Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday January 03 2017, @06:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the actual-statesmen dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Found this interesting bit of history at the NY Times

George H. W. Bush: Hello, Mikhail.

Mikhail S. Gorbachev: George, my dear friend. It is good to hear your voice.

G.B.: I greet you on this momentous day, this historic day. I appreciate your calling me.

M.G.: Let me begin by saying something pleasant to you: Merry Christmas to you, Barbara and your family. I had been thinking about when to make my statement, Tuesday or today. I finally decided to do it today, at the end of the day. So let me say first Merry Christmas and very best wishes.

Well, let me say that in about two hours I will speak on Moscow TV and will make a short statement about my decision. I have sent a letter to you, George. I hope you will receive it shortly. I said in the letter a most important thing. And I would like to reaffirm to you that I greatly value what we did working together with you, first as vice president and then as president of the United States. I hope that all leaders of the commonwealth and, above all, Russia understand what kind of assets we have accrued between the leaders of our two countries. I hope they understand their responsibility to preserve and expand this important source of capital.

Gorbachev goes on to say that he is handing off control of the USSR's nukes to Russia in an organized fashion. Bush thanks him for that and then recalls the fun they had tossing horseshoes at Camp David.

With all the talk of Trump and Putin being business buddies, it looks like there is at least some precedent of the two cold war country leaders carrying on a civil conversation.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:25PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:25PM (#449076) Journal

    I can give you a few different answers that all add up to radically different views, many of which I'd contest harshly, and even make assumptions about a person's character because of:

    • Different core propositions to their worldview.
      This is most obvious with highly religious people whose worldviews are informed first-and-foremost from their religion. If you believe, before you believe your own senses, that a certain book written sometime in the past is the absolute truth, for example, most views you derive from that belief are going to be different from mine There are other ways this same idea can apply, but the intuitiveness of how it can give rise to different beliefs is more obvious. I'm never going to think that eating pork is an important moral issue, no matter what the Koran, Bible, or Torah says about it.
    • Something one person doesn't know. Or knows incorrectly.
      Facts inform our worldview. It's unquestionable. Even people in the above group for whom a core ideology is more important. And some facts can be really telling. I've twice reformed my views on the fuel efficiency of giant container ships crossing the pacific and how that plays into global warming because I've read new things, once in an internet argument. I'll spare you the really boring details. My hope every time I engage someone is that I'll learn something and change my mind. I'm not usually so lucky
    • Incorrect pure logic happens
      Yeah, okay, every time it's happened to me, and I've found out about it, it's been through reading my own words. And I can't cite a single time I think I "lost" an argument on logic alone. Probably confirmation bias there. But it does happen. Our brains are imperfect. Our reasoning prone to error.
    • Different thresholds of evidence.
      As far as I can tell, this happens with conspiracy theorists, more than anyone else, and, like an ass, I always think I'm right. But the people who treat credible sources with standards with about the same amount of respect(if not less) than incredible sources are increasingly common, and I detest it.
    • Disagreeableness
      There have been multiple times where I've knowingly gone into a soylent comment section, found someone to disagree with, and disagreed with their core argument, on whatever basis I could find. I can't help but think I'm not the only one to have done so
    • fucking boatloads more

    Of course people get to different systems of belief for loads of reasons. Doesn't mean I'm gonna put up with the shittiest ideas of the bunch going uncontested. I don't know if you were trying to highlight hypocrisy on my part or not, but I did my best to give a sincere and thorough answer to your question.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:09PM

    by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:09PM (#449095) Journal

    I know it's off-topic, but I'd really like to hear your views on container ships. Would you please share?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:28PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2017, @10:28PM (#449107) Journal

      Well, it goes like this. My original view was that pacific container ships were wasteful horrible things, running on nasty hugely inefficient(in terms of BTUs/tons of carbon). The stuff is even worse than diesel in that regard and just called "fuel oil" in the petrochemical industry, though it's pretty similar to kerosene. It also blackens the sky because international waters don't have any sort of general air protection laws.

      Then I read about refinement and how those inefficient fuels are a necessary byproduct of the same refinement process we use to turn crude into jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, and plastics. So having learned that, and realizing that the alternative to using it would likely be dumping it, I had to reconsider my views on using it to fuel the big ships(though i continued to suspect they could do something about the massive pollution, a la power plants and high quality catalytic converters)

      But then I raised that point in an argument on the subject with an actual chem-e. And they corrected me. The way crude separates depends heavily on which catalysts you cut the crude with in the separator tanks(and other more complex processes my primitive source didn't cover) and that it was likely the case that if two steps on the supply chain(the refinery and the container ships) were willing to spend an almost trivial amount more on cleaner fuels, the carbon:energy ratio would be way better. That the more nuanced reality I'd discovered before was really just a picture of what was cheapest, not necessarily what was best, and my attitude is now that we(the United States) need import tariffs to reflect the carbon costs of shipping in some way.