Some of us are concerned about the apparent relationship between thimerosol compounds used as a preservative in childhood vaccines, and the incidence of autism, coupled with the fact that the Bush administration signed legislation that indemnifies pharmaceutical companies (one of whom's former ceo's is the current Secretary of Defense) from lawsuits involving this risk (which validates the cause-effect relationship, in many peoples' minds).
Others are simply concerned that being "forced" to get their kids immunized is an infringement on their personal rights, and so they avoid the whole mess by homeschooling.
Others believe that immunization is a plot by aliens to genetically tag human beings for later abduction, torture, consumption, or brainwashing.
I suppose some others believe that if everyone is immunized to a disease, as a species, we may lose our inherent immunity to whole classes of diseases.
Put it all together, whether any of these concerns are legitimate or not, and you get a population where a significant proportion is not immunized, thus reducing the effectiveness of immunization programs.
I've had educated, technical managers, who were "forced" up the chain because they were fortunate enough to also posess "people skills" - Often the best kind of managers.
The worst kind are the pure business-educated guys.
It drives me fucking bonkers to pay $9/ticket to see a movie on a big screen with spots and stains - maybe leftovers from Rocky Horror? But worse, I'll go back to the same theater 6 months later, and the stain's still there.
How much does it cost to get one of your high-school flunkies up there on a ladder once a week to clean the fucking screen off? WTF?
Yes, but the 5.56x54mm NATO round was designed specifically to fly stable in air, and to destabilize and tumble in more dense substances, like flesh, or ballistic gelatin. A supersonic tumbling bullet does more damage to flesh (in terms of tearing, rupturing arteries and connective tissues, etc) than a stable, straight shot that would merely put a 5.56mm hole straight through.
Comparing the fundamental designs of Space Ship One, to the Space Shuttle, I'd say SS1 is more complex.
SS1 relies on a carrier aircraft, the Shuttle does not. Both have wings and control surfaces - but SS1 has a revolutionary variable geometry wing. That element, alone, adds a very complicated wrinkle to the overall design of the craft.
Is there some simplicity in SS1's design that the Shuttle does not have? Yes. But you also need to look to the problems each craft is intended to solve. If Rutan were to build a vehicle that had all the capabilities of the Shuttle, I daresay that a huge pile of complexity will need to be added. Termal protection. Attitude Control System. Orbital maneuvering system (de-orbit burn). Radars. Computers. Life Support. Robot Arm. Cargo Bay and doors. Space toilet. etc.
The Shuttle may have some design features that impose some risk, but I'll argue as I've argued before - it's wrong to characterize it's design as "inherently flawed" - what is inherently flawed is the NASA bureaucracy whose purpose is to define procedures that are part of the overall launch system, that mitigate the risks to an acceptible level. All systems have hardware and procedure components. All hardware components have flaws. Period. If your procedures allow those hardware flaws to be expressed through accidents and catastrophes, then it's the procedures, and the organization that designed them, that failed. The shuttle's design, and procedures, can likely be tweaked to make it safe to fly. The question is - is NASA and its contractors up to that task? And is it cheaper to throw the old vehicle out and design a new one? And can Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic accomplish the same goal with less money? SS1 and the Space Shuttle are an Apples-to-Oranges comparison. We have to wait and see what both organizations come up with in 5 years.
While there *is* genius in the Rutan design, you have to see that as an owner of a company, he HAS to hype it's fiscal performance to the press, to prop up stock prices. It's going to be years before Scaled Composites space ventures will be profitable. Maybe even decades. He's not technically lying, of course, but he's "spinning" things in a dishonest way. He has to do that. As an engineer, he has to design planes and spacecraft. As a CEO, he has to "sell" his company to investors. That requires hype, spin, and sometimes lies. (I'm not of the opinion that he has crossed that line yet).
I'm very interested to see what kind of budget ends up going into SS3, and what the vehicle's end capabilities are. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the same cost-differential we're seeing on the suborbital flights.
