Friday, October 29, 2004
The face of war
War is hell. War is death and destruction. This is what George W. Bush has done to the people of Iraq:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm
Vote him out.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm
Vote him out.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
30 x 9/11?
We've heard the case for war. Again and again, we've been given reasons for the US invasion of Iraq.
Iraq supported Al Qaeda.
Nope? Well, Iraq had WMDs.
They didn't? In that case, Iraq was a gathering threat.
Not really? Well, at the very least Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people by the thousands. This is unquestioned. We've been told for over a decade and a half that the self-styled Stalin of the Arab World was one of the most bloodthirst, vicious and inhumane dictators in the history of mankind.
But, alas, as dangerous as Saddam may have been to his own people, it is now clear that the United States and its president, George W. Bush, are far greater risks to the lives of Iraqi citizens. A recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University reveals that as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion. This number is not a gross total, but rather a net increase in Iraqi mortalities over those expected to occur within the same time period given the mortality rate in Iraq before the war. That pre-war mortality rate figure includes deaths due to both the brutality of Saddam's regime and the smothering UN sanctions imposed on the country after the first Gulf War. In sum, our war has caused 100,000 more deaths in the past 15 months than Saddam and rampant starvation could have achieved in the same period.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5qWDoyceuDI&refer=us
While the 100,000 number seems high, other reports place the minimum level of civilian deaths in the range of 14,000 - 16,000. Notably, this number does not include the young men - sons, husbands and fathers - of the Iraqi military who were slaughtered while serving (mostly involuntarily) their country.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Pegging down the exact number to an exacting degree of precision is unimportant. 15,000? 100,000? It doesn't matter. What matters is this: there are tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who, were it not for this US invasion, would be alive today. And there was no justifiable reason for their deaths.
These reports, while not at all surprising, are sobering. What has been portrayed - sold, if you will - by the Bush regime as, alternatively, an unfortunately necessary act of preemptive defense and a humanitarian campaign is clearly neither. There were no terrorist ties, no WMDs. There are 100,000 unnecessary deaths. If anything, it has been simply a slaughter of innocent men, women and children who happen to live in a nation sitting directly on top of a giant pool of oil.
My fellow Americans, our president is a murderer of the highest order. On September 11, 2001, the murderer Osama bin Laden and his henchmen succeeded in killing 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington, D.C. Since March of 2003, George Bush and his henchmen have succeeded in slaughtering 30 times than many innocent men , women and children. THIRTY TIMES. The number of innocent Iraqis killed due to the unjustified US invasion is equal to the number of Japanese killed by the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm
If any group of men ought to be tried for terrorism and war crimes, it is the vile and despicable gang of villains known collectively as the Bush Administration.
Iraq supported Al Qaeda.
Nope? Well, Iraq had WMDs.
They didn't? In that case, Iraq was a gathering threat.
Not really? Well, at the very least Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people by the thousands. This is unquestioned. We've been told for over a decade and a half that the self-styled Stalin of the Arab World was one of the most bloodthirst, vicious and inhumane dictators in the history of mankind.
But, alas, as dangerous as Saddam may have been to his own people, it is now clear that the United States and its president, George W. Bush, are far greater risks to the lives of Iraqi citizens. A recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University reveals that as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion. This number is not a gross total, but rather a net increase in Iraqi mortalities over those expected to occur within the same time period given the mortality rate in Iraq before the war. That pre-war mortality rate figure includes deaths due to both the brutality of Saddam's regime and the smothering UN sanctions imposed on the country after the first Gulf War. In sum, our war has caused 100,000 more deaths in the past 15 months than Saddam and rampant starvation could have achieved in the same period.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5qWDoyceuDI&refer=us
While the 100,000 number seems high, other reports place the minimum level of civilian deaths in the range of 14,000 - 16,000. Notably, this number does not include the young men - sons, husbands and fathers - of the Iraqi military who were slaughtered while serving (mostly involuntarily) their country.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Pegging down the exact number to an exacting degree of precision is unimportant. 15,000? 100,000? It doesn't matter. What matters is this: there are tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who, were it not for this US invasion, would be alive today. And there was no justifiable reason for their deaths.
