ABC and BBC are now reporting that Iran is reporting that Saddam Hussein
has been captured. (Nothing yet on CNN)
From Ha'aretz:
11:57 Iraqi Kurdish ruler: Saddam Hussein captured in Tikrit
12:04 Al-Arabiya television reports widespread celebrations in north
Iraq city of Kirkuk, after report of Saddam`s capture
12:12 After reports of SADDAM'S CAPTURE, U.S. administration in Iraq will
convene press conference on `important matter`
140 responses total.
It's been officially announced now. I wonder if/how this will affect the guerilla resistance?
"Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him!" My guess is the loyalists will become disheartened, but the terrorists will be unaffected. We may see an upsurge in attackes in the short term, and possible suicede attacks to kill him and make him a martyr, but it will break the back of resistance in the long run.
"We?"
I disagree that it will "break the back of resistance". EWe've seen no evidence of links between saddaam and al-Qaida or other terrorist groups beyond his own loyalists ( a small number), other than that which has been presented to the weorld by the Bush and Blair regime, but never indpendently verified; It isw also the case that the terrorist activity no wtakijng place has bveen against co-alition forces, and that the oportunity for them to fight has come because of the lack of securiry in Iraq and the presence of Western (presumably particularly because of hte presence of American) troops.
This response has been erased.
It's true 'cause jp2 sez so. ;> I think this will greatly reduce the reluctance of people on the street to support the Americans. There was always fear that Saddam would come back. Now, can we find Osama Bin Forgotten?
as i keep saying "big deal." WHERE ARE THE GUYS THAT HELPED THOSE SAUDIS BLOW UP THE WTC?
In my more cynical moments I think we went after Saddam because getting a bad guy that would be relatively easy to capture would make people forget about the fact that we've never found Osama.
s/Saudis/Renegade Saudis/
Re: 8: Yeah, and now they've captured him people are already asking, "What about Osama Bin Laden"? I wonder how long they can get away with not answering that one.
Re #5: Like they needed money from Saddam, when they had all that Saudi
cash.
Re #9: The Saudi government systematically promoted Wahhabism, and funded
even the radical clerics. They're partially responsible.
(That's one hell of beard to grow in less than a year...)
What I said in last new item.
Saddam was much easier to capture because he was hiding in an urban area (rather than a mountain wilderness) and because (according to some reports) someone squealed. While I'm sure that some of the guerrilla and terrorist attacks in Iraq were by "me too" copy-cats, I think their focus was by Saddam loyalists hoping to make the US quit and restore their leader. That now cannot happen. So their will be some more spoiler attacks, but I suspect they'll peter out. On the other hand, the new danger is that groups within Iraq will attempt to move in and gain greater power for themselves. In this sense it's good that Saddam was loose for this time because it gave a chance for the ruling coalition to gel. But will it now hold? I sure hope so.
This response has been erased.
hmmm.... from the video footage on the major networks, I could have swore I saw the iraqi's waving red flags with a yellow hammer and sickle logo.
Re #15: Various Saudis, including their government, have been pouring money
into Wahhabi outreach programs and related Islamic charities for
decades. I'm sure a lot of that money wound up with Al Qaeda.
Re #16: We can only hope. At least Communism is secular, and intolerant
of religious radicals.
Saddam's trial is going to make O.J Simpson's trial seem like it got little coverage in comparison. I hope they put it off until after next year's electon, so it doesn't get politicized. Saddam will need OJ's Dream Team of JOhnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey and Robert Shapiro, plus Alan Derschwitz and the guy defending Michael Jackson and every other great defense lawyer to avoid execution
Saddam will be executed, and no great lawyers will be able to do anything about it, even if they do turn out to be qualified to represent clients under the system that will try him. You sound like you're rather gleefully anticipating the spectacle. Personally, I'm dreading the gargantuan effort it will take to avoid being sickened by it.
This response has been erased.
