18451
Politics & Religion / World Bank Anatomy of a hit job: The Wolfowitz Affair (formerly Paul's Girl)
« on: April 18, 2007, 10:33:11 PM »
ttp://www.ibtimes.com/photonews_new2.htm?image=72474
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
18452
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Jewish Genius
« on: April 13, 2007, 10:10:51 PM »
I was recently wondering when Abraham lived. Looking online the best estimates suggested he lived sometime between 1600 to 2100 BC. Of course who really knows if he even really existed. I mean he is supposed to have lived to 175 years old.
Here is one site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html
I perused through Bell Curve some years back. With regard to intelligence the Asians were thought to have the curve at the highest end followed by whites than blacks. The authors pointed out that there is mostly overlap though.
I wonder how much of Jewish "success" is cultural rather than some innate superior intellect. I mean hasn't it been standard for hundreds of years for Jewish parents to push their kids to get educated. You didn't see other groups doing this to the same degree as far as I know.
I notice a lot of Asians who come here encourage their kids into educational endeavors. But both Jews and now others seem to know education is one path to financial success, and not necessarily the means to solving the mysteries of the universe.
Just thinking "out loud".
Here is one site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/abraham.html
I perused through Bell Curve some years back. With regard to intelligence the Asians were thought to have the curve at the highest end followed by whites than blacks. The authors pointed out that there is mostly overlap though.
I wonder how much of Jewish "success" is cultural rather than some innate superior intellect. I mean hasn't it been standard for hundreds of years for Jewish parents to push their kids to get educated. You didn't see other groups doing this to the same degree as far as I know.
I notice a lot of Asians who come here encourage their kids into educational endeavors. But both Jews and now others seem to know education is one path to financial success, and not necessarily the means to solving the mysteries of the universe.
Just thinking "out loud".
18453
Politics & Religion / Contrast
« on: April 09, 2007, 08:26:59 AM »
While Iran teaches children to be warriors willing to die and go to heaven for their God our children sell their stories for a quick buck. Remember the descriptions of Iran sending 100,000 teenage boys accross no-man's land in their war with Iraq. The boys' mission was to clear the mine fields for the older soldiers. Even the Iraqis were aghast at seeing this.
I do not want to disparage our brave men and women who serve for us or those of our closest ally Britain, but I feel the contrast serves to underscore what in my opinion is the misjudgement of some our leaders/pols who think they can chat their way out of this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391981-details/Outrage+as+Iran+captives+cash+in/article.do
I couldn't agree more with Sen Leiberman or Bolton on this issue.
I do not want to disparage our brave men and women who serve for us or those of our closest ally Britain, but I feel the contrast serves to underscore what in my opinion is the misjudgement of some our leaders/pols who think they can chat their way out of this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391981-details/Outrage+as+Iran+captives+cash+in/article.do
I couldn't agree more with Sen Leiberman or Bolton on this issue.
18454
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 08, 2007, 11:07:50 AM »
SB_Mig,
It sounds like we are mostly on the same page. You take issue with a minor point on my part and ignore the main point of my post that is that Pelosi's trip plays right into the hands of our enemies.
I think you know full well the Demorcrats lead en mass (except for a few like Lieberman) in conveying to our enemies our weaknesses.
So a few cans went there as well. Why you harp on this beats me. Does this make you feel superior? Wise guy.
It sounds like we are mostly on the same page. You take issue with a minor point on my part and ignore the main point of my post that is that Pelosi's trip plays right into the hands of our enemies.
I think you know full well the Demorcrats lead en mass (except for a few like Lieberman) in conveying to our enemies our weaknesses.
So a few cans went there as well. Why you harp on this beats me. Does this make you feel superior? Wise guy.
18455
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 06, 2007, 11:06:15 AM »
Nice try
No I didn't miss part of the article.
No I didn't miss part of the article.
18456
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: April 05, 2007, 09:33:20 PM »
***Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S."***
This says it all. It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all. You won't see this statement on the clinton news network! Maybe on Fox. But you will hear them quote W. as though he is an idiot.
I know. Our freedom of speech and diversity makes us strong.
While we talk - they build nuclear bombs.
This says it all. It verifies exactly what W. says, and that is that Pelosi and the crats undermine us all. You won't see this statement on the clinton news network! Maybe on Fox. But you will hear them quote W. as though he is an idiot.
I know. Our freedom of speech and diversity makes us strong.
While we talk - they build nuclear bombs.
18457
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics
« on: March 29, 2007, 07:55:19 PM »
Crafty
Remember the days when some argued "it is different this time" when the tech market peaked and the graph looked eerily like October 1929?
I made a killing. Then gave it back. I sold Terayon about a year ago. Remember when he touted this $200+ stock as being over the rainbow? Now it is about $2.
Remember the days when some argued "it is different this time" when the tech market peaked and the graph looked eerily like October 1929?
I made a killing. Then gave it back. I sold Terayon about a year ago. Remember when he touted this $200+ stock as being over the rainbow? Now it is about $2.
18458
Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: March 27, 2007, 10:40:49 AM »
Well I guess learning how to salute is going to win over the military and erase decades of disdain for the people in uniform. It would be like Jane Fonda saluting for the cameras. Hypocracy for the ages. Yet she may win the election with promises of gifts to every group of constuents that she needs to win.
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
March 27, 2007
Mindful of Past, Clinton Cultivates the Military
By PATRICK HEALY
Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.
During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.
Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.
For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.
It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
A Time magazine poll in July asked adults to assess whether Mrs. Clinton would keep the military strong. Asked how much that description fit Mrs. Clinton, 33 percent said a lot, 25 percent said a little, 15 percent said not much, 18 percent said not at all and 10 percent had no answer.
Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a ’60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton’s appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.
Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.
General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.
“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”
In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has also defied liberals in her own party at times, endorsing the expansion of the Army, supporting financing for missile defense, and refusing to support a total ban on land mines.
But just as she has encountered some hostility from the left for not being a critic of the Iraq war earlier and for not renouncing her vote in 2002 to authorize it, Mrs. Clinton could also risk coming off as too hawkish to some Democratic voters for her vociferous support of military initiatives.
Some on the left ask if she is engaging again in the Clinton strategy of political triangulation: reaching out to military leaders while also trying to appease the left with her criticism of the war in Iraq. During her Senate re-election race last year, some liberals criticized her as currying favor with pro-military conservatives and independents by fiercely supporting Israel and taking a tough line against Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Iraq, similar to what her husband did during his presidency on social issues like welfare.
“Some days she sounds like a total hawk, and other days she’s saying, ‘I’m against the war and it’s been mismanaged,’ ” said Jonathan Tasini, who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform.
“But I don’t see how this helps her in the primaries,” Mr. Tasini continued. “So many people have turned against the war.”
Of the other main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist. Like Mrs. Clinton, most of the candidates rely on their service on Senate committees for their foreign policy credentials. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois serves on the Foreign Relations and Veterans Affairs Committees; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina served on the intelligence committee; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Mr. Dodd is a member of that committee.