These reports, while not at all surprising, are sobering. What has been portrayed - sold, if you will - by the Bush regime as, alternatively, an unfortunately necessary act of preemptive defense and a humanitarian campaign is clearly neither. There were no terrorist ties, no WMDs. There are 100,000 unnecessary deaths. If anything, it has been simply a slaughter of innocent men, women and children who happen to live in a nation sitting directly on top of a giant pool of oil.
My fellow Americans, our president is a murderer of the highest order. On September 11, 2001, the murderer Osama bin Laden and his henchmen succeeded in killing 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington, D.C. Since March of 2003, George Bush and his henchmen have succeeded in slaughtering 30 times than many innocent men , women and children. THIRTY TIMES. The number of innocent Iraqis killed due to the unjustified US invasion is equal to the number of Japanese killed by the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm
If any group of men ought to be tried for terrorism and war crimes, it is the vile and despicable gang of villains known collectively as the Bush Administration.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Bush and the Failure of Faith-Based Rationale
NOTE: My entry here is merely an analysis of and further commentary on an article by Ron Suskind that is linked in the text below. I encourage everyone to read the full article for an accurate and complete understanding of Suskind’s thesis. The work is 11 pages long, but a relatively quick read. And it is well worth the time.
As the November general elections approach, I become more convinced that the American public is about to make an enormous mistake. Despite the continuing (and growing) corrosion of the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war and the continuously escalating casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan, domestic support for Bush has remained largely constant (and seemingly sufficient to carry the current President into another term). What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Americans either have bought into the need for war in Iraq irrespective of a rational and judicial justification or believe that Bush’s views on issues outside of foreign policy (or, more specifically, preemptive war in Iraq) outweigh the failure of his leadership in the War on Terror. Both types of Bush supporter display an inability or refusal to apply analytical reasoning as a guide to their political decision-making. The former fail because they support the war without any need for analytical or empirical justification; the latter fail because they largely support Bush’s policies on the environment, energy or morality – policies that Bush has based largely on faith in either his own, highly-specific version of Christianity or his own misguided and simply inaccurate beliefs regarding science, economics and politics.
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine – available on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d2355b163338765d&ex=1099142633 - highlights Bush’s faith-based decision-making process and the problems that flow from his blatant disdain for empiricism and analytical policy construction. The author, Ron Suskind, paints a frightening picture (largely pieced together through discussions with politicians and leaders of special interest groups from both sides of the aisle) of the current president as a man who is overly confident in his own “instincts” for governance and highly skeptical of rationales based in science or empiricism. Suskind refers to Bush’s as the “faith-based presidency.” In place of investigation, analysis and debate, Suskind argues, Bush would place rash conclusions rooted in little more than gut feelings and preconceived biases. According to Suskind, Bush views confidence and decisiveness as the paramount quality of the American President. Anything that undermines the appearance of confidence in his decisions, including debate or critical inquiry, is viewed as counterproductive and must be rooted out. As Suskind notes, “[t]his is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker.”
At this point, you might be thinking: “that’s neat, but who cares how Bush makes his decisions? Faith, instincts, gut feel – these all sound like good methods for leadership.” Well, as I detailed in an earlier entry, good leaders make decisions based on evidence and reason. Faith is a fickle instrument – while blind, gut-feel decisions may sometimes lead to favorable results, often such willy-nilly action will yield a low probability of success. Science, when applied correctly, will lead to a greater understanding of the relevant situation and thus give the decision-maker a vastly improved probability of success compared to faith-based “reasoning” alone. By acting impulsively on faith, gut feels and instincts at the expense of prudent deliberation, President Bush sabotages America’s opportunities for success.
