Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » WW 09-24-2009 - OSC's Started Civilization/World Watch again (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: WW 09-24-2009 - OSC's Started Civilization/World Watch again
Jon Camp
Member
Member # 192

 - posted      Profile for Jon Camp   Email Jon Camp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Civilization Watch

Pretty weak piece, full of generalizations, but.. he's writing it again.

Edited to add date of column to title.

[ October 01, 2009, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Jon Camp ]

Posts: 782 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good that someone is watching the Rhinoceros Times. And it is good to know OSC has more columns planned.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is, in fact, not a single point of substance made in the entire article. There is no analysis, no insight, no attempt to develop an idea. It is nothing more than a childish parade of insults.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I am going to cry. Before hes made at least SOME effort before... but now its like he just didn't care.

I'm going to go into my little corner and cry now, so much of it is just so wrong doesn't he ever watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

Commences crying.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really wish he'd spend some time browsing the actual fact checking sites rather than subscribing to the right wing line and using it to validate itself.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So ... why haven't I written a World Watch till now?

Because you already got the message without my help."

I assumed he was being cut off from publishing after the last article he wrote which was pulled from the Mormon times [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC had an article pulled from the Mormon Times? How, since that publication is distributed in newsprint? Or do you mean it was rejected before publication? Or that it was later removed from the Mormon Times archives? Knowing what the article was would be helpful...
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know which one I am talking about. Maybe it was published on the paper, but from what I can tell it was pulled from the website.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orson Scott Card said:
quote:
I still remember that President Bush was called a liar constantly, even though -- and I'm willing to stand by this -- he was never found to have told a lie in his entire presidency.

(Remember, a lie is when you knowingly make a false statement, not when you simply turn out to be wrong about something that you believed to be true.)

I'll offer warrantless wiretapping as a case of Bush lying. It's actually the clear-cut example I'm aware of. On April 20, 2004, Bush said:
quote:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Yet we now know that Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping shortly after 9/11, meaning he knew about warrantless wiretapping before making this statement.

I've responded with this several times to several people who have claimed Bush never lied, but I've never heard a response. Maybe they think it's not actually a lie, maybe they think it's beneath a response - I don't know. But I'll toss it out there again.

P.S. - Yes, I know OSC doesn't respond to these forums, but someone else might want to respond.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Camp
Member
Member # 192

 - posted      Profile for Jon Camp   Email Jon Camp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TommySama -- It's still extant. Just the link is different now is all. Still easy to find in his archive of columns.
Posts: 782 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The old joke about politicians works, be it Bush, Obama, Congress, Senate, or local officials.

How can you tell a politician is lying?
Her/his lips are moving.

It's the nature of our system. Perhaps, someday, people can grow up and realize we are the system, and we allow this to happen. Our politicians lie to us constantly because we elect them to do so.

Instead of whining about Bush lied, people died, Obama lied, etc, etc, maybe we should start where we can make a difference; with ourselves.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, that column was widely misunderstood. OSC did not call for overthrowing the government but asked rhetorically how long a government could keep the loyalty of its citizens if it permitted heterosexual marriage to be devalued. And he was not condemning SSM in particular with that remark, but suggesting any society which failed to give a lot of support to heterosexual marriage was doomed. This is probably true to the extent that any society has to give some importance to marriage and childrearing; but in practice most societies have valued marriage less than the United States does now, and a whole lot less than OSC thinks should be the case. And when societies have collapsed, that has rarely had anything at all to do with their customs regarding marriage and childrearing, but with military defeat or exhaustion of resources. But that is just my opinion, and of course OSC is entitled to his own reading of history.

Anyway thanks to Jon Camp for finding the currently correct link to that column.

[ October 05, 2009, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"TommySama -- It's still extant. Just the link is different now is all. Still easy to find in his archive of columns. "

Thanks for the correction. I kept searching for the wrong title [DOH]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
OK, that column was widely misunderstood. OSC did not call for overthrowing the government but asked rhetorically how long a government could keep the loyalty of its citizens if it permitted heterosexual marriage to be devalued.