I'm glad Saddam has been captured. I was glad when he was removed from power and still think it was a good thing. I am still upset that I was misled into supporting the war in part by false guarantees of finding nuclear weapons. Capture Saddam, bin Laden, and 50 other huge terrorist figures, and that one still isn't going away. The phrase, "Oops! We invaded another country, it was a mistake" doesn't work well for me.
Re #4: Terrorists require nothing, true. However, consider the environment. The Saddam Fedayeen no longer have any authority figure behind them. Neither do the other Ba'athists trying to get rid of the coalition forces; their prospects of regaining their old perquesites under a restored Saddam regime just went from slim to zero. And the anti-Ba'ath forces are energized. This is going to make it much harder for the foreign jihadis to operate, as they are much more likely to be reported than before (perhaps even by Ba'athists trying to curry favor). This is not a good day to be a jihadi in Iraq. Thank goodness. Interestingly enough, the conspiracy theory that Saddam was already in American custody just waiting to be trotted out when Bush needed a PR boost has just taken a serious hit; the problems with Kellogg, Brown and Root overcharging the DoD might have been sufficiently dire in some people's eyes, but are not convincing.
Re #20: If Hussein donated to them, he's one of many. Most of whom are our
allies. That's messed up, that is.
Re #21: Meanwhile, the Saudis had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq, and we
didn't invade them. Iran actually *has* a nuclear weapons program,
and we didn't invade them. Hmm...
Re #22: I've never heard anyone advance the theory that they've had Saddam
on ice all this time. I've heard a theory that they've been holding
back evidence on WMDs for the election, but if they had Saddam
they would have let us know pretty quick.
The question now becomes, "Did the ends justify the means?" Yes, we captured Saddam but at what cost, how many billions of dollars and how many american lives to get this moment. Was the price too high? You know that we almos certainly just didn't stumble upon that hole he was hiding in. There was a $25 million bounty we had on Saddam's head. One of Saddam's ex-friends may soon have a nice fat swiss bank account
Re 23: Actually *I* have speculated, here on Grex, that perhaps Saddam had been captured long ago.
This response has been erased.
Re #24, you are forgetting the half-a-million or so Iraqi children who died for the lack of food and medicines during a decade of sanctions. It is appalling, how the international community can demonize Saddam for it and not take any blame for that??!! The Lancet Volume 351(9103) February 28, 1998 p 657 ------------------------------------------ Does Iraq's depleted uranium pose a health risk? Birchard, Karen ------------------------------------------- The office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights has received a report hypothesising that the current health and environmental problems in Iraq may be linked to US and British weapons left behind after the Gulf War in 1991. The literature review, compiled by Bill Griffin, an Irish petrochemical engineer, with access to material in both the West and Iraq, points out that the mortality rates among children have increased sharply: as many as 500 children a day are dying in Iraq along with cancer rates. He proposes that radioactive waste caused by projectiles containing depleted uranium (DU) may have played a part. DU weapons were developed by the Pentagon in the late 1970s as anti-tank armour- piercing shells but were not used in combat until the Gulf War. DU is a radioactive by-product of the enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel rods and nuclear bombs. The report notes that the death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993. Cases of lymphoblastic leukaemia have more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing "at an alarming rate". In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers show the highest increase. In women, the highest increases are in breast and bladder cancer, and non- Hodgkin lymphoma. Diseases such as osteosarcoma, teratoma, nephroblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma are also increasing with, according to the review, the most affected being children and young men. Congenital malformations have also increased, as have diseases of the immune system. The review says that a confidential report by the British Atomic Energy Authority in 1991 estimated that at least 40 tonnes of DU were dispersed in Kuwait and Iraq; but according to Greenpeace-based on US government information released under the Freedom of Information Act- "over 300 tonnes of DU mostly in fragmented form (dust) were left on the battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait". -------------------------------------------------------------------- See the whole item here: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00246.html Who accounts for these??
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8C356F9-E89F-4CD3-88B5- BBBDF9E085C1.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html While you celebrate and thump your chests at the arrest of Saddam, who cares about these?? The Iraqi children and thousands of soldiers - US, British and Iraqi - who got affected by DU shells? The British government admitted that there might be a link. The US flatly denied it.