Furthermore, the problems caused by Bush’s reliance on faith are exacerbated by his arrogant confidence in such careless bases for action. Not only is the bus driver blind, but he refuses to ask for directions from the seeing. Bush’s unflappable confidence in his own unexamined and irrational decisions has been mischaracterized (by his campaign managers) and misinterpreted (by his constituency) as “conviction.” This purported conviction is contrasted to the “flip-flopping” of Senator Kerry (who is, admittedly, a pure politician if there ever was one). But, as Kerry said in the first debate (paraphrasing): “you can be certain and still be wrong.” The blind bus driver may have faith in his chosen route, while heading down the wrong way on a one-way street. I think we can all agree that it would be wise of the bus driver to stop and turn around upon discovery of his error. But first, he has to ask those who would know and be open to evidence that may prove him wrong. Bush is apparently incapable of doing this. Suskind describes “[a] cluster of particularly vivid qualities…shaping George W. Bush's White House” including “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”
But, lacking real-world examples of Bush administration policy failure, all of this discussion is merely academic. Unfortunately, such examples abound. Most notable is the disaster in Iraq, a death trap into which our President placed our nation’s young men and women based largely on his personal faith in the veracity of one Iraqi ex-patriot’s (a man who is now on trial for embezzlement of Iraqi funds) rosy, utopian prediction that his soon-to-be invaded countrymen would welcome the United States’ violent invasion with open arms and a parade of flower petals. The war in Iraq is certainly the most prominent example of Bush’s failure to deliberate and analyze a complex foreign policy issue, but probably the most critical failure of the Bush administration’s “act now, think later” attitude to date has been the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite providing graphic displays of “shock and awe” as a violent nepenthe for the wounded and frightened soul of America, very little was accomplished in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and his top advisors escaped, and the seeds of the Al Qaeda terrorist network were spread on the winds to all four corners of the Earth. As Suskind notes, “[l]ooking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.” Bush’s poor decisions in Afghanistan not only lead to failure of the mission, but have made Al Qaeda more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.
Despite his failures, Bush is unwilling to waiver. Confidence in the President must be preserved at all costs. Those who criticize or even question the wisdom of the President’s rash judgments are ignored or denied access to the President. Those who support him are forced to swear loyalty oaths. Those who worship him as an American pharaoh, as God-as-King, are simply thanked and, notably, not rebutted by the President. Suskind details an intriguing (and frightening) dialogue between Bush and Gary Walby, a Bush supporter from Florida. When Walby informed the President that his administration was “the very first time that [he has] felt that God was in the White House,” Bush responded with a simple “thank you.” According to one Bush supporter quoted by Suskind, “[m]any conservative evangelicals ‘feel they have a direct line from God… and feel Bush is divinely chosen.’” It is almost as if Bush, who has often referred to the power of prayer and stated that his actions are guided by God’s will, welcomes such praise because he truly believes it. Bush, like the pharaohs of Egypt, either believes that he is the Earthly channel for God’s will or, just as dangerously, that fostering such a belief among the citizenry is healthy for the nation. To use an apropos allusion that is simply too serendipitous to pass up: the President’s supporters view him more as a burning bush, the Old Testament conduit of God’s voice to His chosen people, than George W. Bush, the all-too-human failed student, businessman and public speaker.
What is the conclusion of this analysis? I believe it is apparent that George W. Bush’s world-view is little more sophisticated than that of a 2 year-old child. Decisions are based on instinct, and the admission of failure is absolutely out of the question. Reality is ignored or, more dangerously, viewed as a toy of the American Empire, something that does not affect the environment of American policy, but is wholly shaped by it. Suskind’s account of his discussion with one of Bush’s top aides sheds light on the current administration’s view of the relationship between American action and ontology:
“The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
That says it all. President Bush is unconcerned with reality as it exists because, as God’s messenger (or, even God-on-Earth) in command of the world’s next great Empire, he is capable of dictating the course of the universe as he sees fit. He has no use for empirical data or careful study of world dynamics because, in his view, those dynamics are his for the molding. He alone may control the geo-political environment of a world of six billion people through unjustified shows of force. He alone may solve the nation’s moral problems by appointing reactionary, fundamentalist judges and supporting legislation inconsistent with constitutional principles. He alone can solve the world’s energy crisis by accelerating the depletion of the finite oil supply. But, if he can do this alone, without any deliberation, it begs the questions: Why do we need a Congress? Why do we need voters? Why do we need scientists, scholars or policy experts? Why do we need any deliberation between experts and intellectuals when we have a C student and failed businessman armed with confidence in his own uninformed gut feelings and the mandate of God?
