home

Monday Open Thread

It's Colorado's warmest holiday on record and not a day to spend inside. For anyone wanting a place to chat, this space is for you.

If you're looking for something new to read, check out the 2005 Blawg Review Awards for the best law blogs. Sentencing Law and Policy wins best blog by a law professor, Scotus Blog is named best blog by a law firm; Howard Bashman of How Appealing is the blog for legal breaking news; I get an Award of Merit for TalkLeft. There's many, many more.

The awards were judged by Themis, and the accompanying artwork of She-Hulk by Greg Horn depicting Lady Justice is very cool.

Themis, the Goddess of Justice and Law, is well-known for her clear sightedness. She typically holds a sword in one hand and scales in the other. The scales represent fairness and balance, and the sword signifies the power that is held by her making the decision. Justice is not blind; the blindfold, representing the impartiality with which justice is served, is a relatively late addition to the imagery of Lady Justice that "became a more common motif during the 17th century and after, when the idea began to take hold that the judiciary should stand apart from the sovereign. Justice blindfolded can't see the signals a sovereign might send on how to rule in a case."

< Federal Judges Blast Immigration Court Decisions | The Teens of Darfur >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    Here's am interesting column from Steve Chapman who's not exactly a lefty. He starts with:
    President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
    He goes on to say the even David Keene chairman of the American Conservative Union feels that Bush "has gone too far" He also cites the Padilla case in which Bush was rebuked by the 4th Circuit court last week.
    If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.
    [snip]
    But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors
    [snip] he ends with:
    What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
    Its clear that the traditional conservatives (small government etc) are not on board with the imperial presidency.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    Soccerdad: Duh. Bush is a Rockefeller Republican in my book. Spends way too much taxpayer money; Farm bill, Highway bill, etc. Relies way too much on gov't to solve problems. Shouldn't have went into Iraq (but since we are there, we have to do it right, or the ME will fall now). Blast away!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    His foreign policy is neocon. The issue here is too much power which was not Rockefeller. The major increase in spending has been in defense. There was an analysis at Angry bear, I think, that showed domestic spending mostly level. Certainly I would agree that domestically he's much closer to Rockerfeller than tradional conservatives. But its taken this power issue to get them to speak up loudly.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Soccerdad, the salient points Chapman makes in his Tribune article are:

    Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power... they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
    This I think is the root of the utter disdain for the intelligence of and the lack of respect for Americans, and for other countries, and for their disgustingly insulting attitude of assuming that people are stupid enough to believe their BS. It's what has led to the lies used to justify invading Iraq, the outing of Valerie Plame, the NSA data mining and monitoring, all the other stinking piles of bullsh*t that emanates from these people, and the loss of respect America has suffered throughout the world. It's also what has led to this:
    In today’s Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that the White House actively pressures the editors of major newspapers to withhold stories that could damage the Bush administration’s image and reputation with American citizens. The important question this revelation raises is, “What else don’t we know?” What other information, gathered by professional reporters and editors, has been kept from the American public. Kurtz has finally blown the whistle, revealing what he says, “may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg.” --Justin Frank Mon Dec 26, 1:26 PM ET Yahoo News

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    SD writes:
    There was an analysis at Angry bear, I think, that showed domestic spending mostly level.
    Uh, you do know that we have a war going on, right?? Edger - From your link:
    “What else don’t we know?” What other information, gathered by professional reporters and editors, has been kept from the American public.
    What else is new? Administrations have been trying to manage the news since time begain. Perhaps you have forgotten the rape story about Clinton and how long it was suppressed. Your problem is that you are a BHAW, so anything Bush does is bad. Period.
    Getz’s article is a perfect example of the workings of the leftist mind. By casting everyone whose thoughts and deeds they find disagreeable as devils, leftists level the playing field. On their field, the Bushs and Blairs are as despicable as the Hitlers, the Saddams, and, thanks to Getz, the Bothas. If you make this field your home, moral clarity disappears and is replaced by moral equivalence.
    Link

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    PPJ - lay off the eggnog your comment made no sense on any level. Just had to fire some shot no matter how wildly Clearly the right is in trouble because their only defense appears to be that everyone is a Bush hater. So I'm sure the irony of PPJ post is lost on himself.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    Its also important to remember that Bush and his loyal subject here, PPJ, believe in moral relativism. That is that the morality of an act depends on ones intentions, which can easily be manufactured afterwards. So in their morally bankrupt world the beheading of a westerner is much much worse that dropping cluster munitions on innocent civilians because the US's intentions are "noble". [the fact that their intentions seem to change every week is of no matter] Using this tortured logic there is nothing the US can do that can't be justified. This is not morality but the absence of true morality, it is indeed moral bankruptcy. It is not moral clarity it is moral blindness. To me the unnecessary, wanton killing of civilians is bad, regardless of who does it. They would say "it depends on who did it". So to them there are no moral absolutes, Every moral principal is open to be manipulated like so much propaganda. And he has the nerve to lecture us on morality.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    Play the new game taking the US by storm Six Degrees of Separation: the bin Laden edition

