IMHO, this is incredibly flimsy "evidence." Actually it's just speculation.
As for inspectors, they were in country for quite some time before the invasion - Much more than two weeks.
If you're right, then much of what we went to war over was completely wrong. In fact, the war resulted in the transfer of WMD into the hands of different parties.
Not only that, but given the implication that the US knew EXACTLY where the WMD was, and evey move it made - the scorning of Blixt and the inspectors as wimpy ill informed and ill skilled - and that the US could walk in and in ten minutes find the WMD must have been a lie.
Either they're are lieing now to cover up its movement and the loss of control over WMD, or they were lieing before when they dramatically overstated their knowledge of location and actual possession of WMD.
How about some links to said Israei intelligence reports. (Never mind that Israel has a serious vested interest in seeing Syria under millitary siege - thus more than adequate reason to lie.)
If Saddam made a deal with Syria, how come he didn't run to Syria? One would be hard pressed to force Syria to give him up - millitary pressure or no. (Given our allowing dictators to run - such as the Shaw of Iran etc, one would fail to see how we could have any leverage with the world.)
Frankly, I don't think Iraq did have any viable quantities of WMD before the war. The inspectors tended to back up those conclustions, though they also found the co-operation less than stellar.
You can't exactly smuggle antrax in a bunch of oil barrels either. Any transfer would likely result in massive contamination of the area of the transfer and result in detection.
A much more plausable theory is that no significant WMD existed. The WMD we all heard about was a threat from Saddam to his neighbors - not that he really had any, but that he wanted people to think he did. Without WMD, Iraq was much more vulnerable to attack from it's neighbors - namely Iran.
Sure, it was a bad gamble, but lose at the American's hands, or loose face, honor and perhaps your life from your enemies. Neither was a great option.
If I were Saddam, frankly, I'd be pissed at the US. He was nothing more than a water-boy for us. He attacked Iran and was supported by us. April Glasspie (sp) told him that his dispute with Kuait was in internal Arab affair and we didn't have an opinion in how he solved it. He invaded, after checking with us and getting what he considered was an "OK" and then we come kick his ass.
I think he deserved it, but it wasn't for lack of checking with us first.
We provided him with some of his WMD technology and stocks. We gave intel for his WMD attacks on Iran and blocked any serious criticism of Iraq for it.
How we can now trumpet how awful Saddam was, as though this was some new and shocking fact - well, it's a downright lie. We knew and we didn't care. We largely created the problems we have there.
Perhaps with 30, 40, or 50 years of honest dealings the region will learn to trust us again, but I wouldn't before then if I were Iranian or Iraqi.
If we had such great intel we could tell exactly which bunker they (the WMD) were in, then how exactly did they smuggle them into Syria without us knowing.
Can you point to a SINGLE definitive statement that the administration has make to back this accusation?
Goodness. Kind of hard to smuggle tens of thousands of liters of WMD without being noticed.
Oh, so international law doesn't apply to Iran and North Korea either?
So, go ahead Iran, and North Korea - make as many Nukes as you want and share with who you will?
Sheesh.
We live with the rest of the world. We'd better get used to finding multi-lateral ways to agree on things. We may be the bully currently, but that won't continue forever. When it ends and we've spent years and years doing only what's right for us, and ignoring the rest of the world, there's going to be a line around the block to stick the knife in.
We *need* the rest of the world.
Treason: A betrayal of trust or confidence.
That trust is to the people of the Republic. Our Rebublic. And doing what's best for the world will in the end be what is best for the US. Short-sighted and dishonest brokering will eventually be not in the interest of the republic - and in the end will be the treasonous behavior.
Set this in context of what was accused......by the president in his State of the Union message. Anyone who listened to that speech would now reasonably expect our forces to be finding "25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin, "500 tons" of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and "29,984" munitions capable of delivering chemical agents -- along with a hidden nuclear weapons industry.
If these were "realistic" estimates of what Saddam had, and they were being honest about it, it's certainly not the kind of thing one smuggles out of the country under your shirt or hidden in your trousers. It's not the quantity that can be easily and quickly destroyed, especially without notice.
So, was the imagery intentially deceptive? Was it intended to simply have shock value?
If these weapons DID exist, which, given the other statements and the credibility of the administrations, I don't believe they did - again, if they did, where are they now?
We'd better hope either that there were NONE, of that if there were, that we find them. Because if there were and we don't, then the only answer is "we don't know who has them."
Since the war was basically conducted to prevent the transfer of WMD to "bad-guys" or terrorists, then the very objective we used to promote the war was the outcome of it.
Frankly, IMHO, the President gave the whole world a bill of goods that was a total crock. The was was not justifiable on the WMD grounds. What might be a reasonable justification was the brutal dictator himself.