As the November general elections approach, I become more convinced that the American public is about to make an enormous mistake. Despite the continuing (and growing) corrosion of the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war and the continuously escalating casualties in the Middle East and Afghanistan, domestic support for Bush has remained largely constant (and seemingly sufficient to carry the current President into another term). What this indicates, in my opinion, is that Americans either have bought into the need for war in Iraq irrespective of a rational and judicial justification or believe that Bush’s views on issues outside of foreign policy (or, more specifically, preemptive war in Iraq) outweigh the failure of his leadership in the War on Terror. Both types of Bush supporter display an inability or refusal to apply analytical reasoning as a guide to their political decision-making. The former fail because they support the war without any need for analytical or empirical justification; the latter fail because they largely support Bush’s policies on the environment, energy or morality – policies that Bush has based largely on faith in either his own, highly-specific version of Christianity or his own misguided and simply inaccurate beliefs regarding science, economics and politics.
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine – available on-line at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d2355b163338765d&ex=1099142633 - highlights Bush’s faith-based decision-making process and the problems that flow from his blatant disdain for empiricism and analytical policy construction. The author, Ron Suskind, paints a frightening picture (largely pieced together through discussions with politicians and leaders of special interest groups from both sides of the aisle) of the current president as a man who is overly confident in his own “instincts” for governance and highly skeptical of rationales based in science or empiricism. Suskind refers to Bush’s as the “faith-based presidency.” In place of investigation, analysis and debate, Suskind argues, Bush would place rash conclusions rooted in little more than gut feelings and preconceived biases. According to Suskind, Bush views confidence and decisiveness as the paramount quality of the American President. Anything that undermines the appearance of confidence in his decisions, including debate or critical inquiry, is viewed as counterproductive and must be rooted out. As Suskind notes, “[t]his is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker.”
At this point, you might be thinking: “that’s neat, but who cares how Bush makes his decisions? Faith, instincts, gut feel – these all sound like good methods for leadership.” Well, as I detailed in an earlier entry, good leaders make decisions based on evidence and reason. Faith is a fickle instrument – while blind, gut-feel decisions may sometimes lead to favorable results, often such willy-nilly action will yield a low probability of success. Science, when applied correctly, will lead to a greater understanding of the relevant situation and thus give the decision-maker a vastly improved probability of success compared to faith-based “reasoning” alone. By acting impulsively on faith, gut feels and instincts at the expense of prudent deliberation, President Bush sabotages America’s opportunities for success.
Furthermore, the problems caused by Bush’s reliance on faith are exacerbated by his arrogant confidence in such careless bases for action. Not only is the bus driver blind, but he refuses to ask for directions from the seeing. Bush’s unflappable confidence in his own unexamined and irrational decisions has been mischaracterized (by his campaign managers) and misinterpreted (by his constituency) as “conviction.” This purported conviction is contrasted to the “flip-flopping” of Senator Kerry (who is, admittedly, a pure politician if there ever was one). But, as Kerry said in the first debate (paraphrasing): “you can be certain and still be wrong.” The blind bus driver may have faith in his chosen route, while heading down the wrong way on a one-way street. I think we can all agree that it would be wise of the bus driver to stop and turn around upon discovery of his error. But first, he has to ask those who would know and be open to evidence that may prove him wrong. Bush is apparently incapable of doing this. Suskind describes “[a] cluster of particularly vivid qualities…shaping George W. Bush's White House” including “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”
But, lacking real-world examples of Bush administration policy failure, all of this discussion is merely academic. Unfortunately, such examples abound. Most notable is the disaster in Iraq, a death trap into which our President placed our nation’s young men and women based largely on his personal faith in the veracity of one Iraqi ex-patriot’s (a man who is now on trial for embezzlement of Iraqi funds) rosy, utopian prediction that his soon-to-be invaded countrymen would welcome the United States’ violent invasion with open arms and a parade of flower petals. The war in Iraq is certainly the most prominent example of Bush’s failure to deliberate and analyze a complex foreign policy issue, but probably the most critical failure of the Bush administration’s “act now, think later” attitude to date has been the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite providing graphic displays of “shock and awe” as a violent nepenthe for the wounded and frightened soul of America, very little was accomplished in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and his top advisors escaped, and the seeds of the Al Qaeda terrorist network were spread on the winds to all four corners of the Earth. As Suskind notes, “[l]ooking back at the months directly following 9/11, virtually every leading military analyst seems to believe that rather than using Afghan proxies, we should have used more American troops, deployed more quickly, to pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora.” Bush’s poor decisions in Afghanistan not only lead to failure of the mission, but have made Al Qaeda more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.