Essential to Mrs. Clinton’s courtship of the military was winning a seat in 2002 on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which she had vigorously sought. In that role, she regularly meets with military officers, has traveled three times to Iraq and has attended hearings on global conflicts and the needs of the armed services.
Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions.
Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the “Sunset Parade” at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)
Some military analysts said that building ties with generals was only part of building a leadership image on military issues. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian research group, said Mrs. Clinton’s political shift to opposing the war in Iraq — combined with some voters’ skepticism about the Clintons and the military — posed a challenge for her, especially when she needs to prove that a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief.
“By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish,” Mr. Carpenter said. “But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?”
The Republican National Committee’s research staff members have already compiled a series of examples that they say show Mrs. Clinton at odds with military interests, including her Iraq war positioning and her opposition to sending additional troops there.
General Keane — whose support for sending more troops to Iraq is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s view — and other admirers of hers see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her as playing into false stereotypes. He recalled how his own initial impression of her changed after their first meeting: It was supposed to last 15 minutes, but continued for a half hour longer as they talked about West Point and moved onto global hot spots.
John Batiste, a retired major general and former commander of the First Infantry Division, who also consults with Mrs. Clinton, said, “Very, very few politicians have any military experience, and they’re naïve — they don’t understand what it takes to develop a big picture, unified strategy to take a country to war.
“She’s the kind of person who would listen to sound military advice,” General Batiste said, “and not dismiss it or discard it. And I’m a lifelong Republican.“
Home
* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* RSS
* First Look
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Site Map
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
March 27, 2007
Mindful of Past, Clinton Cultivates the Military
By PATRICK HEALY
Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.
During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.
Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.
For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.
It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
A Time magazine poll in July asked adults to assess whether Mrs. Clinton would keep the military strong. Asked how much that description fit Mrs. Clinton, 33 percent said a lot, 25 percent said a little, 15 percent said not much, 18 percent said not at all and 10 percent had no answer.
Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a ’60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton’s appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.
Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.
General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.
“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”
In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has supported expanding medical benefits for National Guard members and reservists and providing aid to those with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. She has also defied liberals in her own party at times, endorsing the expansion of the Army, supporting financing for missile defense, and refusing to support a total ban on land mines.
But just as she has encountered some hostility from the left for not being a critic of the Iraq war earlier and for not renouncing her vote in 2002 to authorize it, Mrs. Clinton could also risk coming off as too hawkish to some Democratic voters for her vociferous support of military initiatives.
Some on the left ask if she is engaging again in the Clinton strategy of political triangulation: reaching out to military leaders while also trying to appease the left with her criticism of the war in Iraq. During her Senate re-election race last year, some liberals criticized her as currying favor with pro-military conservatives and independents by fiercely supporting Israel and taking a tough line against Al Qaeda and Iranian operatives in Iraq, similar to what her husband did during his presidency on social issues like welfare.
“Some days she sounds like a total hawk, and other days she’s saying, ‘I’m against the war and it’s been mismanaged,’ ” said Jonathan Tasini, who ran against Mrs. Clinton for the Senate Democratic nomination last year on an antiwar platform.
“But I don’t see how this helps her in the primaries,” Mr. Tasini continued. “So many people have turned against the war.”
Of the other main Democratic presidential candidates, only Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has served in the military, as an Army reservist. Like Mrs. Clinton, most of the candidates rely on their service on Senate committees for their foreign policy credentials. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois serves on the Foreign Relations and Veterans Affairs Committees; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina served on the intelligence committee; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Mr. Dodd is a member of that committee.
Essential to Mrs. Clinton’s courtship of the military was winning a seat in 2002 on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which she had vigorously sought. In that role, she regularly meets with military officers, has traveled three times to Iraq and has attended hearings on global conflicts and the needs of the armed services.
Privately, two current military leaders who have testified before the Armed Services committee, and who by custom do not comment publicly on political figures, said they both found Mrs. Clinton conversant about the military and thoughtful in her questions.
Active-duty generals have sought her out, and she has reached out to them. Among those with whom she has built relationships are Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the new head of Central Command. Recently, too, James T. Conway, the commandant of the Marines, invited her to be his guest of honor at the “Sunset Parade” at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Washington, a high-profile tradition. (She has accepted.)
Some military analysts said that building ties with generals was only part of building a leadership image on military issues. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian research group, said Mrs. Clinton’s political shift to opposing the war in Iraq — combined with some voters’ skepticism about the Clintons and the military — posed a challenge for her, especially when she needs to prove that a woman is tough enough to be commander in chief.
“By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish,” Mr. Carpenter said. “But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?”
The Republican National Committee’s research staff members have already compiled a series of examples that they say show Mrs. Clinton at odds with military interests, including her Iraq war positioning and her opposition to sending additional troops there.
General Keane — whose support for sending more troops to Iraq is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s view — and other admirers of hers see these skeptical or critical portrayals of her as playing into false stereotypes. He recalled how his own initial impression of her changed after their first meeting: It was supposed to last 15 minutes, but continued for a half hour longer as they talked about West Point and moved onto global hot spots.
John Batiste, a retired major general and former commander of the First Infantry Division, who also consults with Mrs. Clinton, said, “Very, very few politicians have any military experience, and they’re naïve — they don’t understand what it takes to develop a big picture, unified strategy to take a country to war.
“She’s the kind of person who would listen to sound military advice,” General Batiste said, “and not dismiss it or discard it. And I’m a lifelong Republican.“
Home
* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* RSS
* First Look
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Site Map
18459
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: March 24, 2007, 08:12:28 AM »
The article makes sense. Iran has now taken the Brits as hostages. The Brits mistake was allowing this vessel to be taken to start with.
Perhaps Iran has calculated that the timid US will spend the rest of Bush's and Blair's tenures negotiating the hostages release. AFter '08 they know the Dems will do nothing while they continue on with their nuclear goals. As far as I can tell only W. has the guts to stand up to them. But he doesn't have the political support. And with an election coming up he won't get it.
Perhaps Iran has calculated that the timid US will spend the rest of Bush's and Blair's tenures negotiating the hostages release. AFter '08 they know the Dems will do nothing while they continue on with their nuclear goals. As far as I can tell only W. has the guts to stand up to them. But he doesn't have the political support. And with an election coming up he won't get it.
18460
Politics & Religion / Messiah complex
« on: March 19, 2007, 06:55:57 PM »
***Messiah Complex***
I always thought Bill Clinton had this notion that he was going to save humanity from itself. The great man who would fix everything.
Gore more pompous. Clinton more narcissistic. Hillary is both.
I always thought Bill Clinton had this notion that he was going to save humanity from itself. The great man who would fix everything.
Gore more pompous. Clinton more narcissistic. Hillary is both.
18461
Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it.
« on: March 08, 2007, 08:06:15 PM »
***Now your argument becomes that we need censorship in order that there be action even when the country is evenly divided???***
No my argument has become that this country is in trouble because it is evenly divided. The theory is majority rule. But there is no consistent majority. I don't know how to resolve this. We can celebrate our freedom of speech all we want but that won't make the problems I point out go away.
Because the task is difficult doesn't mean I don't believe the premise of what I said - that free speech has paralized us. I disagree that the lack of dialogue has done more harm. It has led to lack of resolve. Indecision.