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    Well said Soccerdad: Every moral principal is open to be manipulated like so much propaganda. It's the old transparent freudian projection trick, often laid bare here, of blaming their critics for what they know but can't accept in themselves, and hoping that somehow they might find someone dumb enough to bite.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    From your link Soc:
    The rules of the game are pretty simple, if the Preznit can connect you to Osama bin Laden in no more than six (6) steps they have enough evidence to "reasonably" connect you to terrorism and can legally be spied upon/"monitored" without a warrant. This game was set up because the laws under FISA require the government to supply evidence to obtain a warrant within 72 hours after starting to spy on Americans domestically.
    Does this mean that Bush gets to spy on himself? Or him and cheney on each other? This could get to be fun!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    SD - Spare me the psycho babble. Read the link, and you will understand. The Left accuses the US of being Germany, and can see no good. All we have is hatred, Bush bad. etc., etc. By deciding that the US, and Bush, is Germany and Hitler, anything is justified to defeat the evil. Bush Hater At Work, SD. BHAW edger - Projection? Well, when are you going to step up and face your own actions?
    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM ”..might consider, though, that the real villian is a MSM and the Far Left...” This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes... Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em... You only need one, though...
    Tell some more about morality and ethics, edger. As I said. BHAW. And since I refuse to toe the line, I become the same as Bush. Transfernce? Projection? Tell us, edger. We'd love to hear how you can speak to these things when you have never disavowed the quotation.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    Keep trying, whizzy! ;-)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    What ever happened to the social security issue? Does anyone remember Bush and the GOP scaring us by telling us if we didn't implement private accounts now, the whole system would collapse? If it was that important then why have they dropped the issue? Wile E. Coyote, re: "Shouldn't have went into Iraq (but since we are there, we have to do it right, or the ME will fall now)." I don't recall you ever writing that you thought that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Was I missing some posts or did you come over to this conclusion recently?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:33:54 PM EST
    PPJ: Sometimes your arguments demand a reply. But at times like this, it seems you just post statements like "black is white" to provoke a response.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:56:17 PM EST
    deleted. SD, lose the insults. Please re-acquaint yourself with our comment policy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by marty on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    Speaking of morality... We know the mainstream media has done a poor job reporting that the administration is failing at implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to protect us from another terrorist attack. But few are aware of the even more significant lack of coverage of credible information indicating that the premise of 911 is wrong. The New York Times has just released an oral history of the first-hand reports of firefighters who were in the World Trade Center towers after the planes hit. They report hearing explosives being set off inside the buildings. Dr. Steven Jones, a professor of physics from Brigham Young University has written a very incriminating scientific paper that argues a controlled demolition is the most reasonable explanation for the collapse of the twin towers and WTC Building 7. Imagine the implications for the current administration and potential criminal prosecution if Dr. Jones is correct! He urges an independent scientific investigation to determine whether controlled demolition or the administration’s official story better explain what happened to the World Trade Center. If the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were brought down by pre-positioned explosives, the implications are so horrific that many are unable to consider them. The underpinnings for our invasions and the mantra that “9/11 changed everything” are suddenly, shockingly recast. Additional information, including video allowing comparison of the official story vs. the controlled demolition scientific argument is available at 911TrueStory.com

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    you considered those insults yet you usually let all of PPJs stuff pass? well I'm confused. In the past I has no quibble with your assessment. Oh I forgot, politness is more important than honesty.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    Marty, good questions re 9/11. The lies used to justify invading Iraq have been well documented and refuted over the past two years. The WOT is now more and more widely seen for what it really is - the WOF (war on freedom). It takes time for the pain and shock and psychological trauma of 9/11 to fade in collective consciousness to an endurable enough level that people will be able to start considering what really happened without the PTSD causing them to immediately revert to knee jerk rejections of this line of questioning as insane "conspiracy theories". But, the questioning has to start sometime... though I suspect that for many this will be a debate that will continue for a long time. Witness the fact that people still, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, think creationism and so called "intelligent design" make sense. It will be a long uphill battle. Your link is one place to start for those not afraid to question the "official" story. Here are a couple more...
    9-11 represented the first collapse of ANY steel-framed building, allegedly from fire. BUT – there were three such occurrences; not just one. The third building, Seven World Trade Center (7-WTC), was not hit by an aircraft loaded with jet fuel. Its collapse wasn't accompanied by a fireball, representing the alleged tank of diesel fuel burning or exploding - (which it didn't). That’s asking too much from ‘coincidence,’ just by virtue of two separate architectural styles; within an eight-hour period of time. Most spectacularly, no ‘official’ questions were asked.
    How Strong Is The Evidence For A Controlled Demolition?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:46:54 PM EST
    edgey - I don't have to try. Your very own words define you. John H - Bush clearly lost that battle. And that's a shame, because they system is broke BTW - I'll save about $200. on Rx insurance in January, and every month their after. Thank you W. Thank you Repubs. Marty - And did you know we never went to the moon? All fake. Trust me. cymro - Since I don't know the source of your comment, I can't respond. Id their anything specific in your complaint, or just everything? ;-)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    See what I mean, Marty?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    Here's a story on how at least in one incident the "War on Christmas" was manufactured by Fox news. Christian alliance for progress

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    SD, thank you for that link. I especially liked the following post by Allan Edwards:
    It is time for honest Christians who decide to enter politics for the purpose of serving their society to insure that the ideals of the Constitution and democracy continue to illuminate mankind. It is time for politicians of the Christian faith to reflect on some messages taught by Jesus himself:

    Have mercy for all and be of pure heart; become a peacemaker; and hunger and thirst for what is right. Meet that new and higher standard that is outlined in Matthew 5:20-26,33-48; 6:24; 7:1-5, 15-20.

