intelligent fucking design alright.
when i was on a panel for jury duty last week, there was an old dude there who was in World War Two. He had been "radio man" on bomber planes- "the new ones with heated, pressurized cabins", B-29's. A buddy of his on a B-17, he told us, the belly gunner, had to take a piss after several hours aloft and with several more yet to go; but apparently nobody had thought of that in designing the plane. So this dude ended up losing a couple of toes to frostbite, to his own frozen piss. Do you think he thought it was worth it in the long run?
I don't wonder too hard; it was World War Two, after all. "you go to war with the armed forces you have" rings a lot less hollow when it isn't referring to pre-emptive, more-or-less unilateral, cooked-up bullshit.
This morning as I drove north from Philadelphia, I remembered this pearl of Don Rumsfeld's wisdom (which I just now looked up, to quote correctly):
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me," the defense secretary began, "because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
I'm fairly confident this lil gem has been talked about seemingly to death; derided as bureaucratic/new-speak mumbo-jumbo, alternately praised as startling insight; perhaps not in so many words, but that's how I would put it.
As I reflected upon this startling insight, my eyes beset by rainbow foliage and my mind 1/3 fully absorbed in keeping the car pointed in the right direction at appropriate velocity, it occurred to me that some of us know more about those unknown unknowns than others. Well, I guess it bears pointing out that when a military official of a Nuclear-Armed Country addresses journalists, and uses the word "we" to characterize a shared body of knowledge, the journalists -and the public whose elucidation they are attempting, with ever~dwindling effectiveness- would be well advised to take that "we" with a grain of salt. In fact, as I type this up for y'all, it occurs to me that, within Rumsfeld's mind ~and those who 'know' all the 'knowns' he 'knows' [leaving aside for a moment the question of Rumsfeld's religious affiliation, if any; I was sure he was a Pentecostal, but I think I was confusing him with John Ashcroft. They're different.], and are aware of only SOME of the things which they don't know~ his statement is a crucial admission of fallibility; however, from THIS side of the security clearance, I am realizing that Rumsfeld's statement is, above all, a cruel irony- hinging on his use of the word "we" to suggest that everyone involved is in the same know, as it were. see:Occult, Obscurantism.
HOWEVER! I also just now realized that Rumsfeld forgot to mention an important detail: the unknown knowns - those things we know, which we do not know we know.
I don't wonder too hard; it was World War Two, after all. "you go to war with the armed forces you have" rings a lot less hollow when it isn't referring to pre-emptive, more-or-less unilateral, cooked-up bullshit.
This morning as I drove north from Philadelphia, I remembered this pearl of Don Rumsfeld's wisdom (which I just now looked up, to quote correctly):
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me," the defense secretary began, "because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
I'm fairly confident this lil gem has been talked about seemingly to death; derided as bureaucratic/new-speak mumbo-jumbo, alternately praised as startling insight; perhaps not in so many words, but that's how I would put it.
As I reflected upon this startling insight, my eyes beset by rainbow foliage and my mind 1/3 fully absorbed in keeping the car pointed in the right direction at appropriate velocity, it occurred to me that some of us know more about those unknown unknowns than others. Well, I guess it bears pointing out that when a military official of a Nuclear-Armed Country addresses journalists, and uses the word "we" to characterize a shared body of knowledge, the journalists -and the public whose elucidation they are attempting, with ever~dwindling effectiveness- would be well advised to take that "we" with a grain of salt. In fact, as I type this up for y'all, it occurs to me that, within Rumsfeld's mind ~and those who 'know' all the 'knowns' he 'knows' [leaving aside for a moment the question of Rumsfeld's religious affiliation, if any; I was sure he was a Pentecostal, but I think I was confusing him with John Ashcroft. They're different.], and are aware of only SOME of the things which they don't know~ his statement is a crucial admission of fallibility; however, from THIS side of the security clearance, I am realizing that Rumsfeld's statement is, above all, a cruel irony- hinging on his use of the word "we" to suggest that everyone involved is in the same know, as it were. see:Occult, Obscurantism.
HOWEVER! I also just now realized that Rumsfeld forgot to mention an important detail: the unknown knowns - those things we know, which we do not know we know.