"You, like Bush, attempt to divide the world into good nations and evil nations
Check http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=nkorea and see just a few articles on who and what North Korea is. I think that it would be silly to say that they are a "good" nation. Furthermore, I think it would be irresponsible to not assign some sort of judgement to them due to their treatment of their populace and their constant manipulation and threats to the governments that are concerned with their power-centric attitudes.
In addition to this I find it interesting that you have twice now imputed attributes to me that I do not posess and have not even intimated in my posts. You called me a "party-liner" and said that I attempt to divide the whole world into good and evil countries, neither of which I do. It seems more like you have an agenda, since you seem to know party lines and Bush polocies so intimately. Makes me wonder what you are really espousing here, and your motivations for attributing this escalation solely to the USA.
As for your theory of acceleration I don't buy it. They have been after nukes continually for over a decade. They probably had them quite a while ago. We probably knew about it too. So does China, probably more than we do.
I would consider their mention of American aggression as the cause for developing nukes a total ruse. Easy to pick a target like the US to justify their militant policies when we are the current global pariah. No better way to try to curry favor with the other countries of the world than to point to the supposed faults of another nation as motivation for your own indescretions. No mention of the gigantic dragon in their back yard (China) that has been breathing down their neck since before Americans could even pronounce Korea? Curious.
Don't fool yourself. Don't lay this at the feet of the USA. We tried diplomacy, we tried financial, humanitarian, and technological aid. Regardless of the situation they continued to do what they wanted in the first place: develop nukes. If we had ignored them completely they would have followed the same course of action.
Funny, if we had tried relaxing political pressure on North Korea I can see you figuratively jumping up and down that the Bush administration did not do more to avert the North Koreans development of nuclear weapons as well. I could be wrong, but I notice that you seem to be more concerned with tying this issue to party politics, and assigning blame, than logically considering the course of action of North Korea.
Face it, what happened with North Korea was inevitable. Also remember that the USA was only 1 of 6 nations involved in multi-national talks with North Korea. We weren't the only people trying to deter them from doing what they did. We also aren't the only nation that they are worried about aggression from. We just make a politically convenient scapegoat.
Notice how the word Iraq appears nowhere in my post, yet appears twice in your post. Strange that you would bring it up (when I had not) and attach it to the meaning in my post when it was (wow, still is not) there.
First, I do not distrust the North Koreans or thir government. I despise them for the way that they treat their people, but distrust does not enter into the equation.
I actually trust them to do what they see fit to ensure that they get what they want as a nation. With their approach people and politics (thuggish at best) it only makes sense for them to seek out the biggest weapons that they can find to prevent others attacking them. In fact, that is just what they have been doing since the early 90's or even before. Chemical and biological weapons were added first, and now nuclear. I find it strange that you think that what the US did would change their long standing propensity for weapons acquisition.
Also you leave out that the terms of the deal for the light water reactors were for North Korea to stop it's production of nuclear weapons. The reason for your #3 is not the "Republicans winning a majority" but the fact that North Korea had a secret, and forbidden according to the deal you are talking about, nuclear weapons development program! The whole reason for the deal was to stop weapons development and yet they continued. Why have a deal in the first place then? It dosen't get much more obvious than that, however, you seem determined to misconstrue and misrepresent the facts and still are trying to blame the US for North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
You seem to miss the point entirely. The reason Clinton engaged in the policy that he did was to stop or delay North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. The whole timeline you discribe is about people trying to stop the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons. At every step along the way they continued with their program. Neither the carrot or the stick worked, and yet you seem to blame the "Republicans" and the US for their actions that were initiated before we were even involved with them.
Also, if you think that they abandoned their research and implementation of nuclear weapons while we were helping them with light water reactors you are incredibly niave. The evidence, and the logic, point elsewhere.
Why would you use the word blame, and why would you not hold the people of the USA accountable for our actions?
I think that you mistake what responsibility is and its ramifications. We practice a representative form of government. We elected the people who gave the orders to invade Iraq and who started the war on terror. If "we the people" are not responsible, who is?
BTW, the US people ARE nice. However, we react badly when people fly planes into our buildings in the most populous city in our country, killing our citizens in a dastardly unprovoked attack. Your country might do the same if it happens to you.
even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.
They said the same things about Reagan when he tried to tear "down that wall," among other things.
