then our universe shall embrace and inhabit us, and then reveal, in all innocence, that which is.
Of course "is" has no definition or language - just try asking a tree (a tree that speaks does not know; a tree that knows does not speak), but all us non-homos know what "is" is.
So there ya go - non-homos have awareness of the universe, you have just herd it from the horses mouth, and as many trees as you'd like to ask - so there is your proof. QED.
Besides it is only homos who band together in self delusion to systematically torment and slaughter, on a mass scale, their own (for stupid reasons) , and not only that, they appear to rejoice in their depravity; they must otherwise why do they keep doing it ?
You know, us non-homos get up to some really weird stuff at times, but no way in a zillion light years could we be as weird as you lot.
Anyway, that's my wombat perspective - time to crawl back down me hole and allow the universe to have its way with me - that's another wombat joke, but I've yet to meet a homo who got it - except a mysterious Taoist magic man whom I suspect was stoned at the time (and was possibly born in Tasmania).
Also ...
So are we.
Ahah. Well I kinda got that, Justin, but I'm gunna hafta run it past myself again.
The joke I mean.
Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby
Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby - John Mearsheimer
John Messengruber
Geoff, BTW
Who is John Messengruber - such a kool and complimentary name (mess & grub hehe), and he doesn't appear in Google - does that mean he never existed?
Bloody homos are killing us...
Nah we don't get that mouth cancer (thank Mobtaw - a wombat deity) , but we do suffer from all sorts of other stuff - bloody homos have done us little good:
And you homos think you got problems; it looks like soon I'm gunna have to be a bloody cockroach (not that there's anything wrong with that), if I'm gunna survive homo-stupidity.
Keep it civil please.
Alright. You may or may not have a legitimate greivance with the mange thing. But we didn't mean it and besides you need us now to work out how to fix it. And you are quite right, that depends on whether we can be bothered. Keep on trying cute and don't for chrissake catch anything that could be transmitted to humans. That's the best advice I can give you.
On another mattter. Enough with the "homo" slurs if you please. It's highly offensive. It's worse than racist. It's blatant outright slur theft. It's like calling a kike a sandnigger. For example. Anyway it's real offensive to all humans and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from using the term in any circumstances but most especially in the presence of humans. Thank you.
My hero the homo sapien - the prince of peace
Dear Geoff, my friend the homo sapien, why doith you misrepresent me so?
CUTE!!! I'll show you bloody cute, but first, it may be lost on your good "self" that bloody homo is a creation of, er um, homos - not bloody faggots or poofters (well not totally anyway, cause back in them days homos didn't make the distinctions homos of today do - but that's another story).
Firstly homo comes from Latin and strictly speaking means man, although back in 1802 William Turton decided that maybe women should also be included in the homo race, thus homo became a euphemism for hetero, so to speak, in the world of common usage.
Now for the sapien bit: sapien is also Latin and means, wait for it: to be wise.
Thus the first species on Earth, that can come up with a label/brand to describe itself, claims it is a - wise man.
Now what does that say about man?
Even the bloody Greeks (hehe) could make the distinction: hetero = the other (of two), another etc. In short the Greeks (hehe) were fully aware of their other half, even after one factors in that the term Greek (hehe) carries a back door connotation in the hetero world today (Oh my - the Greek Olympics, mmm) - let's not get into French or Spanish (not that there's anything wrong with that).
You see, if man wasn't so up himself he would have christened his species hetero-sapiens at least, or more correctly - hetero-egocentricos.
But semantics is not the problem (in itself) - it's intention. The terms this old wombat uses are not intended to cause offence, rather, harmless attention, I'm sure every homo on planet Earth will agree; besides sticks and stones and all that..
Of course such a wise proposition must stand up to the scrutiny of the empirical sciences; as such, this CUTE (sheesh) old wombat is off to the pub to prove said proposition.
The experiment is thus:
Rock up to the front bar and address the school of Greek brickies as such:
Anyway off to start the experiment, and boy, oops, girl, am I thirsty, I should expect that even a school of Greek brickies won't be offended with such an honest and well intentioned salutation...
Seven hours later...
Fucking hell, I'm sore, REALLY SORE; my poor old wombat arse just copped a hiding, you lot just don't get it - if the WPS had not stepped in (thank Mobtaw my arse is protected by law, and that some hetero-egocentrics show compassion) the prawns would be singing my requiem - or the brickies would have sold my poor dead carcass to the chow takeaway next door to the pub.
There is only one thing to do: repeat the experiment.
Seven hours later...
