X. Benedict

where?

That was part of it, his argument was that Western-style democracy was emergent, and all societies would be judged by this standard so there was no longer a need for historical dialectic, like Marxism for example. But it has been a long time for me.

By "End Of History" I believe Fukuyama was referring not to a status quo, or an end to the confluence of world events, but to a post-cold war where traditional histories, like Collingwood or Hegel's were no longer able to offer satisfactory explanations for how complex and interdepedent the world would was becoming. It has been a long time since I have looked at it, though.

Funny. You are the one defining words out of existence, and I have an unrealistic standard of English usage? I was the one contending that proactive means something? I am not the one ignoring context - we were talking about foreign policy, weren't we? Does having a proactive foreign policy mean something in the context of a foreign policy? You are the one saying it doesn't, aren't you? As far as your use of the English language - I agree that it can be (and your use of it) is subjective, disjointed, and hodge podged. I would call yours a personal language as an extension of relative egoism - you are welcome to it, but you were trying to communicate your best ideas, weren't you? Your language precluded standard usage. You're cute. Good luck with mid-terms.

Do you think I squandered a teachable moment?

What is to discuss? Language breaks down for you, I'm not sure what your last reply meant. If you want to make the point that the word proactive is meaningless because of some metaphysical reason that's fine, but you have attempted to define the word out of existence insisting that you understand the denotation/connotation (which you don't). As far as name-calling, where? I think I have shown remarkable restraint in pointing out quite carefully that your use of terms in this particular lexicon is simply in error. If Stalin claimed that all Foreign Policy is reactive, then most likely he was making a rhetorical point. Your position seems to be based on someting other than the pragmatic use of language as it is commonly understood. If you are trying to win a point here, I give you credit for being tenacious with an awfully bad hand, but how can I belabor the point more than to say, A) either you don't know what you are talking about, or B) your point is so incoherent it requires bending the denotation of a lexicon and the rules of grammar to advance it. And to think, you are so frustrated with me you would like me to !@#$ off. Dumbass.

If you do it because he told you to it is reactive, if you do it just because you want to, then I'm not sure......instinct?

A good collegiate dictionary could be your best friend.

FWIW, Ash Wednesday, isn't a holy day. Don't sweat it.

I think it is instinctive proactive interference... but I'm not sure either.

Most of the best polling/surveys are for internal use. It doesn't appear on ABC news. When the media contracts for a poll, they usually have some say as to how questions are framed. Market intelligence and even political intelligence for campaigning is usual proprietary and internal. Pollsters have some affective filters, for example, the desire to finish a 20 minute survey without the interviewee walking off, the modulation of voice if it is an oral poll often compromises true candidness, also people tend to overestimate how much they do things - men always seem to vote and have much more sex than women, for example.

What ever happened to a good old fashion auger? Is it a style thing? Should I never carry it around?

Okay, I'll be the pupil ready to learn Newbian, the Language of Newbie. Pray tell, how should I explain to friends, students, and disciples that our foreign policy is inherently reactive because it is impossible to prepare? (regardless, for one to react to one's own anticipation is the grammatical equivilent of a sturdy crap after a night of Guinness and curry, and should earn you a C- in English and the wrath of any good editor).

I don't know if you have seen news around here. But it seems the more school violence stories they are doing on Buffalo city schools, the more violence the cameras are catching on TV. Now what badass wouldn't like a little more street cred by being on the 6 o'clock news? The media can deal with global problems, but I think there is little likelihood that they can deal with an individual problem unless there is a huge pattern. BTW, don't you come from a family of Coaches that happen to teach?

Something I have learned from my brother's and friends' kids. Girls start establishing pecking order between 10-12 yrs. It is when they are intolerably awful to each other. Boys usually don't start until 12-14, when they are merciless to each other. The fact that they are starting to form pecking orders is natural, this will happen even if it is not physical, through teasing , names, etc. The bullying gravitates to the weak and it is a way of showing off to the group. For whatever reason, probably your daughter being new and an outsider, she doesn't have a social group yet and is seen as weak. If possible any tips you can give her to stand up for herself will make her appear less weak, and anything you can do to help her facilitate friendships might help. Good Luck.

Squegee your third eye. Align your chakras. Get comfortable. And absorb this small fact: One does not react to anticipation, one acts in anticipation. Anticipate means to expect and prepare for something; it is the very definition of being proactive. React and Anticipate are ANTONYMS. Expect does not include the notion of preparation. If you expect a guest, you anticipate it by turning on your porch light.

If you anticipate someone coming to visit you, turning the light on would be an act of anticipation. You are not reacting to anything, you are acting. You are being proactive, not reactive. But gee, this is fun.

I know what you said. And I said: I don't think words mean what you think they mean.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. How does one react to an act that hasn't happened?

Of all the Sabbath Gasbags, George Will is wrong for the most interesting reasons.

It is possible to defy the bounds of physics and denotation in the same month. cue music: Don't you love farce? My fault I fear. But where are the clowns? Quick, send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here.

Ahhh, volition, I think you are on to something.....culpability being another matter. If you truly believe what your saying, there is no acting in anticipation of future events, which means proactive. What you have said is it is impossible for Foreign Policy to act in anticipation of future events, or to exert external pressure toward this end on other states without a precipitating cause. My point is, that position is daft. As a matter of Foreign Policy we do it all the time. Bilateral wargames for instance, negotiating international standards for uninvented technologies, pre-emption itself is proactive because it is done not in reaction to but in anticipation of a hypothetical scenario.

Not to worry, you have defined proactive out of existence, now we'll just need another name for it. By the way, by your standard all state sponsored terrorism is reactive which places the culpability on the victims.

I am not big on credentials, but she does have a Pulitzer.

With some mean ass potent seed in that lycra.