It is possible that Saddam will cooperate with the US, tell all, and offer to speak to his country to tell the guerillas to lay down their arms and cooperate in rebuilding the country. It might save his skin - or even make him a candidate for the Nobel prize.
Despite some of the truly appalling Peace Prize awards over the years (Kissinger? Arafat?) I doubt Hussein will be planning a trip to Oslo any time in the near future..
Uh, yeah. So you want to like pass some of whatever it is your having down this way? :-)
(Re#30 slipped in) A trip to the Hague is more likely.
Not unless the US recognizes the International Court of Justice. Btw, by the looks of him I truly think I have seen Saddam scurrying around the dustbins nearAmsterdam Central Train Station, the last couple of months. Seriously, I am curious what details mr. Hussein is going to provide in about the US schemes in the eighties when they supported him in the war against Iraq. Or before that when they virtually helped get into power. Every single time this happened with republicans in office. Coincidence?
The US isn't a signatory to it and therefore does not consider its nationals under its jurisdiction. I'm not certain that simple fact would at all stop it from turning over a national from another country to the court or to authorities of a country that has signed onto the international court.
Neither the US nor Iraq recognise the ICC. However, if the new Iraqi administration chooses to recognise it, they might turn him over instead of trying him in their own courts. Also, a separate war crimes tribunal could be set up under the UN (the court that is trying Milosevic is a war crimes tribunal, not the ICC). However, this would require the legalization under UN law of the occupation of Iraq, otherwise the UN would have no jurisdiction.
This response has been erased.
Pax Americana?
Hmm... Bush secretly flies into Baghdad just a few days before Saddam is finally captured... maybe it's time for a conspiracy item?
Agora *is* the conspiracy item.
"27 of 39: by Siddhartha Jain (sj2) on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 (00:21): Re #24, you are forgetting the half-a-million or so Iraqi children who died for the lack of food and medicines during a decade of sanctions. It is appalling, how the international community can demonize Saddam for it and not take any blame for that??!!" Well, do you think you could try and blame Saddam Hussein, who spent millions of dollars building palaces adn buying the loyalty of his batthist party adn the army rather than buying food to feed and medicine to cure these children?
"It is appalling, how the international community can demonize Saddam for it and not take any blame for that??!!" Implies that Saddam is definitely to blame but so are the countries that supported the crippling sanctions. And you conveniently skipped the BIG issue of DU shells!!
Re resp:19: I'm just hoping they call Rumsfeld as a witness. After all, he used to be Saddam's buddy. ;> Re resp:25: I never believed that conspiracy theory about Saddam, or the parallel one about Osama. Too many people would have to know about it for it to stay secret for long. Re resp:41: I think, given all the known cancer-causing petroleum byproducts that were strewn over Iraq when the Kuwaiti oil wells were set on fire, it's a stretch to conclude that an increase in cancer rate is due to depleted uranium.
For a potential link between Saddam/Iraq and Osama/AlQauida, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml &sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html
On Saddam's capture and what it means: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13422.htm Several extremely insightful (and LONG) posts on related issues: http://www.denbeste.nu/ Did you read about the anti-terrorist, anti-Baathist demonstration in Baghdad? No? Probably because the liberal media didn't think it was news. But thanks to independent media you can see it anyway: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003_12_01_archive.html#107109864088011111 And someone who seems to have read Scott's mind: http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/000749.html
There was Saddam-got-captured celebrations. There were saddam-got- captured protests (though, definitely smaller is number). Half of the Arab world celebrated the capture of a tyrant and the other half was humiliated by the capture of an Arab hero who stood against the Jews and Americans. There were communistst waving flags in the streets of Baghdad. There were religious political parties waving. Al-Jazeera shows a cartoon of Uncle Sam hoisting Saddam first, then pulling him down and then arresting him. Fox reports nothing about the blasts in Baghdad or US Army blowing kids to bits in Afghanistan. Saddam's sister accused that he had been drugged before capture. An american soldier said Saddam wanted to *negotiate* the capture. Rumsfeld sneered that Saddam didn't even fire his pistol and surrendered meekly. Saddam himself cooperated after the arrest and for the medical examination. But thereafter is reported to be spouting anger and abuse. He is reported to be defiant and showing no remorse. Blair could be seen on a definite high in the British parliament - attacking the opposition and shouting loudly. The Sanchez guy in Baghdad was grinning ear-to-ear all the time. There were more blasts in Baghdad meanwhile killing more people. So and so forth.