    Jesus did not come to heal the well or make the rich more wealthy. He came to serve the downtrodden and needy, to heal the sick, to give to the poor, to pray for the imprisoned, and to spread peace, not domination. He was the model of tolerance, which is what our nation can once again embrace with the proper leadership. Do not go into politics to establish a theocracy, but rather to insure that all people of this land may worship freely that which is their own choice. We are not a theocracy and never have been.

    If Christians wish to be an influence in this nation, they must do so by example that is consistent with their holy Bible, without imposing their Bible on those who follow other codes. Follow the Beatitudes, the teachings of Christ, while also respecting the secular nature of our nation. Give to the poor. Heal the sick. Comfort the grieving. Spread peace. Those are the ideals that need to be at the center of a Christian's political agenda, not an insistence on making this nation a theocracy. This nation was founded to escape that kind of tyranny.
    Reading this truly Christian argument was a refreshing change from seeing either right wingers arguing that the Bush administration is supporting Christian ideals, or left wingers arguing that all Christians think like Bush.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    Watching "Do The Right Thing" as I type. Haven't seen in in almost a decade. Now THAT'S tasty cinema. See it again and feel the heat. What a great f*cking motion picture. And a soundtrack up there with Superfly, in my humble honky opinion. RIP, Curtis Mayfield. And Ossie Davis. And Robin Harris. Have a great Bowl Season, TL.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    SD: Thanks for your comments after Picker Peter Jimpepper's rantings in the Dover thread. PPJ, since I was travelling yesterday, I didn't get to reply to your comment about my 'picking' or take the time to use a better example than the one I cited from physics. So: If there is a final dogma, an 'unprovable' component to modern science, it is that no matter how much we understand and continue to discover about the universe, we can never be sure that we have reached a final understanding of the principles and laws that underlie it. Falsifiability
    The laws of physics are an interesting case. Occasionally it is suggested that the most fundamental laws of physics, such as "force equals mass times acceleration" (F=ma), are not falsifiable because they are definitions of basic physical concepts (in the example, of "force"). More usually, they are treated as falsifiable laws, but it is a matter of considerable controversy in the philosophy of science what to regard as evidence for or against the most fundamental laws of physics. Isaac Newton's laws of motion in their original form were falsified by experiments in the twentieth century (eg, the anomaly of the motion of Mercury, the behavior of light passing sufficiently close to a star, the behavior of particle being accelerated in a cyclotron, etc), and replaced by a theory which predicted those phenomena, General Relativity, though Newton's account of motion is still a good enough approximation for most human needs. In the case of less fundamental laws, their falsifiability is much easier to understand. If, for example, a biologist hypothesizes that, as a matter of scientific law (though practising scientists will rarely actually state it as such), only one certain gland produces a certain hormone, when someone discovers an individual without the gland but with the hormone occurring naturally in their body, the hypothesis is falsified.
    ............................
    However, arguments relating to alleged actions, rather than the existence, of God may be falsifiable. See nontheism for further information.
    Wikipedia on Intelligent Design
    The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed within the scientific community.[14] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski claims. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions of design.[15]
    Here's a quote of Dembrinski's that's in the notes on the article:
    Dembski. 1999. Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology. "Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." p. 210


    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 12:26:00 AM EST
    DA: If there is a final dogma, an 'unprovable' component to modern science, it is that no matter how much we understand and continue to discover about the universe, we can never be sure that we have reached a final understanding of the principles and laws that underlie it. And people who can reason, anyone who can reason, professional scientists and non-scientists alike, are not so insecure as to consider this a flaw and persist in looking for absolutes where none exist. Well said, DA!
    Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi on The Scientific Method


    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:20:09 AM EST
    PPJ, do you think that people's hate for Bush might have something to do with stolen elections, lying to start a war that has killed over 30,000, destruction of the constitution, or maybe, destruction of the environment? TTFN, sfb

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 06:10:25 AM EST
    My point about Bush and the social security issue is this. If things were as dire as Bush and the GOP were saying, they wouldn't have droppped the issue. If they truly believed their rhetoric, that the social security system was like the Titanic heading for an iceberg, then they would still be fighting to change it. The fact that they have dropped the issue demonstrates that they overexaggerated the threat in order to scare people into supporting the privatization of social security. And speaking of overexaggerated threats, whatever happened to the color coded Homeland Security alerts? They seemed to have disappeared after the election.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:05:18 AM EST
    ppj, like usual, you're full of guana. Yes, we were attacked, but not by Iraq. There was one reason for the attack on Iraq, and that was oil. The evidence of stolen evidence is overwhelming, but you're never going to see the evidence, because it's not on Rush Limbaugh website. And PPJ, you get away with your spin and lies when you talk about politics, but stay away from science, you're low I.Q. cannot handle things based in fact, instead of lies and spin. TTFN sfb

