Putin speaks to the American people in The New York Times
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
What the lynch mob can't see Piggy, is that Putin is one of them.
Only he has stuck his pitchfork in his own ass rather than Obama's.
Can you even imagine what the Mob would be saying,or doing, had Obama pulled this type of political move and aired his opinions of Russia and Putin to the Moscow Times?
This place would be a frenzy of monkeys throwing shit all over the walls.
I'm thankful we have a president who is better than that. (I hope)
This could be an historical precedent after all.
Instead of sending our military to correct insolent countries, like Syria, who are in default of the Geneva Convention- which they agreed to- We just let the Ruskies handle them.
Putin is clearly trying to show the world he is capable of policing his area, especially his allies.
Let's let him handle his obligations, but let's keep a close eye on those weapons he is stating he will dismantle.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if inspectors were to find chemical weapons which bear Russian maker marks.
Perhaps their are many unknown reasons Vladdy is playing his hand with such show of strength.
After all, he could be all in, while holding only a bunch of shit cards.
"Quote from PiggyBank:
dudes, you are giving putin WAY too much credit. he is an authoritarian scumbag who is simply much better at the game of politics than our goofy pres. he saw weakness and like a good kgb assassin, he went for the kill. yeah he is right on this issue, but should it come down to it, i will support 'murica, and even our dbag pres. "
I missed this post, Piggybank. Fairly said with an encouraging conclusion.
dudes, you are giving putin WAY too much credit. he is an authoritarian scumbag who is simply much better at the game of politics than our goofy pres. he saw weakness and like a good kgb assassin, he went for the kill. yeah he is right on this issue, but should it come down to it, i will support 'murica, and even our dbag pres. "
I missed this post, Piggybank. Fairly said with an encouraging conclusion.
Direct vs. systemic causation:
Systemic Causation and Syria: Obama's Framing Problem
By George Lakoff
Posted: 09/13/2013 8:10 am
"This is the second of two articles analyzing the mode of thought and the language in public discourse on Syria from the perspective of cognitive science and linguistics.
"Every language in the world has a way in its grammar to express direct causation: a local application of force that has a local effect in place and time. You pick up a glass of water and drink it: direct causation. You bomb a hospital, destroying it and killing those inside: direct causation.
"No language in the world has a way in its grammar to express systemic causation. You drill a lot more oil, burn a lot more gas, put a lot more CO2 in the air, the earth's atmosphere heats up, more moisture evaporates from the oceans yielding bigger storms in certain places and more droughts and fires in other places: systemic causation. The world ecology is a system -- like the world economy and the human brain.
"From infanthood on we experience simple, direct causation. We see direct causation all around us: if we push a toy, it topples over; if our mother turns a knob on the oven, flames emerge. And so on. The same is not true of systemic causation. Systemic causation cannot be experienced directly. It has to be learned, its cases studied, and repeated communication is necessary before it can be widely understood.
"The daily horrors in Syria are direct: shootings, bombings, gassings. When the media reports on "Syria" (as it should), it is reporting on the direct horrors. If "Syria" is the problem, the problem is the daily horrors, the 100,000 killed, the ongoing shootings and bombings, the persistent hatred and oppression. If the president is understood as addressing "Syria," and he proposes directly bombing Syria, the natural question is whether that eliminates the daily direct horrors. When he admits that it does not, when Secretary Kerry says correctly, "There are no good options in Syria," the question naturally arises, "Why bomb when it won't solve the direct problem, but might create other problems?"
"To President Obama, "Syria" is not primarily about direct causation. It is about systemic causation as it affects the world as a whole. It is about preventing the proliferation of poison gas use and nuclear weapons. It is about the keeping and enforcement of treaties on these matters. That is what he meant when he said that the red line is not his, but "the world's red line," "the international community's red line." The president has a broad perspective. To him "Syria" does not just mean Syria; it means the effects of the horrors in Syria on the world. "Limited" bombing in Syria is not about directly stopping the horrors there; it is about an attempt to prevent proliferation of gas and nuclear weapons and about an attempt to move toward a peaceful resolution.
"But the president has not made this clear, and he could not possibly do it in one speech, given that most people don't viscerally react to systemic causation, and many don't understand it at all. He could only do it by discussing it overtly, distinguishing what is systemic from what is direct, and repeating it over and over. Even then, it would be a hard sell for cognitive reasons -- even though he has good reasons to base his policy on it.
"Then there is Russia. In his September 10 speech, Obama addressed the Russian plan to take control of the poison gas in Syria from Assad's hands, which Assad has assented to. He discussed the plan, but never mentioned why the usual rational distrust of Russia should not apply here. It shouldn't apply because taking control is in many ways in Russia's interests: there are business interests, and there are many Russian citizens in Syria working on technology or going to college or married to Syrians. An American bombing could lead to gas falling into the hands of jihadists from Chechnya and elsewhere, who could use gas in terrorist attacks on Russia. Russia has a very strong interest in taking control of Assad's poison gas and we can trust Russia to act in its interests. But the president didn't say that Russia has a real interest in a peaceful diplomatic resolution in Syria, just as we do. Why not? Given the deep suspicion of Russia in the American psyche, that is a hard sell, too.