There are rumors that Lebanese terror mastermind Imad Mughniyeh has arrived in Iraq to boot anti-US violence. For those not familiar with the name, this is the person who according to some terrorism experts made Osama bin Laden look like small potatoes. I've also seen an analysis that Saddam was being held captive in the mother of all spider pits, his captors negotiating for the $25M bounty. It is unclear if he was snatched away from them or if this was part of the bargain. [That he was allowed to keep his handgun seems to contradict this, but perhaps he hadn't realized his friends had turned on him.]
Re resp:44: Actually, I heard about the anti-Saddam celebrations. On liberal NPR, no less! (Do you actually ever watch/listen to/read any of the "liberal media", or do you just make assumptions based on what you think their bias is? Also, by what stretch of the imagination is Fox News "independent"?) Incidentally, have you noticed that the reaction of Iraqis to pretty much anything seems to be to fire guns into the air? During the same newscast yesterday I heard about one incident of them firing into the air in celebration, and another of them firing into the air in mourning. That country is like the NRA's wet dream. ;>
LOL.
And BBC News is liberal?? How about CNN? Hehehe ... I don't know if this is true ... but still thought it was worth posting. From http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i3mediawatch.htm MAY 15, 2003 MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA Taking on those Democrats and others who are unpatriotic , Australian-owned Fox News, USA Today, NY Post, Chicago Sun Times, and numerous other Aussie-controlled news operations promise to clear things up by presenting the true, American view of things. Rupert Murdoch, owner of all the above listed news sources and many, many more helped explain his Americanizing mission from his original home town of Melbourne, Australia. As someone who was born in Australia, said Rupert Murdoch, speaking beside a barbie on which he was throwing another shrimp, and who is married to a woman who is from China, I feel that I and my Australian- owned news sources are the most qualified to present the true American perspective on things. Those other, American-owned news sources, like the New York Times and NPR, simply don t know anything about being a good American. They betray American values on a daily basis, as far as I can tell from down here on the other side of the world, where I was born and all my family live. The American flag a permanent fixture on the screen of his Fox News Network, Murdoch sits stroking his pet koala, eating some Vegamite, pointing out a kangaroo in the distance. Of course my news sources are the real American ones. How could some paper owned by New Yorkers be more patriotic than the ones owned by me? Or a radio network funded by donations from American listeners? No, no, no. I know the true voice of America, like no American possibly could if I didn t spell it out for them on a daily basis. Throughout the interview, his love and respect for his wife Wendy Deng Murdoch was very much apparent. Any time I have some doubts about whether I since I am not from America am striking the right American note, I ask Wendy, who is also from the other side of the world. Between my Down-Under upbringing and her Red China view of things, we come up with the real American perspective like no actual American possibly could.
Hahaha, that is funny :)
The BBC is independent.
"And BBC News is liberal?? How about CNN?" Sorry, forgot to add the <sarcasm> tags there!! :)
If there's a lesson to be learned from Saddam's request to negotiate, it's that in any negotiations it helps to have something to negotiate with. Assuming he was really stuck at the bottom of a hole with a bunch of big guns pointed at him, he was a little late. Then again, it may have been more a case of, "I want to talk, not shoot, so please don't shoot me," which sounds quite reasonable. I'm rather disgusted by all the calls for killing him now. He's certainly not somebody I feel strongly about keeping alive, but what would we gain by killing him, other than a morbid spectacle.
I dont think there is a lot to be gained from killing him either. And yet, I cant bring myself to feel sorry for him even though I know that is likely to be the outcome of all of this.