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:06:18 AM EST
    ppj, like usual, you're full of guana. Yes, we were attacked, but not by Iraq. There was one reason for the attack on Iraq, and that was oil. The evidence of stolen elections is overwhelming, but you're never going to see the evidence, because it's not on Rush Limbaugh website. And PPJ, you get away with your spin and lies when you talk about politics, but stay away from science, you're low I.Q. cannot handle things based in fact, instead of lies and spin. TTFN sfb

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    Understand that we are at war because we were attacked. We weren’t fighting in Afghanistan or any other country in the ME on 9/11. Have you forgotten that, or does it not matter to you?
    Fear is in. Fear is the new black. Spritz it on your face and neck, walk around the world all quivering and tremulous, waiting to be crushed by some dark massive throbbing wall of evil at any moment. Fear is a tactic. It is a calculated force, a strategic maneuver, a carefully constructed PR methodology. It is a poison in the air, a cancer in the national bloodstream, a media pastime and a cultural narcotic. And here's the biggest secret of all: Fear is a learned trait, a practiced habit. It is something you cling to and allow to fester. They are counting on it.
    What Are You So Afraid Of? Sex? Gays? Terrorists? God? In BushCo's fear-drunk world, only one question really matters

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:37:21 AM EST
    ask yourself: What is the difference between a person that cannot vote AND a person that does not know who or what he/she is voting for? Support a man that stands up for EXACTLY what he believes. Tune in to the Ed Schultz show this week for a dose of Tony Trupiano, a congressional candidate in my district that very well could be the most rivitting candidate in the nation! tony4congress.com

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    Bigunit12 – Disagreements are fine, but misstatements don’t work. Show me where I “disagreed” with science. I do question some things as relates to evolution creating new species and ID. Perhaps my comment was too long and complex for you to understand. Perhaps you need to research the difference between a species evolving new characteristics and the creation of a new species. BTW – Wasn’t the whole thrust of DA’s comment? Old “rules” being overturned? The issue of being attacked by Iraq, or not, is just a straw horse. The facts are as I stated. We believed Iraq was involved, and we believed that they had WMD’s. And that was bipartisan if you want to believe the nonsense being spouted by the Demos, fine. But understand that they are using you. As for stolen elections. Plural?? Provide some proof from the MSM media. Fl was not in 2000, and neither was Ohio in ’04. BTW – Among the other information re FL in 2000, I am sure you are aware that the NYPost found that 46,000 Demos were registered in both New York and Florida? Let’s say that one fourth of them, 11500 voted in FL. Now, since their vote was illegal, throw’em out. Want to talk about “almost” stolen elections? And I am not a fan of Limbaugh. As I have noted many times, he is an entertainer, and when he ceases to entertain, he will be history, As will Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al. I am a social liberal with a very strong bias towards national defense. i.e. I used to be a Democrat before the party was seized by the Left. I am a registered independent. I support a variety of causes that Limbaugh, and Bush, do not. Among them, national health care, gay rights, women’s right to choose (although I am vehemently against abortion), etc. You need to quit trying to define people by your opposition to Bush. John H – I would have liked him to continue the battle, but I also know that sometimes it is smarter to give up on an issue and come back later. As for the “alerts,” I would think two things were at play. The terrorists obviously would like to attack anytime, but especially before an election to demonstrate their ability to disrupt, etc. Our security people would have been much more sensitive at that time. This could easily lead to elevated alerts. Mostly likely it was both.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:52:38 AM EST
    Come on, Jim. In 5 days it will be a new year. Try not to spend it quivering in fear, huh? It's not good for you...

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:57:36 AM EST
    edger - Your tactic re "fear" of sex, gays, etc., doesn't work with me, and I think you know that as I have so posted by social liberal views numerous times. The real point is that, as you posted;
    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM "Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey." (quoted from my previous comment) "That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq" (posted by you.)
    Since you cannot see that car bombers are terrorists, then all actions against them are wrong in your mind. Your lack of logic speaks for itself. BTW - Will you remove the doors on your home and post a sign on your lawn, "Gone on Vacation?" As Forest said: "Stupid is as stupid does."

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:02:31 AM EST
    eeeeeek!

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:16:09 AM EST
    As Forest said: "Stupid is as stupid does."
    so TL this is acceptable to you? Just trying to get the fine details of your policy

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:19:22 AM EST
    Jim, Lumping Rush Limbaugh together as an "entertainer" with Michael Moore and Al Franken is like lumping Stalin together as a "dictator" with FDR and Churchill. It just doesn't hold water to me, bro. You can disagree with Moore and Franken (and I certainly think Moore is a clown sometimes and gets a little broad in his strokes), but to simply call them entertainers is to purposefully ignore the muckraking nature of what they do. Rush, on the other hand, is the opposite of a classic American muckraker -- He's a company man, a lackey for the government line (except with his drug addiction), who doesn't need a free country to broadcast in. He could broadcast his type of pro-government show in any tyranny on earth. It takes NO amount of freedom to do what he does. It takes immense ammounts of freedom to do what Franken and Moore do, which is pointedly criticize the government, which you're not allowed to do in a tyranny.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:28:04 AM EST
    Lumping Rush Limbaugh together as an "entertainer"
    is the usual right wing response in an effort to have it both ways. They like his message but when he gos too far they say "he's just an entertainer". Notice that they never disagree with what he says and never call him on it, so thats the bottom line. That way their message gets out and they distance themselves when necessary. But until they are repudiated by the right the safe assumption is that Limbaugh, coulter, maulkin et al represent current far right wing (not conservative). In fact I am just applying the rules of PPJ as he has expressed them towards lefties. Goose gander etc.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    Charlie, Nice dissection above. BLOD - Bush lover on drugs.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    Che? It's all a BLUF... Bush Lover on Fear ;-)