OSC has written more than one column, you know. I don't see how you can read the following, and think that OSC is just setting up a hypothetical situation. (emphasis mine)

quote:
The other recourse is this: We citizens do not have to recognize any attempt by any body of government to redefine a human relationship that existed for thousands of years before any existing government or constitution was established...

What we must make clear is that we will never allow a dictatorship to define what marriages and families are. Those who have taken this dictatorial power have done so illegally and unconstitutionally; we do not have to obey dictators in America; the Constitution does not require it. Indeed, defending the Constitution requires us to repudiate would-be dictators...

What if Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, orthodox Jews -- and people of any religion who believe in democracy and the Constitution -- all retired from the military or police, or refused to enlist or reenlist as long as they are going to be used to enforce the "laws" made up by dictators?

How long would the government retain even a shred of legitimacy in other citizens' eyes if they are dragging us off to jail or taking away our children because we have committed the crime of wanting to raise our them in our own religion, or wanting to be subject only to laws passed by Constitutional means?

Along the way, we would declare public strikes: Everyone who rejects judicial dictatorship simply stays home from work and spends no money, anywhere. The first time, for one day. The second time, for two. If people get fired, we will establish strike funds to help them keep going. But we also boycott anyone who fires a striker.

What we need to decide, right now, is that we will not be ruled by dictators, our children will not be propagandized by the New Puritans, and we will not allow any government to redefine marriage...

We have long been disunited and ineffective in our resistance to the encroachment of dictators. We have to decide, now, that they have finally gone too far, striking into the heart of our homes. We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers.


Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers."

That doesn't read like overthrow to me. It reads, if anything, like solidarity/civil disobedience.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Swbarnes2, the passage you quoted indeed imagines making the government unable to function by what would amount to a general strike. What I said was that OSC's words had been misinterpreted in the column which TommySama thought had been removed from the Mormon Times website - specifically that "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" had been carelessly read to be a present commitment by OSC himself rather than an imagined resolution which might be taken by "married people" at some indefinite time in the future.

In any case, OSC's present views should be considered uncertain. In every column before the 2008 election, he wrote under the false belief that the pressure for approval of SSM came from judges:
quote:
These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
But the 2008 election had Proposition 8 in California winning only by 52% to 48% - and the months which followed had the legislatures and governors of most of the New England states enacting SSM by the usual legislative processes. And next month the citizens of Maine may very well support SSM in a public referendum. These events must have made it clear to him that a very large number of married people want to extend the institution of civil marriage and its benefits to same sex couples. His proposed alliance of "Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, orthodox Jews" suffers from the defect that a substantial proportion or perhaps even a majority of the members of these groups favor same sex marriage - and all of them together would form a minority among American voters even were they united in their opinions.

So at some point OSC will have to choose between his opposition to SSM and his commitment to republican government. If the people of a state vote to legalize SSM, he will either have to accept that result or propose the establishment of a theocracy which would forbid members of the United States from enacting laws he and his church do not like. How he will decide I do not know, but it seems premature to speculate on what he will write on this subject in the future. And whatever he writes will have only a minor effect on what eventually takes place, as while he certainly has more influence than most of us, that still gives him very little influence upon the course of national affairs.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
[QB] Swbarnes2, the passage you quoted indeed imagines making the government unable to function by what would amount to a general strike. What I said was that OSC's words had been misinterpreted in the column which TommySama thought had been removed from the Mormon Times website - specifically that "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" had been carelessly read to be a present commitment by OSC himself rather than an imagined resolution which might be taken by "married people" at some indefinite time in the future.

OSC is a writer. He's capable of expressing himself such that his meaning is understood. He wrote the way he wrote because he wanted people to come away from his columns thinking and feeling a certain way. Saying it's "just a rhetorical trick" pretty much proves my point.