I don't think he'll be executed. There's too much information wanted by the government that he has. I did read an article in the AA News, broadly hinting that pain, discomfort, refusing trips to the bathroom, etc. could be used on Iraqi military leaders, possibly including Saddam Hussein. The headline stated something about heads of state being immune to such treatment, but the body of the article only suggested it was possible he'd be treated more respectfully.
After Bush and others using the torture angle to further demonize Saddam, like mentioning specific torture techniques in major speeches (I've seen Bush do this), it would be rather cynical of America to then condone torture in some cases.
This response has been erased.
Re #44: The anti-Saddam demonstrations are no secret. The subtle point,
that's going to become less subtle now, is that the people who are
demonstrating against Saddam don't actually want us around either.
Some of them have used violence against the Baathists, and will be
happy to use it against us, too -- and I'm not just talking about
radical Moslems, because a lot of Iraqis are strong secular
nationalists.
(Yeah, right. They were happier with the good old days of being kidnapped, tortured, & killed. Who wouldn't be?)
re #59: that's not at all what he said. it's clear that you don't believe it either. so why bother to write crap like that?
Hooray for the capture of Saddam. His detainment will make the world as safe from terrorism as the arrest of Noriega stopped the drug problem. You're safe, Momma. You're safe, baby.
Re #53, I think what Saddam meant by *negotiating*, when he asked a US soldier for it, was whether somehow he could pay something to the soldiers and get away. Because, at that point of time, there was nothing else to negotiate. Remember, he had US$750,000 with him on person and maybe more elsewhere. They even found ~US$650 million in a hut in the middle of nowhere, earlier. He might have thought that kind of money may buy him freedom.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3326311.stm Bush wants him executed.
Heavens, what a surprise.
Re resp:53: Killing him will make him a martyr. The worst punishment for someone like him would be to lock him up in a cell for the rest of his life, with no control over anyone. Maybe give him some pictures of his old palaces to look at.
Re resp:63: Well, of course. Bush comes from Texas, where executions are considered entertainment.
I am sure a number of families of our dead soldiers would like him dead as well.
Cut off his tongue and his hands and set him free.
Re: 65. To be a martyr, you have to go out on a blaze of glory. Saddam will more likely be seen as an embarassment for not fighting to the death.
Bush, or Hussein? We don't like Hussein because he kills people he doesn't like, so we want to kill him. I certainly don't want the society I'm part of to function that way. Unlike Hussein, I have no desire to kill people, even people I don't like. He's under our control now. He's not in a position to do any further damage. We've certianly got enough other problems in Iraq, many of them his legacy and many of them of our own making. We should work on fixing those, not on some mindless vengence.
Any death penalty should be imposed after a fair trial, according to the laws of a free and democratic Iraq, or according to international law, depending on the venue. I oppose the death penalty, but on moral grounds, not because I give a damn what happens to that... animal.
Re #67: keep some balance, bru. I suspect that a lot of Iraqi families would like to see Bush dead for all their innocent relatives that were killed in the invasion and aftermath - vastly more, too, than the number of US soliders that have been killed. Don't you have any concern for the innocent Iraqi civilians?
Bru and balance have nothing more in common than that the first lettrer of each word is "b".
resp:66 is quite offensive. I'm wondering how gull came to that conclusion.
A joke, perhaps?
r74: i'm from there, originally. he's right.
(Parts of Austin may be excluded from that generalization, though the Statehouse is probably not among them.)
Re #59: Reread what I wrote. Move your lips if you have to.