OUCH, same result, except this time some bastard at the WPS gave me the bloody mange (on purpose I suspect) - and boy does my arse hurt.
It's becoming obvious that Einstein's observations about repeating repeating repeating experiments and expecting different results etc may have some merit - best to retire from this one, albeit hurt, but enlightened (I should have listened to Geoff in the first place).
So there ya go, it would appear Winifred Wombat is absolutely wrong, and you dear Geoff are absolutely correct - hetero-egocenticos have feelings and find (some) words/labels offensive. As such, me and my (now) educated arse apologise for any discomfort or offence.
However, relationship is a two way street, and for what it's worth, maybe you would be kind enough to consider my feelings - because wombats are people too you know.
I call you a homo and you call me "cute", or at least infer such; but your double entendre did not escape my attention. You see, the least thing wombats want to be associated with is cute, yeah we know it's one of nature's defense mechanism but sheesh, we are really tough; besides cute is for sissies - and penguins.
No way would you catch us wasting our lives gazing into a pond like that self obsessed Greek guy, and the rest of hetero-egocentrico - no way! We do man's stuff: dig, eat, root and shoot (and fart), and we don't need no guns - and that aint cute - that's testosterone tough!
So Geoff, let's talk, let's negotiate, species to species, man to wombat, person to person, let's come to terms with each others feelings. Truly (trust me) I had no idea that the term homo would be offensive to hetero-egocentrico; and equally I suspect you had no idea that your terms were offensive to wombats, so let's kiss and make up, because this is worth everything...
In future I shall address you as: Geoff, my friend the homo-sapien - and you can call me Winifred, your friend the vombatus ursinus (and if you make fun of that one I'll make you very sick indeed - trust me).
Anyway as far as I'm concerned Winifred the Wombat, like the fat lady of the Oprah, has sung.
A big wombat Sar Shalom to ya all.
Winnie Wombat
(Winifred: rather Churchillian don't you think? - combative, tenacious, and constantly pissed to the eyeballs.)
Shalom:
Man to Man
OK Geoff, the games up, so let's talk man to man.
It would appear that any proposition which threatens your world view is treated with ridicule, distraction, denial and racism (so what if Strauss is a Jewish name) to defend your bias.
Geoff, you have been trying to play me for a mug.
It beggars belief that you claim to know so little about neoconservatism, yet you can so readily refer to an obscure intellectual that you claim has redefined the term: orientialism.
From the godfather of neoconservatism:Obviously it has not been lost on Edward how the west did the winning. Maybe Geoff, you spend too much time researching those who threaten you, yet those you embrace and cheer remain unexamined, or have they?
It would appear Irving feels that religion equates to power (control), mmm.
It would appear that as China becomes more like America, America becomes more like Russia, mmm
Irving Kristol, 1952, writing about Leo Strauss in the pages of Commentary:
It would also appear Geoff that you have not been paying attention, or simply choose to play dumb when it pleases you - but that has been obvious for yonks.
Geoff, having read anything at all about the Kristols and Perle's (including Rumsfeld and Cheney et all) it would be impossible to believe that their neocon credentials were overlooked by you; rather, I suspect that it is because these days the term neoconservative carries the stench of deceit, propaganda and rotting corpses - no wonder you avoid the term like the plague.
Yet for all intents and purposes it would appear Geoff, that you champion the neoconservative agenda; either wittingly or unwittingly.
So Geoff, it's time to fess up: are you a closet neocon or what?
Or is your curiosity (or lack there of) nothing more than the abused child of power and greed?
Anyway mate the game you have been playing is up; your agenda is clear, and your tactics predicable, crude and motivated by hate.
The support of hatred and war is worth nothing - absolutely nothing.
QED
Neocons better than neocoms
I preferred talking man to wombat. He made more sense.
Enough of Leo Strauss. It is obvious he was an erudite and cultured intellectual. Not that I have ever read anything he has written mind you. No biggy. Nor have any of his detractors. But I always have thought you can judge a man by the enemies he keeps.
The "Closing of the American Mind" , by the way, apparently written by one of the disciples, is excellent. No wonder the lefty/liberal/extrasilly academics that plague US universities while sucking sustenance from the sweat of the brow of the American taxpayers, just as they do here, hate him. He must have had their number.
Logic
Enough of Leo Strauss. It is obvious he was an erudite and cultured intellectual. Not that I have ever read anything he has written mind you. No biggy. Nor have any of his detractors.
There's irrefutable logic.
Father Park
How naive
"we are magnificent beyond all language."