And when he writes other columns when he openly says "Hey, we should go Galt on the government", it's a little stupid to be saying "OSC doesn't really want society to do anything seriously disruptive, because in this column, it's just hypothetcial".

quote:
In any case, OSC's present views should be considered uncertain. In every column before the 2008 election, he wrote under the false belief that the pressure for approval of SSM came from judges:
"False belief"? A two second google would have told him the facts. At some point "choose to be ignorant" or "choose to lie about the facts" are are the fairer descriptions of what he's doing.

Frnakly, OSC does this a lot. When an arguer constantly argues from "false beliefs" as you'd call them, at some point, you have to hold them repsonsible for that, and not just shrug it off as a one-time "Oops".

quote:
These events must have made it clear to him that a very large number of married people want to extend the institution of civil marriage and its benefits to same sex couples.
I think he knew that already, but really, I wouldn't make any assumptions about what's clear or not to him. He's a writer. He's very capable of making what he thinks clear.

Wouldn't you agree that it was "clear" that anyone writing about California's Supreme Court decisions ought to look up how those judges were selected before writing? It's clear to me, but perhaps you think it wasn't clear to OSC.

quote:
His proposed alliance of "Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, orthodox Jews" suffers from the defect that a substantial proportion or perhaps even a majority of the members of these groups favor same sex marriage - and all of them together would form a minority among American voters even were they united in their opinions.
I'm not arguing for its feasibility. But it's what he thinks should be done. Which directly contradicts the assertion that OSC doesn't advocate doing anything extreme, only speaks hypothetically about people doing extreme things.

quote:
So at some point OSC will have to choose between his opposition to SSM and his commitment to republican government. If the people of a state vote to legalize SSM, he will either have to accept that result or propose the establishment of a theocracy which would forbid members of the United States from enacting laws he and his church do not like. How he will decide I do not know, but it seems premature to speculate on what he will write on this subject in the future.
Who's doing that? I pointed out what he wrote in the past. The spirit seems plenty willing for serious protest.

quote:
And whatever he writes will have only a minor effect on what eventually takes place, as while he certainly has more influence than most of us, that still gives him very little influence upon the course of national affairs.
Okay, sure, but in the meantime, people can stop white-washing what people are arguing, and deal with existing arguments. Claiming that people or groups do or don't believe something when their published arguments clearly show the opposite is not helpful, I think it's pretty harmful.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Swbarnes2, I should generally agree with what you said, with some reservations. First, while OSC is indeed a skilled writer, he also makes mistakes from time to time. In the column cited by TommySama, his syntax is extraordinarily convoluted - and I think that was a rare moment of clumsiness. You are free to imagine he wished to give the impression of saying something without actually saying it, but why should he bother? What he actually said was acceptable enough for the Mormon Times, or for any other publication which employs him as a columnist. Of course he may merely have wanted to make waves, which the column certainly did, but I have heard nothing to suggest he enjoys being demonized by his opponents. On the other hand, I suppose he could find that better than being ignored, as might otherwise be the case.

Secondly OSC is often poorly informed. When my wife was watching FOX the other day I caught part of an interview of Lawrence Eagleburger by Greta Van Susteren, and it was instantly apparent that Eagleburger had forgotten more about foreign affairs than OSC ever learned. Eagleburger should have - it turned out he was George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State for the last four months, and had previously spent his whole career dealing with foreign nations. That did not necessarily mean I agreed with him, as others equally well informed have reached different conclusions, but his expertise and familiarity with the subject matter were obvious from his first words. By comparison everything OSC has ever written on foreign affairs has been at a high school level - essentially a vision of what he would like to be rather than what is. That does not mean he is not capable of penetrating insights or pithy remarks concerning them, as that he does to perfection. But in terms of a balanced and widely informed viewpoint he lacks the background and the skill to provide such a perspective.