But he's never going to get there without capital. It's an ugly business, blowing sunshine up people's asses to get them to invest their money. But so is taxation.
Think of the sunshine NASA blew up everyone's asses in the 1970's about moon bases and flying cars, to get congress to buy into funding that public investment (post-Apollo stuff, the Shuttle, the ISS, etc). That was because the prior motivation; beating the Russians, was no longer credible, because we had, indeed, beat them. Justifying further investment was a tough job after that. I'd say NASA failed at that sales job, and that's a good part of the reason why we're where we are today.
If Burt Rutan can tell a better story to the folks holding the purse strings (whether it's Richard Branson, the DoD, or congress, or even the Chinese), then maybe some forward progress will happen.
Lots of stuff WILL be thrown up in the air if someone connects a USB wireless adapter.
A big part of security is PHYSICAL security. Physical access to these systems is strictly controlled. In the classified areas I've worked in, you're not even allowed to bring in a cell phone. So it's not likely anyone would be allowed to bring such a device as a USB wireless adapter.
There is a problem posed by USB thumbdrives. They're so damn small, it's almost impossible to prevent someone smuggling one in. So it really depends on your specific customer's needs. There are regulations, and then there's what the guy who's writing the checks wants. There's an art to finding a happy medium. (The kind of "art" that makes you want to cut your ear off and give it to your girlfriend.)
This risk can be mitigated by simply running your system on NT 4.0. You plug a USB thumbdrive into an NT 4.0 system, and it freezes solid.:) (that was a joke - but it's true). For other OS-es, you'll simply have to figure out how to cripple USB functionality. Either by removing the drivers from the OS, controlling permissions, or physical modification of the USB port (ie. epoxy the damn thing shut).
There is no comperable Data Protection law in the US. If you are going to increase the amount of CCTV you use then perhaps you need also to consider legislation that will protect your privacy?
Most Republicans (the party that is currently in power) in this country, do not interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy.
Despite the 4th and 5th Amendments. Sad fact but true.
With the current regime in power, it is extremely unlikely that legislation protecting the privacy of US citizens will be drafted, let alone allowed into committee for discussion, let alone allowed to be brought to a vote, let alone passed, let alone signed, let alone survive Supreme Court oversight.
The American Taliban (religious conservatives) do not want a right to privacy, because then they would not be able to impose their medieval moral codes onto our private sexual behavior. The religious wingnuts who worship Mammon (ie. the Anarcho-Capitalists) do not want people to have a right to privacy, because then Corporations would not be able to impose their advertisement, or regulate their Intellectual Property. Jesus was wrong. You *can* server two masters. You won't love one and hate the other though. You'll hate both.
Merck got nailed because they were too cheap to slap a warning label on their pills. They knew they were dangerous. But didn't want to put on a warning label.
If Cortex puts a warning label on their bottle, and does proper due dilligence with their studies and tests, they have nothing to worry about.
... or the Chinese businessman can come to America in 1.5 hours, with enough time for the American former IT worker to shine his shoes in the Airport lounge, prior to the Chinese businessman attending his meeting to sell more outsourcing services.
Maybe only 17% of Americans were "very concerned" about the Jackson incident.
But the FCC received tens of millions of emails from a coordinated astroturf campaign by Focus on the Family and other affilliated conservative groups.
This astroturf campaign dominated the newsmedia, and influenced FCC policy.
That 17% is very organized, connected, vocal, and well-funded. For their impact on policy in the US, they are effectively a majority.
Personally, if my 5 year old saw Janet Jacksons' nipple during a pro football game, shame on me for letting my 5 year old watch grown testosterone addicts pound eachother senseless into the turf. Nipples? My kids' seen nipples. He was breast fed. But I'm just an immoral member of the 83% Liberal Minority in the US.
Umm, exactly what are you talking about. Raping boys in front of parents in Abu Ghraib?
I'm talking about the second set of photos and videos that the Pentagon will not release. In violation of a Judge's orders, they refuse to release these photos.
