March 11, 2003
Uninformed Opinions
Deborah (link removed on request) remarks about uninformed war opinion holders and I'm not sure if she was in part referring to me.Bush did it the UN's way and now certain members want to veto him and make us take this stand without the UN's backing. There is something wrong about that.
Okay, part of what is wrong about that is the part about "them making us take this stand." Huh? That's buying Bush's logic hook line and sinker. If Bush invades, that's for him (and all of us!) to take responsiblity for, not the folks that veto him. If you're thinking this makes us victims of the U.N. you've been buying into all that bullshit about the U.N. being made irrelevant if they don't do exactly what we tell them to do. France is on record as saying they are opposed to any resolution that would automatically trigger war. It sounds like they are insisting that the UN be able to pass a resolution declaring war if it comes to that. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Russia is on record as saying they aren't in favor of any resolution that would be impossible for Iraq to comply with. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Canada is in favor of a resolution that offers clear benchmarks for Iraq to follow, and the US is ignoring them. Russia and Canada's logic are along the lines of what I was saying in my previous entry - leave America's interpretation of Iraq's compliance out of it.
Go check out my link on Deliberative Polling - you'll see that a cross-section of the population became more in favor of a multi-lateral approach after delving beyond the latest CNN updates. Geez, even his father is.
Ouch...very catty Curt. How am I supposed to prove to you that I did not have you in mind when I wrote that..wait..is that along the same lines as "you can't prove a negative"? ;-)
x Posted by: Deborah at March 11, 2003 06:30 PMOh, so NOW you see my point.
Okay, I accept you didn't have me in mind. Obviously I can't prove that you did, and you are right, the burden of proof is on me, exactly where it should be.
I saw your point previously....I just chose to ignore it. I still think it's ciruclar logic. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part because I I think you are logical most of the time, but it's the only thing that comes to mind. I think our differences on this matter are simply representative of our two different personality types. You, the ENFP, ok with not drawing conclusions or making judgements (your P). Me, the INFJ, very uncomfortable with the unsettled or undecided (my J).
Today, I was on a call with about 10 people to figure out how to pass information from one of our internal applications to a vendor application (via an API). They were talking in circles around each other and I found myself annoyed (my J). It seemed strikingly obvious to me how to sum it up in about 3 sentences. I understand that demonstrating my irritability is not conducive to learning and understanding in others so I shut-up for most of the 30 minutes, but once I hit the patience meter I just summed up the conversation for them and asked if everyone agreed, they said yes, I emailed the project manager with a summary and asked her to send minutes out. It's interesting because I was thinking at the beginning of the meeting when they were all chatting that I must have been only 1 of 2 J's on that call. I walked over to a friend's cube after that and banged my head on the cube wall to demonstrate my pain and then I walked back to my desk. That is what "you can't prove a negative" feels like to me. ;-)
Posted by: Deborah at March 11, 2003 08:28 PM