Endless arguing and debating just leads us down the road to defining what is is.
No my argument has become that this country is in trouble because it is evenly divided. The theory is majority rule. But there is no consistent majority. I don't know how to resolve this. We can celebrate our freedom of speech all we want but that won't make the problems I point out go away.
Because the task is difficult doesn't mean I don't believe the premise of what I said - that free speech has paralized us. I disagree that the lack of dialogue has done more harm. It has led to lack of resolve. Indecision.
Endless arguing and debating just leads us down the road to defining what is is.
18462
Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it.
« on: March 07, 2007, 06:39:42 PM »
To Rogt,
No your not being nitpicky. But... I don't think Hannity or Limbaugh have called for Jihad against the resident citizens, immigrants, and illegals of the United States or other Western countries.
I am also under the impression, as I suggested, that the ACLU would stop law enforcement's investigation of those enemies of the US who choose to out themselves. Yes I do think they can lawyer us to powerlessness, to inaction, to not defending ourselves. IMO posting calls for Jihad *is more* than just words. It *is* a call to arms. It *is* communicating with potential armies of combatants. It *is* a plan. It *is* a conspiracy to commit crimes.
To_Mig,
I am not sure I could come up with a Supreme Court Justice's level of clarity and specificity in formulating a definition of what should be considered treason using legally acceptedl parameters. To ask me to come up with a broader definition skirts my point that calling for jihad on the internet is clearly a conspiracy to incite violent acts against us. On the other hand, I do admit that I broadened the argument myself by attacking unlimited free speech. Perhaps I took on too difficult a task but my overall hunch on this stands (in my mind). Also (and frankly), I am not a legal genius
. So who should dictate who gets censored - perhaps the nine the Supreme Court Justices.
And are you actually telling me the cacaphony of views in this country has *not* resulted in inaction on numerous issues? How can anything get accomplished with so much hot air out there? This country is more or less evenly divided. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (A. Lincoln: circa ~1856) Are you also suggesting Iran is not hell bent on becoming a military power? And China as well?
BTW, I got a kick at your pointing out Hillary is running for "re-election".
To Crafty and all,
I will try to read more on the legal doctrine as suggested. Many thanks.
No your not being nitpicky. But... I don't think Hannity or Limbaugh have called for Jihad against the resident citizens, immigrants, and illegals of the United States or other Western countries.
I am also under the impression, as I suggested, that the ACLU would stop law enforcement's investigation of those enemies of the US who choose to out themselves. Yes I do think they can lawyer us to powerlessness, to inaction, to not defending ourselves. IMO posting calls for Jihad *is more* than just words. It *is* a call to arms. It *is* communicating with potential armies of combatants. It *is* a plan. It *is* a conspiracy to commit crimes.
To_Mig,
I am not sure I could come up with a Supreme Court Justice's level of clarity and specificity in formulating a definition of what should be considered treason using legally acceptedl parameters. To ask me to come up with a broader definition skirts my point that calling for jihad on the internet is clearly a conspiracy to incite violent acts against us. On the other hand, I do admit that I broadened the argument myself by attacking unlimited free speech. Perhaps I took on too difficult a task but my overall hunch on this stands (in my mind). Also (and frankly), I am not a legal genius
. So who should dictate who gets censored - perhaps the nine the Supreme Court Justices.And are you actually telling me the cacaphony of views in this country has *not* resulted in inaction on numerous issues? How can anything get accomplished with so much hot air out there? This country is more or less evenly divided. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (A. Lincoln: circa ~1856) Are you also suggesting Iran is not hell bent on becoming a military power? And China as well?
BTW, I got a kick at your pointing out Hillary is running for "re-election".
To Crafty and all,
I will try to read more on the legal doctrine as suggested. Many thanks.
18463
Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it.
« on: March 06, 2007, 07:43:41 PM »
Wow.
Some very thoughtful replies. Let me think about this a bit.
If someone is calling for Jihad at an airport I would think he would be carted off to be questioned.
I don't know if such speech would warrant an arrest by itself. I remember a Guatemalan tourist who boarded an airplane in Orlando to fly home for Christmas with his family. He made a joke to the stewardess that his carry-on had a bomb in it. Well, to make a long story short he spent his Christmas in jail for his poor sense of humor.
If someone calls for Jihad on the internet we speak of ostracism.
Now someone gets on the internet and essentially calls for Jihad which as I understand it means a calling to arms against the infidels in the country he lives in. Is this not what we could define as terrorism? Should we defend our country against such verbal threats by simply having the student Republican club at the school where he teaches roundly ostrasize him? Should the student Democrat club all come charging to his defense by pointing out that his right to free speech trumps all else while of course prefacing said defense with the fact that they of course all find the content of his internet posts as reprehensible?
To me it is common sense. If someone starts advocating others to rise up and kill us it is time to put a stop to this.
With regards to Rogt's post Crafty would be right that I was referring more about the professor's call for Jihad. About his statements concerning the treatment of woman I do agree his points have some merit. No doubt sex sells and this is not necesarily with good results. I would disagree only in that we could find examples of maltreatment of women (almost?) anywhere. While he argues that the use of drugs in the US is immoral I could argue that the agricultural industry in Central America, South America, and Asia that exports many of these drugs to the West for profit is just as immoral. Does not drug addiction and prostitution exist in these places as well?
As Crafty points out the freedom to express allows those so inclined to come out of the closet.
From a strategic point of view this professor just outed himself. I would only hope that law enforcement is now, if not already, watching him closely. Unless of course we now want to have another debate about his right to privacy. It seems to me if the ACLU had their way we could simply chat and bicker our way to powerlessness. The evil forces in China, Iran, and elsewhere are chuckling at our cachophony of different points of view while they bide their time and get stronger.
Some very thoughtful replies. Let me think about this a bit.
If someone is calling for Jihad at an airport I would think he would be carted off to be questioned.
I don't know if such speech would warrant an arrest by itself. I remember a Guatemalan tourist who boarded an airplane in Orlando to fly home for Christmas with his family. He made a joke to the stewardess that his carry-on had a bomb in it. Well, to make a long story short he spent his Christmas in jail for his poor sense of humor.
If someone calls for Jihad on the internet we speak of ostracism.
Now someone gets on the internet and essentially calls for Jihad which as I understand it means a calling to arms against the infidels in the country he lives in. Is this not what we could define as terrorism? Should we defend our country against such verbal threats by simply having the student Republican club at the school where he teaches roundly ostrasize him? Should the student Democrat club all come charging to his defense by pointing out that his right to free speech trumps all else while of course prefacing said defense with the fact that they of course all find the content of his internet posts as reprehensible?
To me it is common sense. If someone starts advocating others to rise up and kill us it is time to put a stop to this.
With regards to Rogt's post Crafty would be right that I was referring more about the professor's call for Jihad. About his statements concerning the treatment of woman I do agree his points have some merit. No doubt sex sells and this is not necesarily with good results. I would disagree only in that we could find examples of maltreatment of women (almost?) anywhere. While he argues that the use of drugs in the US is immoral I could argue that the agricultural industry in Central America, South America, and Asia that exports many of these drugs to the West for profit is just as immoral. Does not drug addiction and prostitution exist in these places as well?