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    BLOF

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    Bush Lovers On Whiskey, Meds, Etc.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    DA – If you want to agree that the word, “generally” used by the author in one of the links you provided that supposedly “proved” the creation of a new species is a qualifier, fine. The dictionary proved that. If you want to claim that the writer “misspoke,” fine. But it does bring into question the communication abilities of the author. No, the writer didn't misspeak, but in biology, a more recently developed science, there are many more areas of contraversy than in say, physics, chemistry, math, astronomy, etc. That there are some biologists who don't believe that polyploidal species are new and distinct from the orignal plant species they arose from doens't mean that they would then disbelieve in the concept of the origin of new species by evolution in general, unless they were creationists, of course. See the Wikipedia on species and speciation.
    The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection has two important implications for discussions of species -- consequences that fundamentally challenge the assumptions behind Linnaeus' taxonomy. First, it suggests that species are not just similar, they may actually be related. Some students of Darwin argue that all species are descended from a common ancestor. Second, it supposes that "species" are not homogeneous, fixed, permanent things; members of a species are all different, and over time species change. This suggests that species do not have any clear boundaries but are rather momentary statistical effects of constantly changing gene-frequencies. One may still use Linnaeus' taxonomy to identify individual plants and animals, but one can no longer think of species as independent and immutable.
    So, it's not that the concept of 'generally' that has changed, but that the concept of "species" has to change based on the science we know today that wasn't around when Linnaeus came up with the original concept.
    Richard Dawkins defines two organisms as conspecific if and only if they have the same number of chromosomes and, for each chromosome, both organisms have the same number of nucleotides (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 118). However, most if not all taxonomists would strongly disagree. For example, in many amphibians, most notably in New Zealand's Leiopelma frogs, the genome consists of "core" chromosomes which are mostly invariable and accessory chromosomes, of which exist a number of possible combinations. Even though the chromosome numbers are highly variable between populations, these can interbreed successfully and form a single evolutionary unit. In plants, polyploidy is extremely commonplace with few restrictions on interbreeding; as individuals with an odd number of chromosome sets are usually sterile, depending on the actual number of chromosome sets present, this results in the odd situation where some individuals of the same evolutionary unit can interbreed with certain others and some cannot, with all populations being eventually linked as to form a common gene pool.
    My point remains. When someone can provide a new species, with no qualifiers, it will be at the top of every newscast. And yes, that includes the FNC. And you only picked one example out of a list that I gave you, ignoring the one I cited in my post, picking on one on semantic grounds(for you to berate anyone for poor communication skills is priceless!), and not commenting on the rest. Anyway, you echo the creationist argument so here goes:
    1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example: * A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998). * Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991). * Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
    Link Also
    4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example: * In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151). * Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176). * A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
    Link about creating new species in the lab:
    "Most models of speciation require gradual change over a very long period of time, and geographic or ecological isolation for a new species to arise," says University of Houston biologist Michael Travisano. "Our study suggests that mating two separate species to produce hybrids can result in a new species readily and relatively quickly, at least in yeast, but possibly in other organisms as well."
    Google yields 16.5 million results for new species observed without quotation marks. Even if polyploidy in plants is taken out as evidence for new species arising, there still a lot of stuff that you can't ignore or wave away by arguing about a given word or two. TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    PPJ, I just saw this in one of your posts:
    I used to be a Democrat before the party was seized by the Left.
    This is very funny, and demonstrates (as I posted previously) just how far to the right your notion of 'the center' must be. I remember Alistair Cooke's explanation of US politics to British listeners in one of his weekly Letter From America broadcasts on the BBC, probably in the late 60's or early 70's. He said something like this: "National politics here (in the US) are similar to those in Britain, in that there are two major political parties. There is the Republican Party, which is very much like the British Conservative Party. And there is the Democratic Party, which is very much like the British Conservative Party". How anyone can describe the Democratic Party as 'siezed by the left' is a complete mystery. I can only assume that anything that is not as right-wing as Rush Limbaugh falls into your definition of 'the left'. But then what use is the adjective 'left,' except as a pejorative label for people whose views you disagree with? You may as well describe everything north of Antartica as 'northerly', or everywhere in the US east of Maine as 'the West'. Those designations are only true for people who inhabit those extreme locales. The rest of the world demands a more balanced viewpoint.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:11:22 PM EST
    Absolute funniest line of the day
    Yes, Hodo. I will continue to state facts.
    maybe for your delusional universe, but not here on earth.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    And the proof they didn’t exist someplace and before is? Rivers change, you know.
    This is studied and purposeful ignorance. Of course rivers change. That's one way species become isolated and adapt to change.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    Et Al, As I have said so often in the past on this site invective does not replace honest debate. As far as Charlie whom does not Surf is concerned, please do not ban him as he is the monkey to the Left's organ-grinder. He is entertaining although not not quite as clever as he believes himself to be. Afterall there is nothing funnier than lefty bush-monkeys from above 49th trying to be too clever by half.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    Incessant restatement of "we're at war." We're NOT, in fact, in a "War". It doesn't matter what any political resolution says, we are NOT at war. The "War on Terror" is an idea. It is an excuse for unpopular and dangerously short-sighted policy. It is a red herring. The American people are ignorant, willfully or otherwise, to the motives of our government. What we can be quite sure of is that $300 Billion dollars wasn't spent for Humanitarian purposes. If it were, then someone has a LOT of explaining to do about why it is that this kind of money can be spent to "assist" a people that resent Western influence while the people of New Orleans get no direct aid and are left without levees and a pittance of Federal aid for disreputable Contractors that bulldoze low rent housing to build warehouses. But of course, that is a moot point because Iraq is not about Humanitarian aid. Iraq is about something else entirely. Iraq is about Neoconservative Corporatist domination of foreign governments and resources. It always was. It was from the very start of Sadaam Hussein's regime more than 20 years ago. The America that I was told about in grade school doesn't exist anymore. Arrogant, wealthy, ethnocentric, racist, bigots are destroying our social contract and making people all over the world miserable for their own pathetic greed. And all PPJ can do is sit here and recite dishonest spin. You'll be sure to let us know, PPJ, if a natural disaster destroys your city so that we can all remind you that the dollars flowing into the Pentagon are more important than providing you and your family with shelter and assistance.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:24:25 PM EST
    You might have noted I didn’t use “Darkly” in the previous comment because you didn’t do the “Whizzy” bit Thanks for reminding me, I won't let that lapse of memory happen again.
    But, as I noted, no free passes, as long as you initiate the contact I will respond.
    Like your responses have bothered me in the past. LOL! You're bothered more by what I do than I ever get from your feeble attempts at name-calling, so I reject all your little whiny attempts at a 'truce' here and now, and from now on. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, FWIW. Google isn’t the 6 o’clock news. And your point is? Nobody ever said that Google was a replacement for the 6 'oclock news, but it proves that there's volumes of material on a subject which you claim you don't believe has happened. and the proof they didn’t exist someplace and before is? Rivers change, you know. Lakes aren't the same as rivers, PPJ. The carving out of what are referred to 'glacial lakes' on the North American continent in the aftermath of the last Ice Age is accepted by all geologists by now. Link
    A glacial lake is a lake with origins in a melted glacier.