By who's reckoning? Self praise is no recommendation Geoff as you should well know. I know of at least one human (myself,) that will take issue with that statement and had they have the power of our intelligence and ability to communicate in abstract terms such as we, a host of other creatures that would consider humanity as a voracious, verminous species, hell bent on accelerating it's own destruction and in the process taking a lot of other creatures with it. Ask an Urang Utan what they think of a creature that destroys their habitat or any of the other myriad species that we have exterminated or can only conserve in captivity. Too clever by half for our own good.
"Those who believe in God must accept that this is as it is meant to be and I must say that every religious person I know has no difficulty at all with this."
What of us that are areligious? From my perspective religion of any description is nothing more than unacceptance of the unknowable and pathetic simplification; fundamentalism it's most basic form where science is denied. Einstien, for a man so intelligent came out with a surprising statement: "God is is not complicated" Perhaps he would reconsider; it's only the little bits that we can see that aren't complicated.
What the hell do I care? I've seen the enemy and it is us, to borrow from "Pogo".
We have politicians gabbling on about "sustainable development"; an oxymoron if there ever was one. I despaired some years ago.
Maybe I'll last another 15 years or so and after that , bugger it.
Justin old mate, good to see you in fine fettle as ever.
In defence of humanity
I don't often reply to posts in this tone, Scott. Not out of any disrespect to the writer, mind you. Just that if that is their view then I can't think of anything useful to say. It sure is a conversation stopper. Let me guess, but you wouldn't be a bright star on the after dinner speaker circuit.
But I sense a tiny touch of the desperate here. A slight hint of the lady protesting too much - so I will to yours. Reply, I mean.
I don't know who it was, but I'm certain it wasn't me, who first observed that the defining feature of our species is that we are the only known element of the universe that is aware that there is a universe.
Why single out us for your hatred? If you in believe in what you believe then you cannot believe in morality. There is no morality without man. Isn't speciesism only the ultimate and vilest extreme of racism? Why the discrimination? Why not destroy all of life wherever it rears its ugly head? Like weeds in a Japanese stone garden. Eradicate it on sight with whatever it takes. We know where it leads. Maybe the protozoa look harmless but before you know it, quite literally, you have intelligence. And with that, awareness. Any pesticide will do so long as it doesn't contain anything organic.
To see a world without humans is to see a cold barren universe wthout life and without purpose. Why exist at all? Why a universe at all?
You obviously believe you are headed for oblivion. Fine. You are entitled to that and you may well be right. It's not for me to say. You might even believe you are already there. I can say that if you do, you'd be wrong. Just as you are so wrong about the rest of us. All of whom also have lives and most of whom would very much prefer to live it out in peace no matter where it takes us.
A wondrous creation
Geoff, I agree with with much you write, I also cannot see Woman extinguishing herself (except the Tamils, female suicide bombers are virtually non-existent).
I also look at humanity, and think what a marvellous creation, and though I cannot say I believe in a God, the fact that such complex creatures exist cannot, I think, be explained by simple survival of the fittest.
Not that I think that Man is the only marvellous creation - other animals have astounding levels of intelligence and empathy, plants and animals are such sophisticated chemical factories.....
Ditto
I could not agree more, Jay.
I have often thought that animals are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. The intelligence of the octopus, for instance, (jokes aside about soccer match predictions) is startling. No one knew that until recently. The same for squid apparently. When I studied zoology at school octopus were somewhere between fish and worms in the animal hierarchy.
Someone once asked me whether I believed my dogs had souls. Absolutely, I said. A complete no brainer. If humans have souls then most certainly so do the dogs.
The end of living and the beginning of survival
While my last post Geoff had a certain element of late-night-one -too-many in it, on re-reading I can find no intimation of hatred in it but read into it what you will. The fact is that hatred forms no part of my psyche; anger, yes which soon dissipates but I cannot imagine hating. Certainly there are people and aberrant animals that I'd like to see neutralised and if that takes extermination so be it, but without crueltey. No creature in my perfect world would be aware of it's end before it's time.
If you followed my link and read the article in it's entirety you would have noted Walt Kelly's attitude which I admire:
"Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward!"
It was your "We are magnifecent" that raised my ire; no certainly we are bloody not! Individuals can be magnificent; humanity by and and large are a superstitious, unreasoning bunch mindless of anything else but their own comfort.
For the life of me I cannot understand the rationalisation process that iinvolves equating "divine purpose" (i.e.if God didn't want us to do it He wouldn't have given us the power.) with the notion of God as the creator.
What, did He get it wrong first time round?