As Crafty points out the freedom to express allows those so inclined to come out of the closet.
From a strategic point of view this professor just outed himself. I would only hope that law enforcement is now, if not already, watching him closely. Unless of course we now want to have another debate about his right to privacy. It seems to me if the ACLU had their way we could simply chat and bicker our way to powerlessness. The evil forces in China, Iran, and elsewhere are chuckling at our cachophony of different points of view while they bide their time and get stronger.
18464
Politics & Religion / Re: Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it.
« on: March 04, 2007, 09:36:36 AM »
"Lawyers" don't bring someone up on charges, district attorneys do.
2) Do you know what the legal definition of "assault" is?
3) "Inciting a riot" requires the imminent possibility of a riot. Is that present here?
4) Please explain what you mean by this: "Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!"
5) "Let me here (sic) how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great. IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart."
Hey Crafty,
Thanks for the input - I expected some disagreement and that is what I am looking for.
Well, are there no laws that protect our citizens from those in this country who are calling for war against us? Perhaps treason?
If so then why should not a DA bring this guy up on charges. If this guy made threats against the President he would be investigated by Secret Service. If he makes statements that are essentially asking his radical muslim buddies to bring arms against us and kill Americans the threat may not mean iminent danger but the threat is still a threat of harm. I see no difference.
As to number four it was a typo. It makes no sense to me that our brave men and women should risk their life and limb let alone place their and their families lives on hold for someone to be able to exercise free speech which includes the right to call for enemies to kill the same people they are fighting for.
Please correct me if I am wrong but you've posted you are a Libertarian. Is/are there any limits to free speech in your view?
Our enemies seem to be doing a fine job exploiting our free speech and endless dissenting views. I just don't see how limitless free speech makes us stronger.
2) Do you know what the legal definition of "assault" is?
3) "Inciting a riot" requires the imminent possibility of a riot. Is that present here?
4) Please explain what you mean by this: "Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!"
5) "Let me here (sic) how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great. IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart."
Hey Crafty,
Thanks for the input - I expected some disagreement and that is what I am looking for.
Well, are there no laws that protect our citizens from those in this country who are calling for war against us? Perhaps treason?
If so then why should not a DA bring this guy up on charges. If this guy made threats against the President he would be investigated by Secret Service. If he makes statements that are essentially asking his radical muslim buddies to bring arms against us and kill Americans the threat may not mean iminent danger but the threat is still a threat of harm. I see no difference.
As to number four it was a typo. It makes no sense to me that our brave men and women should risk their life and limb let alone place their and their families lives on hold for someone to be able to exercise free speech which includes the right to call for enemies to kill the same people they are fighting for.
Please correct me if I am wrong but you've posted you are a Libertarian. Is/are there any limits to free speech in your view?
Our enemies seem to be doing a fine job exploiting our free speech and endless dissenting views. I just don't see how limitless free speech makes us stronger.
18465
Politics & Religion / Professor Pino - enough is enough - I've had it.
« on: March 03, 2007, 09:06:33 AM »
The Kent State professor who advocates Jihad:
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/education/16808652.htm
I got to love the part of his rants about the West's treatment of woman as sexual commodities. How can any objective person believe the position of women in the Muslim world as better than in the Wests?
If I was a lawyer I would find some way to bring him up on criminal charges. What about assault? What about inciting a riot?
This guy advocates murder and the nuts on the left protect him with the mantra *free speech*. Give me a goddamn break. Right. Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!
What the h... is wrong with this country? Why can't we stand up as a unified block and defend ourselves? This guy belongs in jail for inciting terrorism. I believe it really is all about politics. The demcrats vs. the recans. How we are going to distribute wealth? Who is paying the taxes, the health care, retirement, etc.? If a crat led us into Iraq the two sides would still be fighting like mad but just have the opposite positions. If a crat are in power the cans neutriliize 'em so they can't fight for the defense of our country. If the cans are in power the crats do the same.
I'm fed up with these stories. Does this crap from a professor at a (State funded no less) school outrage anyone else? Anyone here going to argue the ACLU position? Comin let me have it. Let me here how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great. IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/education/16808652.htm
I got to love the part of his rants about the West's treatment of woman as sexual commodities. How can any objective person believe the position of women in the Muslim world as better than in the Wests?
If I was a lawyer I would find some way to bring him up on criminal charges. What about assault? What about inciting a riot?
This guy advocates murder and the nuts on the left protect him with the mantra *free speech*. Give me a goddamn break. Right. Our brave men and women troops are fighting for the right of free speech including the right to kill all the people they are risking their lives for!
What the h... is wrong with this country? Why can't we stand up as a unified block and defend ourselves? This guy belongs in jail for inciting terrorism. I believe it really is all about politics. The demcrats vs. the recans. How we are going to distribute wealth? Who is paying the taxes, the health care, retirement, etc.? If a crat led us into Iraq the two sides would still be fighting like mad but just have the opposite positions. If a crat are in power the cans neutriliize 'em so they can't fight for the defense of our country. If the cans are in power the crats do the same.
I'm fed up with these stories. Does this crap from a professor at a (State funded no less) school outrage anyone else? Anyone here going to argue the ACLU position? Comin let me have it. Let me here how this freedom is exactly what makes our country great. IMO it is exactly this that is going to make our country eventually fall apart.
18466
Politics & Religion / Re: Know Thy Enemy
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:39:54 PM »
***Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims between the ages of 16-24 would rather live under Shari'a law than under British Common Law; 36 percent think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion; 13 percent admire al-Qaida and similar terror groups; and a whopping 74 percent of young British Muslims believe women should wear veils***
Astounding isn't it?
Yet these same people have no problem living in Britain and taking advantage of a better life than they could ever hopefor in their own Muslim countries.
I wonder if any such polls were done here. Everytime I meet a Muslin I wonder if he/she would be happy to see me dead because I am an American... and a Jew. I guess I get the wrong end of a double barrel shotgun on that question.
Astounding isn't it?
Yet these same people have no problem living in Britain and taking advantage of a better life than they could ever hopefor in their own Muslim countries.
I wonder if any such polls were done here. Everytime I meet a Muslin I wonder if he/she would be happy to see me dead because I am an American... and a Jew. I guess I get the wrong end of a double barrel shotgun on that question.
18467
Politics & Religion / Israel had fewer friends than Iran
« on: February 24, 2007, 12:40:43 PM »
It is interesting how every move the Israel military makes is now being telegraphed by segments of people from it's supposed allies who fear any military action whatsoever. They would rather see Iran develop nuclear weapons. Like John Edwards who claims Israel not Iran is the biggest nearterm threat to world peace. Now the some Brits are helping Iran. It is not their rear ends whose existence is on the line:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml
18468
Politics & Religion / Bolton is also skeptical of the N.Korea sellout
« on: February 22, 2007, 07:31:26 PM »18469
Science, Culture, & Humanities / another opinion
« on: February 19, 2007, 08:59:08 AM »
My wife disagrees with me. She states the media has not given Spears a pass.
