And it's not like it's some sort of inviolable sacred ground, is it? And they are CERTAINLY not entitled to any special consideration beyond that of any other citizen when it comes to 'exposure to pollutants, etc.'
No, I don't think they should plant the machinery right outside the door of classrooms, but to be legally able to slant-drill and access the minerals beneath any public property is just good common sense.
Hey, I enjoy 3rd party candidates as much as the next guy, and enjoy seeing them succeed.
However, the REASONABLE standard of requiring $50k in donations to prove you're a credible candidate makes sense.
This is NOT that "they refused me because I refused corporate donations". This is "I'm too small a candidate to be considered serious by their metric".
(I'd say if you polled 7%, you should be included somehow, but honestly, their standard is MORE fair than poll numbers; as you say, you and presumably other minor candidates weren't even included in some of the polling, so the cash-metric is much more universal.)
A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.
If you call "crushing" it constantly interrupting, patronizing laughing during Ryan's responses, and not ever shutting the hell up, indeed he's "crushing" it.
Hard to imagine Martha Raddatz (formerly of NPR) is considered a neutral moderator - didn't the Obamas attend her wedding?
It looks like it, since she interrupted Ryan over one measured span of time 6 times vs Biden's 2. In at least two instances, she used Obama's press tour talking points to interrupt him.
So clearly, Biden had a 'home field' advantage.
Comments from Politico:
Weekly Standardâ(TM)s Mark Hemingway: âoeJoe Bidenâ(TM)s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?â TIMEâ(TM)s Michael Scherer: âoeNot sure debate cameras have been light tested for Bidenâ(TM)s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.â Washington Examinerâ(TM)s Philip Klein: âoeBidenâ(TM)s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?â NBCâ(TM)s David Gregory: âoeBidenâ(TM)s smile is out of control.â BuzzFeedâ(TM)s Ben Smith: âoeSo did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???â ABCâ(TM)s Rick Klein: âoeBiden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.â Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: âoeJoe Biden needs to realize this isnâ(TM)t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.â Radio host Neal Boortz: âoeLooking like Bidenâ(TM)s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.â Townhall.comâ(TM)s Guy Benson: âoeWill Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?â MSNBCâ(TM)s S.E. Cupp: âoeBiden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.â Washington Postâ(TM)s Chris Cillizza: âoeOk. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.â PBSâ(TM) Jeff Greenfield: âoeBiden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.â Washington Examinerâ(TM)s Paul Bedard: âoeCanâ(TM)t tell yet if Bidenâ(TM)s smirking, laughs, eye-rolling, head shaking, works for him or not against the oh-so-young looking eager Ryan.â Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: âoeBiden is at risk of having his laugh come across like Goreâ(TM)s sighs. He should knock it off.â The New York Timesâ(TM) Ashley Parker: âoeBidenâ(TM)s grin is Chesire Cat caliber.â Republican strategist Ron Bonjean: âoeBiden laughing does not come off with the intended effect. It is actually hurting him. Looks very condescending.â Movie critic Roger Ebert: âoeJoe! Stop smiling and laughing!â Washington Timesâ(TM) Emily Miller: âoeBiden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.â Washington Postâ(TM)s Jennifer Rubin: âoeBidenâ(TM)s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxiousâ Comedy Centralâ(TM)s Indecision: âoeIf this keeps up much longer, Joe Bidenâ(TM)s going to sprain his laugh muscles.â
I saw an episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike worked at a fish farm.
It was a 'green' (brown?) part of the relatively-closed process that the last step in in the chain was Tilapia that ate the waste of all the other fish and then were sold for food.
Let's take health care as an example. Romney implements a plan in MA that is essentially Obamacare, and then campaigns against it as a presidential candidate! Mitt the Flipper right? Hilarity!
Well, except it's not. It just illustrates that the person doesn't understand some of the fundamental issues of government in the United States. (Europeans, you can check-out right here, because I find few enough AMERICANS that understand how their federal/state system works. Practically NONE of you guys bother to try to understand it.)
I can be in favor of gay marriage, yet be opposed to a federal gay marriage law. I can be tremendously in favor of a single-payer health program for my entire state, but argue vociferously against Obamacare as the stupidest program ever floated.
THIS ISN'T FLIP FLOPPING AND IS ENTIRELY INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT. How?
