home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:54:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's rare for TalkLeft to have open threads two days in a row. But my cable modem crashed today leaving me without internet access except the slowest kind. Comcast is coming to fix it between 10 and 12 Thursday morning, right before I leave for my appontments of the day. So, until I get it all squared away, I won't be blogging.

Has anyone tried having both cable and dsl working in their house? I'm thinking about it, because then when one goes down at least the other would work. The Cingular WWAN on my laptop moves at the speed of dialup, making it impossible to blog enjoyably...I think of blogging as the Internet on speed, or as the difference between skiing and snowboarding, and when I have two desktops and three laptops in my house and all are working at the speed of dialup, it's just no fun.

So, I'll be back as soon as Comcast fixes the problem , which should be 10 to noon tomorrow morning. In the meantime, here's another open thread for you.

< Teacher Faces Sentencing in Porn Case | Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Connor: Continued Lame False Defense of Bush v. Gore >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)
    U.S. Military Spied on Hundreds of Antiwar Demos (none / 0) (#1)
    by rothmatisseko on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:34:50 AM EST
     * * * *

    At least 186 antiwar protests in the United States have been monitored by the Pentagon's domestic surveillance program, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which also found that the Defense Department collected more than 2,800 reports involving Americans in a single anti-terrorism database.

    The internal Defense Department documents show it is monitoring the activities of a wide swath of peace groups, including Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, the American Friends Service Committee, the War Resisters League, and the umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, which is spearheading what organizers hope will be a massive march on Washington this Saturday.

    One TALON report states "Veterans for Peace erected an antiwar display the week of 18 April 2005 at a local university," reads a report on a New Orleans protest from the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database."

    FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Atlanta and New York were briefed on planned protests.

    * * * * *

    What now, friends?

    actually, the Libby trial yesterday (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:19:03 AM EST
    had a brief mention - during the testimony of one of the CIA briefers - about Scooter and Deadeye being briefed on this issue.

    I saw it in FDL's coverage.

    It appears the surveillance of peace activists was one of their topics du jour - whether it was the complaints about it or the fact and results of it, I couldn't tell.  It was, after all, a brief mention in a laundry list of topics the briefing covered.

    Parent

    roth (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    Sigh...

    If you do it in public there is no reason to expect it to be private.

    If violence occurs there is no reason to expect that it not be noted.

    or the right of the people peaceably to assemble


    Parent
    once again (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    excusing fascism. The military should have no role in domestic intelligence gathering against its citizens.

    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    Why shouldn't it? Is there anything in the Constitution that says they can't gather information based on public actions by anyone or any group?

    Parent
    There are laws on the books limiting (none / 0) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    Their activities.

    I dont expect you to understand why they shouldn't since your posts in the past support the rise of authoritarian rule in the US [ as long as its by the right people of course]

    Parent

    SD (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    I didn't say there aren't laws on the books. If there are and they have violated them, go get them.

    Should be an easy thing to do.

    Parent

    Well then (none / 0) (#86)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    Is there anything in the Constitution that says they can't put a camera in everyone's bedroom to make sure they're not having any "undesirable" sexual relations?

    Parent
    Of course there is. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    It was decided long ago that use of a listening devise or a camera (or, in some circumstances, the eyes) constitutes a seizure.

    Parent

    scar (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    Yes, there is:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,


    Parent
    it depends (none / 0) (#109)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:30:00 PM EST
    several justices of the supremes have said 'no.' They were minority opinions on (right wing labeled) activist, liberal courts.

    Now, with the court stacked by rethugs the decisions would go the other way.

    It's a good thing precedent counts.

    Parent

    Both barrels? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:43:51 AM EST
    Has anyone tried having both cable and dsl working in their house?
    They're two entirely separate systems, so no conflict. You're either connected to one or to the other with any given computer. Or you can have one machine using cable and the other using DSL over a phone line. No problem.

    You can use your Treo for occasional dial-up (none / 0) (#3)
    by jerry on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:18:31 AM EST
    Still have that treo?

    You can buy a program, pdanet, that will let you use your treo as a modem.  That works pretty darn well.  Depending on your cellplan, you may have to pay for data.  I have Sprint and a 650 for $15 per month, I get unlimited data and speeds up to 128K or about twice as fast as a modem.  I am not sure what sort of radio a 680 has so I don't know what speeds you would be getting, but it would be at least that fast.

    It's very convenient not just for backup in the house, but for use in restaurants, offices, airports, or anywhere I can find a signal.

    And of course, you can make friends with a neighbor with DSL and a wifi station and share WEP keys and back each other up.

    Best Backup (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    .... you can make friends with a neighbor with DSL [or cable] and a wifi station and share WEP keys and back each other up.


    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 08:03:08 AM EST
    yes, i have used both dsl and cable, simultaneously. however, for the cost of dsl, it isn't worth the cost, to me anyway.

    jeralyn, they don't "fix" modems, they replace them. there isn't anything in the modem they can fix, it has to go back to the factory. good luck on that. just don't let them try and charge you for the new one, it shouldn't have broken in the first place.

    That's tru (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:33:26 AM EST
    They should send someone out with a replacement modem - it would cost them more to repair one than to replace it.

    Parent
    I'm still using a 56k dialup (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    and it's enough (though some heavy-graphic sites and especially .pdfs take a while to load) to surf while listening to streaming audio through my free RealPlayer download (which I've set up to carry a 30 second buffer, the max).  I don't really mess with streaming video, though.

    Go figure.

    I will say, though, using a cable hookup is a lot faster and more enjoyable.  I don't wind up playing nearly as much spider solitaire while waiting.

    DSL/Qwest (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kitt on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    I use DSL via our phone company. Saves on 'spying charges' doncha know. My daughter has DSL via Cable One. No conflict. Works great.

    Jen (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    Why don't you put up a wireless router in? That way you will have to pay only one highspeed data provider??

    I have a Westell wireless router that gives me 4  hard wired output plus wireless broadcast.

    I have 1.5mb coming in with throuhouts of 1.1 to 1.2. And I have a telephone voice line associated with the DSL.

    Monthly cost for the tel, the dsl and router to run three computers is around $60. taxes included. One ISP cost is included, a second one that gives me two accounts is around $8.00.

    Parent

    Everything is broken? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    A forthcoming U.N. report on climate change will provide the most credible evidence yet of a human link to global warming and hopefully shock the world into taking more action, the panel's chairman said on Thursday.

    The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release on Feb. 2 in Paris, draws on research by 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to compile.

    "There are a lot of signs and evidence in this report which clearly establish not only the fact that climate change is taking place, but also that it really is human activity that is influencing that change," R.K. Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, told Reuters.

    "I hope this report will shock people, governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth."

    The IPCC will say it is at least 90 percent sure than human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are to blame for global warming over the past 50 years, sources say.

    Link
    well, on a related note, I got email this morning (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    from a friend in Pittsburgh, who said:
    "I saw the 10-day forecast before heading off to work.  There's snow in every one of those days.  Minus single-digits through the weekend."

    Extreme weather, and rapid swings between extremes of weather are, after all, a couple of the leading hallmarks of global warming, no?

    Parent

    Scribe (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    Yes. Cold weather is warmer.

    And up is down and out is in.

    Parent

    I think so (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    And I think this is probably pretty unusual weather too:
    January 24, 2007

    More than a foot of snow fell on parts of northern Arizona, and several more inches were possible while children as far south as Tucson got a rare chance to play in the snow.

    Sunday's storm was the latest of winter storms that have brought snow, ice and strong winds to the Midwest region and the Southwest, including Arizona, Texas and New Mexico.

    Of course, this kind of weather will be dismissed by the head in the sanders as "Snow? - Well! There's proof that Global Warming is a bunch of BS"

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    They can always keep themselves toasted by wrapping themselves in a nice warm fluffy blanket of denial, and take something to read with them.

    Parent
    Global... (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    Warming

    Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious,'' said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer.''

    No-brainer indeed.


    Parent

    No-brainer indeed. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    Hence the no-brainers peeing themselves. ;-)

    Parent
    It's also interesting (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    that the percentage of people determined to remain in denial about global warming/climate change is about the same as the percentage of people who still support Bush.

    Global Warming Serious for 70% of Americans

    Of course even Bush, to give the guy some credit even as dim as he is, isn't in quite as much denial as Bush supporters.

    So, ummmm, heh... never mind. ;-)

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    Ah yes, the science of weather prediction is just so accurate.

    Meteorologists disagree about the cause and the extent of the cooling trend... but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. Newsweek- April 28 1975

    The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. International Wildlife- July 1975

    The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations...If it continues and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. Lowell Ponte, 1976

    And then we have this:

    The paradox is a result of the appearance over the past 30 years in the North Atlantic of huge rivers of freshwater--the equivalent of a 10-foot-thick layer--mixed into the salty sea. No one is certain where the fresh torrents are coming from, but a prime suspect is melting Arctic ice, caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that traps solar energy.
    Link

    Now let me see. Global Warming is causing an ice melt that will divert heat from the Gulf Stream which will cause the temperature to become very cold....