First of all KFed had already separated (reportedly) from the mother of his child before he hooked up with Spears.
Second, look at how the press publicized pictures of Spears driving with her baby in her lap and questioning if she is a good mother.
She feels that the media will cover these people good or bad as long as it's a story.
Maybe I have to rethink my theory.
First of all KFed had already separated (reportedly) from the mother of his child before he hooked up with Spears.
Second, look at how the press publicized pictures of Spears driving with her baby in her lap and questioning if she is a good mother.
She feels that the media will cover these people good or bad as long as it's a story.
Maybe I have to rethink my theory.
18470
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Britney is one of their darlings -> $$$$$$$$
« on: February 18, 2007, 10:53:08 AM »
***this woman gets a pass***
Look at Ann Smith, Paris Hilton.
The "press" is making a fortune off them all so they will not go after them with criticism.
I guess it is also a function of what the liberal press sees as wrong. Sex, affairs, extramarital, drugs, drunkeness is never a problem. But make a politically incorrect statement and lookout - for example, Hardaway's anti-gay comments.
With regards to Hilton we have "heard" nothing but silence since her anti-black comments: "we're like a couple of n......" The press won't go after her. They make too much money off her.
My conclusion is it is a function of:
1) If the behavior is politically(liberally) incorrect vs. conservatively incorrect. If it offends conservatives who cares; if it offends liberals - a different story althogether.
2) There are financial interests in being critical or simply ignoring.
Hardaway is free to speak - unless he offends - the liberal media - plus they do not make money following his every move so they are happy to go after him.
With Spears they ove the gossip because it sells. So they just report it and leave the criticism out.
Hilton's racist comments probably offend them but they love how she makes them all money so they just ignore what she said.
Look at Ann Smith, Paris Hilton.
The "press" is making a fortune off them all so they will not go after them with criticism.
I guess it is also a function of what the liberal press sees as wrong. Sex, affairs, extramarital, drugs, drunkeness is never a problem. But make a politically incorrect statement and lookout - for example, Hardaway's anti-gay comments.
With regards to Hilton we have "heard" nothing but silence since her anti-black comments: "we're like a couple of n......" The press won't go after her. They make too much money off her.
My conclusion is it is a function of:
1) If the behavior is politically(liberally) incorrect vs. conservatively incorrect. If it offends conservatives who cares; if it offends liberals - a different story althogether.
2) There are financial interests in being critical or simply ignoring.
Hardaway is free to speak - unless he offends - the liberal media - plus they do not make money following his every move so they are happy to go after him.
With Spears they ove the gossip because it sells. So they just report it and leave the criticism out.
Hilton's racist comments probably offend them but they love how she makes them all money so they just ignore what she said.
18471
Science, Culture, & Humanities / *no* global warming opinion;lets move the polar bears
« on: February 12, 2007, 09:27:51 AM »
Another opinion that there is no proof of gobal warming:
We may want to evacuate some polar bears from up north and repopulate them in Antarctica.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
We may want to evacuate some polar bears from up north and repopulate them in Antarctica.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
18472
Science, Culture, & Humanities / world lottery
« on: February 10, 2007, 10:02:12 AM »
Now that the idea is out we will probably start seeing a lot of this. Hey prizes could include a dictatorship on your own island, or a nuclear bomb. Maybe the US gov could sponser one with prizes like immigration visas or citizenships to whole families. The politicians always love another source of income. It kind of almost makes me want to consider socialism or communism. Oh well, I guess I'll get used to it - like anything else. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SYOPXYVBEKUHNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nlotto10.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SYOPXYVBEKUHNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nlotto10.xml
18473
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Particular Stocks
« on: February 04, 2007, 12:32:52 PM »
Crafty,
When did David first rec intuitive surgical?
I remember reading something about them sometime back.
A ten bagger! Ah those were the days.
When did David first rec intuitive surgical?
I remember reading something about them sometime back.
A ten bagger! Ah those were the days.
18474
Politics & Religion / Re: What is "Democracy"?
« on: January 31, 2007, 07:42:16 PM »
***I would not consider Lebanon or Iran representative democracies, so I'm not sure if they can be considered democratic failures***
I thought the Hamas and Hezbollah have members who were elected to representative government? I thought Ahmadinajad was elected?
No?
I was just trying to make the point that when W. talks of spreading "Democracy" it sounds warm and fuzzy and has political and sound bite buzz but I am not clear it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps he should be talking more in terms of "free" elections. Perhaps he needs to define to us actually what it is he is exporting?
I think your point about the electoral college is consistent with what I am trying to say - that "democracy" or majority rule can be turned into many different versions of government. Another example is that some could say that capatilism actually encourages the authority of the a wealthy minority over the less majority - which also is intermingled in our system of government (money talks).
I guess I should have paid more attention in political science class in college. What a complicated task trying to get this to work in Iraq. How could it not take decades?
I thought the Hamas and Hezbollah have members who were elected to representative government? I thought Ahmadinajad was elected?
No?
I was just trying to make the point that when W. talks of spreading "Democracy" it sounds warm and fuzzy and has political and sound bite buzz but I am not clear it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps he should be talking more in terms of "free" elections. Perhaps he needs to define to us actually what it is he is exporting?
I think your point about the electoral college is consistent with what I am trying to say - that "democracy" or majority rule can be turned into many different versions of government. Another example is that some could say that capatilism actually encourages the authority of the a wealthy minority over the less majority - which also is intermingled in our system of government (money talks).
I guess I should have paid more attention in political science class in college. What a complicated task trying to get this to work in Iraq. How could it not take decades?
18475
Politics & Religion / What is "Democracy"?
« on: January 31, 2007, 02:45:21 PM »
I am not sure this simple question has not been discussed here before.
We here from some that the mission of the USA is to spread "Democracy". But exactly what is it we are spreading? It may not be an *American brand* of democracy with separation of Church and State or rights that also protect the minority, freedom of speech, free capatilist markets, and more.
To see how this can backfire just look at places where Hamas, Hezballah, Ahmadinijan (sp.?) have won elections.
I like the two contrasting maps of nations declaring themselves democracies and the *defacto* map of countries that are more truly democratic. It is comical to look at some of the countries on the map that claim they are democracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
We here from some that the mission of the USA is to spread "Democracy". But exactly what is it we are spreading? It may not be an *American brand* of democracy with separation of Church and State or rights that also protect the minority, freedom of speech, free capatilist markets, and more.
To see how this can backfire just look at places where Hamas, Hezballah, Ahmadinijan (sp.?) have won elections.
I like the two contrasting maps of nations declaring themselves democracies and the *defacto* map of countries that are more truly democratic. It is comical to look at some of the countries on the map that claim they are democracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
18476
Politics & Religion / ElBaradei
« on: January 30, 2007, 03:56:37 PM »
About ElBaradei co-winner of a Nobel Peace prize and head of the IAEA whose officials suggest Iran's goal may not be to develop the nuclear weapons just have all the components and the capability to be able to do so in weeks or months - what the heck is that logic? Sounds a lot like they are denying the obvious for reasons of which I cannot be clear from this armchair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
***picture the pressures within Iran in the absence of oil money-- and how the absence of money might bring the nuke program to a halt***
It seems like one short term option - but has not worked till now.
