Go to Ban This Book!
- Add a comment
- Go to Our Endangered Values -- Jimmy Carter
A very complex and civil man, our dear Mr. Carter. I think, had he
had been successful in freeing our hostages in Iran, his name wouldn't be as maligned as it is. Note that almost anyone who speaks of him delineates the man from the politician -- terrible president, good man. However, the radical right publicly condemns him (maybe because he resigned from the Baptist Consvention when they swung hard right?) Other than the hostage fiasco, I think he was a pretty good president. But to be judged by one incident (albeit an incident that lasted 444 days), an incident that was the progenitor of the modern Iranian government (check out their president's creds), is terribly unfair. But historians don't yell quite as loudly as those right-wing demagogues.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 13, 2006 at 8:58 AM
| link to this | reply
saul_relative - I too thought Carter's book was excellent. Much of his...
... writing focuses on religion, which doesn't interest me. This book was a Christmas gift, otherwise I wouldn't have read it. Fastinating to read his views and warnings: from a man who lives his life around his religion, yet one who thinks the religious right is being used by Republican leadership in controlling people via their religious beliefs. Very frightening and very real.
posted by
blogflogger
on May 13, 2006 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply
I love House, Blanche. I don't know what I like better about it: it's
exceptional plots, its vivid characters and their interactions, or the fact that he's such a blunt smartass know-it-all with a heart of gold.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 9:10 PM
| link to this | reply
I learned that one on House, Saul, educational tv
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 7:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Forgot about Occam. Good catch.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 6:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, I am not going to attempt to decipher that today.
But I am a big fan of keeping things simple, too. Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the best, but no simpler.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Lowest common denominators, thin-slicing, and keeping it simple,
stupid (the KISS principle). I am a fan.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 6:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Some day I have to find that book, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" Saul
Just so I can get an idiot's version of statistics and how to read through the b.s.. I just try to discern between what I can possibly know and what will always be a mystery and live with it anyway. Life gets simpler that way.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 6:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Not if it's not broken, Blanche. Nah, odds being what they are, they stand
to make so much by being honest that it would be counterproductive to actually fix the system. Every now and again, some numbnuts fixes a lottery and it's all over the media. And I don't think the monkey/Shakespeare thing works, either. No more than I believe the monkey/Beethoven idea. Just too complicated, no matter the probability or the possibility.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 6:37 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm not sure I believe in the theory of a 1,000 monkeys churning out
Shakespeare over enough time, hitting enough key strokes, but yeah, I just have to accept that some things are random. Some things I'm not sure about, though. Like the lottery. Is that fixed?
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 6:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Kind of fun, kind of weird at the same time, huh? Sounds like you
believe as I do, that given enough occurrences, sooner or later like occurrences will overlap.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 6:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Nah, it's just the odds, Saul, of being on Blogit, generating enough
comments. It's bound to happen.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 6:16 PM
| link to this | reply
You must be awfully coincidental or deja vuey or prescient or
something, Blanche. That kind of thing only happens to me with songs on the radio.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Very, but it happens all the time.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 5:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, I wrote that almost the same time you wrote your phrase and
beleive it or not, I didn't know at the time that you'd written your little phrase. Funny, huh? Da?
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 5:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, now you're starting with the furrin languages, Saul.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 5:30 PM
| link to this | reply
De nada, Blanche.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 5:22 PM
| link to this | reply
That's me, Running on Indian time, yeah, that's it, I think I'll use that,
thanks, Saul.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 5:05 PM
| link to this | reply
The Dine, or Navajo, do not have a concept of time as we know it. They
measure things by seasons and lifetimes, happenings. When a Dine is late for a meeting, they say he is 'running on Indian time."
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 5:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Dine, Saul? I don't get it
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 4:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Spoken like a true Dine (Navajo), Blanche. LOL. And I do hope your
local library has it, for it is not only a good read, but a moral report card on the politics of the conservative and religious right.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 8, 2006 at 4:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Yet another good read, Saul. I wonder if the local library has copies
I'll have to check. Yes, I don't see why science and faith (not religion) can't peacefully coexist, as long as one doesn't take doctrine too seriously. I mean, the whole idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, pooh poohing carbon dating and dinosaur records as a form of cosmic joke is ludicrous. Time means essentially nothing if there is nothing to measure it by.
posted by
Blanche.
on May 8, 2006 at 3:42 PM
| link to this | reply