To wit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (USC, 10th Amendment).
If you are confused at this point, you simply don't understand it and shouldn't be voting anyway.
You're asserting, then that Pres Clinton, VP Gore, etc were all "being lied to" *before* Bush2 and Cheney were elected, and were merely guiltless dupes, yet Cheney (who was also a VP) wasn't LIKEWISE duped, but was instead the evil mastermind of this whole plan in order to increase the value of his holdings in Haliburton?
Seriously?
BTW the Left (as I assume you are) loves to use the term "War Criminal" as a synonym for "people I really don't like"...but in the real world, you don't get to do that. I can't call Al Gore a Martian, or Barack Obama a Pez Dispenser unless I have some actual proof of that fact. Lacking such, your assertion that Cheney is a "war criminal" just makes you look febrile.
".... to sum it up, I'm smarter and more motivated than my peers. Instead of anesthetizing myself on the couch with the mindless tripe you find on TV, I read books and study topics that are of interest to me. I actively seek out information about what is going on in the world, rather than having news/opinions (it's hard to separate the two, if you get such information from TV) spoon-fed to me....."
You sound like the sort of asshole that didn't get even the basic socialization you'd have gotten watching tv, ie, that even if you ARE smarter than your peers you'd realize that making such comments just make you hateable bully-bait.
I watched a TON of TV as a kid. I would cheerfully discuss any topic at a detailed level with your supposedly-superior intellect, be it the predictive value of Italian and Spanish bond markets in regards the Euro:Dollar exchange rate, Byzantine Christianity and the rise of Islam in the post-Mohammed century, or selection-bias in regards to planetary surveys and the implications for the Drake equations.
There's a HUGE issue of causal confusion going on here. If an idiot with little brain wants to watch lots of TV, the TV didn't ipso-facto *make* them stupid.
TV is a basic, legal, visually-delivered stimulus. Some of what it shows is fantastically interesting, but in a sense this just means its a stimulus market-segmented to appeal to more intellectual viewers. Other shows are better-targeted to stupid people.
Stop blaming THINGS for choices PEOPLE make. If people didn't have the TV to plant their kids in front of, they'd be ignoring them in other contexts.
Only on DailyKOS or slashdot would this be seen as "Insightful" and not flamebait/troll.
Apparently Dick Cheney has the Emperor-like ability to control the minds of his political opponents in different places in space AND TIME (since you'll notice many of these comments predate his arrival as the Liberal's favorite Shylock in 2000)?:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if neces
Unless you're a union guy with lots of money, or a movie star with lots of money, or a black athlete with lots of money - all groups that overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
This seems commonsensical not just for paleontology but anthropology as well.
IANAA (I am not an anthropologist) but I've never understood how someone finds a chunk of bone that's 1/8 of a intact jawbone, and from that intuits that this is an entirely new species of hominid? The breathtaking breadth of natural human variation is apparent to anyone in a large crowd; how is some minute morphological difference of a FRACTION of a piece of bone suggestive enough that it reaches beyond that variation into indicating speciation?
Or, my cynic gland suggests, is it that anthropologists are fallible humans like the rest of us, and it's much more exciting, rewarding, and fame-creating to identify a potential new species, particularly when there is very little evidence that might contradict your assertion?
It's symptomatic of our culture which is much more about "buying new" then "repairing old". This comes somewhat, I admit, out of economic reality: for most of our consumer goods it really is cheaper to replace than renew. But the approach holds through larger purchases as well - homes and cars, for example. Few people have the skills or interest to fix them up to 'like new' condition, when it's easier (especially now in terms of housing) to get a brand new one dirt-cheap. I live in a 100+ year old home, and it has its charms, certainly, but I'm well aware that (given my lack of construction skills/desire) it would have made more sense to just buy a new home instead. (Thank god my father in law is unbelievably skilled in construction, and that he loves his daughter apparently without limits.) To the point, though, this is the accommodation (if not a driver) of urban sprawl. I live in the Twin Cities and if you drive around the perimeter you STILL see waves of new home construction - where are all these people coming from? Is this just urban flight?