The head of US intelligence thinks Iran is 4 to ten yrs away. Others say less. And who knows how much is speculation, how much is political, etc. So far it seems Iran will continue to have alternate sources of money like China and Russia who seem quite happy to keep the US bogged down with this. Some (at least) in the military consider China, not Al Qaeda, no longer Russia our biggest military threat. While Clinton was cruising the world stage with handshakes, photo ops, exporting peace and love we were (probably still are) having military/space secrets stolen by Chinese, allowing Muslim radicals groups to grow, and expecting that if we just chat nice with the world they will love us.
Only time will tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
***picture the pressures within Iran in the absence of oil money-- and how the absence of money might bring the nuke program to a halt***
It seems like one short term option - but has not worked till now.
The head of US intelligence thinks Iran is 4 to ten yrs away. Others say less. And who knows how much is speculation, how much is political, etc. So far it seems Iran will continue to have alternate sources of money like China and Russia who seem quite happy to keep the US bogged down with this. Some (at least) in the military consider China, not Al Qaeda, no longer Russia our biggest military threat. While Clinton was cruising the world stage with handshakes, photo ops, exporting peace and love we were (probably still are) having military/space secrets stolen by Chinese, allowing Muslim radicals groups to grow, and expecting that if we just chat nice with the world they will love us.
Only time will tell.
18477
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Owning commodity stocks vs the commodities themselves
« on: January 30, 2007, 03:26:39 PM »
An interview with Jim Rogers. Better to own gold, oil, copper, natural gas, etc., or gold, oil, copper, natural gas *stocks*:
http://www.investment-u.com/ppc/splash_rogers.cfm?kw=XVVIU329
http://www.investment-u.com/ppc/splash_rogers.cfm?kw=XVVIU329
18478
Politics & Religion / Continuation Iran thread
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:18:28 PM »
Sorry, I don't know why the body of my post refused to get posted on the Iran thread below:
Hi Doug,
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
Hi Doug,
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
18479
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:16:53 PM »
Hi Doug,
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
18480
Politics & Religion / I don't know why body of my post didn't get posted but here are my thoughts
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:14:46 PM »
Hi Doug,
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
18481
Politics & Religion / What do other forum members think? About Iran
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:07:07 PM »
Hi Doug,
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
***In all this chaos - which will take years to settle - the United States needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than he lets on***
The only problem with this is that Iran's leadership is moving ahead with nuclear weapons. They didn't build neafly nucler explosion proof bunkers for any other reason.
I am not so sure that recent criticsims of Ahmadenjad was that procuring nuclear weapons is crazy but only that telegraphing their intent to the world along with pubically announcing his supreme desire to destroy the Jews of Israel is crazy. the wiseer policy would have been to quietly go about your intentions.
I still see absolutely no option other than the military one. Once Iran's leadership gets the nucs the game is completely changed and even more dangerous in my arm chair, middle class opinion. Exactly why do any of these people think waiting till Iran has the military capability to cause a second holocaust (3 nucs will suffice - as Gingrich points out - look at the map of Israel and one can easily see this) is *less* dangerous than taking action before to prevent precisely this?
Yes I know we risk losing Pakistan, and Sunni Arab countries but we are talking existential threat to Israel. I still think Israel will either have to go it alone or before Hillary replaces Bush. Once the Dems win the Whitehouse forget about it. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again - unless it is a Dem like Joe Leiberman - one of the bravest most decent politicians I can think of. I would vote for him in heartbeat if he ran.
They have already secured anitaircraft missles from Russia who along with China are probably delighted at our being bogged down with the radical Muslims. I wonder what was behind the Israelis' letting it go public that they are conducting practice military exercises with Jet pilots to bomb Iran's nuc facilities with the idea they could soften the bunkers with one kiloton nuclear devices before unleashing a second wave of conventioinal bombs. Was it simply a leak of secret info. by a political dissident or bribes official.
Was this release of information supposed to be some sort of threat that it means business. Or was it really a measure designed to camoflouge the real military options such as the use of cruise missles, not jets. I can't believe the Israeli military would be that stupid to telegraph their means.
18482
Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« on: January 28, 2007, 08:30:24 AM »
Well Hillary, do you think America "is ready for a woman president." This was the first question asked at a "town hall" extravaganza for the Hill. Oh I get it, lets get that out of the way. and surely most people are supposed to sit there blindly and think, "well I could vote for a woman". We know the media is drooling all over this.
BTW, weren't most Presidents fathers?
This is such a rehearsed planned question. Please, anybody but another Clinton. As one who generally votes Republican I'll take Biden, Obama who I don't know, Richardson, etc. But Clintons I know (despite the never ending *we really don't know Hillary*). I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather have Jimmy Carter come back then *them* again. And I'm old enough to remember Carter. Can't we just get rid of both the Bushes and the Clintons? Come on Dems lets make a bargain. Remember, we could always bring in Jeb just to piss ya off.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16566417.htm
BTW, weren't most Presidents fathers?
This is such a rehearsed planned question. Please, anybody but another Clinton. As one who generally votes Republican I'll take Biden, Obama who I don't know, Richardson, etc. But Clintons I know (despite the never ending *we really don't know Hillary*). I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather have Jimmy Carter come back then *them* again. And I'm old enough to remember Carter. Can't we just get rid of both the Bushes and the Clintons? Come on Dems lets make a bargain. Remember, we could always bring in Jeb just to piss ya off.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16566417.htm
18483
Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant
« on: January 27, 2007, 10:18:08 AM »
Hi Doug,
Glad to "see" you. ~ ))
I like the exchanges too. I like the opinions and thoughts of the posters a lot. A few opinions from Muslims on the board which we never had on OP gives us a new view IMHO.
I will try "most recent posts" - thanks ~ ))
Glad to "see" you. ~ ))
I like the exchanges too. I like the opinions and thoughts of the posters a lot. A few opinions from Muslims on the board which we never had on OP gives us a new view IMHO.
I will try "most recent posts" - thanks ~ ))
18484
Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant
« on: January 26, 2007, 06:15:09 PM »
I like this board having come from Ourpiazza. I am disappointed I don't (appear) to see others from there as well.
One difference is that the posts on this board are very long. Many are posts of long pieces or lectures. They are extremely informative but take a long time to read. I wonder if some of the old posters from ourpiazza miss the more succinct posts there.
Nonetheless, I find it educational to read many of the posts here and appreciate the opportunity.
One difference is that the posts on this board are very long. Many are posts of long pieces or lectures. They are extremely informative but take a long time to read. I wonder if some of the old posters from ourpiazza miss the more succinct posts there.
Nonetheless, I find it educational to read many of the posts here and appreciate the opportunity.
18485
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: January 26, 2007, 06:10:05 PM »
Newt Gingrich is the only one saying, "we have to ask ourselves can we live with a nuclear Iran or not?" If we agree that we can't we have no option other than military.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_3
18486
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Statins and cholesterol: a big mistake?