Re #47: Okay, I stand corrected. I try to listen to ATC but I don't always have time to listen while it's on. (Just because it has biases doesn't mean it isn't informative, so I follow it.) The BBC's interviewers have rather extreme biases, as you can tell by their combative questioning of certain people and kid-glove handling of others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3329671.stm ======================================================================= Iran 'owed billions for Saddam war' The head of Iraq's Interim Governing Council says Iran should be paid reparations for the war that Saddam Hussein waged against it in the 1980s. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said further discussion was needed to decide what if anything Iraq would pay itself. Iran claims $100bn in reparations for the brutal eight-year war that claimed about one million lives. Mr Hakim's remarks may augur improving Iran-Iraq relations now Saddam Hussein is in custody. The prominent Iraqi is also the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) the most important Shiite Muslim party represented on the governing council. ======================================================================= Initially, I thought that the BBC got Iran-Iraq mixed up. Curiouser and curiouser! :)
So, another blow for those who say the Arabs aren't even capable of conciliation and making peace. yay and hooray.
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
Re resp:74: You don't remember the Presidential campaign? Bush, with a big smirk on his face, saying "They're going to be put to death." Or the interview where, when Bush was asked about Karla Faye Tucker's clemency plea, he imitated her saying "Please don't kill me" in a mocking voice? He obviously doesn't just favor the death penalty, he finds it *funny*.
Of course I remember the campaign, as well as the Shrubist gubernatorial campaigns before that. I sorta resent you implying that I must not, simply because I took offense to your blanket regional stereotyping. What I'm not understanding is how you arrived at the generalisation that all Texans must find executions "entertaining" --- simply because one man appears to find it "funny?"
Well, y'all voted for him...
OK, then. I'm sorry for participating in this discussion.
Presumably, some Texans voted for him, and some didn't. I've noticed in a lot of places that are known for having something special about them that there seems to be a schism between the natives, who think they shouldn't have to move to get what the rest of the country has, and those who have moved there for the place's uniqueness, who want to keep it different. I have no idea how that applies to Texas and its ideas of frontier "justice," but I'll note that the Bushes are an old line rich Connecticut family who decided to play at being Texans. Between the ranch and the obvious joy over executions, our current President seems to have gotten more into it than the rest of them. My impression is also that those who move to Austin tend to be looking for something significantly different than those who move to other parts of Texas.
Whilst I wouldn't dream of implying that all Texans are bloodthirsty revengeful fundamentalists, I oughtta point out that in a discussion about Britains latest child-killer, in party, an esteemed Texan of our acquaintance remarked that he's lucky he didn't commit the crime in Texas, as "*we'd* all be sitting in bars cheering his execution"; or words to that effect - note the use of the "we". Said esteemed Texan, imho, is himself NOT a bloodthirsty revengeful fundamentalist.
yes, and you claim that Americans don't have a sense of sarcasm.
If I ever claimed that, I'm demonstrably wrong to claim it. Ken (Josenhans) often intones that Americans (as a group) are "irony-impaired". Anyone who suggested that would wrong, too. At the very least, irony plays a big part in the hackish humour so evident on Grex.
Full disclosure: There are two states I've decided to never live in; Texas and California. I feel these two states are our national laboratories for testing bad legislation. Texas performs this useful function on the right, and California on the left. Not coincidentally, California governments have a tendancy to act like a Republican's caricature of liberalism -- they do the kinds of things that make most of us roll our eyes but that Republicans imagine all liberals want. Texas governments are the same way, but with the roles reversed.
Re: #90. Of course, any givben instance of my claimingthat might also well have been a joke. If the generalization has any truth, that truth should be stated more to this effect: Americans and Brits have trouble understanding *each other's* sense of sarcasm and irony. Brits often claim that germans have no sense of humour, but knowledgeable Germanophiles claim that they do, it's just that whjile they *appreciate* our sense of humour (as opposed to finding it hilarious), we don't get theirs at all.
resp:90 - Again, my apologies. That statement of mine that you dragged in here from party was said completely tongue-in-cheek, with this section of this item in mind.
Lo se (I know), and no apology necessary. Irony is my God.
the best thing about texas is ann richards... ...and my uncle milton. well, spring creek bbq is pretty good as is the chicken fried steak.
David - (gull) - I think you owe Mickey an apology for implying that he enjoys watching executions just because he's a Texan. Imagine how you'd feel if someone said that about you.
