Was That the October Surprise?
From what I see on the Internets, it appears that the North Korean nuclear bomb was a dud.
Remember, a month or two ago, the rightwing web site NewsMax was predicting, based on insider information, that Karl Rove was planning an "October Surprise," to frighten the American people into voting Republican again. Most bettors assumed they would produce Osama bin Laden, but maybe this was supposed to be it, the North Korean atom bomb. I am assuming it was supposed to go more like "BOOM" than ... "boo."
Except, I don't see the logic of this. You have probably forgotten this little 2002 news story from the BBC:
OK, so President Bush gave North Korea money to develop a nuclear program, told them not to bother about inspections, and then ... guess what! They've got an atom bomb.
Was that supposed to make us vote for his party again?
It's like last time, when Osama appeared on videotape right before the election, the pundits said that made all the difference. Apparently it scared people so much they decided at the last minute to vote for the party that had let him live free, not captured, not killed, not charged with any crimes, after perpetrating a heinous attack on our sovereign soil. They do, they say that was an important factor in the 2004 elections.
Obviously there is something about politics that I don't understand.
Remember, a month or two ago, the rightwing web site NewsMax was predicting, based on insider information, that Karl Rove was planning an "October Surprise," to frighten the American people into voting Republican again. Most bettors assumed they would produce Osama bin Laden, but maybe this was supposed to be it, the North Korean atom bomb. I am assuming it was supposed to go more like "BOOM" than ... "boo."
Except, I don't see the logic of this. You have probably forgotten this little 2002 news story from the BBC:
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors. US grants N Korea nuclear funds
OK, so President Bush gave North Korea money to develop a nuclear program, told them not to bother about inspections, and then ... guess what! They've got an atom bomb.
Was that supposed to make us vote for his party again?
It's like last time, when Osama appeared on videotape right before the election, the pundits said that made all the difference. Apparently it scared people so much they decided at the last minute to vote for the party that had let him live free, not captured, not killed, not charged with any crimes, after perpetrating a heinous attack on our sovereign soil. They do, they say that was an important factor in the 2004 elections.
Obviously there is something about politics that I don't understand.
posted by JimK at 6:58 PM
21 Comments:
"Apparently it scared people so much they decided at the last minute to vote for the party that had let him live free, not captured, not killed, not charged with any crimes, after perpetrating a heinous attack on our sovereign soil."
Jim,
You're crazy, man. In 2004, the country voted Republican. the party that had the executive branch when al quaeda struck the WTC in 1992 was the Democrats. and according to a the person who headed the CIA effort to find Bin Laden in the 90s, Bill Clinton passed on several opportunities to kill him.
He did bomb some pharmaceutical factory once during one of his Monica moments.
H.A.
In case anyone's starting their Christmas shopping early:
"Love Won Out Testimonies Now on DVD
by Stuart Shepard, managing editor
Hear stories of people who broke free from homosexuality.
For the first time, the testimonies of three key Love Won Out speakers are available on DVD. They each have been personally impacted in different ways by one of the most controversial issues of our time. Their stories of redemption and hope are light-years distant from the gay-activist rants the news media often echo without qualification.
Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conferences have touched thousands of lives over the past eight years with the message that change is possible for people who are unhappy with homosexuality.
Although the events are regularly protested by gay activists who claim the message is really one of "hate," the testimonies at Love Won Out are about hope expressed in love from people who have been there."
"Shawn O'Donnell is a former ex-gay and a Christian. He was involved with Exodus for many years, before he left the program and to live as gay man. His story was part of the documentary Fish Can't Fly."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6225405
"Shawn O'Donnell is a former ex-gay and a Christian. He was involved with Exodus for many years, before he left the program and to live as gay man. His story was part of the documentary Fish Can't Fly."
Showing us once again the mutability of preference. It is, indeed, fleeting.
Moral conviction provides stability.
"From what I see on the Internets, it appears that the North Korean nuclear bomb was a dud."
I'm so glad that Jim has determined North Korea's atom bomb to be not that big a deal. I was worried there for a second.
Just curious: Let's say that they sold this dud to Bin Laden and he detonated it in Farragut Square. How many people would die?
Anon, I'm not saying it wasn't a big deal, but when a 20-kiloton bomb detonates with less than one kiloton of explosive force, the test is not considered a great success. A dud.
JimK
Failure of Exodus International's conversion ministries to convert Shawn proves mutability of sexual orientation to you? Your conclusion is false.
The NPR piece demonstrates that even after years of subjecting himself to ex-gay treatments and religious dogma of Exodus International, Shawn O'Donnell and countless others like him remain gay.
Countless others including:
Michael Johnston
http://www.sovo.com/2003/8-1/news/breaking/exgay.cfm
Lance Carroll and Mark Perriello
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=2170
Peterson Toscano
http://a_musing.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_a_musing_archive.html
Mark Adams
http://www.heartstrong.org/HeartStrong/bostonarticle.html
John Paulk
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html
Can orientation be changed?
"Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family ... told me afterward that one small-group session had discussed chastity. “We don’t want people to believe that change means you have to be married and have to have kids,” he said, and then added, “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. We’re not trying to create people from homosexual to heterosexual.” These statements don’t line up with what I heard at the conference; but it’s much easier to be nuanced in one-on-one conversations than in lectures to big audiences."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmM0ZThlNThiYjc2NjVjZTRlOTkzOTYyZWJmYzhlNzg=
Look, Anon, the question is not whether certain temptations can be eliminated once they been indulged. Truth is once someone has submitted to these desires and enjoyed the experience, there will probably always be some level of temptation.
