I’m reminded of the first Gulf War when the news media loved to broadcast films of smart bombs and missiles blowing up buildings in Iraq. It was all very clinical as in the references to precision bombing which was as if to say how humanitarian our wars had become. Showing buildings blowing up was fine for public consumption but not the results as in the horribly mutilated bodies of our victims. It also holds true for the racist and derogatory names we make up for our victims, if they aren’t quite human it is so much easier to kill them.

which is better, to drop 50,000 pounds of large bombs on a living, breathing neighborhood of people who never did anything to anybody before an illegal invasion, or 100,000 pounds of smaller, more precise munitions that minimize civilian casualties? the washington post would like you to consider the latter as an alternative to present-day thinking about iraq. up next: which form of capital punishment is most humane?

There's already a real term for this: Dunbar's number. No need for another term, especially since it doesn't involve monkeys.

I’m reminded of the first Gulf War when the news media loved to broadcast films of smart bombs and missiles blowing up buildings in Iraq.

Reality TV is cheaper to produce. A little snip here, snip there, and you get compelling drama that sells product, all with a cast of good looking amateurs.

Monkeysphere is a better term than Dunbar's number, I think. It conveys the idea better.

He was wrong on one factual point--chimps do have wars. Of course chimps aren't really monkeys. They're apes, as we are.

The "ten things Christians and atheists must agree on" was also pretty good, IMO.

Well, yes, as a splendid book has illustrated: "The Outfit. The Role of Chicago's Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America," by Gus Russo.
Problem is, by and large Americans have bought into the delusion that the racket is democracy and that that the racketeers are leaders, statesmen and representatives of the people's interests.
Can't send the entire population to re-education camps, can we?

There is a scene in the Movie, "Reds". As I recall, Warren Beatty aka John Reed is to give a speech on why the U.S. is getting onto the war(WWI). He says one word, "profits".

We sometimes think our leaders are not logical but they really are.

Just last night, Disney News broadcast a paen to a new weapons system in which the bombs aren't merely "smart", the bombs are veritable Einsteins. In all likelyhood, it was produced with taxpayer dollars by the Air Force. Seriously, it was that blatant a piece of propaganda.

But he emphasizes that it's still dicey when the Air Force has to drop bombs, in short order, to back up troops in a firefight. "When they have to do it on the fly and they are not able to use all these techniques, then civilians die."

Hasn't this been the case for almost 5 years, since Baghdad fell?

Insurgents don't have power grids or tank factories, and they're unlikely to wait around in one place for very long. So basic logic suggests that since the insurgency started, almost every time we've dropped a bomb we've done it "on the fly."

BTW, since they don't count civilian casualties after a bomb drop, how could they know if their methods are effective, assuming it's even obvious who's an insurgent and who's a civilian?

THAT'S WHY NO TEARS FOR BOMB THROWERS, all the tears necessary are shed the second that bomb goes off. THAT'S you're bombthrowers moment of glory and everyone else's lifetime of tears.

JH, how many people wanted to continue the war? Didn't a majority support cutting off funding or tying it to a deadline?

so you have a guy who is essentially a technician who decides that instead of being thrilled at killing Arabs, now he's going to get all weepy about it. I see no reason, before or after change-of-heart, to credit his opinions with any particular weight. Being a Pentagon techie really is no special foundation for any real insights.

I, however, as a careful student of history and commerce, and having advised government and businesses, and having immersed myself in a variety of cultures, do have such a foundation.

You, however, are also a complete fucking douchebag. Feel free to go any of a variety of fastfood joints and immerse your head in the fry-o-vac, you grant sucking elitist piece of shit.

There's quite a lot wrong with that "monkeysphere" thing. For a start it breaks its own rule of trying to simplify matters. It also completely neglects the idea of abstraction.

I wonder how close the number of deities in polytheistic religions is to 150. Now we have other types of psychological archetype: saints, celebrities, popular and political stereotypes, etc.

Properly managed and made abstract, far more than 150 people can be understood. If all 150 or so are actual people, you are either somehow isolated or completely lacking in insight.

A couple of sayings:
The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.
There's nothing new under the sun.

There's a comparison that goes something like this: There is one truth, the simplest possible explanation. And there are many lies which are simple to understand explanations.

It was much better put than that, though.