If photos and videos are what it takes before people like you understand what's really going on, and believe the truth, then I say we need to release the photos.
The rest of us, don't need to see them - they've been described in the press, and we believe. We've been lied to by these people before, and they're not even denying it anymore. They're just covering it up now. And hoping that flag waving morons like you don't catch on.
Do you even realize the extent of torture and rape and executions that occured in Saddams Regime? Hell even 100 raped, tortured, and killed little boys in front of their parents is a damn major improvement over the previous mass killings/tortures/rapes/etc.
So you're saying that even if the US did it, it's okay, because it's being done less now?
You sick fuck.
This is war asshole, bamboo reeds under fingernails isn't even out of the equation if needed to get INFORMATION out of these bastards to help PROTECT your sorry ass.
Torture does not work to extract useful information. Ask ANY professional interrogator. A tortured prisoner will lie to get the torturer to stop. Torture serves only one real function: To terrorize the enemy. Unfortunately, it causes the enemy to fear capture so much, that they are willing to die fighting to avoid capture. And it lowers the bar on ethical treatment of our own soldiers when captured.
To torture for the sheer fun of it is twisted, to get information to save lives is what it is all about. Saving *your* life. Try and register that in your brain.
Use whatever excuse makes you feel better. Kid yourself that it's being done to save lives. The fact is, it's being done as a psy op. Try and register that in your brain.
You can't defend freedom by destroying freedom.
New's flash women's rights aren't too important in most of the world.
They're important to women.
Trying to force too many changes at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid and would just better ensure failure.
Ah, so we should put Saddam back in power then? Because forcing too much freedom on them at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid? I'm so glad 1800 American soldiers died to make sure that Iraqi women who used to have jobs, now will no longer be permitted to leave their houses, and will be beaten for not wearing a burkha. Yes. This is happening. You won't hear about it on Fox News.
I can buy the argument that we don't want to force too many changes too fast - but the fact is, the womens' rights situation in Iraq is moving backwards. They had more rights under Saddam. They will have less rights under the new regime. New rights aren't being forced on them - only the rights to oppress others, and we forced it on them with bombs and guns.
oh, yeah but that's what you people want. You want this to fail
If that's what you need to tell yourself to ease your troubled conscience at backing this immoral "war" then I guess that's what you have to do. But going through life willfully ignorant of facts and reality is going to lead you to disaster. I wouldn't otherwise care, but you're taking the rest of the nation with you. 51% of us may have wanted that at one point, but enough of us have now seen the truth - Bush's approval rating is at 36%. The 15% who've changed their minds certainly wanted this war to succeed at one point, did they change their minds because they want it to fail? Or do they now see that we're going to fail because it's all been a lie, and it's being run by incompetent, arrogant fools?
I didn't want this war to happen in the first place. I was content with going into Afghanistan and bringing the 9/11 perpetrato
And some time I'd like you to ask the Iraqi women who were captive in Saddam's Rape Rooms,
. ..never mind the Iraqi boys who are raped in front of their parents by contractors at Abu Ghraib.
Ask the writers of the new Iraqi constitution about what their plans are for women's rights. Or rights for Christians. Or rights for Sufis, or other non-Shia muslims. Those groups all had more rights under Saddam's regime than than under any Islamic republic.
and the people that were electrocuted, dipped in acid baths, and tortured for years how much they hate G.W. Bush.
Or the people "rendered" to other countries where torture is legal.
WMD mean nothing, we know he gassed the Kurds that was WMD, maybe they should just live in fear for the rest of their lives or until he gassed them again.
