The new national security team President-elect Obama is assembling reflects both caution and political pluck as the commander-in-chief-to-be leans on a Bush holdover as Defense secretary to ease the US out of Iraq and a Washington-savvy retired general to oversee national security matters. Both choices, Robert Gates to stay on as Defense secretary and James Jones as national security adviser, reflect Mr. Obama's stated desire to build a bipartisan cabinet that is also effective. In Secretary Gates, Obama chooses a Defense secretary popular with both parties who will temper his ambitious campaign pledge to get out of Iraq in 16 months. The choice of Mr. Jones, a retired Marine general with deep Washington roots, will help Obama to establish his own national security identity in a town wary of his military inexperience. The two were formally introduced by Obama Monday along with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his new secretary of State and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief, among other new members of his cabinet. In making his choices, Obama said he sought foreign policy pragmatists who may not agree with one another but who "share a core vision."
The new national security team President-elect Obama is assembling reflects both caution and political pluck as the commander-in-chief-to-be leans on a Bush holdover as Defense secretary to ease the US out of Iraq and a Washington-savvy retired general to oversee national security matters.
Both choices, Robert Gates to stay on as Defense secretary and James Jones as national security adviser, reflect Mr. Obama's stated desire to build a bipartisan cabinet that is also effective.
In Secretary Gates, Obama chooses a Defense secretary popular with both parties who will temper his ambitious campaign pledge to get out of Iraq in 16 months. The choice of Mr. Jones, a retired Marine general with deep Washington roots, will help Obama to establish his own national security identity in a town wary of his military inexperience.
The two were formally introduced by Obama Monday along with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his new secretary of State and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief, among other new members of his cabinet.
In making his choices, Obama said he sought foreign policy pragmatists who may not agree with one another but who "share a core vision."
Sane evil
oxymoron of the day...
first symptom of anglo-asshole disease, reduce linguistic meaning to zero, then proceed according to agenda plan...
sheesh
leaves us with 'insane good' as the other end of the seesaw.
politics as usual. lesser evil as 'good' ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Evil - being interested only in achieving your own aims regardless of their effect on others (with a side order of enjoying hurting others) - and sanity are orthogonal. Not one-dimensional.
In this case, insane evil would be wildly flailing around the place in a way unlikely even to achieve your aims repeatedly, while sane evil would be acting amorally but effectively to achieve your aims, not making unnecessary enemies or doing unnecessary damage to your own interests.
It's quite possible to have insane good and sane good. I'll let you come up with your own examples.
LOL. Indeed it does!
But he does give a pretty good starter for a definition:
Colman:
Evil - being interested only in achieving your own aims regardless of their effect on others (with a side order of enjoying hurting others)
Lately, I've been hearing and reading more references to "evil" in more "liberal" press. Like this, for example:
Don't rationalize the evil of terrorism
Evil In Mumbai : NPR
... after covering too many killings, as a reporter or host, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Oklahoma City or Somalia, I've come to the conclusion that the perpetrators of such crimes might just be ... evil. Evil is a word that many people of my generation shrink from using. It seems so imprecise and uneducated -- biblical, rather than cerebral and informed.But there are times and crimes that remind me how often the Bible gets it right.
... after covering too many killings, as a reporter or host, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Oklahoma City or Somalia, I've come to the conclusion that the perpetrators of such crimes might just be ... evil.
Evil is a word that many people of my generation shrink from using. It seems so imprecise and uneducated -- biblical, rather than cerebral and informed.
But there are times and crimes that remind me how often the Bible gets it right.
I can't help but wonder, is it that because now that liberals hold the reins of power in the U.S., we feel more comfortable using words like "good" and "evil" that we used to reproach the conservatives for post-9/11. (I am not referring to Colman here, but to American liberals in the U.S. media.)
Or maybe my assumptions are wrong: for example, maybe liberals were also condemning evil during the Bush years as well, but i did not pick up on it in the din of the conservative cacophony. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Where's my bong? In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
A word humans use to give agency to that which fills them with Fear and/or Loathing
Hold on. OF COURSE! It's YOUR bong collection!
But...