    A retreating glacier often leaves sections of ice behind, in hollows between drumlins or hills. As the ice age ends these will melt to create lakes. These lakes are often found surrounded by drumlins, along with other evidence of the glacier, such as moraines, eskers and erosional features such striations and chatter marks.

    It's called Geology, PPJ. Natural features can be dated with a variety of tools, so your skepticism is unfounded, as usual. As you see from above, glacial lakes aren't formed from flowing water sources as is the case with what we usually call lakes. This, along with an abscence of the fish found in the glacial lakes anywhere in the fossil record prior to the formation of said lakes, shows that the species(pl) in question must have originated in the lakes and nowhere else, unless you'd like to tell us that the fish were stocked in the lakes by little green men from the Andromena galaxy.
    And finally, since I noted that neither evolution or ID worked well for me, what is your point except to try and pick, pick, pick?
    Sorry, you're the one being Picky Player Jimpepper, coming up with any excuse to not consider any proof of evolution at work. You misrepresent the theory of evolution when you write about it, so you're not even accurate when you're telling us what you don't believe in. In science, the way to replace a theory that isn't satisfactory is to come up with a better one that can be tested and shown to work. Demonstrate that you have read about evolution other than second-hand biased accounts on the subject(you could start with Darwin's The Origin of the Species, for example)and you will be taken seriously by others and myself who know something of how science works. If you don't, well, someone can always pass me the popcorn. Oh, and before I forget: TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    Jimcee complains
    As I have said so often in the past on this site invective does not replace honest debate.
    which is then follwed by
    Afterall there is nothing funnier than lefty bush-monkeys from above 49th trying to be too clever by half.
    so one can only assunme that he is complaining about himself or he doesn't understand that calling people monkeys may be considered an invective, i.e. abusive. If you are going to be hypocritical its always best not to do it in the same post, thus setting it up for all to see.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Although I know you have no sense of humour I thought that you might have a sense of irony. But alas.... In my household calling someone a monkey is a term of indearment not necessarily a ridicule. charleswhomdoesnotsurften is trying to get attention and I am being polite. Bush is a anglophile term for the woods or the forest if you will, the 49th is a reference to Canada's border and I've already explained the monkey part. Now if you had taken offense to the leftist organ-grinder part you might have had a point. Again my friend, learn to laugh, stop being so easily offended, at least embrace irony as it will make life more livable. As far as my comments about the use of invective as a tool of arguement I am right. Insulting your opponent only reduces the value of your arguement and often in your case seems to be a substitute for honest or factual debate. It is you my friend who has been reprimanded on this thread for your impetuousness and that is with good reason as you have been needlessly insulting to some on this site. Your language reflects not only your attitude but your intellectual depth. Sincerly, Jim

