In some science-fiction books I've read, there's been discussion of increased prevalence of cameras making deception in war considerably less obsolete, frequently with the theory that this would deter war. I can imagine the first premise might not be too far off, but I don't know if the second follows. Similarly, I think the idea that democracies should theoretically never go to war with each other to be rubbish. Scarce resources or differences in values between society are potential causes for war that won't disappear with a particular system for governance. Democracies are typically not homogenous, and with the exception of the American system (which effectively serves to discourage political involvement and placate the masses), there's often considerable vigor in the process that might justify action. I think we're growing ever closer to honesty through surveillance though. Google Earth happens to provide the window that launched this thought in my head today.

It's disappointing how Washington is OK when its allies do something sensible and other countries do not. In particular, I think that it makes a lot of sense that Israel strike at Hezbollah just across the border in Lebanon/Syria (Countries are responsible for when militia within their borders attack other nations). Lebanon/Syria need to either wipe out Hezbollah or be ready for Israel to invade. At the same time, the U.S. has been pressing Turkey to do nothing while the Kurds of Iraq do the same thing, and this has been raising discontent among Turks. I suspect this attitude difference is because of America's sometimes-romance with Kurdish forces compared to its general hostility to Iran-sponsored Hezbollah. I wonder if the current middle east is in the planning stages of another world war. If so, it's disappointing, because I would want neither side to win.

Some phrases that just make me laugh in political discussions...

• Who are you to .. - I'm me. Haven't we already met? .. Seriously, I have no problems having opinions about absolutely anything, and to suggest that I should not would take a very good argument of which form I've almost never seen.
• You can't do that - Do you mean that it would not work or that I should not do it? Be careful with your language if you want to communicate.

For the bored, start here, and trace Beechwood to here, where (I think) it starts. Doing this will give you an understanding about the Pittsburgh road system. My (joke) theory is that Beechwood actually does not end, it folds over into hyperspace, and actually connects every city on the planet. All roads lead to Pittsburgh.

Interesting thoughts on war.

I have a few comments on other portions of your entry. You take umbrage at some remarks in political discussion.

   * Who are you to .. - I'm me. Haven't we already met? .. Seriously, I have no problems having opinions about absolutely anything, and to suggest that I should not would take a very good argument of which form I've almost never seen.

Agreed, that the above can be condescending in certain circumstances. I just wonder whether you're saying generally, that one person's opinion is just as important as another, or put differently, that everyone's opinion is of equal value. That's the principle I've been extracting from your blog entries in the past year. While I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think it's ridiculous to expect a reasonable person to take many of the opinions in the world seriously, or to assume that an average or random person's opinion is of the same value as someone who's learned or experienced.

There's an old saying that says something to the effect of "the less you know, and the more you try and hide it, you dumber you look." Folks with opinions about everything are often prone to falling into the butt of that idiom, largely because you'll find them arguing about whether the king of France should ease the national abortion laws, or something similar.

   * You can't do that - Do you mean that it would not work or that I should not do it? Be careful with your language if you want to communicate.

This isn't really an error on the part of the speaker, it's more of an error on the part of the listener, or an utter lack of communication between all parties. When you're eating dinner with someone, and they say "Hey Pat, can you hand me the salt shaker?" you probably just hand it to them. That sentence takes on a different meaning when it's used in a different context.

My point is, English speakers will sometimes use words in sentences that grammatically and pragmatically are correct, even though their precise semantic meaning might take on a different meaning in other circumstances. If someone says "You can't eat that, it's poisonous," the only time someone would chide them about their semantics would be if they were joking, or if they were an overly pedantic ass. I find it more useful to challenge a person's conceptual errors than their semantic ones.