    Which will do what?? What does cold weather do?

    Cold weather freezes water...and the melt stops.

    Now if the melt stops, the fresh water torrents stop and the Gulf Stream isn't effected...

    All of this is "consenus science" designed to scare people into giving the "researchers" more money, bolstered by politicans from the Left and the UN who see it as a way to attack the evil west and the US in particular.

    That some of our politicans have bought into it speaks not to it being correct, but in their desire to join in the panic and be stroked by the media.

    Parent

    No brainer... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    Yes, they are attacking the "West" with weather.

    All of this is "consenus science" designed to scare people into giving the "researchers" more money, bolstered by politicans from the Left and the UN who see it as a way to attack the evil west and the US in particular.

    Laughable.

    As the man said, "No-brainer."

    The deserved response is...  this.

    Parent

    Your ability to deny reality (none / 0) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    is truly astonishing.

    Citing 1970's reports as if the whole science hasn't improved in the last 30 years is crazy.

    Yeah the only guy who is right are the few quacks doing science out of their basement funded by EXXON. Even the head of Shell oil is convinced.

    Unbelievable

    Parent

    SD (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    Explain to me this.

    Global warming causes the ice to melt which causes the Gulf Stream to be effected which causes a cooling trend whih which causes the ice to freeze..

    SD, I await your answer.

    Parent

    global warming (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    melts the artic ice cap, the flow of cold water pushes the warm current further south cooling the area behind it. But your assumption that it will then freeze solid is not necessarily true. It will cool relative to the height of the warmest point. The end result will be a temperature higher than before global warming but lower than at the peaks. The exact temp profile that results depends on a number of factors.

    it should also be noted that The US and Canadian Governments are already fighting over the water passage rights.

    Parent

    and after a number of years (none / 0) (#57)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    the cool water will itself warm reversing the original cooling effect. The dynamics are in terms of multiple years, and the warm gulf stream may then move back towards its original position.

    Parent
    It's called destabilization. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    If you examine scientific evidence and reports with an open mind you'll know there will be and are weird temperature fluctuations, up and down, all over the world, as the planet heats up. Taking one or a few instances in one or a few places to justify denying the bigger picture is what you are doing, and is a mistake. I think you know this.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#72)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    'global warming' is kind of a misnomer. What is happening is more energy is being pumped into a chaotic closed system driving it to farther extremes. Britain might see an ice age (gulfstream no longer reaches it due to fresh water disruption) and florida could become tropical.

    It's also more unpredictable because the math is reiterative and co-dependent. Think how difficult it is for a diabetic to balance sugar and insulin and magnify that a million times.

    There are no peer reviewed journal articles that I know of denying man made global warming (and I've searched.)

    Even the WH has finally admitted it's a fact.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:29:40 AM EST
    Here is what the article from Science News says:

    the next cooling trend could drop average temperatures 5 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States and 10 degrees in the Northeast, northern Europe, and northern Asia.

    And here is the explanation:

    The paradox is a result of the appearance over the past 30 years in the North Atlantic of huge rivers of freshwater--the equivalent of a 10-foot-thick layer--mixed into the salty sea. No one is certain where the fresh torrents are coming from, but a prime suspect is melting Arctic ice, caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that traps solar energy.

    Now, if the theory is to be seriously considered, we have a prediction that average temperatures will drop. The estimate is 5 degrees and 10 degrees.

    Now. Where does the melted fresh water come from?
    The Artic Ice cap.

    Now. The temperature has fallen 10 degrees in the Artic. For global warming to overcome that, it must overcome that 10 degree average fall.

    Anybody willing to tell me when the global temperature increase will be 10 degrees?

    BTW - The article says 10 degrees in northeast, northern europe, northern asia.. Since the artic ice cap is north of these places it follows that the average temperature fall would be more than 10 degrees.

    This just fear mongering and fake science to keep these guys in a job. Take the money and use it on cancer and AIDS research. Something that would actually do some good.

    Parent

    have you ever seen (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jen M on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    a weather map with its highs and lows of air pressure and currents?

    You know there are pretty steady currents in the ocean that determing weather and temperature in various locations, right?

    Guess what happens when patterns shift. You get unpredictable changes. Weird shifts in weather. You can't expect LOGIC from the weather, or the army, or bunny rabbits.

    Weather math gets into chaos math.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:53:30 PM EST
    So when the globe heats up the temperature goes down.

    Up is down and down is up?

    Guess we'll have to drink

    from the bottom of the cup.

    BTW - When you say this will cause Euorpe to freeze that is not a "little picture>"

    Parent

    you are being (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:15:27 PM EST
    particuarly dense today. or is this just another drive by snark attack

    Global warming means global - how about that.

    One relatively small area could cool while most warms, but I suspect you knew that.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:33:40 PM EST
    The density never changes, just the reflective index;-)

    Parent
    Shellless Shellfish (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    Shellfish are losing their shells due to the warming of the ocean and a uptick in acidity. I am sure ppj would welcome that and call it a positive step in evolution. No more nasty lobster shells to deal with and shucking oysters will be a thing of the past.

    For the rest of us a very bad sign.

    THE DARKENING SEA
    by ELIZABETH KOLBERT

    Worth a read (longish from the nyer)

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    I used to live in Tucson. I have pics of a round of golf I played in town in about 1986 where it snowed during the round.

    There is a ski slope 20 minutes from downtown Tucson. There are a bunch of ski resorts in the northern part of the state.

    There are many scientific observations that support the global warming theory, I'm not convinced your article should be taken as one of them.

    Parent

    Me neither. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    It was just one example of very unusal weather. But there are many many other examples that afre strong indicators.

    How often does Tucson get snow on the ground, Sarc?

    Parent

    Hell if Iknow (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:50:26 PM EST


    Parent
    NOAA (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    The past 100+ years of records for Tucson show that measurable snowfall has been recorded twice during the month of November.
    ...
    The most snowfall recorded on one day [in Tucson] ocurred on November 16, 1958 whe 6.4 inches fell. This total is also the monthly snowfall record for Tuscon.

    Link



    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    Thanks for the link, however I'm a little confused here - are you disputing something I've said? If so, would you more clearly define what I said that you're disputing? If not, you must be making some other point with the Tucson weather data, would you more clearly explain what that is?

    Parent
    I'm not disputing anything you said Sarc. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    I just posted that for info and comparison as one example and to illustrate that something extremely unusual is going on with the weather, in many places, more and more often, and I think that that is to some degree indicative of serious climate change. I can be sarcastic, sarc, but almost never am when discussing something with you. You're more open to rational discussions and new information than many here, in my experience.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification and the props, and right back atcha'.

    Parent
    PBS (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    Here's a Link
    to the upcoming PBS series on news wars.

    Looks interesting. BTW - Guess who gets the most interviuew/preview time? Hint. It isn't the blogger or the conservative/libertarian.

    Rural Northern NM Dialup (none / 0) (#18)
    by JHFarr on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    Actually, "rural" and "Northern NM" in the same sentence is a bit redundant. Anyway, for most of the last seven years I've only been able to have dialup. Even here on the outskirts of Taos, I couldn't get DSL until late last year. For most of the past seven years then, I've been connected at anywhere between 14-36 kbps, never any faster, and usually around 26 kbps.

    In all that time I not only created my own Web publishing "empire" but blogged, developed Web sites for clients, and did everything except download music and watch videos. Obviously certain tasks required visiting an Internet cafe or two, but one survived. Now that I have 1.5 MBps DSL, I never want to go back, so I know how you feel. But one **can** get by and survive with less.

    On a darker (?) note, I think we'll all have a chance to try that before too long, you know? The planet is not happy with us, and it would be good to be prepared to find our joy within.

    (Did I say that????? Yup! I actually did. Whoa!)

    Carry on, and good luck with Comcast.

    Support people-powered online activism (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joseph Hughes on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    Help send a blogger to Washington.

    Predicting the Next President (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    Usually it's obvious who is going to be the next president of the United States. First, the media decides for us who will be the nominees for each party. Then the voters elect the one who makes the most outrageous promises. That's called leadership, and we like it.

    This next election will be interesting. Most of the likely suspects are totally unelectable.

    Hilary Clinton - Too divisive
    John McCain - Too ugly
    Colin Powell - Too smart to run
    Al Gore - Too charisma challenged
    Jeb Bush - Too soon
    Joseph Lieberman - Too whiney sounding
    Wesley Clark - Too tiny looking on TV
    Howard Dean - Too crazy
    John Edwards - Too goofy

    Almost everyone else is too lightweight and/or too unknown. That leaves us with one candidate that can win..... [ Dilbert Blog has it picked ;-) ]

    No Shi* Sherlock (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:50:50 AM EST

    ...establish not only the fact that climate change is taking place, but also that it really is human activity that is influencing that change

    How amazing.  The climate has been continuously changing since the planet formed from one extreme to another.  Humans have been influencing those changes since the dawn of agriculture and the use of fire.  Is this one of those "anything for grant money" scams?