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    Nice try, doesn't wash. Are you indeed as dismissive with your family as you imply. Maybe coundeling would help. You just admitted to being a hypocrite. You wouldn't know anything about intellectual depth so your criticism means little. Rather than facing the arguments, which you can't, you become dismissive on a peripheral issue. The usual tactic I've come to expect. But then again seeing you and JP ranting at what I say only confirms to me that I am on the right path. So Thanks. You have added to my sense of confidence about my beliefs.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:12:15 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Let me put this as bluntly as possible: Your stiff puritanical and literal interpretation of anything that is said here shows you are nothing more than a one-dimensional demigog. Your lack of humour is tedious and your tenditiousness is sad. No, I don't need counciling for the humourous things my family says to each other but you might for thinking that we are somehow insulting each other. Um perhaps you need to mature a bit and truely reconsider your own intellectual depth as it is very, very shallow indeed. You obviously have your own demons tugging on your personality and project them on to others in some sort of self-exorcisism. By the way, I'm not dismissive of those who can write with a bit of civility and humour but you do not qualify in that respect. If you feel I'm dismissive of you that is perhaps because it is you and your inability to respond without some invective prefaced statement that makes it seem that way. I guess the best way to put it is grow up because living in a childlike world will only hurt you and those you love. I don't expect you to respond and don't care if you do, good-night and good luck. You'll need them both, child.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    Jimcee, is that the best you got. You never address an argument head on but resort to a pile of manure as if you actually new anything about me. You insult us and then try to laugh it off as a joke. Its an old trick one that is easily seen through. BTW you obviously flunked psych 101. You've yet to mount an intelligent argument here. I wish i did live in a child like world. But unfortunately I have not be able to for a very long time. I appreciate good humor. let me know when you find some. Some things, like what the Bush administration is doing to this country simply isn't funny on any level. Tell people they have no sense of humor or to grow up! Why? because they don't agree with the all knowing Jimcee. Please. The only demons I have are sitting in the White House destroying our country. But to you everything is just a joke and in lieu of establishing an argument you took this personnal right away. Typical for intellectual light weights.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    PPJ, do you giggle and laugh more, before or after the meds?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:32:30 PM EST
    As childish invective has become the special of the night. I'll come back tommorrow when the adults return. Good Night y'all.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    PPJ:
    Uh, you first demonstrate a staggering like of knowledge about US culture changes and politics, and for proof you offer me something written by a foreign writer that is between 45 and 35 years old.
    You are missing the point -- maybe deliberately, to avoid addressing it. I repeated Alistair Cooke's helpful observation because it highlights the relative lack of separation between the positions of the two major US political parties, when viewed in the light of the broad spectrum of political views that are routinely debated in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe. Alistair Cooke's statement was simply a clever way of explaining to a non-US audience the conservative nature of all American politics. That is a fact that was true then, and continues to be true today. I have lived in the US for 28 of the last 32 years, and over that period the major change has been that both major parties, and the focus of political debate, have moved even further to the right, making Alistair Cooke's observation even more true today than it was when he made it. Yet you say that I demonstrate a staggering like (sic -- I assume you meant 'lack') of knowledge about US culture changes and politics. So please stop using personal attacks to avoid addressing my point. Tell me what you think has changed to render Alistair Cooke's observation incorrect today. Tell me how you justify your (in my opinion, laughable) claim that 'the left siezed the Democratic Party'. You stated that you changed your party allegiance when that siezure happened, so when exactly was that?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    would tell you that you are wrong, that I was just hopeful that I could clean up the comments a bit. But alas, I should have remembered who it was I was dealing with More like, "Alas, I haven't dealt with my memory problems yet". LOL! BTW - You have no way of knowing what was the exact layout of the land around those lakes 10,000 years. Quit dreaming. What you have is a "general" knowledge. It's called "Geology", PPJ. Here's what a fellow who is doing studies similar to the one I cited has to say for himself:
    Principally, I study the ecology of recent adaptive radiations. My earliest work was carried out on Darwin's famous finches in the Galápagos Islands. More recently I have been working on a mini-explosion of new species of threespine sticklebacks in lakes of coastal British Columbia, Canada. The species are among the youngest on earth and occur in lakes that are less than 12,000 years old. No more than two species occur in any one lake, but pairs of species in different lakes seem to have evolved completely independently of other pairs. They have all kinds of great properties that allow us to address very basic questions concerning the roles of resources, species interactions, phenotypic plasticity, sexual selection and other factors in the evolution of diversity. They produce viable and fertile hybrids, making it possible to investigate the genetic basis of species differences using hybrids. Our research on sticklebacks presently has three main directions. The first concerns the role of interactions (competition and predation) in the evolution of differences between species. Our work in this area includes experiments in ponds in which we measure how natural selection on a species is changed when another species (e.g., a competitor) is added to its environment. The second area concerns the origin and persistence of species themselves, especially the role of ecological selection and reinforcement in the buildup of mating incompatibilities between populations exploiting different environments, and their persistence in the face of gene flow. The third area, in collaboration with David Kingsley at Stanford University and Katie Peichel at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, investigates the genetic basis of species differences. The question of species persistence has lately taken on a new urgency, with the rapid rate at which the stickleback species pairs are becoming extinct. Part of our work is dedicated to understanding why this is occurring, why now, and what can be done to forestall the doom of the species pairs that remain.
    Link Why don't you contact him and tell him that he can't prove what he wrote here? His reply would be most interesting, IMHO.
    And since I have merely stated that I don't agree with either, I see no need to defend either. And your demand that I do so, or provide a new theory is ridiculous.
    You've shown that you don't believe in your own ridiculous version of what evolution is about. When I try to meet your objection, "I haven't heard of anyone seeing or observing a new species evolve" by showing you examples of such observations taking place, you act as though you've made up your mind that such observations were invalid or couldn't have taken place because of this or that. Because you don't get to demand anything, Darkly Picker, or was that Picker Darkly?? Oh well, same is as same is. Since you have made your statement of rejection of my offer for a truce... May the bird of paradise fly up your.... guess what??? Your memory problems kicked in again? Second time in the same post, you really should speak to a medical professional about your problem. BTW - I noted three spelling errors in your last comment. Surely someone who is such a stickler/picker can do better Hey, you'll make your obvious spelling errors because of your anger or rage at what someone has written here sometime this week or next week. I'm still ahead on points, so if you want to play a losing hand, go ahead, oh card remora. Now give us some psycho babble. Don't forget the "meds" insult. Throw in some Freud. Picker, pick pick pick. You've shown such a magnificent grasp and ability as far as turning out psychobabble by the yard here (with the above as the prime example for this thread so far), that for you to taunt my deficiencies in this area is cruel and unusual punishement, AFAIK. TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 05:41:32 AM EST
    Who wrote this? "there can be only one visceral theme, one battle, one task" -- "to address the question of [the presidents] fitness for office in light of the many crimes, petty and otherwise, that surround, imbue, and color his tenure. The president must be made subject to the law. The lines have been drawn. What [they] now need is the nerve to fight. They must stand for [...] "the rejection of intimidation, the rejection of lies, the rejection of manipulation, the rejection of disingenuous pretense, and a revulsion for the sordid crimes and infractions the president has brought to his office."