Finally, however controversial OSC's views on same sex marriage may be, I do not think he really knows or cares much about it. What concerns him is the decline of traditional heterosexual marriage, an issue in which the rise of SSM forms only a small part. And what he has written on SSM has been over a period of twenty years, so I am always hesitant to assume he still thinks as he did in 1990. Perhaps he does, but I shall wait for his next column on the subject before being sure what he believes now. On the other hand, you have probably been reading and discussing OSC's columns longer than I have, so you may indeed have a better grasp of his personality and his views.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
[QB] Swbarnes2, I should generally agree with what you said, with some reservations. First, while OSC is indeed a skilled writer, he also makes mistakes from time to time.

Factual mistakes, sure.

But "Oops, I didn't mean to give the impression that I am willing to engage in extreme, even illegal acts to overturn the governments decision to resepct same-sex marriage"?

I don't think that's a mistake he's made.

quote:
In the column cited by TommySama, his syntax is extraordinarily convoluted - and I think that was a rare moment of clumsiness.
Again, you can think that, but when another article says "people who feel like I do should be willing to do illegal things and go to jail to protest this", it's harder and harder to maintain that argument.

I just don't think accomplished professional writers are so incompetant.

quote:
You are free to imagine he wished to give the impression of saying something without actually saying it, but why should he bother?
He said exactly what he meant in the column I cited. I don't see that he was hiding anything at all. The people who think that OSC advocates rather extreme measures to protest against SSM are supported by the text of his published columns.

quote:
Of course he may merely have wanted to make waves, which the column certainly did, but I have heard nothing to suggest he enjoys being demonized by his opponents.
My point was that people who say that OSC advocates extreme measures are not demonizing him. Just read the parts I cited previously.

quote:
Secondly OSC is often poorly informed.
You are presenting this as if it were an extenuating circumstance. Why?

quote:
That does not mean he is not capable of penetrating insights or pithy remarks concerning them, as that he does to perfection.
I don't care what he's capable of, nor do I see why it matters. I care what he does.

quote:
Finally, however controversial OSC's views on same sex marriage may be, I do not think he really knows or cares much about it. What concerns him is the decline of traditional heterosexual marriage, an issue in which the rise of SSM forms only a small part.
I can only judge by what he's written, and what he's done. Has he written as much about divorce as he does about SSM? Has he advocated illegal protest to divorce laws? Has he joined boards dedicated to eliminating divorce laws?

quote:
And what he has written on SSM has been over a period of twenty years, so I am always hesitant to assume he still thinks as he did in 1990.
Then don't assume! Read one of his more recent columns. Like the one I cited.

quote:
Perhaps he does, but I shall wait for his next column on the subject before being sure what he believes now.
You really think that over the last 5 years, he hasn't written enough to draw conclusions from?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I could draw conclusions. But this subject is changing rapidly, and I do nor really care what OSC writes. In writing for the Mormon Times, OSC is preaching to the choir at best - and Mormon opinion on this subject is changing along with that of the rest of the United States. So I am content to wait for OSC's next column to see what he now thinks whenever he gets around to writing it.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I finally realized how little research OSC does when, in one of his columns, he didn't know how to spell Hans Blix (who lead weapon inspections in Iraq just prior to the invasion).

"Hans Blick"

Near the bottom. Unless intentional, this is a sure sign he does absolutely no fact-checking.

[ October 07, 2009, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact Hans Blix was spelled wrong twice in the same way in the same column does suggest OSC did not at that time know how to spell that name. But he was most likely confident enough of his false spelling so he did not fact check it, which is a blind spot common among writers, just as I do not fact check my spelling of Obama. On the other hand, unless the Rhinoceros Times has lower standards than my local newspaper, every column submitted is also read through by two professional copy editors before publication - and those seem not to have noticed either. Or one of them may have in fact noticed the Hans Blix spelling and changed it to Hans Blick - either because he thought falsely that OSC had made a mistake, or intentionally because he disliked OSC and wanted to make him look ignorant. The change could even have been made by some hacker or malcontent at the newspapers who managed unauthorized access to the copy before publication, as people do get careless about passwords or walk away from a computer logged in to a supposedly secure site. Since OSC has made many enemies, I should not dismiss the possibility of a malicious change without even considering the matter.