It makes you wonder was he right all along and all the naysayers were full of krap. Or, does someone who follows through on what they say they are going to do, and who happens to carry around a HUMONGOUS STICK, get what they want more often than not.
Everyone saying that North Korea is the new threat sounds just like Clinton, Bush, Powell, and all the other leaders that said that Iraq had WMD's.
I bet if we invaded North Korea today we wouldn't find any nukes and all of you would turncoat and say that the government lied to us all to get us to invade them for their "insert consumer good here."
Someone better call Hans Blix and get him in there right away so we can know the truth.
I don't buy it, and I'm not worried at all. If they get out of hand all China has to do is militarily fart in their general direction and they will be wiped off the map.
Are they not responsible for the power structure that is in place that allows atrocities to be comitted on a dily basis? Isn't it their children, brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers, and mothers that inform on eachother and man the prisons and the machines of death that terrorize the population to keep them in line? Aren't the people that turn a blind eye to iniquity of their peers and leaders complicit in the acts? If you watch as your friends and family are systematically subjugated, starved, tortured, even killed, are you not part of the problem?
People are responsible for their actions. Similarly governments are responsible for their people and the actions of a government can bring consequences to their people.
Also, if the grandparent's post is accurate the "innocents" are already being killed by the Korean government. If they are already being killed, and will continue being killed by the government, is it not prudent to put a stop to it now? Also, if the government has aggressive tendencies do you want to run the risk of them subjugating and destroying the people of other countries? Seriously think about a government that systematically kills portions of its own population and imagine what they would do to the population of a different country.
If the lives of the innocents are so damn important why haven't you done something already? They have been dying for quite awhile. Why do they all of a sudden matter more than they did yesterday?
"Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation."
This sentence seems to try to establish a causal relationship between Washington politics and the development of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans. If we briefly examine the timeline we see contrary evidence: Koreans try to get nukes, we offer to do something, they still try to get nukes in spite of our intervention, we change tactics, they still try to get nukes in spite of our new tactics. It is obvious that they operated from day 1 with the intentions of having offensive nuclear capabilities and the actions that we took did nothing to deter them.
I will posit this: regardless of the position of Washington, China, or any government other than the North Koreans themselves, the North Koreans would have sought out and acquired offensive nuclear technology.
The world is rapidly approaching a time and place where nuclear weapons are not out of the reach of any country with the desire to posess them. I can even see individuals with great wealth and/or political power with their own personal arsenal. Those that acquire them will do so for their own reasons and motivations and efforts to stop them will most likely prove fruitless.
In the last 10 years cellphone usage has skyrocketed...accident rates have actually dropped by 10% in that time...then these arguments against cellphones in cars are pointless."
This statment is making a false dichotomy of dropping accident rates and increasing phone use.
Brake systems are much better than they used to be. With faster stopping disk brakes becoming more prevalent and with electronic assistance in the form of ABS and traction control it would amaze me if accident rates went up.
This doesn't even begin to address any improvements in infrascructure, a possible change in the accident awareness of the driving populace (except for those on cell phones!), or other intangibles that may have had a positive effect on how many accidents people have.
I can't imagine how you could use rationalism to try to contradict the evidence of this study when there is an excessive amount of daily empirical evidence of this behavior on any street in America.
Consider that the 10% reduction is true, just think how much we could reduce the accident rate if people stopped talking on their phones in cars altogether.
If you check with your doctor you will find that shorter dosages are being proscribed for many antibiotics.
Last time I spoke with my doctor she quoted studies to me that she said showed sterile cultures after TWO days of taking an antibiotic. That means that the infection is gone after 2 DAYS. It is not uncommon to see 5 day doses these days, rather than the 7 or 10 day dosages that doctors used to proscribe.
Personally, I think that blaming the patient for the growth of the resistance of bacteria is moronic. Bacterial organisms do this as a matter of sustaining their existence. In the population of a certain germ there are probably some that are resistant. If you kill off all of the non-resistant ones in a person all that will be left are the resistan ones. Then if those escape the body you will have a strain of resistant bacteria in the wild. Like, DUH!
Even worse, I was talking to a friend who works in a genetics lab in the Houston Medical Center. Her lab is working on a strain of anthrax that is quite virulent (more so than normal strains) and is also resistant to most antibiotics. She said that it is known that most bacteria already contain the genetic coding for resistance to most antibiotics. That's right, they have the genetic coding for resistance archived in their DNA already but that part of the code is just not active. It is not a strech to see that they could happen to reactivate that code and it would remain active in their biological successors.