"Nuh, this is shit. I'd better come up with mankind to change it all. Don't like all those trees, tarmac and houses look a bloody sight better and those Dodos, what was I thinking?"
What did He come up with? aberrant creatures with jaws too small for their teeth and compared to their cousins, pathetically puny. Shouldn't have survived the first mutation but for the forebrain.
Yes Geoff, you mightn't but I can certainly imagine a world without these verminous destructive creatures; it is one that existed for 99.999999% of this planets existence. Certainly it required savagery to keep things in balance, that's nature but not on the scale that we deploy.
Yes, it is a beautiful world, just and rapidly losing it's beauty. You must be able to comprehend the simple idea that exponential growth in human biomass cannot continue indefinitely.
I'll give that one a clap
With one hand or two?
Femme Fatale
Geoff, my friend the homo spaien, it looks like Madam Capital is all yours. It would appear the neisseria gonorrhoeae & spirochetal bacterium including other (viral) nasties, are not a problem when passion, greed and lust trumps common sense.
PS. What would you recommend for a bad dose of the mange?
Your friend Winnie, the vombatus ursinus.
That depends ...
It was the bloody fleas
Rats are people too you know, and they are still cute and furry. Sadly, rats from the human point of view have copped a bad rap over this Black Death thing.
It was bloody fleas that did the killing, not the rats.
OK the rats were not altogether innocent - it was sort of a coalition of the willing, so to speak, but it was all for a good reason: to eliminate tyrants who were in the process of taking over planet Earth and putting everything out of whack.
You see, a nasty disease had infected English localities, the natural harmony between the environment and life forces had become unbalanced. As such mother nature contracted the fleas to clean up the infection - kill as many homo-sapiens as possible.
The only part the rats played was to provide fleas with free transport, it was really insignificant in the scheme of things (and they were acting under orders) - besides if the rats didn't provide the transport then the dogs would have (man's best friend - haha).
Mother nature, along with the fleas and rats were simply doing what was right and responsible, and it sort of worked for a while.
Sadly they won the battle but eventually lost the war. Mother nature hasn't forgotten and really hates it when homo-sapiens trump Her.
Just wait, She'll get her own back one way or the other - by that time I'll be a cockroach - but not one of them nazi ones, them bloody crout cockies always want too much of a good thing, and spend far too much time rootin.
Remember rats were cute and
Rats are people too you know, and they are still cute and furry. Sadly, rats from the human point of view have copped a bad rap over this Black Death thing.
It was bloody fleas that did the killing, not the rats.
OK the rats were not altogether innocent - it was sort of a coalition of the willing, so to speak, but it was all for a good reason: to eliminate tyrants who were in the process of taking over planet Earth and putting everything out of whack.
You see, a nasty disease had infected English localities, the natural harmony between the environment and life forces had become unbalanced. As such mother nature contracted the fleas to clean up the infection - kill as many homo-sapiens as possible.
The only part the rats played was to provide fleas with free transport, it was really insignificant in the scheme of things (and they were acting under orders) - besides if the rats didn't provide the transport then the dogs would have (man's best friend - haha).
Mother nature, along with the fleas and rats were simply doing what was right and responsible, and it sort of worked for a while.
Sadly they won the battle but eventually lost the war. Mother nature hasn't forgotten and really hates it when homo-sapiens trump Her.
Just wait, She'll get her own back one way or the other - by that time I'll be a cockroach and a most lovely cockraoch at that - but not one of them nazi ones, them bloody crout cockies always want too much of a good thing.
Bravo...more...more
Giving the poxy whore what she deserves:
Evicted family breaks locks, reclaims home.
Geoff mate, if I were you I'd give her back to Paul, at least for a few years or so.
Move on means a lot, really
Geoff Pahoff: "Oh yes. Gripping about the past is always big in Tehran these days. It has been since 1979. That's another feature of the insane political culture that infests Iran and its colonies in Lebanon and Gaza, and which we dare not call its name lest we be accused of racism or something. For the mad mullahs, 1953 is just the start. For them the crusades and the seige of Vienna were just yesterday".
So true.
If any of us were to meet a person under fifty (at least) who didn't like Japanese, Russians, Germans etc because of WWII, well, we'd think a lot of not very nice things about them. The Middle East has, and has had, its problems; however, none any worse than say Asia. Seriously, how about Europe?
When is a joke officially funny? When does complaining about 1953 become a little pathetic?
Red Herring, here I come.
Geoff, Paul.. We study history because it illuminates what is currently going on. The problem is not that we did it in the past, but that we are continuing to do it. (As a side issue, please note that Israel has been milking the past for all it can.).