[ October 08, 2009, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If evil hackers cause OSC's typos, can we attribute OSC's views on same-sex marriage also to evil hackers?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The meanings of OSC's columns on same-sex marriage were usually clear at the time, as he is generally a clear writer, and could not have been changed without rewriting them. But introducing faulty spellings into original or archived copies of columns is possible for a hacker. So I could not be sure what was originally printed unless I checked the present online version against surviving copies of the newspaper as published, and critics of OSC cannot be sure either.

Otherwise OSC does change his views sometimes. On December 27, 2001 he wrote,
quote:
As the Afghanistan campaign winds its way toward its conclusion, the leaders of various Afghani groups are trying to work out a way to make a government that might begin to solve the problems that have built up in that country over the years.

We're already hearing Afghani leaders talk about how the United States "has responsibilities" in Afghanistan. How we can't change everything and "just walk away."

Well, actually, we can -- and in fact that's the best policy.

That seems different from his characterization of the situation in Afghanistan in his September 20th column this year,
quote:
a war we could win, but not if Obama caves in to pressure from the stupidest wing of the Democratic Party.


[ October 08, 2009, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lovely thing about democracy is that virtually all of us spend a fair amount of time as the "stupidest wing" of whatever political affiliation we may have.

Our elected leaders, not all of them hopelessly corrupt or inept, struggle to make wise decisions amid a daily barrage of bamboozling demands from a 1001 stupidest wingers (like me or you).

Viewed from that angle, Bush's stated ignorance of daily news bears merit. (Telling the world about it, however, was very stupid.)

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What the typo really confirms for me is a fundamental lack of familiarity with the topic he's writing about in that passage. Someone following the topic with even a little more than cursory interest (reading, not watching tv news) would not make that mistake.

Blix made two reports to the UN prior to the invasion - both can be found online. I'm guessing OSC did not read them.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the typo was the result of malice, it should still be fixed by now.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That does raise the question of why it has not been fixed, KidB. Most likely OSC considers columns something he dashes off and never revisits, which is one reason he is a prolific writer. Or maybe he feels his columns should be preserved as they were printed, mistakes and all.

But the spelling could also be intentional. I doubt OSC liked Hans Blix, and he may have indicated that by spelling his name wrong. It is one way to show contempt for someone, by suggesting he is unimportant. Anyway, Blix is long gone from public affairs, so it is not worth finding out why the mistake was made and preserved. But it was no doubt noticed and brought phone calls and letters to the newspapers at the time, so I think OSC heard about it.

Edited to add: Reading back, I see you already suggested the spelling might have been intentional, KidB. Sorry for duplicating your point without acknowledgement.

[ October 08, 2009, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty certain that Occam's Razor excludes hacking, and contempt. KidB's hypothesis that the misspelling results from ignorance is reinforced by the sheer volume of facts OSC gets wrong in his columns.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By comparison everything OSC has ever written on foreign affairs has been at a high school level - essentially a vision of what he would like to be rather than what is.
You hit tne nail on the head right there.

OSC should retire World Watch or stick to what he does best, read somebody elese's book that he happends to agree with and elborate on the other person's ideas. The Homework Myth and Carless Communites were interesting topics and things he had something interesting to say about. On the other hand when he goes to mainstream politics and foriegn affairs he sounds snide, childish, profoundly ignorant, and most importantly, writing things that other neo-cons are writing with far greater skill and depth of knowledge.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC does seem to hint at the end of this essay that he's going to go back on sabbatical when it comes to current political controversy:

quote:
So ... why haven't I written a World Watch till now?

Because you already got the message without my help.