    I don't know, Amir (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    How about you do your own six years of in depth research on it and then report back. I'll wait...

    Parent
    No time (none / 0) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:10:32 PM EST

    I don't have the time to study the motives of the 2,500.  

    Perhaps their next big discovery will be that the sun comes up in the east.

    Parent

    Time? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    That was obvious from your first comment. Tell you what. We'll let them know your learned opinion so they can close up shop, pack their bags, and go home. Thanks for your input. ;-)

    Parent
    Not my opinion (none / 0) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:13:33 PM EST

    That the climate changes continuously and has moved from one extreme to another is hardly "my opinion."  Neither is human impact on climate since the dawn of agriculture and the use of fire.

    Parent
    Must get tiring (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    moving those goal posts around all over the place.

    Parent
    Barak Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    on universal healthcare:

    "We have the ideas, we have the resources and we must find the will ..."

    This is the kind of moral philosophy that I am looking for in a leader. I may not agree 100% with Obama on issues of the day, but here he speaks the truth. Not bad.

    ere's the (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    Link

    Apple Vs PC (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    OK, this conversation kinda started in another thread, and I have to admit I'm curious.  When I went into Bestbuy the other day there was an Apple rep who showed me the new Imac.  A very cool computer, to a computer challenged person like me.   I've always used PCs, but have heard good things about Apple.  All the tech stuff online is foreign to me, so what is the better computer.  Remember that the Apple was $1500 and the PC was around $900.  There are very tech savy people here, I'd like to hear from them.  

    the truth? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    Among technogeeks, the topic WILL start heated discussions. Akin to fights among faithfull.

    To most users? whichever computer you feel most comfortable using is the best! A computer you can't control or use is of no use to you.

    Its the same with software. I prefer WordPerfect over Word simply because I used it so long. (and I became addicted to reveal codes)

    People who like extreme control of their computer, love to program in various languages, want adaptable free custamizable software (aka 'open source') and quickly updating (free) operating systems use Linux.

    They can sing it's praises all they want, but not everyone can handle linux.

    PCs have the most software, and are familiar to most people, but buggy as heck and not all that secure. The big plus: A heck of a lot more third party add ons, software and support, way cheaper.

    Macs are SUPER easy to use, have great graphics, creative people love them (they were used to originate cgi tv show special effects on B5) but last I checked, more expensive overall.

    Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

    Parent

    I get that... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    Among technogeeks, the topic WILL start heated discussions. Akin to fights among faithfull.

    Yeah I get that.  The Apple rep kinda looked at me funny when I asked him what the downside to buying a Mac was.  His reply...None!  

    Parent

    Cloning (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    also a great feature of the mac is that you can clone your os onto ad external hd. This allows you to be able to carry your whole computer in your pocket (yes, you can even clone to a iPod). All you need is to plug (firewire or usb) into another mac  and boot it up.

    Very convienent for regular mirror backup and if your computer dies (hd damage) you can boot up from your clone and not miss a beat.

    And they look good.  

    Parent

    Depends on what you want to do (none / 0) (#50)
    by roy on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    IMHO, Mac has better technology for consumers, but not better enough to justify the cost difference.

    A lot of the common comparisons are based on outdated information.  Windows XP is pretty stable.  With a virus scanner, a malware scanner, and the built-in firewall, it's pretty safe.  Mac still has the advantage here, but not by as big a margin as it used to.

    I can't comment on Windows Vista.  XP will probably continue to get hardware drivers and security updates for at least a couple more years, so don't feel the need to spring for Vista.

    Mac are good quality hardware.  PCs can be good quality hardware, it depends on who made it.

    Macs are prettier, but in my opinion they aren't $600 prettier.

    Look into whether you current peripherals are supported on Mac.  They probably are, but some old or specialized hardware isn't.  Modern printers and scanners probably will work.  Things like cameras and bus adapters are hit-and-miss.

    A lot of people think the Mac has a more intuitive interface.  If you're mostly doing web browsing, e-mail, and word processing, this isn't much of an issue because you'll probably use the same application on either system.  If you have a lot of files to juggle, or you want to use applications that aren't as standardized (like video editing, clever network stuff, etc) then the different interfaces might matter a lot.

    The interface thing can be a big deal.  You'll find yourself guessing at how to do things, and being right.  This is faster, and much more fun, than reading manuals or screen after screen of menu options on Windows.

    I suggest you take a basic class on Mac literacy so you can find out how you like the interface.  And look into what applications are available on Mac that do what you currently do on Windows.

    Macs often come with nicer displays, but you can just buy a nice display to use with a PC.  That reduces the price difference though.

    The advantage of the iMac over a full-sized desktop system is that it's is easier to set up.  Fewer cables, fewer opportunities to plug the wrong thing into the wrong hole.  IMHO, this isn't much of an advantage.  Once you set up the PC, leave it alone, it'll stay set up.  It's a difference of a few hours of aggravation.

    The flip side is that the iMac isn't as upgradeable.

    Parent

    Already a worthwhile question. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    I suggest you take a basic class on Mac literacy so you can find out how you like the interface.  And look into what applications are available on Mac that do what you currently do on Windows.

    Excellent idea!  I hadn't thought of that.  

    Parent

    Some notes about Mac v. Windows (none / 0) (#68)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:31:08 PM EST
    We have about 12 Windows and 4 Macs in my labs. I spend at least 2 man days per month keeping the Windows machines hardened. Maybe 15 minutes for the Macs. (I don't do automatic updates because that would require leaving a port open, this way I know exactly when and what is coming into the machine. Auto updates is one of the vulnerabilities that black hats know how to exploit.)

    All 4 Macs run 24/7, only restarted for OS updates. The Windows machines have to be rebooted on an almost daily basis. One Mac has been running as a webserver for almost 10 years using free open source software, Apache, MySQL and PHP. We tend to have to wipe and reinstall a fresh OS in our Windows machines about every 2 years due to the registry getting cluttered with crap.

    To the best of my knowledge there has never been a successful Mac virus in the wild, but there have been some exploits made by careless 3rd party developers. I have never had to wipe and reinstall a Mac machine due to a virus. I have never had any infection and I only use one virus checker. On our Windows machines we run 3, all of which have to be updated every week.

    Macs are now based on Unix and between the different flavors of Unix they  have a larger market share of servers than Windows, therefore would be juicier targets to attack.

    Macs come firewalled and with closed ports. If you install software that uses a port the OS will ask you to type in an Admin password to confirm, and then open it for you.) Windows come with many ports open (one is a 'feature' so MS can 'help' you remotely. One every hacker knows about.) They also ship with various ports open for IM, ADS etc. Most people don't use the services that are open, don't know they are open and don't know how to shut them.

    IRT ease of use; the new Macs are based on the same Intel chipsets Windows have. They can either boot Windows or Mac OS out of the box, (as long as you buy Win XP from MS.) With an $80 bit of 3rd party software called Parallels Desktop they can simultaneously have Win XP and Mac OS running. So if you always used Windows but wondered about the Mac OS, you can have both in the same machine.

    IRT relative costs; I admit I'm not the standard user but I recently had to order 2 new Dells. The specs in RAM, video card and chipset made them more expensive than the Macs that came out of the box with those features. (BTW, a serious gamer would probably spec the Dells the same way, so it's not that unusual.) Most folks find that to equip a PC with the same features Macs have it ends up costing about the same.

    The Mac mini starts at about $600, w/o screen or keyboard. The iMac about $1k with screen and keyboard. (In fact, the computer is built into the 17", 20" or 24" LCD screen. Great for limited space work areas.) Mac laptops start at about $1k.

    Another 'hidden' cost to PCs; if you have them networked, you pretty much have to have an IT guy to do it. A couple of years ago out Mac and PC replacement cycles coincided. With Macs, our secretaries had them setup, running and networked before the IT guys came back from delivering the new PCs to the faculty.

    Hope this helps.

    Parent

    I saw that (none / 0) (#76)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:50:06 PM EST
    (In fact, the computer is built into the 17", 20" or 24" LCD screen. Great for limited space work areas.

    And got to wondering if that limits their expandability.  There's only one dvd/cd port, and that's built in.   Otherwise it was pretty compact, but space isn't really a concern and within minutes the rep had shown me how easy it was to use.  I think I'm pretty much sold, but wanted to hear what others thought of them before I spent the money.  

    Parent

    "limits their expandability"? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    It does limit their internal expandability, external is always possible, but the internal lack is how they make their price point.

    BTW Patrick, I apologise for my part in the escalation of incivility between us. This isn't a non-apology apology, I think the vitriol came from both of us and I'm sorry it got so heated and my part in it.

