Laexile wrote:

ashton wrote:I do have a problem with the New Yorker cover. They show a bunch of things that would be awful if they were true (burning the American flag, having a portrait of Osama Bin Laden in the White house, carrying around a machine gun) and Barack and Michelle doing the 'terrorist fist bump.' By lumping the fist bump in with everything else, the implication is that it's evil, and unlike the other things, it's something that is true of the Obamas.

The attempt at humor is sloppy in it's execution. They expect us all to get that these things are evil but aren't really true of the Obamas, but they also expect us to get that they reversed the formula for one part of the picture.

What it does is take something that's true, the fist bump, and the ridiculous media invention, it's a terrorist thing, and then exaggerates it. People who read The New Yorker will get it. This sort of political humor is edgy because it takes on a controversial subject head on.

Last night I was listening to NPR. They had a guest who wrote a book about politician's famous lines. Someone called up and said that George H.W. Bush's line, "A Bill Clinton Presidency would be Jimmy Carter II" was memorable but the most ridiculous thing. When the host suggested it was equivalent to Obama's line, "McCain is another four years of Bush" the caller said in a huff, "No it's not. That one's true."

This cover mocks Republicans. I'm not offended. Yet somehow Democrats are offended.

When you join the Democratic party, you give up your sense of humor. It's why Stuart Saves His Family wasn't funny.

swishnicholson wrote:Obscured in the fog of silliness and "shock" over the cover, is that there is a reasonably interesting article by Ryan Lizza on Obama's rise in Chicago politics. I say reasonbly because while it is very interesting as biography, the thesis of the article is that Obama is a very ambitious man who took political jobs and met people with an eye toward greater things than triumphing in local politics, and managed to offend some previous supporters along the way in doing this. To me this is about as interesting as "dog bites man" as it seems to be the only way to succeed in politics if you don't already have billionaire businessman, high-priced attorney or war hero to put before your name, or the surname of a former president to put after it. But it's still a worthwhile read.

Lizza also did a very interesting and (to me, anyway) balanced portrait of McCain for the New Yorker back in February, available here.

On the other hand, a quick spin through the internet has informed me that the New Yorker is elitist, and that these articles are too long to be actually read-so consider yourselves forewarned.

That article is really long, but I thought very worthwhile--even if, as you say, not surprising.

The irony is how far the article--in its description of a very typical American political trajectory--is from the caricature of the cover. Having that piece in the same issue actually kind of makes me okay with the cover.

I think the flap over the cover is yet another example of manufactured outrage. From the War on Christmas, to Chase Utley's remark at the homerun derby to this Obama cover, our nation has become quite good at getting worked up in ways that serve our interests.

Of course, we've still got a long way to go before we catch up the Muslims, who riot and loot over cartoons and attempt to kill an author of a book no one would have heard about unless we called attention to it through our outrage.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think the flap over the cover is yet another example of manufactured outrage. From the War on Christmas, to Chase Utley's remark at the homerun derby to this Obama cover, our nation has become quite good at getting worked up in ways that serve our interests.

Of course, we've still got a long way to go before we catch up the Muslims, who riot and loot over cartoons and attempt to kill an author of a book no one would have heard about unless we called attention to it through our outrage.

Here's a question, that follows the same theme. Among countries in the developed world, are we the most uptight socially?

phuturephillies wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think the flap over the cover is yet another example of manufactured outrage. From the War on Christmas, to Chase Utley's remark at the homerun derby to this Obama cover, our nation has become quite good at getting worked up in ways that serve our interests.

Of course, we've still got a long way to go before we catch up the Muslims, who riot and loot over cartoons and attempt to kill an author of a book no one would have heard about unless we called attention to it through our outrage.

Here's a question, that follows the same theme. Among countries in the developed world, are we the most uptight socially?

The Swiss, at least the Francophone Swiss, are pretty uptight, in my experience.

Saudis are pretty straight laced I'd have to think although I don't know any personall they could all be raging coke whores

At least one of them is a total freak, tiger prints and all

phuturephillies wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think the flap over the cover is yet another example of manufactured outrage. From the War on Christmas, to Chase Utley's remark at the homerun derby to this Obama cover, our nation has become quite good at getting worked up in ways that serve our interests.

Of course, we've still got a long way to go before we catch up the Muslims, who riot and loot over cartoons and attempt to kill an author of a book no one would have heard about unless we called attention to it through our outrage.