There is only one way to really eliminate resistant organisms. Any time someone gets an infection we should just put them in an autoclave for a couple of hours, then burn what is left when it comes out. Using any kind of antibiotic will just make them resistant.
If we rule that soultion out as unworkable then we are left with either constantly updating our antibiotics, or doing as antoher poster said, custom designing an antibiotic for each organism.
"Very few people die from polio, it's the crippling deformities that make this disease so nasty"
Sure, few people die from this disease. In fact it is the complete destruction of the muscular and nervous support of their respiratory systems that kills them. Or it is the resurfacing of the same symptoms that they experienced during the active portion of the disease (when they are older and weaker) that kills them. Of course, not being able to breathe and drowning in your own fluids is NOT polio, so technically you are right. However, there is nothing more disheartening than watching a loved one slowly die over the course of a decade or more, not able to breathe on their own, not able to get out of bed, and constantly tormented by physiologically induced anxiety.
I wonder why is it that you do not think that polio should be immunized against? The vaccine is easily administered and quite safe.
Just so you know, my father could have easily died at a young age due to polio. If it were not for iron-lungs and the somewhat advanced medicine of the USA I would probably never have been born. Unfortunately, I do not think that many developing countries have medical facilities available that are comparable even to ours in the 1950's.
Trying to discount the suffering that polio causes seems unbelievably callous to me. Since you have probably not had first hand experience with it like I have I can excuse this as the ignorance of the uninformed. It is hard to remain objective, though, when I hear my father say that he wishes that he had died a few years ago when he was in the hospital, rather than suffer a continuation of the the pain and suffering that has been the hallmark of his lifetime.
I think that if you had been around someone who had a relatively bad case of polio you might see things differently. In an effort to let you understand some of what it is like I will ask you a question I ask myself sometimes when I think about my dad. What is worse: a disease that kills someone or one that makes you dispise being alive?
"...but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer. "
This statement seems to say that one tool is good for all circumstances and diversity of adaptation is merely a side effect of multiple evolution lines rather than a result of selection of those species that are better suited to teir environment. Simplistic at best, downright daft is more likely.
"...is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines."
I happen to be a Christian AND am in complete agreement with you on this point.
In fact, the Bible agrees with you on this point as well. Without getting in to a Sunday school style dissertation I will simply state the position of the Bible.
According to the Bible itself, and God if you believe the Gospel, the things contained in the Bible should not be taught to unbelievers, nor discussed with them (except for the applicable Cristology, hamartiology, etc. that go along witht he gospel.)
The Bible details the system of acquiring knowledge about God. It requires faith in Christ and the participation of the Holy Spirit as mentor. Unbelievers do not qualify under these circumstances and should definitely not have the contents of the Bible shoved down their throats.
Joseph Campbell makes a good point. I see this in the hipocrisy of people who profess to be Christians but will not engage in systematic study of the Bible. However, the fact that he recognizes this does not mean that he is able to extract that meaning himself or that he has the ability to refrain form attaching meaning to those individuals that is inconsistent with what they actually are.
Case in point: If you take the Bible to be its own authority on these matters, belief in who and what Jesus Christ is is the whole issue of the Bible and even the universe. To say that the meaningful signifigance of Christ is more important than belief in the existence of Jesus is contrary to Christian doctrine. In fact, belief in Christ requires BOTH, and to put one before the other is the quintesential misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about.
Regardles of all of this, Christians should scrutinize the Bible a little bit better and learn that we, as Christians, need to get out of politics and out of the school administration. The fact that so many Christians miss this point in the Bible further exemplifies the hipocrisy I spoke of earlier.
Then again it could be evidence of something worse than hipocrisy.
"Who the f*** cares, you knew what it ment, I mean obvioiusly since you made a stpuid post about it."
Let's see what we have here: Run on (-5), improper comma usage (-10), spelling/typos (-10), poor sentence structure (-5).
"Why even bother ?
Improper formatting of the ? punctuation (-5).
Total score: 60/100
Unfortunately you did not pass this assignment. Try again next year.
I bet you had an unfortunate run in with an easily irritated ruler-wielding english teacher or two in your time. Me too, but I hunkered down and tried to learn what she was teaching in spite of my burning hatred and my bruised knuckles.