    Parent

    on the other hand (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM EST
    The WRAIR refuses to support MACs anymore. Which really teed off a lot of PI's

    Parent
    OK, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:49:19 PM EST
    What is a WRAIR?  See this is why I ask.  

    Parent
    Its where I work (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:06:53 PM EST
    Walter Reed Army Institute Of Research

    We are NOT the hospital.

    We don't have to russtle up the courage to work on the kids that come back badly wounded. We do strictly research. (Yes, I know, Men and Women. but they look so YOUNG, I swear!)

    Parent

    Luckily ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:12:44 PM EST
    ... Macs don't need as much support.

    We have one 1/2 time Mac support person who also maintains the college's website ('college' being used as a school of a university), and 2 full time Windows IT people. We have about a 50/50 mix of Macs and Windows.

    BTW " [The Department of Defense (DoD) is] also banning the use of Outlook Web Access email clients."

    You can find the original link on the article that includes industry comments on how they have to evade security to get work done.

    If I worked in IT I would embrace Windows ... it makes for job security;-)

    Parent

    I have both (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    Patrick, I have five computers in my house, two PC desktops, two PC laptops and one Apple Powerbook 4 laptop hooked up to Apples' 23" monitor.  I was convinced that the Mac would be better for graphics, video, etc. and better for downloading music and putting it on my ipod.

    In two and one-half years, and after buying all the  add-ons like IChat, IMovie ILife, and more, I still can't make heads or tail out of it.  It's now in my kitchen, and I use it only to download music and surf the internet.

    The Mac doesn't have a right-click. You have to learn a whole new series of moves.  Also, the delete key is really a backspace key, makes me nuts. Even though I now have a pc mouse hooked up to it through the USB port, it's still not the same.

    I have never figured out how to use Mac, the graphical interface is not intuitive for me, I'm constantly looking in the user manuals. The only symbol I recognize on sight is the trash can. In the meantime, without a single new piece of equipment and a $20 online download, it was a snap for me to learn how to convert old VCR tapes to DVD, then convert them to windows media files or mp4 so they play on the computer and then upload them to you tube.

    Sometimes, you just can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'm probably the only person in the world who can't figure out how to use a Mac productively.  

    And Jen, they'll have to kill me before they take away my wordperfect and make me use Word.  I have them both, but it takes me five times as long to draft a document in Word and the formatting is never quite right.  

    Patrick, my advice: Unless you're a new computer user, or very visually oriented, stick with what you know.  


    Parent

    global warming (none / 0) (#36)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    Well, the planet has been warming since the end of the little ice age in the mid-1800's (which is about the start of the industrial revolution).

    Why am I skeptical of man made global warming? Because I've been scared to death for the last 40 years by scientist declaring 1) a new ice age, 2) nuclear winter, 3) oxygen masks on every corner, 4) swine flu, 5) bird flu, 6) heterosexual AIDS in the U.S., 7) presidents who will declare Marshall law and not step down, etc...

    the flu (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    Is something the experts are rightfuly worried about. What happened it 1918 was catastrophic. Every new major deadly strain of flu has the potential to become zoonotic and then airborne, if both those things happen we are all in for a rough time.

    That is why epidemiologists start watching closely when any animals start dying of the flu in large numbers.  Note that tne news did not really pick up on it for at least 5 years. There were the occasional stories those of us who have studied epidemiology caught. No scare tactics though, until recently. Must have been a slow news day.

    Parent

    I'm not skeptical (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    I just recognize that it's irrelevant.

    Civility (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Yesterday there was a little talk about civility on the open thread. I've been offensive at times to some Commenters here at TL. I feel that often my offensiveness is appropriate, given the position of the commenter I was addressing at the time. So, I have some sympathy for the line

    I personally have no trouble with or qualms about offending those I consider the most offensive people in the world.

    Because often, I have no tolerance for the intolerant. I dispise the spiteful. I hate the hateful. I love the loving. I'll be good to people who are good. I am righteous to those who are right.  I am just to to the judicious. I will take up arms against those bearing arms. I will do violence to the violent. I will rain bombs upon those harboring bombs. I will kill anyone who might kill.

    And on it goes. Its repeated over and over in history. There is only one way to end it. What was it that the great teacher said? Love your Enemy. Turn the other cheek. The hardest lesson to learn.

    Sharp words hurt even killers. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    So make nice to them. Be tolerant of them. And don't offend them.

    Parent
    Peaches writes: (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    I personally have no trouble with or qualms about offending those I consider the most offensive people in the world.

    The problem is the "I consider." In society we are constrained by a variety of devices from saying things that insult others, mostly because that judgement is something that society resetves for itself.

    These constraints are, to a very large degree, removed within the Internet.


    Parent

    Yes, Jim, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    People often behave on the internet as they do behind the wheel of a car, or dare I say it (since I've never found myself holding anything other that a single shot 12 gauge shotgun harmlessly pointed at waterfowl flying overhead as contemplated dreading and dreaded the inevitable pain spreading over my already bruised and scrawning 15 y/o shoulder), behind a loaded gun.

    D. Boon said it best.

    Little Man With a Gun in Your Hand.
    Little Man With a Gun in Your Hand.

    But I agree with you. btw, The Offending quote was from Edger yesterday.

    Parent

    Hardest lesson... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    I agree, Peaches.

    I think what I didn't understand before seeing the he-said-she-said portion of yesterday's "civility" thread is that some of the regulars around here have history that goes back years. Finding a way to lay down long-term antagonism is difficult.

    The solution, for me, is to try and treat everyone the same, rather than reserving especial rudeness for some people and treating others with unusual courtesy. Of course, that doesn't always happen, but I still try to make it a habit.

    Parent

    I still try to make it a habit. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    Tell that to Jose Padilla.

    Parent
    Gabriel (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    Glad that you got a glimpse of the past. And I commend your efforts.

    It will be interesting to see how well you do along about the 50th time sailor or SD calls you a liar.

    Parent

    I doubt very much that GM will lie 50 times, (none / 0) (#102)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    I think he can be be "clever" but ppj you are a pro's pro.

    Parent
    Your clear (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    And I am not disagreeing with your sentiments. We're human. We all have our causes. We are all right. If only we could eliminate all those who are wrong.

    We cannot (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    eliminate all those who are wrong.

    Coins are composed of a head and a tail side.

    Exactly ;) (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    I am a passivist. I don't like war. I am disgusted by the Iraq war. I can not justify it.

    However, some people do justify it under, what I believe is a false premise, the belief that it makes us safer and we are killing bad people. I think they are wrong. You think they are wrong.

    They are human though, with viewpoints opposed to our own. Do we offer them respect? We've both been accused of helping the cause of terrorists. If they are correct, then why should we get respect from them. I hope it is because we are humans, who disagree--sometimes vehemently.

    Civility is an honorable trait, despite what BTD says.

    Parent

    civility is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    essential.

    But it is something each person can only strive for herself, and cannot impose on anyone else.

    Since, as with politness, it isn't civil to sugest someone else might be behaving in an uncivil manner...

    It isn't catch 22. Maybe its catch 15.

    Parent

    I think you are correct (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    You cannot impose civility. And, I would add, that most of us probably fall short of the civility we strive for.

    However, as to your second statement. It is the responsibility of all members of a society to point out uncivilized behavior either directly or by simply shunning it. This is how societies establishes norms and morals. It is something all responsible parents struggle with. I don't think it is uncivil to point out what is not civil or even to ask that we behave more civilly to each other. But civility it is much more difficult to regulate or impose civility. It is something each of us volunteers to either do or not to do.

    Parent

    I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    that parents should teach their kids civility. I guess I'm to shy (cowardly) to point out incivility of others in public, since I often fall short myself. I am a bit of a hothead.

    Parent
    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    Neither I, nor BTD as far as I am aware, ever claimed that civility is not an honorable trait.

    Second, it is not so much the Iraq war that I oppose. Wars are part of humanity, and are sometimes necessary and right and honorable. Defensive wars. In response to overt attack, or clear and proveable and demonstrable immininent attack.

    It is the mindset that is behind, for lack of a better shorthand term, Bushism, that I am disgusted by. And it is the insulting assumption that I and other people are too stupid to know the difference.

    Yes, They are human. But to say that "They are human though, with viewpoints opposed to our own." is to attempt to equate where equating is disingenuous, and deceptive. It is an attempt to legitimize them as holding a "point of view as valid as any other that is worthy of respect and civil debate". They are simply predatory murderers in my view. That is my view, and it has been strengthened, not weakened, by interaction with them. A court of law would not "debate" with an accused murderer against whom there is overwhlming evidence of guilt that his defence should be that it was his "opinion" that it was ok for him to murder, and neither will I.