Yet to play that card, one would have to account for the US's part in arming and looking the other way when he did the dirty work for us. (Like attacking Iran and using WMD, which we provided intelligence data to make it more effective.) We forget how the US encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then let them get cut down like wheat.
No, going to war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds wouldn't sell, certainly not for the hawks in this administration. And if we go to war on humanitarian grounds, then why was Bush so opposed to our involvement in Bosnia and the other conflicts around Serbia?
Oh, BTW, the assertion that the WMD could be in Syria doesn't fly. If the sat intelligence as Powell showed it, could supposedly pinpoint the presence of WMD so cleanly and clearly, then sending it to Syria wouldn't work either.
Huh, he *did* run for president? Right? If I'm not mistaken, he is or was recently the party chairman for the Republican Party in St. Tammany's Parish, Louisiana.
In 1990, he won the Republican nomination for US *Senate*, but lost in the general election.
Is that close enough for ya?!
(Talk about whack jobs. Skinheads got nothin' on Duke.)
From the parent-parent-parent-parent...and so on...
(quote) "Can you actually name one of these "enlighted progressives" and give an example?" Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Barbara Streisand, Bill Mahr (sp?) are a few names that come to mind pretty quick... (quote)
I wasn't trying to equate skinheads and republicans. (Though the "southern strategy" of Nixon was pretty clear in its intent.)
The parent way up there was trying to equate Sharpton and others who simply don't hold any of his views.
I was contrasting that by saying how unfair it would be to compare skinheads with mainstream Republicans.
(quote) Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton - progressives?
How about I claim some racist whackjob from Idaho is a compasionate conservative... sheesh!
If you ever watched Sesame Street, and saw - one of these isn't like the others... Well, you get the idea... (quote)
If you actually read the parent posts, you wouldn't be excoriating me for something I never did.
Dang, did they teach you to read where you come from?
I'm no fan of current republicans, do doubt, but I don't use staw-man arguments. I'll come right out and start with the President - no need to pick on skin-heads. (Plus, it's not fair to the skin-heads.)
The same kookpots - like Buchannon (sp) run for president too.
Sharpton and to a lesser degree Jackson are just as whacky, but no less so, than many of the fringe on the right.
The point made by the parent somewhere up there hasn't been supported either. His inclusion of Sharpton was a straw man argument. Sharpton isn't at all like the others. One would even be hard pressed to say that Jackson and Shapton are alike. They clearly are different in their base.
What is a bit different, is that the democratic party seems to be a bit more inclusive (than the Republicans) in allowing people with simply way-out-there ideas to participate in the process.
Idaho is closer to home and I'm more aware of them...I'm sure there are racists everywhere. However, the racist skin heads of Idaho are well known in these parts.
Like all that success we had in (insert virtually any South American country here...)?
Being a big bully is *great* - so long as you can always be the winner. (I don't actually believe this, but it *seems* that way at the time.)
What you need to remember, is that someday that bully isn't able to force everyone into submission. When that happens, there a line around the block to stick the knife in and twist it.
It's in our own best interest to act honestly and humble ourselves. Someday, we'll have to pay back, and if we've been jerks - I can tell you - paybacks are a bitch.
I'm not sure what Bush is - a talking monkey - who knows.
I'm a strongly religeious protestant, socially liberal, and find Bush's policies simply deluded.
I'd have voted for McCain, and I'll probably vote for Dean.
What I won't do, is vote for a dishonest chameleon who will sell me down the river for a piece of bubble-gum to the largest commercial interest. (And BTW, I didn't vote for Clinton - either time. But I'd generally prefer his *policies* to those of GWB - even though he did belong to the chameleon class.)
When the Republicans figure out they need to dump the crazy ass religeous right (Reid et al.) and really embrace the "personal freedoms" they espouse and actually get serious about smaller government (think less corporate welfare) then I'll vote Republican. Till then, I pick the least evil of the candidates I can. Dean and McCain before him fits that bill, not GWB.
Not that any judge actually listens to any of the "evidence." They nearly always just decide the police officer was "more believeable" than the defendant and rule accordingly. (Just a coincidence that the financial outcome benefits the court and related government entity.)
One friend of mine requested via discovery the model, make and maintainance records for the radar equipment. The judge claimed they weren't obligated to reveal any of that information.
I'm sure on appeal, the appeal court would remand the case - but the cost to appeal is ~$300 - regardless of outcome. Then you'd just get to spend $300 to "try again." The judge would be smarter this time and find some other more legal way to rule against the defendant.
I don't think I've ever seen a single case where the court actually takes into account the real case. Unless the defendant has video tape of the cops extorting cash, you're not likely to get anywhere. (You're probably not likely to do much with even that, if you're minority or poor...)
Second hand smoke kills a whole lot of people every year. (More than *all* auto fatalities according to at least according to one study...)