"Just as there are no easy direct options in Syria, so there are no easy direct short-run communication options for a reasonable policy based on systemic causation. The reason is that the communication of unfamiliar ideas like systemic causation is itself a systemic problem. You can't just mention it once and expect it to be widely understood. It has to be repeated over time by a lot of people in a lot of situations.
"As a result, the president's logic of limited bombing is not understood: he wants to bomb to prevent the systemic effect of the use of poison gas, not to stop the direct killing via other means, which we cannot stop. Obama has two hard sells, which for cognitive reasons lie beyond his immediate control. Systemic causation is not a natural concept that is automatically learned. In the September 10 speech, these ideas were mentioned, but they were not put front and center. And moreover, there has been no communicative groundwork over the past five years that would help citizens understand the logic of systemic causation versus direct causation and how it applies to Syria and other issues of our times."
George Lakoff www.georgelakoff.com is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley.
Here >>
Systemic Causation and Syria: Obama's Framing Problem
By George Lakoff
Posted: 09/13/2013 8:10 am
"This is the second of two articles analyzing the mode of thought and the language in public discourse on Syria from the perspective of cognitive science and linguistics.
"Every language in the world has a way in its grammar to express direct causation: a local application of force that has a local effect in place and time. You pick up a glass of water and drink it: direct causation. You bomb a hospital, destroying it and killing those inside: direct causation.
"No language in the world has a way in its grammar to express systemic causation. You drill a lot more oil, burn a lot more gas, put a lot more CO2 in the air, the earth's atmosphere heats up, more moisture evaporates from the oceans yielding bigger storms in certain places and more droughts and fires in other places: systemic causation. The world ecology is a system -- like the world economy and the human brain.
"From infanthood on we experience simple, direct causation. We see direct causation all around us: if we push a toy, it topples over; if our mother turns a knob on the oven, flames emerge. And so on. The same is not true of systemic causation. Systemic causation cannot be experienced directly. It has to be learned, its cases studied, and repeated communication is necessary before it can be widely understood.
"The daily horrors in Syria are direct: shootings, bombings, gassings. When the media reports on "Syria" (as it should), it is reporting on the direct horrors. If "Syria" is the problem, the problem is the daily horrors, the 100,000 killed, the ongoing shootings and bombings, the persistent hatred and oppression. If the president is understood as addressing "Syria," and he proposes directly bombing Syria, the natural question is whether that eliminates the daily direct horrors. When he admits that it does not, when Secretary Kerry says correctly, "There are no good options in Syria," the question naturally arises, "Why bomb when it won't solve the direct problem, but might create other problems?"
"To President Obama, "Syria" is not primarily about direct causation. It is about systemic causation as it affects the world as a whole. It is about preventing the proliferation of poison gas use and nuclear weapons. It is about the keeping and enforcement of treaties on these matters. That is what he meant when he said that the red line is not his, but "the world's red line," "the international community's red line." The president has a broad perspective. To him "Syria" does not just mean Syria; it means the effects of the horrors in Syria on the world. "Limited" bombing in Syria is not about directly stopping the horrors there; it is about an attempt to prevent proliferation of gas and nuclear weapons and about an attempt to move toward a peaceful resolution.
"But the president has not made this clear, and he could not possibly do it in one speech, given that most people don't viscerally react to systemic causation, and many don't understand it at all. He could only do it by discussing it overtly, distinguishing what is systemic from what is direct, and repeating it over and over. Even then, it would be a hard sell for cognitive reasons -- even though he has good reasons to base his policy on it.
"Then there is Russia. In his September 10 speech, Obama addressed the Russian plan to take control of the poison gas in Syria from Assad's hands, which Assad has assented to. He discussed the plan, but never mentioned why the usual rational distrust of Russia should not apply here. It shouldn't apply because taking control is in many ways in Russia's interests: there are business interests, and there are many Russian citizens in Syria working on technology or going to college or married to Syrians. An American bombing could lead to gas falling into the hands of jihadists from Chechnya and elsewhere, who could use gas in terrorist attacks on Russia. Russia has a very strong interest in taking control of Assad's poison gas and we can trust Russia to act in its interests. But the president didn't say that Russia has a real interest in a peaceful diplomatic resolution in Syria, just as we do. Why not? Given the deep suspicion of Russia in the American psyche, that is a hard sell, too.
"Just as there are no easy direct options in Syria, so there are no easy direct short-run communication options for a reasonable policy based on systemic causation. The reason is that the communication of unfamiliar ideas like systemic causation is itself a systemic problem. You can't just mention it once and expect it to be widely understood. It has to be repeated over time by a lot of people in a lot of situations.