    Other subjects of discussion with them may not raise my ire as much, but those attempting to argue that butchery and murder is ok and a "valid point of view" should expect and be prepared to be insulted verbally, and will receive no sympathy from me by arguing that verbal insult is anywhere near as insulting as shredding living human beings, and instead will lose what little respect might be left in me for them.

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Parent

    RIght, As I said, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    Eliminate them.

    But we cannot.

    Poor Edger...

    Trapped in his own web.
    Baited by the trollers he despises.
    Full of the vitriol he can't stand.

    Parent

    That is disingenuity, Peaches (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    And I think you know it. You are smarter than that.

    I am at work right now and cannot take the time I would like to to respond to it as thoroughly as I would like. I may later, and I may not.

    I will say however, that you have not the tolerance that you preach (not that I think you should or that anyone is capable of it) or your tolerance would include tolerance of that which you consider intolerance, as that is what you have been preaching.

    Parent

    Also, btw (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    You are using the dishonest debating tactics so often illuminated as such here in the past.

    With both of these statements you have attempted to set up strawman to deflect from the discussion, by attributing things not said by either myself or BTD to both of us.

    Civility is an honorable trait, despite what BTD says.

    He has never claimed that, as far as I know.

    Full of the vitriol he can't stand.

    Vitriol is not what I have argued against. Butchery and murder are what I have argued against. There is no equivalence, much as you might try to pretend there is.
    ......

    This is sarcasm: It breaks my heart that these poor hard done by murderers and supporters of murderers are so devasted by mere words. Poor things....

    Parent

    devasted (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    should read: "devastated". Poor things...

    Parent
    I hope you come back to this. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    I'm especially interested in an explanation for how you go from "person who holds a different opinion" to "predatory murderer."

    Parent
    Read it again. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    I will call you on it every time you try to misrepresent what I say, Gabe. You know that. Or you should by now.

    Parent
    I read what you said (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    the same as Gabe did. I don't think he was misrepresenting what you said at all.

    I didn't quote you or BTD. I inferred from your quotes that you both think calls for civility should not be taken seriously.

    Vitriol, spite, anger--you are full of it. It is obvious and you feel justified in having it based on your portrayal of those who hold opinions that differ than your own which you attempt to mischarcterize as supporters of murderers, or supporters of people who want to control women's bodies. You attempt to paint your opponents as vicsious and despicable people who are not worhty of your respect. That is the vitriol--the same vitriol that fuels all the hate behind war--it is just vitriol in the name of another cause.

    I anticipate your more thorough explanation after you finish work.

    Parent

    Yep it's vitriol (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    I've already said I am not here to argue against vitriol. The difference though, which you unsuccessfully try to avoid through trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist except perhaps in your and their minds, is that my vitriol here is directed at those who would support butchery and murder by supporting aggressive unjustified invasions and the rape and pillaging of other countries. My vitriol is directed against those who have become what they claim to be fighting in their fictitious war on terror.

    My vitriol directed at them does not kill and maim.

    Their murderousness is an insult to humanity, and their existence, it follows, has also become an insult to humanity. They need to be contained, not supported or legitimized as holding "another point of view as valid as any other".

    They try to avoid responsibility and shift blame by crying and whining for "civility". They not only want to be excused for what they do and support, they have the gall to want to be liked for it too. To relieve them of their unbearable guilt I suppose. "Pleeeeze don't say nasty things to me. You hurt my tender feelings. I'm only a poor litle murderer or supporter of murderers. Why are you being so mean to me? Somebody pleeeeese make him stop... waaaaah!" BS.

    You also 'inferred' wrong. Then tried to imply that BTD and I said something neither of us did. And you know it. You insult yourself by pretending you didn't.

    That shoud be thorough enough. ;-)

    Parent

    You always say that. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    You wrote:

    But to say that "They are human though, with viewpoints opposed to our own." is to attempt to equate where equating is disingenuous, and deceptive...They are simply predatory murderers in my view.

    I wrote:

    I'm especially interested in an explanation for how you go from "person who holds a different opinion" to "predatory murderer."

    So, how now am I misrepresenting you?

    Parent

    Re: "how now am I misrepresenting you?" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    With your words "how you go from", you set up (deceitfully try to, unsuccessfully) a false premise that in even answering your question I would be implicitly agreeing with. I do not. Because I did not "go" from one to the other.

    You are smarter than you wish to appear to be, I think, but perhaps not smart enough to know you are transparent. But I could be wrong on both counts.

    Parent

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#91)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    I'm still interested in an explanation of how they go from "viewpoints opposed to our own" to "predatory murderers."

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    Here.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    Perhaps as little as six years ago I would agree that war must be fought only after we are attacked, or only when it is imminent.

    I based that on my long term belief that the distance of our enemies, the technology of our civilian and military forces and the skill and cooperation of these people would protect us.

    9/11 proved that all wrong.

    In addition, it showed that we now face a new kind of enemy, a new kind of war. From that point on, I considered us to be under attack. So anytime we are not involved in action is merely a lull in battle. We cannot wait for an "imminent attack" because at that point it would be too late.

    Since you disagree with this I assume you think that we can negotiate with the terrorists.

    Could you explain that view?

    If you assume that we can, I must also assume that you have no problem accepting their position on women's rights, gays, lesbians and lack of tolerance of other religions.

    I say this because in negotiations both sides must give up something.

    Tell me, please. If they give up killing gays, will it be okay for them to stone lesbians in the US and other countries?

    If they give up killing gays and lesbians, will be okay for them to demand that our women cannot go to school?

    What are you willing to negotiate away?

    Parent

    What I'd negotiate away.... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 06:10:07 PM EST
    is our military bases on foreign soil, and our interference in foreign governments.

    If that's not good enough you can join me here on the Eastern shore if anybody wants to invade us and try to change how we live, old friend.  We'll slay them in Montauk, or maybe down at the boardwalk in AC.  Nobody is taking our gambling and our bacon.  Well, maybe our gambling...but never our bacon!

    Our enemies do have a fleet, right?

    BTW....How did the British foil the recent plot over there?  Invading?  Bombing?  Killing?  

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:42:10 AM EST
    Actually they don't need a fleet. Just a ship and a bomb and know how to navigate up the East River.

    Parent
    Well..... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    occupying Iraq ain't gonna stop that single ship.  

     

    Parent

    So? You want to change the subject now? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:10:01 PM EST
    I'll come back to this after work.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    No subject change. Your defense of your mouth is a philsophical one based on your claimed hatred for a preemptive war.

    I am merely challenging the validty of your assertions by explaining what I thought at one time and asking you to explain how/why you think we can avoid the war by negotiations.

    I await your response

    Parent

    We can avoid war (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peaches on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    by not engaging in it.

    We don't need to negotiate. We can give up our arms. We can call our troops home. War is bad. Bombs kill and maim. Bulletts kill and maim. Mines kill and maim. The F16 is a homocide bomber. Stop the killing.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:55:34 AM EST
    What you are describing is surrender.

    Do you mind if the rest of us fight for western civilization?

    And your right to surrender?

    Parent

    See Peaches answer. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    Mine is the same. But you knew that. We've been through it countless times.

    The only addition to it I would add is that one necessary component is to marginalize and contain the people who start, and support starting, these wars.

    That includes...... well... we've been through that part too. Here. Today.

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM EST
    You fail to address the question I asked. So did Peaches. Since you did not, I guess the answer is that you are willing to negotiate away the safety of the world's gays and lesbians. The right or women to go to school and have a life not dominated by men. Freedom of religion... in fact you are willing to give up everything to keep from fighting.

    Yet you constantly attack Bush and criticize the US.

    Well, at least we now know who and what you are.

    Parent

    nothing but baiting (none / 0) (#126)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:45:21 AM EST


    Parent
    this nothing but the usual strawmen (none / 0) (#105)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    fear mongering and neocon talking points without any substance

    Parent
    SD (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:11:56 AM EST
    Really?

    Tell me. Why won't you answer the questions? Peaches and Edger say they won't fight. Does that also describe you?

    Have you studied Sharia law? You realize that if the country were to take your position you would be living under it, don't you?

    Do you have a daughter or granddaughter that will need education?

    Do you have a son, or a friend that is gay?

    Would you want to become a Moslem to keep from being executed?

    Parent

    more pathetic fear mongering (none / 0) (#124)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:21:15 AM EST
    you have no pride do you.

    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 08:24:17 AM EST
    What's the matter? Can't stand to talk about what the radicals will do?

    Zand-Bonazzi: Well, sadly this young woman was hung in public charged with adultery. The man with whom she had allegedly had sexual relations with was also arrested but he only received 75 lashes apparently and then freed!

    Open up the link, SD. Look at her picture. Imagine how she looked after they broke her neck. Did they do a good job? Of did they botch it and let her choke to death??? I mean, you were against Saddam's hanging, weren't you?

    Here, have another.