--- In fact, one study states that 53,000 Americans lose their lives each year as a result of exposure to second hand smoke. This makes second-hand smoke the third leading cause of preventable death. Only direct tobacco use and alcohol-related deaths account for more preventable deaths in the U.S. (Glantz and Parmley, 1995). --- Ref: http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/uicaa-busguide-ets_ impact.html
See this too: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the United States due to passive smoking, Kawachi points out. "Only a few cases of lung cancer occur among non-smokers," he says.
"So if passive smoking causes heart disease, as our study suggests, then something like 10 to 20 times that number of deaths could occur from heart attack and passive smoking." That would translate into between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths annually in the United States, he calculates. "Because heart disease is much more common [than lung cancer], even a small exposure to a relative risk can give rise to many more cases," he says.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/29486.htm
So, focusing on speeders for reducing the number of deaths is crazy.
Even if EVERY SINGLE traffic fatality was CAUSED DIRECTLY by speeders, it's not likely it would out number the deaths from SHS.
(Hint, many, many traffic fatalities every year are Alcohol related. IIRC, something like 80% of all fatalities are related to alcohol or other substance abuse.)
Clearly, speeding isn't much of a factor in traffic deaths - bad driving is.
If you want the best bang for your buck, focus on banning tobacco. You'll save a whole lot more lives...
Go to the US DOT. You'll find that speed limits do NOT limit speed. In fact, speeds are supposed to be set, according to federal statute and its implimentation at the 85% level of free flowing traffic.
Drivers drive what they consider to be a reasonable speed, regardless of the posted limit.
Frankly, I think in general, speed enforement should simply cease, and reckless driving ought to start. It's not speed that causes accidents per se, it's bad driving.
Speed limit enforcement is generally a great revenue source, IMHO. That's why they're working to move more and more of it to automated systems like photo radar and such. Generates lots of revenue, but doesn't slow traffic much if at all.
Since states are in dire straights with cash, I've seen speed enforcement and other bogus "infraction" revenue generation up - at least by my anecdotal evidence.
Point taken - still - when one has to write thoughts out long hand, one can understand the shortcuts taken in clairity - even if not really defensible.
Trying to "guess" your enemy might be slightly productive, but often is taken way too far. In short, I can't think of who my enemies might be - thus I must not have any, and don't have to worry about security.
Can you figure out when and why you'll be a vicim of valdalism? Nope. Security's much the same game. The real focus should be - what's the potential damage and it's associated costs. These issues will guide you in knowing how to secure, how much to spend and related issues.
(I know, I'm preaching to the choir, but anyway...)
Clearly we knew Iraq was using WMD on Iran and did nothing to prevent it. In numerous cases, it seems clear we assisted in their application - by supplying intelligence data to improve their effectiveness. (Even when used on the *Iraqi* Kurd civilians at the end of the war, our response was pretty tepid. 'Oh, you bad boy Saddam. *giggle* You really shouldn't do that.')
Outrageous? Sure!
Hard to believe isn't it.
Ever wonder why we hated Iran so much - that we allowed Saddam to do such things?
Oh, it was that Embassay hostages thing huh? Oh, why was that anyway?
Ever hear about the Shaw of Iran? A despot nearly as despicable as Saddam. We overthrew a democratically elected gvmt in Iran and put the Shaw in power - and kept him there while he abused his people.
When they'd had enough, they kicked him out, and spat in the face of their "real" oppressor - the US.
Iran was a problem of our own making. Saddam - being the enemy of our enemy became another huge mess of our own making.
Perhaps Saddam ought to stand trial for crimes against humanity. So should R Regan, Bush (1&2) and even perhaps Clinton. (We got a breath of fresh air in Jimmy Carter - even though many felt he was an less than impressive president. He at least stood on principle even if it hurt him.)
Again, we may not be the executioner - but at minimum we're accessory to murder.
So, the Taliban was an example of people who made the best laws?
Mix religeon and politics, and you've got a mess.
Doesn't matter if it's protestants, chatholics or muslims.
What you want, is a *society* (a group of indiciduals) that's moral. You can't get that my laws. That's a self imposed/regulated group, and doesn't come from external application.
Moral society comes from those who have a relationship with God - regardless of law. A moral society can't be created with external forces - period. Morality is an individual choice that comes from the application of free will in a positive direction - laws will NEVER create a moral society.
I'm probably more conservative (in moral terms) and more religeous than 99.5% of the population, but I find the mixing of politics and laws with religeon terribly threatening.
And allowed to kill Iranians with poison gas?(with sat data no less)
Is this the same guy that killed all the kurds and sheites (sp) that we told to rise up and overthrow Saddam - the ones we promptly left to suffer murder and torture at Saddams hands?