Despite his failures, Bush is unwilling to waiver. Confidence in the President must be preserved at all costs. Those who criticize or even question the wisdom of the President’s rash judgments are ignored or denied access to the President. Those who support him are forced to swear loyalty oaths. Those who worship him as an American pharaoh, as God-as-King, are simply thanked and, notably, not rebutted by the President. Suskind details an intriguing (and frightening) dialogue between Bush and Gary Walby, a Bush supporter from Florida. When Walby informed the President that his administration was “the very first time that [he has] felt that God was in the White House,” Bush responded with a simple “thank you.” According to one Bush supporter quoted by Suskind, “[m]any conservative evangelicals ‘feel they have a direct line from God… and feel Bush is divinely chosen.’” It is almost as if Bush, who has often referred to the power of prayer and stated that his actions are guided by God’s will, welcomes such praise because he truly believes it. Bush, like the pharaohs of Egypt, either believes that he is the Earthly channel for God’s will or, just as dangerously, that fostering such a belief among the citizenry is healthy for the nation. To use an apropos allusion that is simply too serendipitous to pass up: the President’s supporters view him more as a burning bush, the Old Testament conduit of God’s voice to His chosen people, than George W. Bush, the all-too-human failed student, businessman and public speaker.
What is the conclusion of this analysis? I believe it is apparent that George W. Bush’s world-view is little more sophisticated than that of a 2 year-old child. Decisions are based on instinct, and the admission of failure is absolutely out of the question. Reality is ignored or, more dangerously, viewed as a toy of the American Empire, something that does not affect the environment of American policy, but is wholly shaped by it. Suskind’s account of his discussion with one of Bush’s top aides sheds light on the current administration’s view of the relationship between American action and ontology:
“The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
That says it all. President Bush is unconcerned with reality as it exists because, as God’s messenger (or, even God-on-Earth) in command of the world’s next great Empire, he is capable of dictating the course of the universe as he sees fit. He has no use for empirical data or careful study of world dynamics because, in his view, those dynamics are his for the molding. He alone may control the geo-political environment of a world of six billion people through unjustified shows of force. He alone may solve the nation’s moral problems by appointing reactionary, fundamentalist judges and supporting legislation inconsistent with constitutional principles. He alone can solve the world’s energy crisis by accelerating the depletion of the finite oil supply. But, if he can do this alone, without any deliberation, it begs the questions: Why do we need a Congress? Why do we need voters? Why do we need scientists, scholars or policy experts? Why do we need any deliberation between experts and intellectuals when we have a C student and failed businessman armed with confidence in his own uninformed gut feelings and the mandate of God?
Monday, October 04, 2004
OU Sucks
Well, it's that time of year again. The Texas-OU football game will be played this upcoming Saturday afternoon. For those who don't follow college football, I will give a brief synopsis of what this game means.
The University of Texas has played the University of Oklahoma (or "OU," as the apparently dyslexic Oklahoma football boosters refer to their school) Sooners in football for some 90+ years. Despite some recent embarrassing setbacks against the Evil Ones, Texas holds a roughly 20 game advantage in the overall series. The game is played every year in Dallas, Texas, which is roughly halfway between Austin (the gloriously scenic home of the University of Texas) and Norman, Oklahoma (one of the most regrettably filthy cesspools on Earth). The setting and dynamic of the game are surreal. The two teams clash in the historic art deco era Cotton Bowl, which is located in the heart of the Texas State fairgrounds, during the peak weekend of the State Fair. Outside of the stadium, fairgoers and football fans alike enjoy Fletcher's Corny Dogs, beer and vomit-inducing thrill rides. Inside the stadium, the fans are divided on the 50-yard line into two equally-numbered groups: orange-clad Texas fans on one side and drooling, Crimson-clad morons from the Indian Territory on the other. It has been said that when the Sooner football team (renowned student-athletes all) crosses the 50-yard line into their school's territory, it raises the average IQ of both sides of the stadium by 40 points. In any case, here is a reproduction of the highlights of an old Texas-OU thread from Hornfans.com that was posted a few years back.