    About Nazanin - Is her plight the face of Islam? Is this the face of Islam Congressman Ellison wishes portrayed across the world? Surely, the execution of this young woman for defending her honor and her life screams out at the atrocities carried out in the name of Allah. Frankly, I don't think Allah is unmerciful. It is man who is or can be unmerciful.

    Have you called Congressman's Ellison's office asking him to try and help this young member of the faith he is so proud of?

    How about this. Are you getting ready to run and hide from things like this?

    Mama Galledou, whose family are from Senegal, was on the 32 bus in north Marseille at 9pm on Saturday when four teenagers wearing "hoodies" pried open the back door of the vehicle and threw Molotov cocktails inside. Seven passengers escaped uninjured. Four were hospitalised for smoke inhalation. If Ms Galledou survives, she will suffer permanent disabilities.

    Like freedom of speech? Want to be free to discuss the problems in the ME? Well, don't do it front of Moslems.

    We have grown to expect these things on the major East and West Coast cities "elite" university campuses that harbor radical professors and anarchist student and radical Muslim community activities. But not in the heartland where I spoke last week at the University of Memphis. What was shocking was that it occurred in the South, in "Bubbaland" as my friends from the region call it.

    If they would put the same energy into condemning the radical element within Islam and join us in saying that slaughtering people in the name of Allah is murder not Jihad, maybe we wouldn't be tempted to question their loyalty as American citizens.

    ...police officers were already standing at each entrance. Nearly half of the hall was filled with Muslims with their leaders dressed Osama Bin Laden style sitting in the front two rows at eye level making "their point," that I wasn't going to get away with speaking freely.

    Guess what, SD. She was shouted down and had to leave. Did anyone hear about this in the MSM?

    So you won't fight and I have nothing of substance.. and when I give you just a small taste you say I have no pride?

    Well, I have enough pride to know that shouting down speakers at university events is wrong, that burning people riding public transportation is wrong, that hanging girls for defending themselves is wrong and that hanging 16 year old girls for the crime of adultery is wrong.

    Do you, SD? Are you willing to say these are wrong? Are you willing to condemn these?

    You know. I know what you will do. You will give us a one line "they be bad" statement and then a paragraph about the crusades..

    Guess what. These things are happening now. Time for all those who try and give the terrorists and moslem radicals moral equivalency to quit and understand that the crusades happened 700 or so years ago. Shorter. Get over it.

    Parent

    Fight (none / 0) (#137)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    Jim,

    I'll say this once and you don't need to respond, because I know what your response will be. I am willing to fight. I've fought in the past. I'm no coward. I don't fear death.

    I won't kill. I don't support killing. I consider all human life sacred. The greatest evil is the unnecessary loss of innocent life through war or other violent acts, no matter who is responsible for the act of aggression. WHen children are involved the evil is multiplied at even greater levels

    There are other ways to put up a fight, then to pick up a gun or spew vitriol over the internet.

    Little Man With a Gun in His Hand.

    Men (or Women) with guns or bombs, not matter who they work for are cowards living in fear (and, yes I support out troops and yes, Patrick-if you are listening-I think Police perform a necessary function in our society, its just a function I believe can be done without guns). I don't live in fear. I choose not to live in fear. You are old enough to give up fear also. Life is too short for any of us.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    The issue isn't whether or not you are a coward. I would have to re-read my comments carefully, but I believe I said that if you won't fight you would surrender.

    If you can show me where I called you a coward I will apologize.

    To Edger I made the point that since he said he won't fight, then I assume that he thinks we can negotiate with the radicals. Since negotiations means both sides must give up something, I presented him with several scenarios and asked which ones he would find suitable. He, of course, has not answered.

    So I assume that he would not fight. He would surrender.

    You say that you would fight, but you won't kill. I find that to be a disconnect. We're not talking about fighting for a school bond, or a candidate, we are speaking of fighting in a war between radical moslems terrorists who will kill, and "the west."

    You did say  "I won't kill." If you won't kill and are facing an enemy that will kill you that means you will surrender, and be killed, or you will fight in a non-lethal manner and be killed. You may argue that is not surrender. I see no practical difference.

    If that is your personal choice, so be it. It has nothing to with "coward" or being "brave." It is just a philsophical position. If you want to argue the "non-viloence" method of King and Ghandi I note that both succeeded because of the culture/country they were involved with recognized the rightness of their claims and allowed them to demonstrate, etc.

    Since you are an intelligent person I think you know that, from time to time, this country has been attacked and we have been forced to fight and  to kill.

    So I would ask you how you square your personal choice with the deaths of those who have fought for the country and everyone's freedom because they would kill.

    And please, do not misunderstand. The millitary would not put you into combat if you will not kill. So your personal choice doesn't just effect you, but also your fellow citziens.

    Parent

    My personal choice (none / 0) (#153)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    and quest is to end War. All forms of it. I detest it. Whether or not that can be done or is impractical is irrelevant. What has been done in the past and who has died (or been killed) in the name of whatever ideology is also irrelevant. There is no reason to shoot anyone. It is a cowards way. To "fight" for peace is not to surrender. It sometimes asks for you to put your body in harms way or to risk your life. King and Ghandi were operating against very violent and strong opposition and were successful in their methods. In no terms were they simply allowed by the violent members of their societies or recognized by them. There rights were trampled upon and they fought to get them recognized, at risk to their own lives--but they did not kill. They succeeded because they did not fear.

    I know you did not call me a coward.

    Parent

    Peaches. (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    If either King or Ghandi had attempted their non-violence in a modern Moslem country they would be slaughtered immediately.

    I recognize your belief. I just totally disagree with it.

    Evil does exist in this world. From time to time it must be killed or it will kill you.

    Parent

    There are people (none / 0) (#162)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    fighting for peace using non-violent methods in Muslem countries. Most of them are persecuted, aome of them are slaughtered, but their work lives on.

    Gandi and King were both slaughtered, but not immediately, then again immediately is a relative term.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    The issue is the success or failure.

    King and Ghandi succeeded because of the culture they lived in.

    Are you claiming that Moslems you refer to live in a culture that will not immediately slaughter them when they move into the public arena?

    BTW - Could we have some links on your claim?

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    Circles.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    Whatever the justification, when you call someone a liar, and when that is almost immediately proven wrong, you should be man enough to admit it and apologize.

    Without that ability all of your highly colored prose and statements are hollow.

    What you are saying is that you reserve the right to insult.

    Well and good. That defines you quite well. It also marginalizes you, and in the long run will be very destructive to whatever cause you are espousing.

    hypocrite (none / 0) (#81)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    we've proven you to be a liar many times, and you never admit it. get out of the glass house your pants are down.


    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    Good heavens. Will you please quit trying to parse? Claiming that an assertion or position has been proved wrong is not proof that the other person has lied, and does not mean that they owe you an apology or an agreement.

    Of course that is one of your standard tactics, as it has been of Sailor's, although both of you have been more civil of late in that respect.

    Note that I didn't claim Edger had lied, just pointed out that he was wrong.

    It may be possible that I have called you, or others a liar.

    So I invite you to provide details, including a link.


    Parent

    nice try (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:20:17 PM EST
    we've been down this road many times and its getting boring. We all know what you are its no secret. For once I'm not crawling down into the gutter with you


    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 08:35:48 AM EST
    What you are doing is acknowledging that I have written the truth.

    Parent
    in your dreams (none / 0) (#133)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:02:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Poppycock (none / 0) (#115)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    In addition, it showed that we now face a new kind of enemy, a new kind of war.

    How so? Terrorism has been around a long time. The war in Iraq seems like the same type of killing that war always brings. What's new?

    Che (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:52:49 AM EST
    Yes, it has. What's different now is that the terrorists are driven by a religion that says it's good to die for the cause, 72 virgins and all that.

    And weapons of mass destruction.

    And while Saddam may have destroyed 99% of his, we know that he was wanting to get back into the WMD business.

    You're in the medical world. How about a couple of guys an 10 pounds of athrax scattered around NY??

    Parent

    this is just (none / 0) (#122)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:04:54 AM EST
    drive by snark with no substance

    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:48:40 AM EST
    Since you don't want to fight, why do you protest others from wanting to protect western civilization and the previous rights man has won from the governments and religions of the world?

    Time after time you, and others, criticize the Bush administration, but when it comes to fighting the monster that has came out of the closet and is stalking the world, you won't fight.

    You want substance? Here's some substance for you.

    Listen to what David Kay said about the weapons programs:

    "There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

    Link

    It is almost four years since we invaded. If we had not, do you think it possible that Saddam's government might have been able to produce 10 pounds of anthrax? A dirty bomb? And if he didn't want to deliver it do you actually doubt that some terrorist group...Hamas, Hezabollah, al-Qaida or Iran itself  would not have paid Iraq handsomely for the weapon and done the deed?

    And why was Saddam building these missiles? Why was he violating the UN sanctions? Do you have any doubt that he was preparing to attack Israel?