It's one of the reasons I try to patronizing Dunn Brothers coffee as much as I can; I don't know if it's corporate policy, but around here they've deliberately placed their stores in really old buildings and paid the (high) cost to refurbish and bring them up to code, instead of grabbing a slot in the shiny new strip mall a half-mile down the road. In Eden Prairie, they even saved an historical brick home that the local preservationists couldn't afford to maintain/hold, turning it into really a terrific coffeeshop.
You *still* have to have a financial plan. You cannot - I hope to god you cannot - fling a $1.6 billion mission into space without doing some sort of analysis as regards costs.
If putting that telescope in the sky would be "really awesome" but ultimately you've only got 'customers' for $600 million of the costs, then understand that it's a $1 billion cost, and may or may not be worth that.
Which is great, as long as the assessed costs to those researchers/institutions represent the cost to operate, plus a fair amortized launch cost.
And in order to lift those scopes to their viewing points, you've got to have a solid business plan that shows how these users will be committed enough to justify the investment.
When you're throwing around $billions, it's not a matter of "build it and hope they show up." (Well, at least I'd hope not.)
Whoever is funding your work is the ultimate person to whom you are responsible.
Would you tell your CEO "sorry, dude, I'm not going to show you my emails leading up to the meeting - you can see my final presentation and that's it" (and expect to keep your job)?
In that vein, if your work is paid for by taxpayer dollars, they are entitled to see every shred of it, even the ugly bits.
Correlation doesn't PROVE causation.......but it bloody well DOES suggest it, at least in the course of our daily lives.
The reason this phrase is so catchy is that it's counter-intuitive, and easily proven to be true. People love to use it as a "gotcha" phrase, PRECISELY because in regular life correlation does in fact usually imply causation.
In fact, correlation is used by most scientists to begin the hypothesis process. A power plant is built on a river, and the river starts drying up - most people would begin their analysis by checking on the power plant, and not the population of honeybees.
Your kid is alone in the kitchen. The cookie jar is (now) empty. Does his presence CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that he ate the cookies? Of course not, and a wise parent would find other evidence to draw a conclusion. But the correlation of their places in time and space, as well as a known predilection for cookies means that correlation strongly suggests an avenue of investigation (you're probably not going to start figuring out what happened by pursuing some other entirely different course).
It's the sort of empty-headed 'gotcha' phrase that's so popular and so often used without real thought behind it.
I'm 45. When I was a school kid, EVERYONE rode their bikes. We rode around town constantly, we'd ride out to friend's houses miles outside of our small town. I'd say 90%+ kids rode bikes. I don't know a single kid who ever had a serious head injury, in a class of 80+ several years ahead or behind. Say a rough demographic sample of 400 kids.
Today, I see very little bike riding. I know many kids that know HOW to ride a bike, and (apparently) enjoyed it, but simply aren't interested in riding.
I stopped riding for years once I became an adult, until I bought a recumbent and absolutely love it...one of the things I like about it is my posture as I ride makes it far less likely I'm targeting my head if the bike crashes. So I don't wear a helmet, and the dirty looks I get from 'cyclists' (you know who I mean), especially if I discuss it aloud, are frequent.
...but I have a question for them: Is it theoretically possible that a star could slingshot around galactic-center black hole and (either through the basic slingshot, or a combination of that plus frame-dragging by the spinning black hole) come out with near-c or higher velocities?
What would happen to it?
Given the number of stars constantly plunging into the holes that are (apparently) at the heart of every galaxy, and a timescale of billions of years, wouldn't it be almost certain that this HAS happened?
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, why WOULDN'T a state do this?
It's state land.
And it's not like it's some sort of inviolable sacred ground, is it? And they are CERTAINLY not entitled to any special consideration beyond that of any other citizen when it comes to 'exposure to pollutants, etc.'
No, I don't think they should plant the machinery right outside the door of classrooms, but to be legally able to slant-drill and access the minerals beneath any public property is just good common sense.
Hey, I enjoy 3rd party candidates as much as the next guy, and enjoy seeing them succeed.
However, the REASONABLE standard of requiring $50k in donations to prove you're a credible candidate makes sense.
This is NOT that "they refused me because I refused corporate donations". This is "I'm too small a candidate to be considered serious by their metric".
(I'd say if you polled 7%, you should be included somehow, but honestly, their standard is MORE fair than poll numbers; as you say, you and presumably other minor candidates weren't even included in some of the polling, so the cash-metric is much more universal.)
A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.