Is this the same guy we sent biological weapons stocks to?
Could it be the same guy that was told by April Gillaspie (the US ambassador to Iraq) that we didn't have an opinion on their disagreement with Kwuait - it was an arab affair? Then Saddam invades?
Sure, Saddam was the Executioner. We just loaded his gun for him and looked the other way when the blood ran.
Sheesh - and this is supposed to make us look good?
Ashcroft is no Hitler. But he's quickly stripping away the very rights our independence minded fore-fathers risked death to win.
IMHO, Washington, Jefferson and the others who risked their very lives in signing that document in 1776 would be more than willing to agrue the point that Ashcoft has committed treason.
Unlimited detention with no juducial review - simply at the whim of the leader of the country - that was one of the situations in England that they found so repugnant! (How short our memory! One would think we of all people wouldn't forget these things.)
They are definitions of the lowest acceptable form of behavior that can be allowed and still have a functioning society. (In essence.)
We don't outlaw murder because of a moral choice, but simply because society can't function when people murder with impunity.
Same with theft etc.
(Now granted, a whole lot of morality has been legislated, but that isn't the true purpose of the law.)
In any case, do we think it's moral to do everything up to murder, but not quite murder? (As long as other laws that keep the fabric of society from coming apart.)
So, clearly we think a truly moral society will do much better than *not* murder, *not* steal etc.
So, IMNSHO, we don't legislate morality - we simply define the loosest set of rules that will still maintain a functioning society.
The parent poster somewhere up there was right - once we start legislating morality - who's morality do we pick.
Lets say I'm a gay pedophile who believes its my religeous duty to molest young virgin boys to please god? So, I can legislate this? It's moral! (At least to the fictional person above.)
Since we've lost sight of the fabric of society thing - I think many lawsmakers have gone crazy and think it makes sense to legislate morality.
(What I think makes many of us so mad about Repubs is their grand-standing on how gvmt should get out of people's lives. That is, until someone allows choice in abortion and reproductive health, or to allow terminally ill patients a choice to end their lives. It's a blatant lie - they only feel it's right to get government out of the rich people (and corp interests) check-books - an idea I might agree with - or not, depending. But they don't believe in less intrusive gvmt - just their small version of less intrusive gvmt.
When it is against their morality, they're more than willing to have gvmt smack you down for their moral namesake.
It's configuration of spamassassin isn't very good IMHO.
Quite a bit of spam still gets through.
I've seen much better implimentations of spamassassin elsewhere. And no, they're not just one off site specific implimentations.
I'm sorry if I've dissed Julian - I'm not sure who's responsible for the technical setup.
Spamcop used to be incredible. The last couple of years hasn't been so hot.
Frankly, I'd recommend other filtering options. (Like getting your webhosting/email from totalchoicehosting.com and using their implimentation of spamassassin.)
If you're forced into filtering a single account, than using a local copy of spamassassin is probably better, but spamcop is easier.
I dunno, there's no great answer out there.
But trying to stop reading spam will always have loopholes. What would be more effective is the elimination of the spammers themselves.
Anti-Spam enforcement ought to go after the *beneficiaries* of spam. They (the beneficiariesof spam campaigns) have to bank somewhere, and it's likely at a bank we (the US) have access to. Go after the profits, and the demand for spam will drop. (This will easily target 99.9% of direct product spam, but will be harder to use against "mindshare" spam.)
Sure, there's some problems in determining who is really responsible, as someone could troll spam "for" your business just to get you in trouble - but I suspect it would be fairly trivial to know when it happened. (One could also require/allow discovery in court to determine if any funds were transferred between the spammer and the beneficiary - so I think that's doable.)
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, this is incredibly flimsy "evidence." Actually it's just speculation.
As for inspectors, they were in country for quite some time before the invasion - Much more than two weeks.
If you're right, then much of what we went to war over was completely wrong. In fact, the war resulted in the transfer of WMD into the hands of different parties.
Not only that, but given the implication that the US knew EXACTLY where the WMD was, and evey move it made - the scorning of Blixt and the inspectors as wimpy ill informed and ill skilled - and that the US could walk in and in ten minutes find the WMD must have been a lie.
Either they're are lieing now to cover up its movement and the loss of control over WMD, or they were lieing before when they dramatically overstated their knowledge of location and actual possession of WMD.
How about some links to said Israei intelligence reports. (Never mind that Israel has a serious vested interest in seeing Syria under millitary siege - thus more than adequate reason to lie.)
If Saddam made a deal with Syria, how come he didn't run to Syria? One would be hard pressed to force Syria to give him up - millitary pressure or no. (Given our allowing dictators to run - such as the Shaw of Iran etc, one would fail to see how we could have any leverage with the world.)
Frankly, I don't think Iraq did have any viable quantities of WMD before the war. The inspectors tended to back up those conclustions, though they also found the co-operation less than stellar.