Maybe I'd believe the Bush 43 Administrations' outrage over Saddam's gassing of the Kurds if fellows like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, John Poindexter, Paul Wolfowitz, while in Ronald Reagan's and Bush 41's Administration, they had said something about Saddam's Kurd-gassing ways. They never said a damn word. They sold him satellite photos, gave him aid and support, and shook his hand. The individuals in the White House today have ZERO credibility when it comes to criticizing 3rd world dictators who oppress their people. Between the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the Contras, Marcos, Al Qaeda, and dozens of others these people have aided supported for over 30 years, aided and supported in their torture, oppression, abridgement of rights, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they've suddenly changed their ways, and now are champions of freedom and human rights. Maybe if they did more to expose drug and arms dealing, money laundering anonymous bank accounts in the Caymans, and the Bahamas, which would have exposed how the Saudi Royal Family finances terrorisim, I might be convinced. Maybe if they fought for more liberal elemants of the Iraqi political landscape to win in the election, instead of illegally funnelling reconstruction funds to help Ahmed Chalabi and Shiite Religious Fanatics to win, thus putting Iraq on a path to become the next Iran, maybe I'd give them a chance.
But this criminal gang is not working to make Iraq more free. They are the enemies of freedom, the enemies of human rights, the enemies of liberty. Their goal is endless, profitable, conflict, strife, and war.
I understand that most of the embryo's are leftover from fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded. What moral qualms could be had for experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?
I understand that most concentration camp prisoners are people who would otherwise be gassed and consumed in an oven. What moral qualms could be had for Dr. Mengele experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?
(didn't vote for Bush, don't agree with his stem cell research funding policy, etc. yada yada - would like to see more attention paid to the bioethical debate behind this issue in the newsmedia, because issues bout the definition of human life are so mushy and conflated nowadays, that nothing results from policy discussions but inflammatory political rhetoric used to manipulate public opinion. This is the real immoral crime, here, that the discussion has become so politically charged that the result is endless debate, fearmongering, and divisive hatred - rather than technological advancement for a better future for us all.)
I have heard from several people that have had an MRI that (a) it is almost impossible to get scheduled in any reasonable timeframe for one and (b) they are 'incredibly expensive'
Depends on your health insurance.
My insurance took 6 months before they finally got around to approving an MRI for my back problem. They were all too happy to approve about $2000 worth of drugs and physical therapy, all of which turned out to be useless for my problem. They approved this therapy to defer the inevitable MRI - which determined that surgery is probably the only effective course moving forward.
So, in order to defer the $1500 MRI, my insurance company paid for $2000 of ineffective treatment, AND put me through 6 months of excruciating pain, not to mention all the work I missed out on, and the fact that during that time, I was unreliable to my boss, and to my kids, and everyone else, I missed out on all the activities of life that I otherwise could have done after recovery.
I'm not sure that government-run healthcare would be any different, but the people who are saying that THIS system is the best in the world, are idiots. Personally, I think that maybe health insurance, itself, insulates products and services from price-pressures of the market, and have unduly inflated prices. If everybody paid for healthcare out of pocket, maybe costs would be different, and doctors and patients can pursue treatment courses that make sense. But obviously, we'd have maybe 10 million people in this country who would even be able to afford health care, the rest would go without. A Libertarian Paradise.
One thing's for sure. If I were elected emporer, I would immediately round up all Insurance Company accountants, and have them ground into sausage meat.
ince the $6 billion launch pad at Vandenburgh was abandoned after Challenger,
IIRC, the Vandenberg Shuttle launch didn't happen because Thiokol said they'd have new SRB's that could loft the shuttle to higher inclination orbits, and they failed to deliver the new SRBs.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you Americans not immunise your children?
No.
Not all of us do.
Some of us are concerned about the apparent relationship between thimerosol compounds used as a preservative in childhood vaccines, and the incidence of autism, coupled with the fact that the Bush administration signed legislation that indemnifies pharmaceutical companies (one of whom's former ceo's is the current Secretary of Defense) from lawsuits involving this risk (which validates the cause-effect relationship, in many peoples' minds).
Others are simply concerned that being "forced" to get their kids immunized is an infringement on their personal rights, and so they avoid the whole mess by homeschooling.