Many thanks go to jcdenton for keeping a database of the great Hornfans.com posts of the past and providing me with the text.
==================
Absolute Truth
Statalyzer:
If nothing can be 100% proven... then how do we really know for a fact that o u sucks?
BrickHorn:
There's always an exception to the rule. OU's suckage is clearly transcendent of individual logical systems - it applies equally to all conceivable realities. There is no feasible universe in which OU would not suck (assuming it existed). Every philosopher since the golden age of ancient Greece has agreed that, if ever a university of Oklahoma were founded, it would suck. Since the founding of Trailer Park U., it has been evident that the early hypothetical theories of Plato, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas were indeed correct. OU was founded, it sucked, it currently sucks and it will always suck. Modern theorists have noted the amazing accuracy of the early theories, and have seen no need for further revision. Rather, luminaries such as Ayn Rand, Nietzsche and Descartes have been satisfied to merely comment on OU's suckage in complete agreement with the ancient wisdom, and give reassurance that there is no feasibility of OU making a state change from suckage to non-suckage. It is a superuniversal truth. OU sucks. OU has sucked, OU still sucks and OU will continue to suck ad infinitum.
Doperbo:
It is telling that only through the emotional journey of art and poetry can we experience or categorize the omnisuckeficense that is Oklahoma.
=======================
Hook 'Em Horns, and beat the Hell out of OU!!!!!
The University of Texas has played the University of Oklahoma (or "OU," as the apparently dyslexic Oklahoma football boosters refer to their school) Sooners in football for some 90+ years. Despite some recent embarrassing setbacks against the Evil Ones, Texas holds a roughly 20 game advantage in the overall series. The game is played every year in Dallas, Texas, which is roughly halfway between Austin (the gloriously scenic home of the University of Texas) and Norman, Oklahoma (one of the most regrettably filthy cesspools on Earth). The setting and dynamic of the game are surreal. The two teams clash in the historic art deco era Cotton Bowl, which is located in the heart of the Texas State fairgrounds, during the peak weekend of the State Fair. Outside of the stadium, fairgoers and football fans alike enjoy Fletcher's Corny Dogs, beer and vomit-inducing thrill rides. Inside the stadium, the fans are divided on the 50-yard line into two equally-numbered groups: orange-clad Texas fans on one side and drooling, Crimson-clad morons from the Indian Territory on the other. It has been said that when the Sooner football team (renowned student-athletes all) crosses the 50-yard line into their school's territory, it raises the average IQ of both sides of the stadium by 40 points. In any case, here is a reproduction of the highlights of an old Texas-OU thread from Hornfans.com that was posted a few years back.
Many thanks go to jcdenton for keeping a database of the great Hornfans.com posts of the past and providing me with the text.
==================
Absolute Truth
Statalyzer:
If nothing can be 100% proven... then how do we really know for a fact that o u sucks?
BrickHorn:
There's always an exception to the rule. OU's suckage is clearly transcendent of individual logical systems - it applies equally to all conceivable realities. There is no feasible universe in which OU would not suck (assuming it existed). Every philosopher since the golden age of ancient Greece has agreed that, if ever a university of Oklahoma were founded, it would suck. Since the founding of Trailer Park U., it has been evident that the early hypothetical theories of Plato, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas were indeed correct. OU was founded, it sucked, it currently sucks and it will always suck. Modern theorists have noted the amazing accuracy of the early theories, and have seen no need for further revision. Rather, luminaries such as Ayn Rand, Nietzsche and Descartes have been satisfied to merely comment on OU's suckage in complete agreement with the ancient wisdom, and give reassurance that there is no feasibility of OU making a state change from suckage to non-suckage. It is a superuniversal truth. OU sucks. OU has sucked, OU still sucks and OU will continue to suck ad infinitum.
Doperbo:
It is telling that only through the emotional journey of art and poetry can we experience or categorize the omnisuckeficense that is Oklahoma.
=======================
Hook 'Em Horns, and beat the Hell out of OU!!!!!