    · A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    · Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    · Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    · Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

    Now note that these comments aren't based on him having WMD's, but made by the man who said he couldn't find them.

    Read what Scott Ritter, a man who you can not possibly say was pro war or pro Bush has to say.

    I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today.

    Substance? You don't want substance because it proves that your "anti-war  I won't fight" philsophy would have led to the death of hundreds of thousands.

    Parent

    there were no WMD's (none / 0) (#128)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:57:47 AM EST
    everyone knows that. They had no WMDs since the early 90's.

    you can pull some more quotes out of your butt from members of the war party but it doesn't change the fact the inspectors found nothing

    But dont worry you will get your genocide sooner than later then you and the rest of your kind can dance on the bodies of millions of dead muslims. Killed for oil, its that simple

    You never fought either so stop with the baiting. You were never in combat or I'm sure you would have told us. You jest get an organasm thinking about killing people you believe to be inferior to you.

    So go put on your brown shirt and rejoice. As the Dems provide the delay arguing about what nonbinding resolution Bush should ignore the attack on Iran nears complete with nukes.

    So once again the US will be the only country to kill massive number of people with nukes. America's long proud tradition of genocide continues

    All helped along with fascists such as your self. All hail the state! truly pathetic but reinforces my conclusion that the human race is worthless and deserves the extinction it will foster on itself. They are just too stupid to care about anyone else but themselves or to see past tomorrow.

    The state of the human race is the biggest argument against evolution.

    Parent

    SD (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:42:08 AM EST
    Read before you respond. I made no claim that WMD's existed at the time of the invasion.

    You can argue then, that the lack of them meant that we should not have invaded.

    What I have done is shown you that Iraq was trying to get back into the WMD business, and note that when they did there is no doubt that the terrorists would have used them against the US.

    Your concern over the deaths of millions by the US is also noted. Somehow you never seem to note that 9/11 and the attacks that preceeded it were done by Moslem terrorists.

    It is a given that if these attacks had not happened we would not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you deny this???

    In the final analysis we have become a world at war. Your decision to not fight but surrender to the forces of the radical moslems is of little importance, but at the least you should have the decency to accept your freedom that is being paid for by others by thanking them for their effort and not by constant criticism of the country and culture that puts them in the field of battle for all of us.

    Parent

    In case you hadn't noticed, Jim (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:02:37 AM EST
    You are virtually all alone now, trying vainly to recreate your war on terror fantasies and twisting and spinning grasping for any slim straw that you can find to somehow twist into justification for it.

    No one is buying anymore, Jim. No one has for a long time... Like George, you're fantasizing and screeching all alone in the dark out in the middle of an empty parking lot, and instead of listening to you, people drive by, shake their heads in pity, wonder what the crazy old coot is doing out there, chuckle, and keep on going.

    Hope you're having fun.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    So your defense is not that I am wrong, but that you and some others on the blog disagree with me?

    Wow. That would be important if I

    a. cared.

    b. hadn't known that for almost four years.

    c. thought you knew what you were talking about.

    Parent

    this commenter ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    ... is a christofascist who calls for the deaths of all muslims, all iraqis and American political leaders.

    I would provide links but Jeralyn has asked me not to. And unlike ppj, I won't quote links that Jeralyn has deleted. Her site, her rules. Just because ppj can constantly violate them doesn't mean I will.

    Parent

    Shoot to kill (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:27:31 AM EST
    Oy. It is really starting to notch up. Elliott Abrams and his criminal pals have issued US troops shoot to kill orders for any Iranian sighted in Iraq.

    Oh, right, I almost forgot, that doesn't apply to civialians or dipomats, it only applies to terrorists.

    As if they could tell the difference.

    A pathetic track record so far to be sure, they cannot tell Iraqi civilians from terrorist now. They all look the same.  

    But not to worry, one good thing about the post structuralist neocon policy of creating reality is that they get to decide that no Iranian citizen ever gets shot.  

    How?

    Any Irainan shot is a terrorist, period end of story. A simple fool proof way to compensante for our ignorance as to who's who in the exotic mid-east. And start a war with Iran.

    Congress has to wake up and start putting these warmongering creeps behind bars ASAP.

    link
    via Laura Rozen

    SD (none / 0) (#140)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    PPJ is a single individual somewhere out in Colorado. He gets on the internet with the same intentions as most of us. He wants to fight battles for causes he thinks are important. I get on blogs because I get bored at work.I work with spreadsheets all day and manipulate numbers. So, a little prose and discussion helps pass the time.

    The point about civility is over directed anger. Its wasted when its over the internet. You should be angry about the war in the ME. But, directing that anger at some old man in Colorado living in a gated community who has some bizaare theories about the world is useless. Truly, I hope you do get out of here, because you are smart and your anger is directed in the right direction. I just think you waste a lot of time over the thoughts of a silly old man.

    My comments addressed to Edger over Civility are not based in his treatment of ppj, but his treatment of others who are not trolling, but have well-thought out and articulate questions and are searching for some discussion--in particular, I am talking about his attitudes toward Decon and Gabe and his attempt to paint them in a particularly viscious and dispicable colors. Decon and Gabe may not always be civil (no one is-always), but they are a lot smarter than ppj (and my apologies to Decon and Gabe over lumping you together knowing you both share little in common politically).

    Peaches (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    You claim to be concncerned over civility yet you refer to me, who you disagrees with, as:

    some old man in Colorado living in a gated community who has some bizaare theories about the world

    That's a rather dissmissive statement, and it is also wrong. First, I do not live in CO.

    Secondly, I do not live in a gated community.

    The first two are of no real importance. I note them only to demonstrate that you are not as accurate or observant as you think you are.

    Thirdly, you are the one who claims that it is correct and proper to fight, but not kill.

    I submit that if you think that is not a "bizaare" theory, well, I don't know what to say.

    bizarre: strikingly out of the ordinary: as a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities

    You're fun to debate with, Peaches. But I think that none of us have the keys to the city, and none of us are as smart as we think we are.

    That be you and me, Peaches.

    Parent

    Yes, that is true,ppj (none / 0) (#156)
    by Peaches on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    All right, I was wrong about your place of residece, and I do not claim that I do not have bizaare ideas. And regardless of what I think about your ideas and your tactics here at TL, I still hold some strange and bizaare fondness for you and think if we were neighbors, we would have some interesting conversations about women, tomatoes, cabbages, sports while avoiding the topics we discuss here.

    Parent
    pp "wont fight" either (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:52:08 AM EST
    again, I believe there was a war going on during a time when you were of age that you claim to have strongly believed in; why didnt you fight?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    Why do you continue to worry about me? I served in Naval Aviation for ten years.

    You haven't served.

    Pick the mote from thine own eye, Jondee.

    Parent

    You let your fingers and mouth do the fighting (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 10:57:24 AM EST


    Iraq just the opening act... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at RawStory have put together a very good date by date timeline of Cheney and PNAC's six year long drive to put all the pices inplace for an attack and invasion Iran, which is rapidly coming to it's conclusion: The Build Up To Iran Timeline

    Obama (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    The Obama stories on Fox just underscore the fact that the question has stopped being how low the Right is willing to sink in order to win and become a matter of which section of the sewer they're currently slinging from.

    Is Fox (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    still pumping out more "non apology" apologies to keep their racist spew out there in the media?

    Parent
    SD (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    You make claims, but provide no proof.

    I provide link after link.

    Refute some of the links, SD. They are your problem. I am merely the messenger.

    Motes (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    Motes. Who is constantly accusing others of never fighting? Another Alabama AWOL who never fought.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    Uh, I think you have stated that you have never served in the military. (That would include the NG, Reserves, etc.

    Am I wrong? Did you?

    If so, congratulations. You have had me fooled.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    What, Jim, would give you the idea that Jondee, or anyone else for that matter, should grant you any consideration and answer your questions, after you refuse to answer his?

    Civility, my a$$. ;-)

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    I answered his question. I served in Naval Aviation for 10 years.

    I will not comment further. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

    In the meantime, neither you or Jondee can say you served at all.

    Why not? Why didn't you serve?

    Or do you now want to claim you did?

    BTW - I await your apology for calling me a liar.

    BTW - Which one of the scenarios in the negotiations with the terrorists do you choose?

    Parent

    Is this another lie? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    I will not comment further.


    Parent
    You never had me fooled (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    Since you obviously wanted to so badly - what with the red menace, and later Islamofascists - remind me again where a man of your steely resolve "fought", Jim.

    Jondee never served (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:38:10 PM EST
    but he loves to talk about others who did.

    Way to go Jondee!

    Were you even in the Boy Scouts?

    Parent

    Sad old faker (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    I answered his question. I served in Naval Aviation for 10 years.

    I will not comment further. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

    Obviously the poker player is bluffing here. The cards in his hand are too embarrassing for him to show.

    It may as well have been that ppj served hamburgers in Naval Avaition's kitchen for 10 years for he shows nothing learned from his experience.