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 05:54:55 AM EST
    Talkleft? Why did you replace the first few words of a comment in the "Entries with recent comments" list with the "posted day and time"?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:47:02 AM EST
    Cymro - I don't mean to be rude, but if you think both parties have moved to the right, then I wonder what you have doing for those 28 years. I would also note that you must have arrived in '77, years after the Vietnam War, the radicalization it brought and the take over of the Demo party by the Far Left, or better yet, by the anti-war Left in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s. bigunit12 - Yep, there's the old "meds" comment. How original. charliedontsurf12 Hodo writes:
    Nice try, shmendrik. I don't have to be a fookin' brain surgeon
    Don't worry, no one will ever think that you are a brain surgeon. But yes, to be a recognized critic, you must have some knowledge of the subject. Otherwise you're just someone standing in front of a painting saying, "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like!" It's called opinion. When done in a certain manner it is called shooting your mouth off. Picker Darkly - pick pick pick Does it make you feel good to copy vast amounts of information that no one is going to read? You could save time by just doing the link and naming it “BIOR.” Didn't pay much attention to the slurs, noticed a couple of your standards. BTW - You misspelled another word. Guess world famous scientists do have some faults.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:03:48 AM EST
    Picker Darkly - pick pick pick Yes, you're so mad when I do your shtick better than you do. Does it make you feel good to copy vast amounts of information that no one is going to read? You could save time by just doing the link and naming it “BIOR.” Yes, because it proves that your ignorance is willful and that you don't want any facts because your mind is made up about evolution. Typical! Didn't pay much attention to the slurs, noticed a couple of your standards. Translation: I only cried for 5 minutes, not the usual 10 after I read your comment. BTW - You misspelled another word. Guess world famous scientists do have some faults. Guess your claim that they can't know how old the lakes are is rot, or you wouldn't have dropped it by now. Anyway, you'll be mispelling soon in a spectacular way, and I'm still ahead on points, Practically Pointless PoorpokerplayingJoke. TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:59:01 AM EST
    ppj:
    My point was that the claim was that they have been isolated 10,000 years and thus magically/happenstance became new species is highly suspect. No one can state with any degree of certainty that they were NOT there originally as discrete species.
    That statement is patently absurd and I believe that you know it to be absurd. It's just anti science and an example of the usage of anti-intellectualism as a tool of the wacky right. Magic? I believe the use of magic in speciation is more in your domain.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by peacrevol on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    ds: If PPJ had ever heard of peer review, he'd know that his questions don't even make sense. Hasn't stopped him in the past, doesn't look like it will now........

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    PPJ:
    I would also note that you must have arrived in '77, years after the Vietnam War, the radicalization it brought and the take over of the Demo party by the Far Left, or better yet, by the anti-war Left in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s.
    I said I'd been here for 28 of the last 32 years, so first I arrived 32 years ago in 1973. And since that time, both parties have moved to the right. Just as one data point, consider the leading Democratic candidates for President since 1968. Clinton was closer to the center than Carter, who was closer to the center than Humphrey, who was considered a 'liberal' within the US political spectrum, but would by no means be considered to be 'far left' by anyone with a more balanced view of what constitutes the political spectrum of left-to-right possibilities. So my original point remains true, unless you consider Humphrey's politics to be representative of 'the left' who 'siezed' the Democratic Party. And if you do, then you must have been using a reference to something that happened almost 40 years ago to describe your views and your party allegiance -- something you then ridiculed me for doing in my response.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    Marty.. Thanks for the 9/11 info.. Very interesting even if it is a load of BS.