If you call "crushing" it constantly interrupting, patronizing laughing during Ryan's responses, and not ever shutting the hell up, indeed he's "crushing" it.
Hard to imagine Martha Raddatz (formerly of NPR) is considered a neutral moderator - didn't the Obamas attend her wedding?
It looks like it, since she interrupted Ryan over one measured span of time 6 times vs Biden's 2. In at least two instances, she used Obama's press tour talking points to interrupt him.
So clearly, Biden had a 'home field' advantage.
Comments from Politico:
Weekly Standardâ(TM)s Mark Hemingway: âoeJoe Bidenâ(TM)s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?â
TIMEâ(TM)s Michael Scherer: âoeNot sure debate cameras have been light tested for Bidenâ(TM)s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.â
Washington Examinerâ(TM)s Philip Klein: âoeBidenâ(TM)s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?â
NBCâ(TM)s David Gregory: âoeBidenâ(TM)s smile is out of control.â
BuzzFeedâ(TM)s Ben Smith: âoeSo did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???â
ABCâ(TM)s Rick Klein: âoeBiden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.â
Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: âoeJoe Biden needs to realize this isnâ(TM)t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.â
Radio host Neal Boortz: âoeLooking like Bidenâ(TM)s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.â
Townhall.comâ(TM)s Guy Benson: âoeWill Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?â
MSNBCâ(TM)s S.E. Cupp: âoeBiden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.â
Washington Postâ(TM)s Chris Cillizza: âoeOk. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.â
PBSâ(TM) Jeff Greenfield: âoeBiden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.â
Washington Examinerâ(TM)s Paul Bedard: âoeCanâ(TM)t tell yet if Bidenâ(TM)s smirking, laughs, eye-rolling, head shaking, works for him or not against the oh-so-young looking eager Ryan.â
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: âoeBiden is at risk of having his laugh come across like Goreâ(TM)s sighs. He should knock it off.â
The New York Timesâ(TM) Ashley Parker: âoeBidenâ(TM)s grin is Chesire Cat caliber.â
Republican strategist Ron Bonjean: âoeBiden laughing does not come off with the intended effect. It is actually hurting him. Looks very condescending.â
Movie critic Roger Ebert: âoeJoe! Stop smiling and laughing!â
Washington Timesâ(TM) Emily Miller: âoeBiden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.â
Washington Postâ(TM)s Jennifer Rubin: âoeBidenâ(TM)s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxiousâ
Comedy Centralâ(TM)s Indecision: âoeIf this keeps up much longer, Joe Bidenâ(TM)s going to sprain his laugh muscles.â
....and this illustrates one of the key failings of Democracy - the idea that voting is driven by raw popularity (or in this case, sympathy).
Tragedy elicits quite natural and laudable feelings of sympathy from anyone human.
However, pity is a no more laudable/logical basis for a role in government than some moistened bint lobbing a scimitar at you.
Joe Biden may be a Really Nice Guy(tm), that doesn't mean that I want him fixing my pipes nor writing my laws.
I saw an episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike worked at a fish farm.
It was a 'green' (brown?) part of the relatively-closed process that the last step in in the chain was Tilapia that ate the waste of all the other fish and then were sold for food.
They were quite proud of it, actually.
Let's take health care as an example.
Romney implements a plan in MA that is essentially Obamacare, and then campaigns against it as a presidential candidate!
Mitt the Flipper right? Hilarity!
Well, except it's not. It just illustrates that the person doesn't understand some of the fundamental issues of government in the United States. (Europeans, you can check-out right here, because I find few enough AMERICANS that understand how their federal/state system works. Practically NONE of you guys bother to try to understand it.)
I can be in favor of gay marriage, yet be opposed to a federal gay marriage law.
I can be tremendously in favor of a single-payer health program for my entire state, but argue vociferously against Obamacare as the stupidest program ever floated.
THIS ISN'T FLIP FLOPPING AND IS ENTIRELY INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT.
How?
To wit: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (USC, 10th Amendment).
If you are confused at this point, you simply don't understand it and shouldn't be voting anyway.
So by your logic, there should never be any managers of any kind? Or in any case, they shouldn't get paid?
I'll break that news to Barack Obama next time I talk to him.
Further I'll be happy to discuss this after you pass menarche because it's apparent that you could seriously use a period.
"People who were lied to"
By whom?