Others believe that immunization is a plot by aliens to genetically tag human beings for later abduction, torture, consumption, or brainwashing.
I suppose some others believe that if everyone is immunized to a disease, as a species, we may lose our inherent immunity to whole classes of diseases.
Put it all together, whether any of these concerns are legitimate or not, and you get a population where a significant proportion is not immunized, thus reducing the effectiveness of immunization programs.
I've had educated, technical managers, who were "forced" up the chain because they were fortunate enough to also posess "people skills" - Often the best kind of managers.
The worst kind are the pure business-educated guys.
My company, , is also doing this - establishing "communities of interest".
:)
I figure, they'd rather I spent my time blogging with other employees than jerks like you.
I'd like to add to D)Improve your screen.
CLEAN your screen.
It drives me fucking bonkers to pay $9/ticket to see a movie on a big screen with spots and stains - maybe leftovers from Rocky Horror? But worse, I'll go back to the same theater 6 months later, and the stain's still there.
How much does it cost to get one of your high-school flunkies up there on a ladder once a week to clean the fucking screen off? WTF?
Nope.
For my girl, the cheap knock-off tentacle-rape hentai stuff from Korea works just fine.
Yes, but the 5.56x54mm NATO round was designed specifically to fly stable in air, and to destabilize and tumble in more dense substances, like flesh, or ballistic gelatin. A supersonic tumbling bullet does more damage to flesh (in terms of tearing, rupturing arteries and connective tissues, etc) than a stable, straight shot that would merely put a 5.56mm hole straight through.
Comparing the fundamental designs of Space Ship One, to the Space Shuttle, I'd say SS1 is more complex.
SS1 relies on a carrier aircraft, the Shuttle does not. Both have wings and control surfaces - but SS1 has a revolutionary variable geometry wing. That element, alone, adds a very complicated wrinkle to the overall design of the craft.
Is there some simplicity in SS1's design that the Shuttle does not have? Yes. But you also need to look to the problems each craft is intended to solve. If Rutan were to build a vehicle that had all the capabilities of the Shuttle, I daresay that a huge pile of complexity will need to be added. Termal protection. Attitude Control System. Orbital maneuvering system (de-orbit burn). Radars. Computers. Life Support. Robot Arm. Cargo Bay and doors. Space toilet. etc.
The Shuttle may have some design features that impose some risk, but I'll argue as I've argued before - it's wrong to characterize it's design as "inherently flawed" - what is inherently flawed is the NASA bureaucracy whose purpose is to define procedures that are part of the overall launch system, that mitigate the risks to an acceptible level. All systems have hardware and procedure components. All hardware components have flaws. Period. If your procedures allow those hardware flaws to be expressed through accidents and catastrophes, then it's the procedures, and the organization that designed them, that failed. The shuttle's design, and procedures, can likely be tweaked to make it safe to fly. The question is - is NASA and its contractors up to that task? And is it cheaper to throw the old vehicle out and design a new one? And can Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic accomplish the same goal with less money? SS1 and the Space Shuttle are an Apples-to-Oranges comparison. We have to wait and see what both organizations come up with in 5 years.
While there *is* genius in the Rutan design, you have to see that as an owner of a company, he HAS to hype it's fiscal performance to the press, to prop up stock prices. It's going to be years before Scaled Composites space ventures will be profitable. Maybe even decades. He's not technically lying, of course, but he's "spinning" things in a dishonest way. He has to do that. As an engineer, he has to design planes and spacecraft. As a CEO, he has to "sell" his company to investors. That requires hype, spin, and sometimes lies. (I'm not of the opinion that he has crossed that line yet).
I'm very interested to see what kind of budget ends up going into SS3, and what the vehicle's end capabilities are. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to be the same cost-differential we're seeing on the suborbital flights.
But he's never going to get there without capital. It's an ugly business, blowing sunshine up people's asses to get them to invest their money. But so is taxation.