Here's a question, that follows the same theme. Among countries in the developed world, are we the most uptight socially?

At the risk of offending people... I think there's a strong correlation between what you and I might consider "uptight," and prevalence of organized religious observance. "Uptight" can be read, with validity, as "God-fearing."

I use tolerance for televised profanity as a loose measure for all this stuff. That South Park episode a few years back with the repeated use of (obscenity meaning "feces") was interesting, in that it didn't generate much protest but also didn't herald a trend.

dajafi wrote:

phuturephillies wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think the flap over the cover is yet another example of manufactured outrage. From the War on Christmas, to Chase Utley's remark at the homerun derby to this Obama cover, our nation has become quite good at getting worked up in ways that serve our interests.

Of course, we've still got a long way to go before we catch up the Muslims, who riot and loot over cartoons and attempt to kill an author of a book no one would have heard about unless we called attention to it through our outrage.

Here's a question, that follows the same theme. Among countries in the developed world, are we the most uptight socially?

At the risk of offending people... I think there's a strong correlation between what you and I might consider "uptight," and prevalence of organized religious observance. "Uptight" can be read, with validity, as "God-fearing."

I use tolerance for televised profanity as a loose measure for all this stuff. That South Park episode a few years back with the repeated use of (obscenity meaning "feces") was interesting, in that it didn't generate much protest but also didn't herald a trend.

Fair point.

This question came about from a discussion with an older gent I work with. His wife is from Germany, he met her when he was there during Vietnam. In her family growing up, she had a glass of red wine with dinner basically starting when she was a kid. She was taught how to respect alcohol, how it was fine when consumed in moderation and with responsibility. In this country, alcohol is taught to be evil. My feeling is, and I wasn't alone growing up, I wanted to do all the things that I was told were evil. Its the same regarding nudity/sex/things of that nature. Does the fact that these things are perceived differently here affect us when we're younger? Does it lead to bad habits during our most crucial development years?

Philly the Kid wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:It's getting late, so I don't have the time to read the linked article at the moment, nor did I read or research Jones' hypothesis. Just want to quickly comment on the excerpt quoted...

"... Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.”

Just so no one has a mistaken assumption... thermite isn't an "explosive" and isn't used for demolition. It's a composition used to create a aluminothermic reaction, short bursts of heat most commonly used in some forms of welding (beams, rail, etc.).

While a thermite reaction may have been theoretically possible since airplanes are tons o' aluminum and aluminium is highly combustible and there was probably some oxide present in the towers, it's rather unlikely as a thermite reaction requires a precise mixture of aluminum and metal oxide. IOW, would have been one heck of a coincidence that the amount of aluminum from the planes and amount of oxide (rust) from beams, etc. were in the exact proportion to accidentially create a thermite reaction. Also, a thermite reaction occurs in short bursts, it doesn't provide a prolonged source of heat. And the amount of heat it can take to ignite thermite in the first place would likely be enough to weaken the columns and beams itself.

What's your belief about whether or not there was molten steel at the bottom of the buildings?

In relation to it being evidence of thermite? Thermite would have cooled a long time before anyone could have gotten near the debris pile. Thermite cools and solidifies within seconds of the thermite reaction. Thermite is used to join, not cut (as it pools, not flows). The irony of a thermite theory is, thermite would actually make the steel stronger.

If there actually were any molten metal observed at the bottom of the debris pile, my guess is it would have likely been aluminum and/or magnesium. Along with aluminum, plane debris would have magnesium too (aluminum-magnesium alloy). And the twin towers' shinny exterier sheathing was aluminum. That's a lot of aluminum, and aluminum has a lower melting point, about half that of steel. Magnesium's melting point is only slightly higher than aluminum, and it actually burns hotter and longer when exposed to water. The debris pile did retain heat for awhile, but over time the heat would have dissipated as whatever fueled it was consumed. It may have been hot enough to keep aluminum and magnesium in a molten state long enough for someone to witness it.

BTW, the molten metal observed "flowing" from the areas of impact, prior to collapse... aluminum.

Droppin science on a kid

wait, so it was termites that brought the buildings down? Orkin?, fuck you!

Mutant termites that feast on steel instead of wood

good one.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Mutant termites that feast on steel instead of wood

a new breed of terrorists