The question is whether there is anyone who cannot, through therapy, develop the capacity to function and live happily as a heterosexual- because it's the right thing to do. I think, likely, no one like that exists.
Where do you come up with this hogwash?
The truth is that before any sexual contact has even been made, people who are not bisexual know which gender they are attracted to.
Nutty anon- I see you must know a great deal about psychiatry and psychology- not. Perhaps anyone can live(not necessarily happily) celibate- but therapy will not make you gay or straight. Your basis for your idea is a few nutters themselves- rather than a vast field of well qualified doctors. And all I can say- is Cuddlin' Cohen- yuck!!! The posterboy for his own lies.
"The truth is that before any sexual contact has even been made, people who are not bisexual know which gender they are attracted to."
Well, before that point of action, there is a much greater chance of recovery. These feelings can have all kinds of causes- insecurity, lack of interest from opposite sex, rebellion. These things can be dealt with.
After these feelings reach fruition, however, things are greatly complicated. It's purely Pavlovian.
This is how the misguided Fishback revisions would have caused harm. Telling kids with these stirrings that they are hopeless. And that science says so.
"Perhaps anyone can live(not necessarily happily) celibate- but therapy will not make you gay or straight."
They don't have to be celibate. they can be straight and have an enjoyable life. During certain times of stress, they may feel tempted but they can resist with proper support- not by a society that tells them they have no chance of recovery.
Anon
Re comments about the Fishback curriculum -- please show us the part of the Fishback curriculum that said anything like that.
I remember just the opposite: it told students that having those feelings in adolescent did not mean you were gay.
I'm not sure why you want to lie about that, or why you think that's ok.
JimK
True, it did have that escape valve idea- that some people who have these feelings aren't in that group called "gays". But it did say that this group of people, do not choose these feelings and can't change them. The kids were left to wonder in which category they belong. The curriculum had no basis for either statement.
It said that experts agree that it's not a choice, and it's not a disorder. Perfectly true.
Anon, you must know that your beliefs on this are purely parochial. No one who has studied this subject seriously agrees with you. You can go ahead and huff and puff, but you don't convince anybody -- you don't even plant the seed of a doubt here.
JimK
"It said that experts agree that it's not a choice, and it's not a disorder. Perfectly true."
Well, yes, this is true but it's not saying much. Since the opposite is also true, the statement is disingenuous. There are experts who come down on both sides of this issue. Indeed, ther is a whole association of experts who advocate reparative therapy. And a whole association of gays who say they've chosen their own path.
Of course, from a TTF world view the experts who advocate reparative theory can't be real experts by definition because they advocate reparative therapy. It's kind of a circular argument.
"Anon, you must know that your beliefs on this are purely parochial."
No, it isn't. It is held by people from all kinds of backgrounds.
"No one who has studied this subject seriously agrees with you."
Actually, this summer when, in response to protests, the president of the APA said he wasn't opposed to reparative therapy, there were a number of quotes from various parties. The APA issued a statement backing off, under pressure from lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups, but most of language, if read closely reveals the true nature of the APA's position. There was no talk of any scientific evidence, only of the potential for bias against gays. It appears this rather than scientific consideration was the driving force behind this position.
Those who have read this blog regularly will remember that when the APA originally formulated this position, polls showed the majority of practitioners disgreed. To my knowledge, there is no survey of practitioners currently that reveals if even a majority, much less a consensus, believe this.
"You can go ahead and huff and puff, but you don't convince anybody -- you don't even plant the seed of a doubt here."
The ignorant rarely question but I'll quote Al Gore here:
"There's no reason to get huffy!"
Anon, there is a sharp line that separates experts from dilettantes. It's called "peer review." You do some research, you write it up, you submit it to a journal which sends it out to experts in the field to review it. If they approve it and the editor agrees, they publish it.
Simple. That's how science works. It's not perfect, but it is the best vehicle our species has found for perfecting knowledge.
When your "experts" start publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, we'll consider that we have a debate on our hands. At this point they don't publish in the literature and there is no debate. When we start seeing scientific research suggesting that people chose their sexual orientation, or that it can be changed through psychotherapy, then let's talk.
JimK
"Anon, there is a sharp line that separates experts from dilettantes. It's called "peer review." You do some research, you write it up, you submit it to a journal which sends it out to experts in the field to review it. If they approve it and the editor agrees, they publish it.
Simple. That's how science works. It's not perfect, but it is the best vehicle our species has found for perfecting knowledge.
When your "experts" start publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, we'll consider that we have a debate on our hands. At this point they don't publish in the literature and there is no debate. When we start seeing scientific research suggesting that people chose their sexual orientation, or that it can be changed through psychotherapy, then let's talk."
You're forgetting something, Jim. Your "experts" haven't claimed any peer-reviewed proof of these notions either. Your "experts" are simply giving their opinions just like everyone else. Whatever peer-reviewed papers which have been published have always qualified their conclusions.
You've read them?
JimK
If you mean the ones that the APA used in the 70s to issue an opinion at odds with their membership. No, I haven't. No one could, they didn't exist.
"You've read them?"
You will remember our discussion of the pheronome study, which is one of the most recent and, thus, would have the benefit of past studies to inform their discussion. In their conclusion, the authors stated plainly that there is no way to tell if the biological reactions associated with homosexual stimulation are cause and effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home