The rancid relationship | 87 comments (87 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The rancid relationship (none / 0)

Is this system even workable? I remember when Reagan was funneling billions to his cronies for years to develop it, they finally admitted it was a completely unworkable notion, which is what scientists had been saying all along.

So that's the last I heard. When W. brought it up in the 2000 debates I was flabbergasted that he was bringing up the discredited Star Wars plan. I could not believe the media never even mentioned it had been discredited and that the public had seemingly forgotten.

So... did it get re-credited somehow? Is there some technology advance that's made the system workable? Or are we just haggling over where we're building bases and who we're funneling money to for an imaginary future system?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (none / 1)

No, it did not get re-credited. They faked the results of trials, rigged the tests, and finally decided to claim it worked without any further testing.

It's just an elaborate scam of the national treasury.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (none / 0)

Thanks for confirming. It's breathtaking. Honestly, not a single mention of this should be uttered without noting it's an imaginary/impossible/hypothetical system. May as well be arguing about where we're going to install our time machines.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (none / 1)

You don't want America to develop time machines?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (4.00 / 3)

Do you mean those machines that will always loop back to the beginning of Bush's first term, giving him each time another go at not screwing up the world?

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (4.00 / 3)

Y'know, I think we have already. It really feels like 1988 here.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (4.00 / 3)

Going for 1984!

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (none / 1)

I almost said that but figured there was no need to sully a great piece of literature by having it confused with memories of the Reagan/Bush era.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The rancid relationship (4.00 / 2)

It's funny, I remember you saying that already. It's begun. We're screwed.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1984 n/t (4.00 / 2)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 n/t (4.00 / 3)

Now what does that "n/t" stand for by the way, I've seen it used all over the place and have no clue.

Will iron clothes for this info.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 2)

It means no text. It's for people who are only seeing the subject lines. Now about that ironing!!!!

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 2)

Well since we've been looping for eons, you'll know by now that I'll find some excuse not to do it, you'll protest, and it'll all end in an ugly stand-off with no clothes ironed in the end. So let's just break the cycle now while we can, what do you say?

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 2)

Nice try. The way I remember that it's gonna happen is that you not only get all my ironing done, but my sewing as well. No use trying to change the future past, Alex.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 2)

Ah yes, I remember now. But that was another me from the future past, it wasn't the me from now, I think.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (none / 0)

Dammit, do you people always want me to go for the easy line? Where's the nuance anymore?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 3)

We don't do nuance.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1984 (4.00 / 2)

I think you'll find it's spelled nukluance...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]