     

    EX (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    Naval Aviator ;-)

    Parent
    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    The costume Kommander Codpiece passed on.

    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#169)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    a couple of medals came with it...

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:17:17 PM EST
    Better to have been an ex than nothing at all.

    Tell us what a man you are, edger. When you get caught lying, you can't even apologize.

    And you think people will take you serious?

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:49:32 AM EST
    You've been wanting me to follow your example for years, and when I finally do, to give you an example of your examples, you won't take me serious?

    You serious, Jim? ;-)

    Parent

    Squeaky smears again. (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Tell us again about how you have no regard for the truth and how you will just smear when you want to.

    Defines you well, eh??

    Were you even in the Cub scouts?

    Go to Band Camp??

    No?

    Figures.

    Parent

    Ding (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:47:24 PM EST
    Awfully sensitive about your "service", aren't you.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    Nope. I just like to keep people informed about your stated philsophy regarding the truth and smearing.

    Like it or, squeaky, you have defined yourself in your own words.

    Just as Edger has when he refused to apologize after I proved that he was incorrect when he called me a liar.

    We are all known for what we do.

    Parent

    Sad old man (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    You are the smear king here. Your regular posting, out of context, my remark about smearing Rove whenever your lies are outed is typical of most of the drivel and propaganda you dish out at tl.

    Feel free post the entire dialogue regarding your famous out of context quote of mine regarding smearing Rove. Oh right, that would show what a liar you are. For me, defending myself against your smears is hardly worth the effort. It would only be preaching to the coverted so to speak, as everyone here at TL has your number.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    Squeaky - That is a complete quote. It says what it says clearly and completely.

    You may look it up, I provided the information, and reply as you feel necessary. I am confident that you will not do so because it will show that it is in context.

    Of course while you are doing that you should also provide the context for all of the quotes sailor likes to whip out that is supposed to bother me. Unlike you, I stand behind my comments.

    Parent

    More lies (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Contrary to U.S. military statements, four U.S. soldiers did not die repelling a sneak attack at the governor's office in the Shiite holy city of Karbala last week. New information obtained by The Associated Press shows they were abducted and found dead or dying as far as 25 miles away.

    The brazen assault 50 miles south of Baghdad was launched Jan. 20 by a group of nine to 12 militants. They traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles - the type used by U.S. government convoys, had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues and spoke English.

    LINK

    New?

    Molly Ivins... (none / 0) (#167)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Best wishes to Molly Ivins, hospitalized with cancer.

    Very Very Sad (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:16:02 PM EST
    C&L has some great quotes of hers up:


    "It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America."

    "Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong."

    Crooks & Liars

    I wish her a speedy recovery.

    Parent

    Fun with Dick (video) (none / 0) (#170)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    "No administration in it's right mind is going to answer the question you just asked, Wolf."
    ---Cheney

    "So, the best threat to America is... you?"
    ---Jon Stewart

    Liberation (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:38:17 PM EST

    Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr gave its unstinting support to al-Maliki's security plan....

    ...It says US ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad expressed concern that gunmen in Iraq may go into hiding during the US "surge," and then reappear when it is over.

    Juan Cole

    Wow, what a surprise. All that wasted firepower emptied on the Iraqi civilian population, again and again, and again, because the Iraqi resistance can head to the hills on a moments notice and blend in with the population at large. At least the US weapons suppliers and mortuaries are making out big time.

    Soon there will be no one to liberate.

    Numbers 1 & 7 on the list (none / 0) (#172)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    of things to do in dealing with the occupation of Iraq, from:

    The General Secretariat of the Badr Organization, all offices and branches
    Political Department
    No. / 2371
    Subject / instructions
    Iraq / date July 11, 2006

    1 - There is a need to exercise restraint and patience and calm in the face of the full military and political escalation of the Anglo-American occupation forces and not respond to them, so that the enemies will not be able to transfer of the battle to their areas, drain our energies
    ...
    7- Eliminating any attempt whatsoever to rebuild the former sacked Iraqi army and the security services and challenge these attempts forcefully and decisively.


    Parent
    Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    Americans, Iranians Find Common Ground
    January 26, 2007
    (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States and Iran believe most people in the West and the Islamic world have similar needs and wants, according to a poll by Knowledge Networks for the Program on International Policy Attitudes. 56 per cent of Americans, and 54 per cent of Iranians, believe it is possible to find common ground.
    Edger won't fight (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    Unfortunately Hezabollah, Hamas and al-Qaida are NOT democratic organizations, so the desires of the Moslems are useless.

    So edger. Have you decided what you will be willing to give away in negotiations with the trrorists?

    Education for women?

    Freedom of religion?

    The rights for gays to live?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Parent

    Go Feingold (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:17:19 PM EST
    On Tuesday, January 30th, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold will chair a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled, "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War."

    C & L

    Maybe a groundswell is finally starting? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    March for Peace, Accountability
    The Nation, Jan. 26/07
    Hundreds of thousands of antiwar demonstrators will take to the streets this weekend in a surge for peace that is long overdue.
    ...
    [said Feingold] "This is not a time for legislative nuancing. This is not a time for trying to forge a compromise that everybody can be a part of. This is a time to stop the needless deaths of American troops in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the lives of the American people, to start doing it now."

    Feingold says, "It's time for Congress to use the power of the purse to end this devastating war and finally bring American troops out of Iraq."

    * my emphasis

    Parent
    Since he brought it up.. (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    Im sure theres a long list somewhere of young men of the optimum age, physical condition and requisite patriotic ardor and umquenchable fighting spirit, who, through no fault of their own, for whatever reasons wre never allowed in combat.

    Two names, we know for sure are on the list: George Jr and Jim. But "the list" is undoubtably very long.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    Thanks for keeping on telling everyone that you have never served, Jondee.

    I any capacity.

    Parent

    I think what Jim is trying to say is (none / 0) (#186)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:00:56 AM EST
    that there are limits to one's speech if one has not served.

    And (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    There are limits to speech if one has been servile and is embarrassed about it.

    Parent
    Che (none / 0) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    Che, I didn't bring the subject up. Jondee did followed by squeaky. See comment #144.

    The contention by Jondee has now changed. One must not only have served, but to have served in combat.

    This is exactly why I have never said anything beyond specifying that I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    Because after that Jondee would demand not only in combat, but to have been wounded in combat, and not only wounded but to have been wounded while singlehandedly while destroying an enemy battalion , etc.

    He has made this change because the argument that you must have served has been destroyed by the simple logic that if you specify that only those who have done something, only Doctors could talk about medicene.. teachers education, etc...

    Parent

    Dinner is served (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    The shrill, raucous, call of the yellow bellied Chickenhawkus Americanus is unmistakeable.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    Dinner is served??

    Well, I guess we have finally found something that Jondee has served.

    I'd like Scotch on the rocks with that, please.

    Parent

    Btw, Peepster (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    Just exactly how are "the terrorists" going to take over the U.S?

    You "didnt bring the subject up"? (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    you didnt make declarations (based on 0 personal experience) about who would fight and who wouldnt further up the thread?

    As Ive said before, if you were doing it to a goose, you'd claim you just stuffing a cushion.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    You should really learn to read before you comment.

    Peaches said we could avoid war by not engaging in it.

    Edger agreed with his comment.

    I asked them if they minded if the rest of us fight for western civilization.

    Peaches later amended his comment by saying he would  fight but wouldn't kill.

    Edger never has amended his.

    You brought the subject up of combat. My point remains that I served, and you didn't.

    As Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, Mam."

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    As Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, Mam."

    Facts?

    4. The assertion or statement of a thing done or existing; sometimes, even when false, improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, or supposed to be done; a thing supposed or asserted to be done; as, history abounds with false facts.
          [1913 Webster]

                I do not grant the fact.              --De Foe.
          [1913 Webster]

                This reasoning is founded upon a fact which is not true.                                 --Roger Long.
          [1913 Webster]



    Parent
    you were just.. (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    .

    Jim (none / 0) (#200)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    You brought the subject up of combat. My point remains that I served, and you didn't.

    And that means what? That they should not speak their opinions because they did not serve? That they are not qualified to speak of military issues unless they served? If so, there are a lot of unqualified people out there. More than your qualified group. Non medical people talk to me about medical issues all the time (there are more of them than me). I will correct misinformation, but I will not decide for them whether they are qualified to speak on the subject. Sometimes we learn our best lessons from the mouths of babes.

    As to the defense of the country, well, we would all take up arms to protect our homes. But we differ on where the threat originates.

    Che (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    It means what it says. I didn't bring the subject of service up. Jondee did.

    Please don't be obtuse.

    Parent

    time to close the thread (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    This thread is closing if I can figure out how to do it. 203 comments so far.

    Thank God (none / 0) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    This thread is closing if I can figure out how to do it. 203 comments so far.


    Thursday Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)