I don't think he owes Mickey an apology. I think the offense stems from differing interpretations of what gull wrote, that Mickey has chosen the most objectionable interpretation, and that another quite justifiable meaning is probably what gull had in mind. If I write a statement of the form "Texans enjoy <x>" you can choose to read that as "all Texans enjoy <x>" or you can accept that what I almost certainly meant was "many (possibly most) Texans enjoy <x>" I doubt we'd even be having this discussion if the claim in question was something like "Texans enjoy barbecue", even if a Texan respondent had piped up with "I'm a militant vegetarian and a Texan and *I* don't enjoy barbecue," because none of us would think that gull had meant to imply *all* Texans by such a statement.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:96: I'm sorry he felt I was implying that. It wasn't my intention.
re 98: i'll bet mickey enjoys watching executions while serving his neighbors a nice croissant and fresh fruit brunch with a lovely centerpiece while discussing the recent thefy of a georgia o'keefe. typical sensitive texans
As a person of Californian domicile, I resent gull's statement about California. ;) I used to complain that nothing worked in California, and complain about excessive liberalism as a cause. Certainly, having considered myself a left wing liberal all my life, moving somewhere where my views at the time were the right of the mainstream was a bit unsettling. I still do think the left wing politics is a bit weird sometimes, for instance the bizarre insistence that increasing the supply of housing is what makes housing more expensive, or the mass transit system that shuts down shortly after midnight, when the trains are still quite crowded, because nobody would want to be out that late anyway. But mostly what I see, at least in my chunk of California, is something I've come to like. Some of the laws may be bizarre, but they're there because people cared. The live and let live and have lots of fun in the process attitude, as strange as it may seem to those wondering why those strange people can't just conform, makes life a lot more enjoyable. And, when the politics gets really strange, it still makes for good entertainment. I met a guy a few years ago in a little village in Italy, who said he had come back there from Rome because "here, life comes first." The Bay Area, or at least the less suburban parts of it, seems to do well at that too.
I never asked anyone for an apology, and certainly don't expect to receive one in this item. fwiw, which I grant you is not a hell of lot now that happyboy et al have found a perceived weakness to tear into, gull's original statement was more direct and sweeping than the basic "Texans like x" that mcnally states in resp:97. But whatever y'all want to believe, I realise I'm not going to change any minds here. You're all obviously more knowledgeable than I, and your respective states are paragons of fair laws and intelligent citizens. Yes, *this* Texan is sensitive; many more probably aren't, and some might actually seek out some broadcast from Huntsville during executions (though I really don't have a clue where this alleged entertainment is shown, other than bits on the nightly news) --- many, many more are just people, trying to make a life for themselves, the same as the rest of the nation.
Re resp:101: I guess that watching from the outside, it never struck me as a "live and let live" attitude; in fact the enforced political correctness in California sounds awfully oppressive to me. A good example is the recent L.A. city government decision to ban the use of the terms "master" and "slave" for electronic equipment in their offices. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a state where it was basically illegal to ever do anything that might offend anyone.
What are they using instead of master and slave?
See http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/master.asp for details. The story doesn't say what the replacement terms (if any) are, however.
I'm surprised they find those terms for machines objectionable. Do they also find the term "master" objectionable for pets?
(The Online Directory team at U-M switched to "master" and "shadow" for its servers, after a similar complaint in 1998 or 1999.)
This response has been erased.
Re 106> I doubt they found just the term "master" objectionable. It was the "master-and-slave" combination. I personally do not like the term "master" when used in the case of pets. Maybe because I viewmy pet and pets in general as members of the family. Nothing to do with the possibility that I might be black. (And everyone knows that cats do not have "masters" anyways, they have staff.)
Re resp:106: Apparently an L.A. city employee filed a complaint saying they found the terms offensive. That's all it takes, one person being offended.