(I remember being on the train, I remember Twank producing a grey handkerchief from his pocket, a handkerchief he opened, revealing a brownish lump. I remember him saying,
"Psychedelic truffle. Just try a tiny bit. I want to sell them to afew."
I remember thinking, "Well, anything to help afew!" and taking a bite.
And then I remember a BANG! and a voice shouting, "Bollocks!")
But....Essex? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I'd like to see a right wing definition of evil that isn't tautological. (E.g. replace 'godless' with 'evil', swap back and forth indefinitely.)
Right wingers believe liberals are evil because...?
In the Colman example we can see (get your bong ready) the necessary connection between our concepts of good and evil:
As exemplified by Colman's casual
intro, which he typed either regardless of its effect on others (specifically melo), or maybe he typed it with a side order of enjoying hurting others (specifically melo), while intent on "being interested only in achieving [his] aims", which were either to justify his use of "sanely evil" (hope you're puffing hard on that bong!) and/or to poke melo with a pointy stick (back to that enjoyment of hurting others schtick)
All of which leads me to conclude that Colman is Evil.
Your turn!
(Plus I snuck in some oriental philosophy--double bong hit over here, and a glass of beer!) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
All of which leads me to conclude that Colman is Evil
i think good people can occasionally enjoy acting evil, without doing damage.
'bollocks' is an adorable greeting, is it common in ireland? a sort of friendly kick in the nuts?
never had the privilege of visiting the emerald isle yet.
the colman grump factor is truly one of my favourite things about this blog... you can feel the atlantic gale winds howling and keening in over the sodden heather, aaah, bracing!
:)>:(>:) ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
From your comments I'd have pegged you more like this:
though more combed, of course.
If you want a serious point, I don't think you would have taken that tone with, say, InWales or Jerome--you might have said, "If you don't mind my saying so, I find that to be a bit....bollocks"--the famous Colman humour.
But if you wish to consider yourself unfairly maligned--if your humour bypass is switched ON today--feel free! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
if you say so. are you describing a personal philosophy here? i see it differently... 'sanity' is a state of cleanliness or health, according to my understanding, etymologically speaking.
so real evil can be coterminous with mental health, in your opinion?
(replaces crotch-guard) ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
In the very long term I don't see evil being an effective way of operating, but you'll have to convince a lot of people to abandon foreign policy "realism".
NEW YORK -- Rush Limbaugh has seldom been a fan of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the conservative radio pundit has given his blessing to her selection as the next secretary of state. He calls it "a brilliant stroke" by President-elect Barack Obama, who opposed Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Limbaugh weighs in on the new administration as one of Barbara Walters' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2008," which airs Thursday on ABC. Says Limbaugh: "You know the old phrase, 'You keep your friends close and your enemies closer?' How can she run for president in 2012? She'd have to run against the incumbent and be critical of him _ the one who made her secretary of state."
President-Elect Barack Obama has declared that the United States should maintain the "strongest military on the planet", while aiming to restore his country's global moral leadership. Mr Obama promised greater use of diplomacy and greater emphasis on building alliances around the world as he formally introduced his national security team, which included Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But the former Illinois senator, whose rise was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, delivered a message of surprising toughness that at times could have come from George W Bush. Mr Obama said: "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet." With the responsibilities of office just seven weeks away, he added that his administration was "absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism".
Mr Obama promised greater use of diplomacy and greater emphasis on building alliances around the world as he formally introduced his national security team, which included Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
But the former Illinois senator, whose rise was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, delivered a message of surprising toughness that at times could have come from George W Bush.
Mr Obama said: "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet."
With the responsibilities of office just seven weeks away, he added that his administration was "absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism".
oh please... i thought this kind of phallus worship was just to get elected...
all that rhetoric, now wasted on becoming a malware salesman.
'baroque' obama? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
It would be nice to imagine they might go for the "most effective" rather than the strongest. Their fondness on remote hi-tech systems may reduce exposure of troops, but creates a detachment that is counter-productive in any operation where the sympathies of the local population are up for grabs. And that's what 21st century military involvement is all about, yet the US has designed a military to win the first and second world wars which actually makes it largely ineffective, however "strong" it is. keep to the Fen Causeway