Think of the sunshine NASA blew up everyone's asses in the 1970's about moon bases and flying cars, to get congress to buy into funding that public investment (post-Apollo stuff, the Shuttle, the ISS, etc). That was because the prior motivation; beating the Russians, was no longer credible, because we had, indeed, beat them. Justifying further investment was a tough job after that. I'd say NASA failed at that sales job, and that's a good part of the reason why we're where we are today.
If Burt Rutan can tell a better story to the folks holding the purse strings (whether it's Richard Branson, the DoD, or congress, or even the Chinese), then maybe some forward progress will happen.
Lots of stuff WILL be thrown up in the air if someone connects a USB wireless adapter.
:) (that was a joke - but it's true).
A big part of security is PHYSICAL security. Physical access to these systems is strictly controlled. In the classified areas I've worked in, you're not even allowed to bring in a cell phone. So it's not likely anyone would be allowed to bring such a device as a USB wireless adapter.
There is a problem posed by USB thumbdrives. They're so damn small, it's almost impossible to prevent someone smuggling one in. So it really depends on your specific customer's needs. There are regulations, and then there's what the guy who's writing the checks wants. There's an art to finding a happy medium. (The kind of "art" that makes you want to cut your ear off and give it to your girlfriend.)
This risk can be mitigated by simply running your system on NT 4.0. You plug a USB thumbdrive into an NT 4.0 system, and it freezes solid.
For other OS-es, you'll simply have to figure out how to cripple USB functionality. Either by removing the drivers from the OS, controlling permissions, or physical modification of the USB port (ie. epoxy the damn thing shut).
www.disa.mil
Read it and weep.
There is no comperable Data Protection law in the US. If you are going to increase the amount of CCTV you use then perhaps you need also to consider legislation that will protect your privacy?
Most Republicans (the party that is currently in power) in this country, do not interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy.
Despite the 4th and 5th Amendments. Sad fact but true.
With the current regime in power, it is extremely unlikely that legislation protecting the privacy of US citizens will be drafted, let alone allowed into committee for discussion, let alone allowed to be brought to a vote, let alone passed, let alone signed, let alone survive Supreme Court oversight.
The American Taliban (religious conservatives) do not want a right to privacy, because then they would not be able to impose their medieval moral codes onto our private sexual behavior. The religious wingnuts who worship Mammon (ie. the Anarcho-Capitalists) do not want people to have a right to privacy, because then Corporations would not be able to impose their advertisement, or regulate their Intellectual Property. Jesus was wrong. You *can* server two masters. You won't love one and hate the other though. You'll hate both.
Merck got nailed because they were too cheap to slap a warning label on their pills. They knew they were dangerous. But didn't want to put on a warning label.
If Cortex puts a warning label on their bottle, and does proper due dilligence with their studies and tests, they have nothing to worry about.
Bullshit.
Truckers go to jail when they run people over, and the entire trucking industry hasn't collapsed.
. .. or the Chinese businessman can come to America in 1.5 hours, with enough time for the American former IT worker to shine his shoes in the Airport lounge, prior to the Chinese businessman attending his meeting to sell more outsourcing services.
So you're saying that the people who can afford to pay $8 for aspirin are funding aspirin for those who can't afford it.
And this is different from single-payer national healthcare how?
Personally, screw damage awards.
They should just put the murderous fuckers in jail.
They murdered that woman's husband.
The fuckers should be in jail.
Maybe only 17% of Americans were "very concerned" about the Jackson incident.
But the FCC received tens of millions of emails from a coordinated astroturf campaign by Focus on the Family and other affilliated conservative groups.
This astroturf campaign dominated the newsmedia, and influenced FCC policy.
That 17% is very organized, connected, vocal, and well-funded. For their impact on policy in the US, they are effectively a majority.
Personally, if my 5 year old saw Janet Jacksons' nipple during a pro football game, shame on me for letting my 5 year old watch grown testosterone addicts pound eachother senseless into the turf. Nipples? My kids' seen nipples. He was breast fed. But I'm just an immoral member of the 83% Liberal Minority in the US.