No problem, however, since you asked why even bother I will try to explain. Some people feel that it is important to express yourself according to a set of non-arbitrary rules of English. There are various reasons for attaching importance to these rules, the least of which IMHO is aesthetic. More important is that communication has a purpose and it is, circularly, communication. When you use written language to communicate the conventions that we follow allow us to extract meaning efficiently and accurately. When English is used properly the only limitation to the transmission of information is the ability of the writer to properly phrase their thoughts and the readers vocabulary. Unfortunately, even with he best of intentions or the grandest of thoughts, if you do not write properly you run the risk of being misunderstood or just flat ignored.
Since you mention that they "knew what it meant" I will propose to you that you cannot say that for everyone who reads this site. I will also propose that it is incredibly inconsiderate to post something to a site like this without using you best language/grammar skills. It is inconsiderate to those who know what proper English is. Furthermore, considering the large number of non-Americans that read this site, it is unforgivably rude to those who are trying to learn English. They have a hard enough time with the strange rules and numerous exceptions in our language without having to look at the loads of crap that people spew instead of real English.
I find it ironic that people who are learning the language will often humbly apologise for their errors, but when you correct a native speaker (who should know better) they get indignant.
"This isn't another "Black or White" issue where you accept it and be happy or don't accept it and shut-up like you Bush fanatics expect."
Actually, if you read the post what I said was essentially, don't use a good thing to criticise a bad thing. It may come back to bite you in the butt later.
"As others have stated, this is a democracy. A government representative of its peoples"
Restating my position in a more direct manner: Don't criticise things that an inimical administrations does if you would be happy if your preferred administration enacted them. Your reaction to them could shape the future party platform of your preferred administration.
To expand: I believe that space exploration is more important to the USA than either major party. If it is sidelined in future elections because of public reaction against the administration (and not the policy itself) it is detrimental to everyone; akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is, unless, you do not like increased funding for NASA. If that is the case then swing away, and more power to you. However, I was speaking to the constituency here and I am under the impression that most of us like the idea of space exploration.
"Anything Bush gives me is a coal and to you is a diamond."
This is exactly the type of thing that rattles my cage. It reveals a depth of prejudice and self destructive animosity that I cannot even begin to understand. I do not like everything that the Bush administration does. In fact, I personally have quite a bit of distrust for ALL politicians and because of this I am suspicious of what they do. If they happen to do something that I like, great, however I view most of the things that all administrations do as grandstanding in preparation for their next election. I cannot imagine hating a particular politician/party so much that I deride them when they do something that I like. I am already skeptical of them them all; the proverbial necessary evil. That some people become so brainwashed by one side that they forget that all politicians suck is pretty funny to me.
"We need changes to NASA, Changes to US politics and changes to our vision for America to get to Mars and YOUR beloved Bush has proven over and over and over again that he isn't the man for that job"
Number one, he ain't MY Bush. Number two, since he is just now procuring the funding for future exploration your statement makes no sense (with regard for Mars). It does, however, further expose your bias toward his administration. Keep in mind that there will most likely be (IMO) a democratic president next time. Looking at recent history (the link in my original post) democratic administrations have cut funding to NASA. If Bush sets into motion a monumental space program expansion it will carry over into future administrations and provide precedent for future investment by those successive administrations.
Considering democratic administrations penchant for reallocating space exploration funds for social programs I think that this could be an example of schitzophrenic synergy where we (the people!) actually BENEFIT from the 2 party system. Once the program has started and is supported by the people it wil be difficult to abandon it, regardless of who holds office. However, if someone dosen't get this ball rolling under a (historically abnormal) freespending republican administration it may never get rolling at all.
So, referring back to my original post which you masterfully misconstrued, take the good and be happy you with it. You may even get the chance to watch your own party see something of transcendent historical proportions to fruition. That is unless you tear it down so much out of spite that the next administration scraps the idea completely.
(this is for all those who are using this to complain directly or indirectly about the current administration)
This is something GREAT for our country and ultimately our economy. Other countries will be begging to jump on board with us and help explore the universe around us. The new systems and soultions required to do next generation space experimentation will drive further advances in other areas.
And all you can do is bash the president, say we can't afford it, that it is a bad decision, etc. All because you dislike his other policies. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is what really makes me sick about people. They get a diamond ring from someone they don't like and they throw it in the outhouse. Morons.