Why are the US and Australia interfering in other countries? Half a world away?
History lesson
That might be the reason you study history. Good, if true. But you really should only speak for yourself. You should most certainly not purport to speak for Islamist lunatics. Do you really see the Holocaust denying Ahmadinejad as a student of history? Illumination of the present has nothing to do with the "study" of history for these people. It is a travesty of reason and decency to even suggest it.
The slur that Israel has been milking the past for what it can is as offensive and dishonest as it is irrelevant. For there to be any remote parallel with the Islamist radicals that pollute the Middle East there would have to be Israeli, or at least Jewish, terrorist squads targeting, say, innocent Germans. There never has and there never will be. The very thought is insane. As obscene as it sounds, even that would not compare with the foul world view of the mad mullahs of Iran.
There is no interference in other countries going on at all, by the way. Just dealing with a bunch of depraved lunatics who are doing what they can to steal other people's countries so that they have a platform to quench a thirst for as much infidel blood as they can spill wherever they can. Including of course Americans and Australians. As they have in the past at every opportunity.
That's what they say. They say they mean it and that it's the unalterable will of God. I believe them. You can choose to believe whoever you like.
Avoiding red herrings
There is no interference in other countries going on at all, by the way.
Are you saying that we did not invade Iraq in 2003?
Getting rid of rotting fish
Just taking care of old business, Jay. Saddam should have been rendered dead meat back in 1991 when the world had the best chance of getting rid of him with the minimum of mess. Well more mess, I suppose. That war was short but particularly nasty, as all short wars are. A lot of Iraqi soldiers were killed in that war.
Saddam was a fascist of the worst sort and the world is much better off without him no matter what now happens in Iraq. So of course are the Iraqis, though they can be forgiven for being mute with gratitude. The process was unacceptably bloody and worse. In fact unforgivable. I blame Bush I for that more than Bush II, but they are both to blame.
Costs v Benefits - Wombats and Prawns
Not really, in fact homoshit, this from the horse's mouth.
Somewhat prophetic don't you think? George senior said similar.
And what is Iraq like today - a bit like this I suppose. A broken, corrupt, violent and divided country where democracy is a sham, where the likes of the aforementioned (neocon) horse et al, are making a shit load of cash from the US taxpayer; as poverty increased in both Iraq, and the US since the war began.
In Geoff's (ideological) eyes it all apears to be a matter of costs v benefits; an easy choice for someone who would rather play poker than play an active role in executing one's ideology on the front line - or anywhere near the front line. Wars are OK - but only for other people to fight and suffer.
But as Kissinger is supposed to have said:
Kissinger, in wombat mythology is not rated very highly I might add. In fact he is a homo moron elitist - I dare not mention what the prawns think.
Treif
The saddest truth
"Paul M, it seems like you would have preferred those corporate bludgers to go belly up back in 08, and allow capitalism to take its course without all this Keynesian bail out stuff".
Yes, because I'm a true capitalist. Capitalism is like the most beautiful, interesting woman with the foulest temper. Would you really be anywhere else? Really?
All things happen for a reason, even recessions, and depressions.
LUV: Not having to say sorry
It seems, Paul, as if your advocacy of capitalism is based on limbic rather than rational thinking.
No country advocates pure capitalism, because it simply won't work: we don't want states like Afghanistan where warlords and gangs provide police and defence services, or for Microsoft to monopolise the IT software industry. Or taxi industries with no government oversight.
Not criticising limbic thinking, after all crocodiles have survived longer than humans. However, capitalism is based on rationalism..
It's mine
Capitalism is like the most beautiful, interesting woman with the foulest temper.
I'm stealing that.
War: Capitalist style
US pays Taliban to provide security.
And everyone is laughing all the way to the bank
scratches head...
Fmd, again the Catch 22 metaphor for Afghanistan.
How long is this nonsense going to keep up?
When are we finally going to find out the real reason, if any, that we are in Afghanistan?
I suspect economics on a couple of different levels, may be involved. The American brand is default in currency etc and loss of prestige might engender a loss of faith in the American economy and currency with unforseen consequences for US control of the levers of its own and the global economy?
Perhaps the burning up of ordinance and equipment is needed to sustain industry while America hovers on the verge of high unemployment and protracted recession?
The war is needed to clog out rival powers in the region?
Economic reasons to do with resources and places that may or may not exist and or come under US influence or control?
So many possibilities, but none fit the narratives offered by the US and its proxies.
Thanks for link, Jay.