« on: January 26, 2007, 08:50:47 AM »
Interesting read.
Funny aspirin is praised but statins demonized. Aspirin can be a very dangerous drug. It can cause gout, allergic reactions, trigger asthma and, of course, life threatening gastrointestinal bleeds. I remember going to a chiropracter who made me sit through a video describing in detail how MDs are murdering patients with drugs like motrin and aspirin which are responsible for many hospitalizations and deaths.
It just goes to show how one can manipulate science to say whatever they want.
Funny one of the writers discusses the increase in fat intake in diet from 1959 to present in Japan yet cardiovascular death has gone down during the same period.
Well Americans are much heavier now then they were in the 50's and deaths from cardiovascular disease has gone down.
I suppose drugs have nothing to do with it?
If my bad cholesterol is 200 I am taking a statin to get it down.
And to say low cholesterol or saturated fat diets do not work is misleading. I know peolple who changed their diets to avoid just these substances and their cholesterols have plummetted (even without weight loss). This doesn't occur with everyone but there is clearly a subset of individuals who respond extremely well to this kind of diet manipulation.
Funny aspirin is praised but statins demonized. Aspirin can be a very dangerous drug. It can cause gout, allergic reactions, trigger asthma and, of course, life threatening gastrointestinal bleeds. I remember going to a chiropracter who made me sit through a video describing in detail how MDs are murdering patients with drugs like motrin and aspirin which are responsible for many hospitalizations and deaths.
It just goes to show how one can manipulate science to say whatever they want.
Funny one of the writers discusses the increase in fat intake in diet from 1959 to present in Japan yet cardiovascular death has gone down during the same period.
Well Americans are much heavier now then they were in the 50's and deaths from cardiovascular disease has gone down.
I suppose drugs have nothing to do with it?
If my bad cholesterol is 200 I am taking a statin to get it down.
And to say low cholesterol or saturated fat diets do not work is misleading. I know peolple who changed their diets to avoid just these substances and their cholesterols have plummetted (even without weight loss). This doesn't occur with everyone but there is clearly a subset of individuals who respond extremely well to this kind of diet manipulation.
18487
Politics & Religion / Solution for Iraq
« on: January 22, 2007, 06:06:09 PM »
How would Iraqis and Americans respond if the White House proposed having Iraqis vote on becoming the 51st state?
18488
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Too much water too fast especially without urinating
« on: January 14, 2007, 01:23:11 PM »
Can lead to brain swelling, seizures, supression of respiratory drive, and death:
This link describes what happened to a military recruit:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_199903/ai_n8829718
This is what happened to a woman during a radio show contest.
*****
Sunday January 14, 01:48 PM
US woman dies of water intoxication
A 28-year-old woman has died of water intoxication after taking part in a Californian radio station's water drinking contest.
She was in the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" competition trying to win a Nintendo Wii video game system.
ADVERTISEMENT
Assistant Sacramento County Coroner Ed Smith said a preliminary investigation found evidence "consistent with a water intoxication death".
Jennifer Strange's mother found her daughter's body at her home on Friday in the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova, California, after Strange called her supervisor at her job to say she was heading home in terrible pain.
"She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad," said Laura Rios, one of Strange's co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento.
"She was crying and that was the last that anyone had heard from her."
Earlier Friday, Strange took part in a contest at radio station KDND 107.9 in which participants competed to see how much water they could drink without going to the toilet.
Initially, contestants were handed 220mL bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.
"They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy," said fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland, California.
"They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."
Ybarra said he quit after drinking five bottles.
"My bladder couldn't handle it anymore," he added.
After he quit, he said, the remaining contestants, including Strange, were given even bigger bottles to drink.
"I was talking to her and she was a nice lady," Ybarra said. "She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for kids."
John Geary, vice president and marketing manager for Entercom Sacramento, the station's owner, said station personnel were stunned when they heard of Strange's death.
"We are awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred," he said***
This link describes what happened to a military recruit:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_199903/ai_n8829718
This is what happened to a woman during a radio show contest.
*****
Sunday January 14, 01:48 PM
US woman dies of water intoxication
A 28-year-old woman has died of water intoxication after taking part in a Californian radio station's water drinking contest.
She was in the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" competition trying to win a Nintendo Wii video game system.
ADVERTISEMENT
Assistant Sacramento County Coroner Ed Smith said a preliminary investigation found evidence "consistent with a water intoxication death".
Jennifer Strange's mother found her daughter's body at her home on Friday in the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova, California, after Strange called her supervisor at her job to say she was heading home in terrible pain.
"She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad," said Laura Rios, one of Strange's co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento.
"She was crying and that was the last that anyone had heard from her."
Earlier Friday, Strange took part in a contest at radio station KDND 107.9 in which participants competed to see how much water they could drink without going to the toilet.
Initially, contestants were handed 220mL bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.
"They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy," said fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland, California.
"They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."
Ybarra said he quit after drinking five bottles.
"My bladder couldn't handle it anymore," he added.
After he quit, he said, the remaining contestants, including Strange, were given even bigger bottles to drink.
"I was talking to her and she was a nice lady," Ybarra said. "She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for kids."
John Geary, vice president and marketing manager for Entercom Sacramento, the station's owner, said station personnel were stunned when they heard of Strange's death.
"We are awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred," he said***
18489
Politics & Religion / Muslim terrorism against Americans goes back to 1800
« on: January 13, 2007, 03:09:51 AM »
Interesting synopsis on early US fight against the Barbary pirates. It is a chapter in our early history I really didn't know anything about. Re. Muslim terrorism circa 1800 to 1815:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
18490
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF
« on: January 12, 2007, 07:44:56 PM »
Gross is when the lion slips you the tongue. Actually I thought lions had very rough tongues that could take your skin off with a lick. No one's goin to mess with this girl:
http://www.local6.com/slideshow/news/10727020/detail.html?qs=;s=7;w=525
http://www.local6.com/slideshow/news/10727020/detail.html?qs=;s=7;w=525
18491
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Particular Stocks
« on: January 12, 2007, 07:22:48 PM »
Crafty
I notice David likes Isis pharmaceuticals on the basis of thei cholesterol drug.
Some good caveats from the Street on Isis:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/investing/10322093.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
I notice David likes Isis pharmaceuticals on the basis of thei cholesterol drug.
Some good caveats from the Street on Isis:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/investing/10322093.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
18492
Politics & Religion / Other fronts on the clash between cultures
« on: January 06, 2007, 10:50:50 AM »
Let us not forget or ignore the Horn of Africa and Europe:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm
18493
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Philosophy
« on: January 06, 2007, 10:25:00 AM »
Homo sapiens is closer to "free will" than lower speicies. I was searching last evening on the smartest animals in the world. It seems to be a somewhat subjective analysis but what came up was chimps, other apes, whales, dolphins, dogs, cats, crows, mice, octopusses, and elephants.
Just one thought. Star Trek's Spock (Vulcan) would be further along the evolutionary scale towards a living organism with more free will than us. He operates on logic, and his choices were free of emotions, urges, and feelings. One has to wonder how in the world he could stand working and living along side humans!