I can't remember the number of times that I have read a discussion about NASA that was not replete with +5 insightful rants about how underfunded NASA is. Now that the government is increasing funding everyone is getting +5 insightfuls for naysaying the increase in funding. WHAT?!?!
For those who are politically motivated to attack the current administration under all circumstances, good or bad, just remember that NASA funding under the Clinton administration fell: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bowyer/030204. (I put in a Google search for "NASA funding clinton administration" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" to get the stats)
Please, have the maturity to take the good with the bad, be grateful for the things that happen that you like, and bide your time until the next chance to change things comes along. You never know who may be listening to what you say. If you use this as an opportunity to vent your dissatisfaction against the current administration when your preferred representatives get elected they might just look back and think that this is just not that important to you. (You in the collective sense)
As for myself, I agree that this is massively important to us. It is, IMHO, one of the areas that the USA can demonstrate that we can work with other nations in a harmonious way. Maybe I am a bit utopian, but I think that the questions that space exploration ultimately confronts (not the technical of how to get there, but what is there and why is it like it is) are universal with mankind. Because of this I think that they provide a chance for people to set aside things that can divide them and concentrate on a common goal. Sounds kinda sappy, but I believe that it is true. Whether I like the government or not, I see this increase in funding and dedication to this cause by the administration as a Good Thing.
"part of what you pay for is the assumption that the stories are timely, accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked"
I find this comment fascinating. I consume fringe media like candy and one of the most common things I hear about is the media bias.
Tune into the pacifica broadcasts and you hear about how the industrial military government complex has infiltrated the media to the extent that they are controlling what words are used. They also flame the "mainstream media" for not telling the real story about just about everything.
Listen to Rush and he is (has been) proclaiming Liberal media bias on a daily basis. From Rathergate to the Clinton era this guy sees bias that solidly favors the liberals.
I hear tons of people on/. railing against Fox for bias as well.
So what I think we are seeing is that everyone is recognizing that media is biased in some way and people just want to pick a news presentation that reflects their own bias and listen to it exclusively. Maybe conflicting viewpoints anger, confuse, or (GASP) bore them. I think that the commentary of someone (blogger or commentator) with some perspicacity and a common viewpoint lends credence to people's opinions and feelings, and that is comforting to most people. Hearing them broadcast unabashedly into the ether for everyone else to hear/see gives them a feeling of community and even superiority.
Personally, I like to hear it all...both (or MORE!) tainted sides of the same sordid tale. I just wish that there was less rah-rah on both sides of the coin and more reason.
Example: Maureen Dowd used to be a fantastic edatorialist. Intelligent and concice, her opinions and observations, while not always agreeable to me, were rational and thought provoking. Then one day. something snapped in her and she became a vituperous cheerleader for hate. All her reason left and now she just calls people names and uses inflamatory language. Apparently there is an audience for this though. From this I gather that there are people with the same bias that want to read what she writes because they agree with it.
What I really admire and wish I caould see more of is "WHY." In other words, if you have a certain political position that shapes how you deliver media content tell me why.
Reason, thoughts, background knowledge, understanding of history, economics, etc. go into the mix to create an opinion or viewpoint and these thngs are important to deciphering the context of the presentation. Many times all we see is the end result of a certain worldview and not all the contributing background and thoughtful frame of reference that created them. I think that maybe, just maybe, other people want this "why" as well. I think that blogs are becoming more successful because they provide the why as well as the community experience of people who think like you do.
That and the fact that you can post on a blog and actually look like you are busy doing something worthwhile when your boss walks by.
I summed up your complaints in one (run on) sentence...
"There aren't enough good writers to make enough good shows to fill one station with good programming for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, much less 250 of them." --Me
Sometimes I think that they run the commercials to distract you from the horrible programs you are mesmerized into watching.
I work in a MINI Cooper dealership in Texas and I can definitely say that the Smart Cars will do quite well here.
There is a huge backlash against SUVs in Texas, and not by those granola munching tree huggers that everyone hates to stand next to on the bus, but by the much maligned Soccer Moms and Neo-yuppies that have kept the SUV business growing over the last few years. It seems that people that live in urban areas and that have owned a SUV would rather not have one again. I can't tell you how many people trade in F250 crew cab trucks, Suburbans, etc. here for MINIs.
