BLOGGING ON BURMA
Wizards of Oz, Enterprise Resilience Management Blog, Thomas P.M. Barnett, TDAXP, Hidden Unities, Pundita, Agam’s Gecko, Democracy Project , Simulated Laughter -New!
Free Burma!
About Me
Zenpundit is a blog dedicated to exploring the intersections of foreign policy, history, military theory, national security,strategic thinking, futurism, cognition and a number of other esoteric pursuits.
-
Customized Web Site & Blog Design
-
Archives
October 5th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Great job! FREE Burma!!!
Bush slammed the UN and the rulers of Myanmar in his UN speech last week.
The UN must do something, but they never use military force to fight.
That is a huge problem.
Illegal drug fortunes are a BIG part of this.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
please support EVIL rulers
the Left condemns Burma’s
while its China coddles them
absurd thought –
God of the Universe wants
complete narco states
criminals in power
loving the corrupt drug war
absurd thought –
God of the Universe thinks
keep trying communism
you can never KILL too much
pursuing Utopia…
http://free-burma.org/
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
🙂
.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Don’t forget A.E. at Simulated Laughter.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Re: the post on Tom Barnett’s blog. Dr. Barnett has misread my assertion. I’m not claiming that the idea of Core and Gap is aspirational; I’m claiming it’s an hypothesis and requires prove of validity. Pointing to the lines on the map isn’t proof. Dr. Barnett is assuming his conclusion (a fallacy called “begging the question”).
October 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Dave,
Re: Core v Gap — is it really a hypohesis, or is it simply an organizing principal? If the former, you’re correct — there should be empirical evidence of “Gapness” that correlates to the geospatial definition. However, if it’s an ontological construct — cast in the mold of “bipolarism” — then your criterion is too stringent.
sf/ shane
October 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“Strategic reality” (Dr. Barnett’s characterization of Core and Gap) sounds like a little more than an organizing principle to me. The long and short of my objection is that I’m concerned about disprovability. Without rigorous definitions, Dr. Barnett’s assertions are untestable, not disprovable, and, consequently, metaphysics.