You can't exactly smuggle antrax in a bunch of oil barrels either. Any transfer would likely result in massive contamination of the area of the transfer and result in detection.
A much more plausable theory is that no significant WMD existed. The WMD we all heard about was a threat from Saddam to his neighbors - not that he really had any, but that he wanted people to think he did. Without WMD, Iraq was much more vulnerable to attack from it's neighbors - namely Iran.
Sure, it was a bad gamble, but lose at the American's hands, or loose face, honor and perhaps your life from your enemies. Neither was a great option.
If I were Saddam, frankly, I'd be pissed at the US. He was nothing more than a water-boy for us. He attacked Iran and was supported by us. April Glasspie (sp) told him that his dispute with Kuait was in internal Arab affair and we didn't have an opinion in how he solved it. He invaded, after checking with us and getting what he considered was an "OK" and then we come kick his ass.
I think he deserved it, but it wasn't for lack of checking with us first.
We provided him with some of his WMD technology and stocks. We gave intel for his WMD attacks on Iran and blocked any serious criticism of Iraq for it.
How we can now trumpet how awful Saddam was, as though this was some new and shocking fact - well, it's a downright lie. We knew and we didn't care. We largely created the problems we have there.
Perhaps with 30, 40, or 50 years of honest dealings the region will learn to trust us again, but I wouldn't before then if I were Iranian or Iraqi.
Cheers,
Greg
Clear understanding by whom?
If we had such great intel we could tell exactly which bunker they (the WMD) were in, then how exactly did they smuggle them into Syria without us knowing.
Can you point to a SINGLE definitive statement that the administration has make to back this accusation?
Goodness. Kind of hard to smuggle tens of thousands of liters of WMD without being noticed.
Cheers,
Greg
Oh, so international law doesn't apply to Iran and North Korea either?
So, go ahead Iran, and North Korea - make as many Nukes as you want and share with who you will?
Sheesh.
We live with the rest of the world. We'd better get used to finding multi-lateral ways to agree on things. We may be the bully currently, but that won't continue forever. When it ends and we've spent years and years doing only what's right for us, and ignoring the rest of the world, there's going to be a line around the block to stick the knife in.
We *need* the rest of the world.
Treason: A betrayal of trust or confidence.
That trust is to the people of the Republic. Our Rebublic. And doing what's best for the world will in the end be what is best for the US. Short-sighted and dishonest brokering will eventually be not in the interest of the republic - and in the end will be the treasonous behavior.
Cheers,
Greg
Set this in context of what was accused... ...by the president in his State of the Union message. Anyone who listened to that speech would now reasonably expect our forces to be finding "25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin, "500 tons" of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent, and "29,984" munitions capable of delivering chemical agents -- along with a hidden nuclear weapons industry.
If these were "realistic" estimates of what Saddam had, and they were being honest about it, it's certainly not the kind of thing one smuggles out of the country under your shirt or hidden in your trousers. It's not the quantity that can be easily and quickly destroyed, especially without
notice.
So, was the imagery intentially deceptive? Was it intended to simply have shock value?
If these weapons DID exist, which, given the other statements and the credibility of the administrations, I don't believe they did - again, if they did, where are they now?
We'd better hope either that there were NONE, of that if there were, that we find them. Because if there were and we don't, then the only answer is "we don't know who has them."
Since the war was basically conducted to prevent the transfer of WMD to "bad-guys" or terrorists, then the very objective we used to promote the war was the outcome of it.
Frankly, IMHO, the President gave the whole world a bill of goods that was a total crock. The was was not justifiable on the WMD grounds. What might be a reasonable justification was the brutal dictator himself.
Yet to play that card, one would have to account for the US's part in arming and looking the other way when he did the dirty work for us. (Like attacking Iran and using WMD, which we provided intelligence data to make it more effective.) We forget how the US encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then let them get cut down like wheat.
No, going to war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds wouldn't sell, certainly not for the hawks in this administration. And if we go to war on humanitarian grounds, then why was Bush so opposed to our involvement in Bosnia and the other conflicts around Serbia?
Oh, BTW, the assertion that the WMD could be in Syria doesn't fly. If the sat intelligence as Powell showed it, could supposedly pinpoint the presence of WMD so cleanly and clearly, then sending it to Syria wouldn't work either.
Cheers,
Greg
How about David Duke?
http://www.duke.org/
Huh, he *did* run for president? Right?
If I'm not mistaken, he is or was recently the party chairman for the Republican Party in St. Tammany's Parish, Louisiana.
In 1990, he won the Republican nomination for US *Senate*, but lost in the general election.
Is that close enough for ya?!
(Talk about whack jobs. Skinheads got nothin' on Duke.)