"As a result, the president's logic of limited bombing is not understood: he wants to bomb to prevent the systemic effect of the use of poison gas, not to stop the direct killing via other means, which we cannot stop. Obama has two hard sells, which for cognitive reasons lie beyond his immediate control. Systemic causation is not a natural concept that is automatically learned. In the September 10 speech, these ideas were mentioned, but they were not put front and center. And moreover, there has been no communicative groundwork over the past five years that would help citizens understand the logic of systemic causation versus direct causation and how it applies to Syria and other issues of our times."
George Lakoff www.georgelakoff.com is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley.
Here >>
What are you left with is the the President isn't selling sytematic causation because his administration does not have the brain power or skills to plan for it or even deal with it. At least we had Bill Clintion advising Hillary. Now we have a self loving self mutilating dunce like Kerry having a say.
Most people who want to be life long govt workers believe in big govt... so they are leftists.
Most leftist don't have the IQ to deal with systematic causation.
No one in Obama adminstration seems to be intelligent enough to figure any of this out ahead of time.
---
Background....
It takes a high IQ to think in systems. (Over 115-120) It takes a very high IQ to think about systematic causation.
It takes and even higher IQ to plan ahead and be prepared to deal with systematic causation issues.
Business has a tendency to weed out idiots as they progress up the ladder.
Govt has no reliable filters for brain power.
Most lefties go into govt jobs because they believe in govt.
They can progress up govt ranks without be great planers ro thinkers or even administrators.
Not only does Obama's staff not have the IQ or the intelligence to prepare for or handle the middle east, they seem to have a major biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood.
I make these statements based on know a bit about IQs... plus...
A long time ago I worked for the Democratic policy committee for about a year. I was very unimpressed with the intelligence of the people running the show. But, they were rabid leftists.
Most people who want to be life long govt workers believe in big govt... so they are leftists.
Most leftist don't have the IQ to deal with systematic causation.
No one in Obama adminstration seems to be intelligent enough to figure any of this out ahead of time.
---
Background....
It takes a high IQ to think in systems. (Over 115-120) It takes a very high IQ to think about systematic causation.
It takes and even higher IQ to plan ahead and be prepared to deal with systematic causation issues.
Business has a tendency to weed out idiots as they progress up the ladder.
Govt has no reliable filters for brain power.
Most lefties go into govt jobs because they believe in govt.
They can progress up govt ranks without be great planers ro thinkers or even administrators.
Not only does Obama's staff not have the IQ or the intelligence to prepare for or handle the middle east, they seem to have a major biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood.
I make these statements based on know a bit about IQs... plus...
A long time ago I worked for the Democratic policy committee for about a year. I was very unimpressed with the intelligence of the people running the show. But, they were rabid leftists.
Good post, although I don't agree with the usual distrust of Russia not applying here.
Obama knows this is a win for the U.S. and he doesn't want to discourage others from allowing Putin to clean this mess up.
I think to best understand what they both are conveying here, we need to supply Obama's sept 10 speech, which Lakoff refers us to.
Due to limited characters per post, the transcripts will be in two parts or posts.
Part 1
to be continued...
Obma has repeatedly made this exact argument, viz. that bombing is necessary to draw a line against use of chemical weapons. So I can't agree that he has failed to make the so-called "systemic causation" argument. The problem is not, as the professor condescendingly claims, that people are too stupid to understand it. The problem is that the causative link is weak, so weak that it is obscured by the greater effect of aiding some of the worst jihadists around.
We have ignored far greater outrages repeatedly, with no apparent precedential effects. Every country knows that if they use chemical weapons against the US, we reserve the right to respond with WMD. Syria is an isolated case. They do not belong to the Chemical Weapons Treaty, there are lingering questions about who ordered the use of gas and with what authority, plus they have agreed to the Russian proposal, effectively renouncing the use of chemical weapons.
Moreover, the US doesn't have the right under international law to unilaterally enforce violations of the chemical weapons treaty or dole out punishments for human rights violations.
The argument that Obama is pursuing some ultra-sophisticated systemic causation process here is full of holes. The real question is why are we intervening on behalf of terrorists who would happily blow up a school full of our children?
We have ignored far greater outrages repeatedly, with no apparent precedential effects. Every country knows that if they use chemical weapons against the US, we reserve the right to respond with WMD. Syria is an isolated case. They do not belong to the Chemical Weapons Treaty, there are lingering questions about who ordered the use of gas and with what authority, plus they have agreed to the Russian proposal, effectively renouncing the use of chemical weapons.
Moreover, the US doesn't have the right under international law to unilaterally enforce violations of the chemical weapons treaty or dole out punishments for human rights violations.
The argument that Obama is pursuing some ultra-sophisticated systemic causation process here is full of holes. The real question is why are we intervening on behalf of terrorists who would happily blow up a school full of our children?