You're asserting, then that Pres Clinton, VP Gore, etc were all "being lied to" *before* Bush2 and Cheney were elected, and were merely guiltless dupes, yet Cheney (who was also a VP) wasn't LIKEWISE duped, but was instead the evil mastermind of this whole plan in order to increase the value of his holdings in Haliburton?
Seriously?
BTW the Left (as I assume you are) loves to use the term "War Criminal" as a synonym for "people I really don't like"...but in the real world, you don't get to do that. I can't call Al Gore a Martian, or Barack Obama a Pez Dispenser unless I have some actual proof of that fact. Lacking such, your assertion that Cheney is a "war criminal" just makes you look febrile.
".... to sum it up, I'm smarter and more motivated than my peers. Instead of anesthetizing myself on the couch with the mindless tripe you find on TV, I read books and study topics that are of interest to me. I actively seek out information about what is going on in the world, rather than having news/opinions (it's hard to separate the two, if you get such information from TV) spoon-fed to me....."
You sound like the sort of asshole that didn't get even the basic socialization you'd have gotten watching tv, ie, that even if you ARE smarter than your peers you'd realize that making such comments just make you hateable bully-bait.
I watched a TON of TV as a kid. I would cheerfully discuss any topic at a detailed level with your supposedly-superior intellect, be it the predictive value of Italian and Spanish bond markets in regards the Euro:Dollar exchange rate, Byzantine Christianity and the rise of Islam in the post-Mohammed century, or selection-bias in regards to planetary surveys and the implications for the Drake equations.
There's a HUGE issue of causal confusion going on here.
If an idiot with little brain wants to watch lots of TV, the TV didn't ipso-facto *make* them stupid.
TV is a basic, legal, visually-delivered stimulus. Some of what it shows is fantastically interesting, but in a sense this just means its a stimulus market-segmented to appeal to more intellectual viewers. Other shows are better-targeted to stupid people.
Stop blaming THINGS for choices PEOPLE make. If people didn't have the TV to plant their kids in front of, they'd be ignoring them in other contexts.
Only on DailyKOS or slashdot would this be seen as "Insightful" and not flamebait/troll.
Apparently Dick Cheney has the Emperor-like ability to control the minds of his political opponents in different places in space AND TIME (since you'll notice many of these comments predate his arrival as the Liberal's favorite Shylock in 2000)?:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if neces
Unless you're a union guy with lots of money, or a movie star with lots of money, or a black athlete with lots of money - all groups that overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
"...This is no different from any other science where you make a hypothesis, test it with new evidence, and if it doesn't hold up, you toss it...."
Except that upon finding a new metorite, astronomers don't speculate that there's an entirely new planet they 'just haven't found yet'.
I appreciate your points, but it seems that there's a level of hyperbole in the declaration of new speciation that exceeds mere scientific method.
This seems commonsensical not just for paleontology but anthropology as well.
IANAA (I am not an anthropologist) but I've never understood how someone finds a chunk of bone that's 1/8 of a intact jawbone, and from that intuits that this is an entirely new species of hominid? The breathtaking breadth of natural human variation is apparent to anyone in a large crowd; how is some minute morphological difference of a FRACTION of a piece of bone suggestive enough that it reaches beyond that variation into indicating speciation?
Or, my cynic gland suggests, is it that anthropologists are fallible humans like the rest of us, and it's much more exciting, rewarding, and fame-creating to identify a potential new species, particularly when there is very little evidence that might contradict your assertion?
It's symptomatic of our culture which is much more about "buying new" then "repairing old". This comes somewhat, I admit, out of economic reality: for most of our consumer goods it really is cheaper to replace than renew.
But the approach holds through larger purchases as well - homes and cars, for example. Few people have the skills or interest to fix them up to 'like new' condition, when it's easier (especially now in terms of housing) to get a brand new one dirt-cheap.
I live in a 100+ year old home, and it has its charms, certainly, but I'm well aware that (given my lack of construction skills/desire) it would have made more sense to just buy a new home instead. (Thank god my father in law is unbelievably skilled in construction, and that he loves his daughter apparently without limits.)
To the point, though, this is the accommodation (if not a driver) of urban sprawl. I live in the Twin Cities and if you drive around the perimeter you STILL see waves of new home construction - where are all these people coming from? Is this just urban flight?