Cheers,
Greg
From the parent-parent-parent-parent...and so on...
(quote)
"Can you actually name one of these "enlighted progressives" and give an example?"
Jesse Jackson, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Barbara Streisand, Bill Mahr (sp?) are a few names that come to mind pretty quick...
(quote)
I wasn't trying to equate skinheads and republicans. (Though the "southern strategy" of Nixon was pretty clear in its intent.)
The parent way up there was trying to equate Sharpton and others who simply don't hold any of his views.
I was contrasting that by saying how unfair it would be to compare skinheads with mainstream Republicans.
(quote)
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton - progressives?
How about I claim some racist whackjob from Idaho is a compasionate conservative... sheesh!
If you ever watched Sesame Street, and saw - one of these isn't like the others... Well, you get the idea...
(quote)
If you actually read the parent posts, you wouldn't be excoriating me for something I never did.
Dang, did they teach you to read where you come from?
I'm no fan of current republicans, do doubt, but I don't use staw-man arguments. I'll come right out and start with the President - no need to pick on skin-heads. (Plus, it's not fair to the skin-heads.)
Cheers,
Greg
The same kookpots - like Buchannon (sp) run for president too.
Sharpton and to a lesser degree Jackson are just as whacky, but no less so, than many of the fringe on the right.
The point made by the parent somewhere up there hasn't been supported either. His inclusion of Sharpton was a straw man argument. Sharpton isn't at all like the others. One would even be hard pressed to say that Jackson and Shapton are alike. They clearly are different in their base.
What is a bit different, is that the democratic party seems to be a bit more inclusive (than the Republicans) in allowing people with simply way-out-there ideas to participate in the process.
Cheers,
Greg
Just as "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton" are...
Exactly my point.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Greg
Idaho is closer to home and I'm more aware of them...I'm sure there are racists everywhere. However, the racist skin heads of Idaho are well known in these parts.
Thanks for the reminder tho...
Greg
Lets pick Al Franken - how about some examples.
(Streisand or BM fine too...)
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton - progressives?
How about I claim some racist whackjob from Idaho is a compasionate conservative... sheesh!
If you ever watched Sesame Street, and saw - one of these isn't like the others... Well, you get the idea...
Cheers,
Greg
He'd have carted them off to Gitmo, but couldn't find the paper-work to sign, and Dick was out golfing. *Damn*
They are unlawful compatants aren't they!? (I'll bet the CIA could dig up some WMD too, right?)
I'm with you - I'd vote for Buchannan before I'd vote for GWB. At least you know he's honest.
Cheers,
Greg
Can you actually name one of these "enlighted progressives" and give an example?
Straw man indeed.
Like all that success we're having in Iraq?
Like all that success we had in Iran?
Like all that success we had in (insert virtually any South American country here...)?
Being a big bully is *great* - so long as you can always be the winner. (I don't actually believe this, but it *seems* that way at the time.)
What you need to remember, is that someday that bully isn't able to force everyone into submission. When that happens, there a line around the block to stick the knife in and twist it.
It's in our own best interest to act honestly and humble ourselves. Someday, we'll have to pay back, and if we've been jerks - I can tell you - paybacks are a bitch.
I'm not sure what Bush is - a talking monkey - who knows.
I'm a strongly religeious protestant, socially liberal, and find Bush's policies simply deluded.
I'd have voted for McCain, and I'll probably vote for Dean.
What I won't do, is vote for a dishonest chameleon who will sell me down the river for a piece of bubble-gum to the largest commercial interest. (And BTW, I didn't vote for Clinton - either time. But I'd generally prefer his *policies* to those of GWB - even though he did belong to the chameleon class.)
When the Republicans figure out they need to dump the crazy ass religeous right (Reid et al.) and really embrace the "personal freedoms" they espouse and actually get serious about smaller government (think less corporate welfare) then I'll vote Republican. Till then, I pick the least evil of the candidates I can. Dean and McCain before him fits that bill, not GWB.
Cheers,
Greg
Not that any judge actually listens to any of the "evidence." They nearly always just decide the police officer was "more believeable" than the defendant and rule accordingly. (Just a coincidence that the financial outcome benefits the court and related government entity.)
One friend of mine requested via discovery the model, make and maintainance records for the radar equipment. The judge claimed they weren't obligated to reveal any of that information.
I'm sure on appeal, the appeal court would remand the case - but the cost to appeal is ~$300 - regardless of outcome. Then you'd just get to spend $300 to "try again." The judge would be smarter this time and find some other more legal way to rule against the defendant.
I don't think I've ever seen a single case where the court actually takes into account the real case. Unless the defendant has video tape of the cops extorting cash, you're not likely to get anywhere. (You're probably not likely to do much with even that, if you're minority or poor...)