In Berkeley, a pet's former master is now known as the pet's "owner/guardian." The original proposal before the Berkeley City Council, modeled on a similar ordinance in Boulder (which is not in California...) was to have those who take care of pets be the pet's "guardian," but that was seen as going too far. That said, I've generally found it much easier to offend people in Ann Arbor, where there enough conservatives around for conservative ideas to seem threatening, and where there are enough conservatives around to make a big deal out of how threatening various liberal ideas are. I remember walking across the University of Michigan Diag a few years ago, and seeing that every ten feet or so somebody had chalked "gays are people too." It shocked me, not for the reason it was presumably supposed to, but because I was struck by the sudden realization that I was somewhere where that needed to be said.
I could get used to "guardian" for pets. I'm not very comfortable with "owner". But I could be weird. I just realised last night that I've become pretty attached to Pablo, a co-worker's betta-fish that I'm looking after for a couple of weeks. (Thisw is especially ironic, because I've always maintained that fish aren't "real" pets :P )
People buy and sell pets. That makes them owners. Of course some pets just find you on their own.
Re #104: SCSI?
<remmers considers for a moment whether "custodian" would be appropriate, then decides in the negative>
After some thought on the matter.....I conclude that master/slave is *exactly* the correct term for things like master and slave clocks, as it describes the relationship: the clock (or whatever) is a "slave" to the "master", as it follows the master's every command and has no independent behavior in that relationship. What can a *person* possibly find wrong with this terminology? Is the relationship changed by the renaming? (no). Is any person denigrated by the terminology? (no). Is the objective to eliminate the word slave from our vocabulary? If so, we would not be able to have any laws banning slavery. Interestingly, though, radio amateurs refer to their "master" and "slave" stations as "control station" and "remote station", so the pair is control/remote. I'm sure this was done without any sociological intentions... (maybe).
Re 113> That just opens another whole other can of worms, that of "buying and selling" pets. I've never been for that either.
This response has been erased.
I bet if we called them "bishop" and "parishioner" devices, with the parishioner device getting authoritative information and instruction on how to behave from the bishop device, Rane would find it easier to be offended.. Everyone's got buttons you can push, rational or not.
How about "God" and "Pope" devices? Heh...
This response has been erased.
Mickey mate, I'm fairly sure nobody except habbyboy gives a thimblefull of rat's piss what happyboy thinks, at least unless and until he starts using his brain for the purpose for which it was intended, rather than as a willy-warmer.
But i am the "MASTER" of my home. Go ahead, ask the cats! they will tell you.
Re bishop/parishoner: too many syllables. Master/slave devices were in existence when I became sentient, so it was easy to not be aware of any other implications of the words. Introducing new pairs could easily raise objections from someone unless totally free of parallels to other human relationships. Control/remote is one such.
How about "executing"? I can't *execute* my programs anymore? ;)
haha. I think that some people just dont get certain other people's sense of humor.;) Luckily for me, I do. Which is why happyboy makes me laugh so much.
are you trying to say that i warm your willy?
We ADOPTED our dog, Remus, from the Humane Society. Then again, we did have to pay to do so And he did suffer through forced sterilization. Happily, now that he's housebroken, we're no longer custodians. Still, every week I have to clean the chinchillas' cage.
resp:127 - I get a woman woody every time you crack a joke. *snort*
Re 128>When you pay to adopt a dog, it's m"Adoption fees", not the price of the dog.
re129: in iggy-speak that would be a "squishy."
As usual, she has the better term :)
Ick.. Now I'm going to have to think about that every time I see any Simpsons episode where Apu is peddling an "all-syrup" or "chutney" squishy..
Can your adopted dog inherit from you?
If you write it in a will, yes.
I saw a pet dog on "Animal Planet" who did inherit the estate of his guardian/master/owner. The guy who died specifically left half of his estate to the dog. The relatives sued but the dog won!!
Re resp:111: But at least the Ann Arbor government doesn't usually create legislation to stop you from doing anything that might offend someone. That's what bothers me about California.
Maybe you ought to change your strategy. Let them know that you find the practice potentially offensive..
Do you have any specific California laws that bother you. I mean, I cant think of any legislation that would stop a person from doing *anything* that might offend someone.
Presumably the completely ineffectual nature of the rules is the icing on the cake.
You have several choices: