Who needs a 'Special Relationship'?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, back in the day when Adolf Hitler was dreaming of world conquest by the fascist powers, it was claimed the Britain and the USA had a 'special relationship'.

The fact was that the USA sent out the ships, the fleets of bomber planes and fighters, not to mention the millions of men who liberated Europe. And let's remember that many of them never came back.

But let us also not forget that it was Great Britain that proved to be the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that was moored right off the mainland coast; Britain proved to be a refuge for many fleeing Nazi occupation. Britain was a bastion against Nazism, a beacon of hope to the occupied nations, as well as the springboard from which America launched the invasion of Normandy. Yeah, Roosevelt and Churchill did ok, between them, and when Communist Russia took over the role of 'Bad Guy' from Nazi Germany, it was again an Anglo American alliance that proved to be the backbone behind NATO and the victory of democracy over totalitarianism.

But what now when Communism has been idealogically defeated? Is the special relationship still going? If it's over, is it such a bad thing? Me, as a Brit, I think the answer is 'yes, its over - but this may be a blessing in disguise'. ( Read more... )

I, For One, Welcome Our New Cephalopod Masters....

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Mostly, I just want an excuse to post a brutally cool video:

Watch on YouTube

However, it does raise a few interesting questions -- the octopus under study doesn't merely make use of the coconut shell as a hermit crab uses another shell for shelter. The octopus actually selects shells, cleans them out and then carries them with them in anticipation of an abstract need for protection from a not yet present threat.

Pretty damned sophisticated behavior and likely learned recently rather than programmed into instinct.

So a few questions:

1) Is this definite indication of sentience and intelligence?
2) What IS intelligence in the sense that we use it to describe ourselves as unique animals?
3) Does the existence of an invertebrate that demonstrates problem solving intelligence complicate our general relationship with animals?

Amendment: Question 3A: Does the recognition of problem-solving intelligence that thinks abstractly about time and space in another species give additional creedence to the arguments of the animal rights movement?

And for the science fiction fans in the audience:

What are the chances that human beings may some day be "out evolved" by another species of animal?

Bonus question: Am I in big karmic trouble for my love of takoyaki?

Language

[majortom-thecat.livejournal.com]

We all know that people use words and phrases to mean different things. For example, the word "liberal" means different things to different people, and it means different things in different contexts.

The phrase 'state rights' is what I'm trying to get a handle on here. How is it used currently, and does it mean different things to different people? So I made a quick little poll. Note that "it depends on the context" is not an option. I want you to jump to conclusions about your imagined conversation partner, the way a racist would. ;)


[Poll #1499517][Poll #1499517]

edit: The poll doesn't work. Sorry!

(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I do not know the crowd here as well as some others, so I ask this in innocence:

Is anyone here fool enough to support the statement: "America is the best country on earth"
I ask because so many pundits say so without ever *actually* justifying it. So I wanna open up this as a conversation.

I believe America is an OK place--it's got good things and bad things--and frankly, I do not know how to rank it in the world. It seems amazingly self-centered and arrogant to say things like: "America is the greatest gift God ever gave to man on the face of the planet."

It doesn't even sound slightly patriotic.

"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
- Clarence Darrow

As a sidenote/secondary question:

Where do you think the line should be between church and state?

The Americans in the audience can feel free to ignore the first amendment, since I am asking *you* what *you* think, not what you think the 1st amendment permits/allows.