Cheers,
Greg
Sheesh - how about attacking smoking.
_ impact.html
Second hand smoke kills a whole lot of people every year. (More than *all* auto fatalities according to at least according to one study...)
---
In fact, one study states that 53,000 Americans lose their lives each year as a result of exposure to second hand smoke. This makes second-hand smoke the third leading cause
of preventable death. Only direct tobacco use and alcohol-related deaths account for more
preventable deaths in the U.S. (Glantz and Parmley, 1995).
---
Ref: http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/uicaa-busguide-ets
See this too:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the United States due to passive smoking, Kawachi points out. "Only a few cases of lung cancer occur among non-smokers," he says.
"So if passive smoking causes heart disease, as our study suggests, then something like 10 to 20 times that number of deaths could occur from heart attack and passive smoking." That would translate into between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths annually in the United States, he calculates. "Because heart disease is much more common [than lung cancer], even a small exposure to a relative risk can give rise to many more cases," he says.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/29486.htm
So, focusing on speeders for reducing the number of deaths is crazy.
Even if EVERY SINGLE traffic fatality was CAUSED DIRECTLY by speeders, it's not likely it would out number the deaths from SHS.
(Hint, many, many traffic fatalities every year are Alcohol related. IIRC, something like 80% of all fatalities are related to alcohol or other substance abuse.)
Clearly, speeding isn't much of a factor in traffic deaths - bad driving is.
If you want the best bang for your buck, focus on banning tobacco. You'll save a whole lot more lives...
Cheers,
Greg
Go to the US DOT. You'll find that speed limits do NOT limit speed. In fact, speeds are supposed to be set, according to federal statute and its implimentation at the 85% level of free flowing traffic.
Drivers drive what they consider to be a reasonable speed, regardless of the posted limit.
Frankly, I think in general, speed enforement should simply cease, and reckless driving ought to start. It's not speed that causes accidents per se, it's bad driving.
Speed limit enforcement is generally a great revenue source, IMHO. That's why they're working to move more and more of it to automated systems like photo radar and such. Generates lots of revenue, but doesn't slow traffic much if at all.
Since states are in dire straights with cash, I've seen speed enforcement and other bogus "infraction" revenue generation up - at least by my anecdotal evidence.
Cheers,
Greg
You're a sick pedantic... LOL
Point taken - still - when one has to write thoughts out long hand, one can understand the shortcuts taken in clairity - even if not really defensible.
Cheers,
Greg
Trying to "guess" your enemy might be slightly productive, but often is taken way too far. In short, I can't think of who my enemies might be - thus I must not have any, and don't have to worry about security.
Can you figure out when and why you'll be a vicim of valdalism? Nope. Security's much the same game. The real focus should be - what's the potential damage and it's associated costs. These issues will guide you in knowing how to secure, how much to spend and related issues.
(I know, I'm preaching to the choir, but anyway...)
Cheers,
Greg
I'll donate a clue...
He wasn't drawing any causation at all.
He was simply compating the lunacy of the two.
DHS can't secure their own systems. But, to "secure" us, we need the USA Patriot Act.
Seems...No... It *IS* hypocritical. Start at home first. Once that's down pat, then look elsewhere.
I could rant for hours, and sometimes do about this whole subject, but I'll let it die there.
Cheers,
Greg
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239, 784313,00.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html
This is just the first couple I came up with.
Clearly we knew Iraq was using WMD on Iran and did nothing to prevent it. In numerous cases, it seems clear we assisted in their application - by supplying intelligence data to improve their effectiveness. (Even when used on the *Iraqi* Kurd civilians at the end of the war, our response was pretty tepid. 'Oh, you bad boy Saddam. *giggle* You really shouldn't do that.')
Outrageous? Sure!
Hard to believe isn't it.
Ever wonder why we hated Iran so much - that we allowed Saddam to do such things?
Oh, it was that Embassay hostages thing huh? Oh, why was that anyway?
Ever hear about the Shaw of Iran? A despot nearly as despicable as Saddam. We overthrew a democratically elected gvmt in Iran and put the Shaw in power - and kept him there while he abused his people.
When they'd had enough, they kicked him out, and spat in the face of their "real" oppressor - the US.
Iran was a problem of our own making. Saddam - being the enemy of our enemy became another huge mess of our own making.
Perhaps Saddam ought to stand trial for crimes against humanity. So should R Regan, Bush (1&2) and even perhaps Clinton. (We got a breath of fresh air in Jimmy Carter - even though many felt he was an less than impressive president. He at least stood on principle even if it hurt him.)
Again, we may not be the executioner - but at minimum we're accessory to murder.
Cheers,
Greg
So, the Taliban was an example of people who made the best laws?
Mix religeon and politics, and you've got a mess.
Doesn't matter if it's protestants, chatholics or muslims.