Just one thought. Star Trek's Spock (Vulcan) would be further along the evolutionary scale towards a living organism with more free will than us. He operates on logic, and his choices were free of emotions, urges, and feelings. One has to wonder how in the world he could stand working and living along side humans!
18494
Science, Culture, & Humanities / neanderthals would have made great UFC fighters
« on: January 05, 2007, 05:31:57 PM »
18495
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Nuclear Bomb stuff
« on: January 04, 2007, 08:16:58 PM »
The largest nuclear explosion was in 1961. It was the detonation of the Soviet Tsar bomb with explosion estimated at somewhere between 50 to 57 million tons of TNT (50 to 57 megatons). This is compared to the bombs dropped on Japan that had explosive power measured between 12 and 20 thousand tons of TNT. The largest US bomb now active is around 1 to 1.5 megatons - still 650 times the power of the Nagasaki bomb. The Nagasaki fireball had a diameter of roughly 0.2 kilometers. The Tsar bomb's fireball had a diamter of 4.6 kilometers. The destructive blast would of course be many times larger. What is the diameter of the NY metropolitan area?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu88gb1EpmI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu88gb1EpmI&mode=related&search=
18496
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere
« on: December 30, 2006, 10:36:14 AM »
Crafty,
Interesting reminder what we as Americans are dealing with.
If Barbara Boxer could be fooled so can anyone. That is the problem. Everytime I meet or see a Muslim I have to wonder who's side he/she is on. Do they despise Christians, Jews, Americans, "Westerners"? Do they wish we were all dead? Are they secret sympathizers of this Jihad philosophy?
One never knows. Evil is not stamped on people's forehead.
I still believe in profiling. And in the other techniques the W. administration has backed in following these dark forces that lurk just under the sufarce of law abiding facades.
As I've learned in the music arena, laws, ethics, friendships, family ties can easily fall to the wayside for money. When it comes to money forget about it all - all bets are off. I would guess the same goes to religious hatred. Or political hatred (just look at how much Dems and Rep in this country hate each other).
IMO, if we worry too much about political correctness about profiling, surveillance than we will be hit again.
Interesting reminder what we as Americans are dealing with.
If Barbara Boxer could be fooled so can anyone. That is the problem. Everytime I meet or see a Muslim I have to wonder who's side he/she is on. Do they despise Christians, Jews, Americans, "Westerners"? Do they wish we were all dead? Are they secret sympathizers of this Jihad philosophy?
One never knows. Evil is not stamped on people's forehead.
I still believe in profiling. And in the other techniques the W. administration has backed in following these dark forces that lurk just under the sufarce of law abiding facades.
As I've learned in the music arena, laws, ethics, friendships, family ties can easily fall to the wayside for money. When it comes to money forget about it all - all bets are off. I would guess the same goes to religious hatred. Or political hatred (just look at how much Dems and Rep in this country hate each other).
IMO, if we worry too much about political correctness about profiling, surveillance than we will be hit again.
18497
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Schwartzenegger foolish risk taking
« on: December 27, 2006, 09:04:50 PM »
Well he must be on coumadin which is a potent blood thinner - far more than aspirin. Unless, I am wrong and he got a pig (tissue) heart valve and thus wouldn't need coumadin. But again this would not have been the usual case for his age.
So any activity where he risks significant contact would also risk serious bleeding. If he is on coumadin, as I susupect he must be, his doctors would have warned him of the risks. Although to court favor with the Hollywood Pol they might have given him the ok to take these risks but IMO I just think it is not only unnecessary risk to himself, but in regards to his responsibility as governor his constituents.
I am surprised the usual gossipy press has not brought this up.
It in some way reminds me of JFK having Addison's disease and osteoporotic induced compression fractures in his spinal verterbrae. At least one theory has it that he had no special war injury to his back but he had back pain from damage to his spine from osteoporosis (although the trigger could have been war related acitivity). This was at the time not publicly disclosed. I guess one can find other examples of presidents with medical history kept out of the front pages. Didn't Wilson have a stroke that was for a time hushed? And Grant was an alcoholic though I am not sure if people at the time were unaware. And in restrospect Reagan was showing sigins of Alzheimers while he was at the tail end of his Presidency though it wasn't clear at the time though I remember the possibility was raised.
So any activity where he risks significant contact would also risk serious bleeding. If he is on coumadin, as I susupect he must be, his doctors would have warned him of the risks. Although to court favor with the Hollywood Pol they might have given him the ok to take these risks but IMO I just think it is not only unnecessary risk to himself, but in regards to his responsibility as governor his constituents.
I am surprised the usual gossipy press has not brought this up.
It in some way reminds me of JFK having Addison's disease and osteoporotic induced compression fractures in his spinal verterbrae. At least one theory has it that he had no special war injury to his back but he had back pain from damage to his spine from osteoporosis (although the trigger could have been war related acitivity). This was at the time not publicly disclosed. I guess one can find other examples of presidents with medical history kept out of the front pages. Didn't Wilson have a stroke that was for a time hushed? And Grant was an alcoholic though I am not sure if people at the time were unaware. And in restrospect Reagan was showing sigins of Alzheimers while he was at the tail end of his Presidency though it wasn't clear at the time though I remember the possibility was raised.
18498
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Feds:Don't try melting your coins
« on: December 26, 2006, 11:34:59 PM »
Our coins are not worth the metal they're made with:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/mint-nickels/2006/12/23/
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/mint-nickels/2006/12/23/
18499
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Schwartzenegger foolish risk taking
« on: December 24, 2006, 07:44:09 AM »
I wonder if anyone will question the risk this guy took to sky. Some years back he had an aoritc heart valve replacement. It would have presumably been with a metallic valve because he was relatively young it those kinds of valves last longer. The issue I have is that he would thus be on blood thinning medicine to prevent clots forming on the valve. So for this guy who has a responsibility to his constituents, to be skiing while on blood thinning medicine is purely reckless, risky (needlessly), and selfish. If he wants to do that on his own time that is his choice to do something foolhardy but while governor?
Anyway, my opinion. But, perhaps he does have a animal tissue aortic valve which does not require serious blood thinning medicine but I would doubt it because they do not last as long and are usually used for significantly older people who would not be expected to outlive the shorter life span of the valve.
Hey Dems, you want something to harp about - here you go.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061224/D8M719K00.html
Anyway, my opinion. But, perhaps he does have a animal tissue aortic valve which does not require serious blood thinning medicine but I would doubt it because they do not last as long and are usually used for significantly older people who would not be expected to outlive the shorter life span of the valve.
Hey Dems, you want something to harp about - here you go.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061224/D8M719K00.html
18500
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq study group
« on: December 18, 2006, 10:19:58 AM »
Crafty,
I am not too confident in W's ability to use this to his best advantage either.
Another take from Dick Morris.
At least the Baker report will likely push Bush to do *something* although it is not yet clear what.
http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60448627.phtml
I am not too confident in W's ability to use this to his best advantage either.
Another take from Dick Morris.
At least the Baker report will likely push Bush to do *something* although it is not yet clear what.
http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60448627.phtml