It's one of the reasons I try to patronizing Dunn Brothers coffee as much as I can; I don't know if it's corporate policy, but around here they've deliberately placed their stores in really old buildings and paid the (high) cost to refurbish and bring them up to code, instead of grabbing a slot in the shiny new strip mall a half-mile down the road. In Eden Prairie, they even saved an historical brick home that the local preservationists couldn't afford to maintain/hold, turning it into really a terrific coffeeshop.
...than that she plays as a rogue.
Every rogue I know is, deep down, a douchebag of the first order.
You *still* have to have a financial plan.
You cannot - I hope to god you cannot - fling a $1.6 billion mission into space without doing some sort of analysis as regards costs.
If putting that telescope in the sky would be "really awesome" but ultimately you've only got 'customers' for $600 million of the costs, then understand that it's a $1 billion cost, and may or may not be worth that.
Which is great, as long as the assessed costs to those researchers/institutions represent the cost to operate, plus a fair amortized launch cost.
And in order to lift those scopes to their viewing points, you've got to have a solid business plan that shows how these users will be committed enough to justify the investment.
When you're throwing around $billions, it's not a matter of "build it and hope they show up." (Well, at least I'd hope not.)
Whoever is funding your work is the ultimate person to whom you are responsible.
Would you tell your CEO "sorry, dude, I'm not going to show you my emails leading up to the meeting - you can see my final presentation and that's it" (and expect to keep your job)?
In that vein, if your work is paid for by taxpayer dollars, they are entitled to see every shred of it, even the ugly bits.
Correlation doesn't PROVE causation.... ...but it bloody well DOES suggest it, at least in the course of our daily lives.
The reason this phrase is so catchy is that it's counter-intuitive, and easily proven to be true. People love to use it as a "gotcha" phrase, PRECISELY because in regular life correlation does in fact usually imply causation.
In fact, correlation is used by most scientists to begin the hypothesis process. A power plant is built on a river, and the river starts drying up - most people would begin their analysis by checking on the power plant, and not the population of honeybees.
Your kid is alone in the kitchen. The cookie jar is (now) empty. Does his presence CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that he ate the cookies? Of course not, and a wise parent would find other evidence to draw a conclusion. But the correlation of their places in time and space, as well as a known predilection for cookies means that correlation strongly suggests an avenue of investigation (you're probably not going to start figuring out what happened by pursuing some other entirely different course).
It's the sort of empty-headed 'gotcha' phrase that's so popular and so often used without real thought behind it.
I'm 45.
When I was a school kid, EVERYONE rode their bikes. We rode around town constantly, we'd ride out to friend's houses miles outside of our small town. I'd say 90%+ kids rode bikes.
I don't know a single kid who ever had a serious head injury, in a class of 80+ several years ahead or behind. Say a rough demographic sample of 400 kids.
Today, I see very little bike riding. I know many kids that know HOW to ride a bike, and (apparently) enjoyed it, but simply aren't interested in riding.
I stopped riding for years once I became an adult, until I bought a recumbent and absolutely love it...one of the things I like about it is my posture as I ride makes it far less likely I'm targeting my head if the bike crashes. So I don't wear a helmet, and the dirty looks I get from 'cyclists' (you know who I mean), especially if I discuss it aloud, are frequent.
Or, one might say that it's unprofessional for actors and actresses to vent like this JUST LIKE it's unprofessional for him.
Then again, they're professional narcissists, so it makes sense that they think everyone cares about their opinions.
(I don't think it was unprofessional of him; he was stating his opinion, who cares? Just pointing out the begged question in your point.)
So Foursquare built-in a google name-search function?
Oh wait, no, this would resolve a person's home with much HIGHER reliability and detail.
Sure, ask the /. community if they think "someone ridiculing a Republican" is wrong.
Yeah, you're going to get nothing but cogent, reasoned responses.
No partisanship here, move along.
...but I have a question for them:
Is it theoretically possible that a star could slingshot around galactic-center black hole and (either through the basic slingshot, or a combination of that plus frame-dragging by the spinning black hole) come out with near-c or higher velocities?
What would happen to it?
Given the number of stars constantly plunging into the holes that are (apparently) at the heart of every galaxy, and a timescale of billions of years, wouldn't it be almost certain that this HAS happened?