What you want, is a *society* (a group of indiciduals) that's moral. You can't get that my laws. That's a self imposed/regulated group, and doesn't come from external application.
Moral society comes from those who have a relationship with God - regardless of law. A moral society can't be created with external forces - period. Morality is an individual choice that comes from the application of free will in a positive direction - laws will NEVER create a moral society.
I'm probably more conservative (in moral terms) and more religeous than 99.5% of the population, but I find the mixing of politics and laws with religeon terribly threatening.
Cheers,
Greg
Would that be the guy that we (the US) armed?
And allowed to kill Iranians with poison gas?(with sat data no less)
Is this the same guy that killed all the kurds and sheites (sp) that we told to rise up and overthrow Saddam - the ones we promptly left to suffer murder and torture at Saddams hands?
Is this the same guy we sent biological weapons stocks to?
Could it be the same guy that was told by April Gillaspie (the US ambassador to Iraq) that we didn't have an opinion on their disagreement with Kwuait - it was an arab affair? Then Saddam invades?
Sure, Saddam was the Executioner. We just loaded his gun for him and looked the other way when the blood ran.
Sheesh - and this is supposed to make us look good?
Ashcroft is no Hitler. But he's quickly stripping away the very rights our independence minded fore-fathers risked death to win.
IMHO, Washington, Jefferson and the others who risked their very lives in signing that document in 1776 would be more than willing to agrue the point that Ashcoft has committed treason.
Unlimited detention with no juducial review - simply at the whim of the leader of the country - that was one of the situations in England that they found so repugnant! (How short our memory! One would think we of all people wouldn't forget these things.)
Cheers,
Greg
Laws are NOT expressions of "morality!"
They are definitions of the lowest acceptable form of behavior that can be allowed and still have a functioning society. (In essence.)
We don't outlaw murder because of a moral choice, but simply because society can't function when people murder with impunity.
Same with theft etc.
(Now granted, a whole lot of morality has been legislated, but that isn't the true purpose of the law.)
In any case, do we think it's moral to do everything up to murder, but not quite murder? (As long as other laws that keep the fabric of society from coming apart.)
So, clearly we think a truly moral society will do much better than *not* murder, *not* steal etc.
So, IMNSHO, we don't legislate morality - we simply define the loosest set of rules that will still maintain a functioning society.
The parent poster somewhere up there was right - once we start legislating morality - who's morality do we pick.
Lets say I'm a gay pedophile who believes its my religeous duty to molest young virgin boys to please god? So, I can legislate this? It's moral! (At least to the fictional person above.)
Since we've lost sight of the fabric of society thing - I think many lawsmakers have gone crazy and think it makes sense to legislate morality.
(What I think makes many of us so mad about Repubs is their grand-standing on how gvmt should get out of people's lives. That is, until someone allows choice in abortion and reproductive health, or to allow terminally ill patients a choice to end their lives. It's a blatant lie - they only feel it's right to get government out of the rich people (and corp interests) check-books - an idea I might agree with - or not, depending. But they don't believe in less intrusive gvmt - just their small version of less intrusive gvmt.
When it is against their morality, they're more than willing to have gvmt smack you down for their moral namesake.
Cheers,
Greg
Funny enough, I once got too much change, and I tried arguing with them that I got too much. They wouldn't take it back.
So I kept it. Boy was that a funny (odd) feeling.
Cheers,
Greg
Spamcop doesn't rock.
It's configuration of spamassassin isn't very good IMHO.
Quite a bit of spam still gets through.
I've seen much better implimentations of spamassassin elsewhere. And no, they're not just one off site specific implimentations.
I'm sorry if I've dissed Julian - I'm not sure who's responsible for the technical setup.
Spamcop used to be incredible. The last couple of years hasn't been so hot.
Frankly, I'd recommend other filtering options. (Like getting your webhosting/email from totalchoicehosting.com and using their implimentation of spamassassin.)
If you're forced into filtering a single account, than using a local copy of spamassassin is probably better, but spamcop is easier.
I dunno, there's no great answer out there.
But trying to stop reading spam will always have loopholes. What would be more effective is the elimination of the spammers themselves.
Anti-Spam enforcement ought to go after the *beneficiaries* of spam. They (the beneficiariesof spam campaigns) have to bank somewhere, and it's likely at a bank we (the US) have access to. Go after the profits, and the demand for spam will drop. (This will easily target 99.9% of direct product spam, but will be harder to use against "mindshare" spam.)
Sure, there's some problems in determining who is really responsible, as someone could troll spam "for" your business just to get you in trouble - but I suspect it would be fairly trivial to know when it happened. (One could also require/allow discovery in court to determine if any funds were transferred between the spammer and the beneficiary - so I think that's doable.)
Anyway...
Cheers