Umm, exactly what are you talking about. Raping boys in front of parents in Abu Ghraib?
I'm talking about the second set of photos and videos that the Pentagon will not release. In violation of a Judge's orders, they refuse to release these photos.
If photos and videos are what it takes before people like you understand what's really going on, and believe the truth, then I say we need to release the photos.
The rest of us, don't need to see them - they've been described in the press, and we believe. We've been lied to by these people before, and they're not even denying it anymore. They're just covering it up now. And hoping that flag waving morons like you don't catch on.
Do you even realize the extent of torture and rape and executions that occured in Saddams Regime? Hell even 100 raped, tortured, and killed little boys in front of their parents is a damn major improvement over the previous mass killings/tortures/rapes/etc.
So you're saying that even if the US did it, it's okay, because it's being done less now?
You sick fuck.
This is war asshole, bamboo reeds under fingernails isn't even out of the equation if needed to get INFORMATION out of these bastards to help PROTECT your sorry ass.
Torture does not work to extract useful information. Ask ANY professional interrogator. A tortured prisoner will lie to get the torturer to stop. Torture serves only one real function: To terrorize the enemy.
Unfortunately, it causes the enemy to fear capture so much, that they are willing to die fighting to avoid capture. And it lowers the bar on ethical treatment of our own soldiers when captured.
To torture for the sheer fun of it is twisted, to get information to save lives is what it is all about. Saving *your* life. Try and register that in your brain.
Use whatever excuse makes you feel better. Kid yourself that it's being done to save lives. The fact is, it's being done as a psy op. Try and register that in your brain.
You can't defend freedom by destroying freedom.
New's flash women's rights aren't too important in most of the world.
They're important to women.
Trying to force too many changes at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid and would just better ensure failure.
Ah, so we should put Saddam back in power then? Because forcing too much freedom on them at once to meet some idealistic American view is stupid? I'm so glad 1800 American soldiers died to make sure that Iraqi women who used to have jobs, now will no longer be permitted to leave their houses, and will be beaten for not wearing a burkha.
Yes. This is happening. You won't hear about it on Fox News.
I can buy the argument that we don't want to force too many changes too fast - but the fact is, the womens' rights situation in Iraq is moving backwards. They had more rights under Saddam. They will have less rights under the new regime. New rights aren't being forced on them - only the rights to oppress others, and we forced it on them with bombs and guns.
oh, yeah but that's what you people want. You want this to fail
If that's what you need to tell yourself to ease your troubled conscience at backing this immoral "war" then I guess that's what you have to do. But going through life willfully ignorant of facts and reality is going to lead you to disaster. I wouldn't otherwise care, but you're taking the rest of the nation with you. 51% of us may have wanted that at one point, but enough of us have now seen the truth - Bush's approval rating is at 36%. The 15% who've changed their minds certainly wanted this war to succeed at one point, did they change their minds because they want it to fail? Or do they now see that we're going to fail because it's all been a lie, and it's being run by incompetent, arrogant fools?
I didn't want this war to happen in the first place. I was content with going into Afghanistan and bringing the 9/11 perpetrato
Bah.
Let me know when my toilet is hooked up to the Internet, and I can take a crap anywhere I have a wireless connection.
And some time I'd like you to ask the Iraqi women who were captive in Saddam's Rape Rooms,
.never mind the Iraqi boys who are raped in front of their parents by contractors at Abu Ghraib.
. .
Ask the writers of the new Iraqi constitution about what their plans are for women's rights. Or rights for Christians. Or rights for Sufis, or other non-Shia muslims. Those groups all had more rights under Saddam's regime than than under any Islamic republic.
and the people that were electrocuted, dipped in acid baths, and tortured for years how much they hate G.W. Bush.
Or the people "rendered" to other countries where torture is legal.
WMD mean nothing, we know he gassed the Kurds that was WMD, maybe they should just live in fear for the rest of their lives or until he gassed them again.
