September 22nd, 2005

nolte mugshot

Bush is boozing

Normally I wouldn't consider this alien abduction rag as worthy of
attention, but in the last few years it has been different. In any
case, Justin Frank's opinions are those of a diagnostic expert.

Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.…

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of
Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."
Apollo 4 on column of fire

'Harvard Law embraces bigotry'

Harvard Law is going to welcome military recruiters to campus even though it's a direct violation of their non-discrimination policy.

Harvard Law would never embrace racism or anti-Semitism for the right price. They'd never facilitate bigotry and discrimination against blacks or Jews simply in exchange for cold hard cash. But because gays are the victims, Harvard Law - HARVARD LAW - is embracing discrimination.

Think about it. Harvard Law. If one of the biggest liberal schools in history don't understand the principal of standing up for your beliefs, then what's the point anymore? Harvard should be ashamed of itself, ashamed of the lesson it's teaching its students and future generations. People have given their lives for the civil rights movement and Harvard is caving because of cash.…
Question mark

The unfortunate history of Esperanto

I 'think' this one might be of interest beyond the gs community. First the English and then the (possibly fupped duck [screwed up]) Esperanto original.

Alfred Korzybski wrote that it was important to have an international language, but that the authors (of candidate languages) had not taken into account non-aristotelian factors. Esperanto suffers from this deficit.

An example I've noticed: it was a screw-up to let 'pensi' ('to think') and 'senti' ('to feel') be customary expressions for mentation. To my way of 'thinking', there should have been included in the language a word-root for 'mentation'. Assume 'flurf' were such a root. Then one would say 'pensflurfi' for thought-like mentation and 'sentflurfi' for feeling-like mentation. The words would suggest relations of 'more' and 'less', and would not divide 'thought' and 'feeling'.

Perhaps we could rightfully introduce such a root and use it, at least among general semanticists, the way we rightfully use the general semantics abbreviations for 'et cetera'. However use among general semanticists unfortunately does not directly influence the nervous system of the ordinary person.

That's what I've been 'thinking' about lately. Does it seem right or doesn't it?

Alfred Korzybski skribis ke tre gravas havi internacian lingvon, sed ke aŭtoroj ne jam prenis en konsideron ne-aristotelismajn faktorojn. Esperanto ja suferas de tiu manko.

Ekzemplo kiun mi rimarkis: Estas fuŝaĵo lasi 'pensi' kaj 'senti' esti kutimaj esprimoj por mensado (angle mentation). Laŭ mi, oni devis krei radikon, kiu signifas mensadon. Supozu la elektita radiko estis 'flurf'. Tiuokaze oni dirus 'pensflurfi' por pensprecipa mensado kaj 'sentflurfi' por sentprecipa mensado. La vortojn sugestus rilatojn 'pli' kaj 'malpli', kaj ne apartigus 'menson' kaj 'senton'.

Eble oni povas kaj rajtas enkonduki tian radikon kaj uzas ĝin, almenaŭ inter ĝeneralsemantikistoj, kiel oni povas kaj rajtas uzi inter ĝs-istoj la ĝs-ajn 'ktp'-mallongigojn. Tamen uzo inter ĝs-istoj bedaŭrinde ne influas rekte sur la nerva sistemo de la ordinara homo.

Pri tio mi estis 'pensanta' lastatempe. Laŭ vi, ĉu pravas aŭ ĉu ne?
Question mark

Democrats and the war

I believed Colin Powell more than I did the judgment of people like
Scott Ritter and Jonathan Schell. I was wrong. There is no 'mission'
in Iraq. The only question is when we will leave in 'defeat', not

I was wrong, I saw that I was wrong, and know I must cut my losses.

By what right does anyone support a Democratic Party that in essence
supports more troops, more war, more death, more agony, a longer and
slower 'defeat', more blowback, more, more, more, more, more,…?