However, I do have a few essays up my sleeve, which will see the light of day in weeks to come.

Chances are, however, that I won't say much about the hot-button issues that are already being discussed to death. Contrary as I am, I'm more inclined to turn my laser-like -- OK, Eveready flashlight-like -- wit on the issues that I think have more to do with our daily lives than with current politics.

He's got to realize that continuing to write overblown essays about the Leftaliban and his other favorite villains is hurting his reputation in a way that will eventually (if it hasn't already) cut into his livelihood. I think the long break and this first new essay probably signal that he realizes that, but couldn't resist slamming the door loudly on Obama.

I think it's a good decision to try to write about other things instead.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
"We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers."

That doesn't read like overthrow to me. It reads, if anything, like solidarity/civil disobedience.

Looks like a call for the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

"Hey, so what if the law says they should be able to marry! If all of us religions stick together we can bring this country to its knees and get our way! We must stop this destruction of the American family! No nigger will be allowed to marry a white girl as long as we stick together!"

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and all of them together would form a minority among American voters even were they united in their opinions.
I don't think that is necessarily true. If you take into account all the Americans that consider themselves Christians, and I'm pretty sure that is who he was speaking to, then the vast majority would be represented. Without them the "strike" would be pointless. Are you hanging all this on the fact that he left out Protestants? What's he got against Protestants that they can't join his gang of hate? More likely in his zeal he left them out on accident. No matter how you look at it he was calling for actions that are against the laws and very ideas of a republican government.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"We will try all the legal remedies available; but if we are unable to dislodge the dictators, we must, without violence of any kind, make it impossible to govern or defend this nation as long as the dictators claim and exercise these usurped powers."
OSC has been promoting the notion that a few judges have been destroying American traditions regarding the family by legalizing such things as abortion, divorce, and same sex marriage. The only thing true in this is that marriage and family in the United States today are regarded as a lot less important than they were among LDS families when he was growing up in the 1950s. They are regarded as a lot more important than they were in 1900, or in almost any other period I can think of in U.S. history. So he is looking back to a time when he was young, and when LDS values chanced to agree with U.S. government policies in the war against communism and the post World War II baby boom. The 1950s had a temporary prosperity the United States will probably never know again, a soft pedaling of dissenting views inherited from the World War II era, and an emphasis on families created by all the World War II vets who had been forced to put off having children. That all fell apart in the 1960s, which merely meant the United States became less prosperous and more divided and more focused on adult concerns - which is what had been the usual state of affairs since Washington was in office. The LDS Church has always been as far out of step with most Americans in its emphasis on families as it was with polygamy, and expecting a mass movement which will bring about its ideals is a fantasy. Or so it seems to me anyway, but OSC is entitled to his opinion as to what may happen.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice post Hobsen. But...

quote:
but OSC is entitled to his opinion as to what may happen.
We are guests in his living room, neh? I would expect him to show a little more decorum and good manners. You don't just spring this kind of thing on your guests! It's just rude to discuss religion and politics in mixed company like this. [Smile]

So, OSC, how's the writing coming? I trust the wife and kids are well? [Smile]

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, BDT, you remind me of somebody...
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't say? [Smile]

[ October 29, 2009, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: BobDylanThomas ]

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's a "forum leader" and how come they are the only people that can receive Private Messages? Surely Tom qualifies as a leader here?
Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So far as I remember private messages are turned off or never have been enabled in this forum - the software may not support them - and people communicate privately by email. And probably Ornery has no forum leaders. But if you can find a button which would permit sending such a message, I can try sending one to myself as OrneryMod, as that account seems likely to be a forum leader if there are such things.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect that it is not turned on at all. As a test I went to the Ornery Mod post starting the Miscellaneous Chat Part 2 thread and tried clicking on the private message icon and got the same message BDT mentioned. The email link works though.

For those that do not know, the icons to the right of the date time stamp on a post are, in order from left to right, get profile, email, private message, edit, and reply.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1