Maybe I'd believe the Bush 43 Administrations' outrage over Saddam's gassing of the Kurds if fellows like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, John Poindexter, Paul Wolfowitz, while in Ronald Reagan's and Bush 41's Administration, they had said something about Saddam's Kurd-gassing ways. They never said a damn word. They sold him satellite photos, gave him aid and support, and shook his hand. The individuals in the White House today have ZERO credibility when it comes to criticizing 3rd world dictators who oppress their people. Between the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the Contras, Marcos, Al Qaeda, and dozens of others these people have aided supported for over 30 years, aided and supported in their torture, oppression, abridgement of rights, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they've suddenly changed their ways, and now are champions of freedom and human rights. Maybe if they did more to expose drug and arms dealing, money laundering anonymous bank accounts in the Caymans, and the Bahamas, which would have exposed how the Saudi Royal Family finances terrorisim, I might be convinced. Maybe if they fought for more liberal elemants of the Iraqi political landscape to win in the election, instead of illegally funnelling reconstruction funds to help Ahmed Chalabi and Shiite Religious Fanatics to win, thus putting Iraq on a path to become the next Iran, maybe I'd give them a chance.
But this criminal gang is not working to make Iraq more free. They are the enemies of freedom, the enemies of human rights, the enemies of liberty. Their goal is endless, profitable, conflict, strife, and war.
Please keep that in mind before you start bitching about us Christians being anti-science.
I reserve such opinions for debate on "Intelligent Design".
I understand that most of the embryo's are leftover from fertility treatments and would otherwise be discarded. What moral qualms could be had for experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?
I understand that most concentration camp prisoners are people who would otherwise be gassed and consumed in an oven. What moral qualms could be had for Dr. Mengele experimenting on something that would otherwise go in the trash?
(didn't vote for Bush, don't agree with his stem cell research funding policy, etc. yada yada - would like to see more attention paid to the bioethical debate behind this issue in the newsmedia, because issues bout the definition of human life are so mushy and conflated nowadays, that nothing results from policy discussions but inflammatory political rhetoric used to manipulate public opinion. This is the real immoral crime, here, that the discussion has become so politically charged that the result is endless debate, fearmongering, and divisive hatred - rather than technological advancement for a better future for us all.)
I have heard from several people that have had an MRI that (a) it is almost impossible to get scheduled in any reasonable timeframe for one and (b) they are 'incredibly expensive'
Depends on your health insurance.
My insurance took 6 months before they finally got around to approving an MRI for my back problem. They were all too happy to approve about $2000 worth of drugs and physical therapy, all of which turned out to be useless for my problem. They approved this therapy to defer the inevitable MRI - which determined that surgery is probably the only effective course moving forward.
So, in order to defer the $1500 MRI, my insurance company paid for $2000 of ineffective treatment, AND put me through 6 months of excruciating pain, not to mention all the work I missed out on, and the fact that during that time, I was unreliable to my boss, and to my kids, and everyone else, I missed out on all the activities of life that I otherwise could have done after recovery.
I'm not sure that government-run healthcare would be any different, but the people who are saying that THIS system is the best in the world, are idiots. Personally, I think that maybe health insurance, itself, insulates products and services from price-pressures of the market, and have unduly inflated prices. If everybody paid for healthcare out of pocket, maybe costs would be different, and doctors and patients can pursue treatment courses that make sense. But obviously, we'd have maybe 10 million people in this country who would even be able to afford health care, the rest would go without. A Libertarian Paradise.
One thing's for sure. If I were elected emporer, I would immediately round up all Insurance Company accountants, and have them ground into sausage meat.
ince the $6 billion launch pad at Vandenburgh was abandoned after Challenger,
IIRC, the Vandenberg Shuttle launch didn't happen because Thiokol said they'd have new SRB's that could loft the shuttle to higher inclination orbits, and they failed to deliver the new SRBs.
His book was required reading for all US soldiers, at least back in the 1980's.