Personally, I think that the fact that everything in Texas is so spread out and requires so much driving to get to will accelerate the demand for smaller more fuel efficient cars here, especailly when coupled with the rising cost of fuel.
I can cite a couple of things to back this up: A two to three month wait for a new MINI in Texas, a 8-10 month (maybe!) wait for a new Prius in Texas. In addition, I talk to quite a few people each week that not only know about the Smart cars but who also want to own one.
I will concur that in the more rural areas you won't see many of these, but that will be common to all places, not just Texas.
...I can't help envisioning a Hummer or Mack truck with some of these "smart" cars embedded in the radiator; kind of like butterflies or grasshopers you pick up on cross country trips.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't assume anything from the results. The people who responded were self-selected.
/
See this for some details: http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
"You, like Bush, attempt to divide the world into good nations and evil nations
Check http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=nkorea and see just a few articles on who and what North Korea is. I think that it would be silly to say that they are a "good" nation. Furthermore, I think it would be irresponsible to not assign some sort of judgement to them due to their treatment of their populace and their constant manipulation and threats to the governments that are concerned with their power-centric attitudes.
In addition to this I find it interesting that you have twice now imputed attributes to me that I do not posess and have not even intimated in my posts. You called me a "party-liner" and said that I attempt to divide the whole world into good and evil countries, neither of which I do. It seems more like you have an agenda, since you seem to know party lines and Bush polocies so intimately. Makes me wonder what you are really espousing here, and your motivations for attributing this escalation solely to the USA.
As for your theory of acceleration I don't buy it. They have been after nukes continually for over a decade. They probably had them quite a while ago. We probably knew about it too. So does China, probably more than we do.
I would consider their mention of American aggression as the cause for developing nukes a total ruse. Easy to pick a target like the US to justify their militant policies when we are the current global pariah. No better way to try to curry favor with the other countries of the world than to point to the supposed faults of another nation as motivation for your own indescretions. No mention of the gigantic dragon in their back yard (China) that has been breathing down their neck since before Americans could even pronounce Korea? Curious.
Don't fool yourself. Don't lay this at the feet of the USA. We tried diplomacy, we tried financial, humanitarian, and technological aid. Regardless of the situation they continued to do what they wanted in the first place: develop nukes. If we had ignored them completely they would have followed the same course of action.
Funny, if we had tried relaxing political pressure on North Korea I can see you figuratively jumping up and down that the Bush administration did not do more to avert the North Koreans development of nuclear weapons as well. I could be wrong, but I notice that you seem to be more concerned with tying this issue to party politics, and assigning blame, than logically considering the course of action of North Korea.
Face it, what happened with North Korea was inevitable. Also remember that the USA was only 1 of 6 nations involved in multi-national talks with North Korea. We weren't the only people trying to deter them from doing what they did. We also aren't the only nation that they are worried about aggression from. We just make a politically convenient scapegoat.
Notice how the word Iraq appears nowhere in my post, yet appears twice in your post. Strange that you would bring it up (when I had not) and attach it to the meaning in my post when it was (wow, still is not) there.
First, I do not distrust the North Koreans or thir government. I despise them for the way that they treat their people, but distrust does not enter into the equation.
I actually trust them to do what they see fit to ensure that they get what they want as a nation. With their approach people and politics (thuggish at best) it only makes sense for them to seek out the biggest weapons that they can find to prevent others attacking them. In fact, that is just what they have been doing since the early 90's or even before. Chemical and biological weapons were added first, and now nuclear. I find it strange that you think that what the US did would change their long standing propensity for weapons acquisition.
Also you leave out that the terms of the deal for the light water reactors were for North Korea to stop it's production of nuclear weapons. The reason for your #3 is not the "Republicans winning a majority" but the fact that North Korea had a secret, and forbidden according to the deal you are talking about, nuclear weapons development program! The whole reason for the deal was to stop weapons development and yet they continued. Why have a deal in the first place then? It dosen't get much more obvious than that, however, you seem determined to misconstrue and misrepresent the facts and still are trying to blame the US for North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
You seem to miss the point entirely. The reason Clinton engaged in the policy that he did was to stop or delay North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. The whole timeline you discribe is about people trying to stop the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons. At every step along the way they continued with their program. Neither the carrot or the stick worked, and yet you seem to blame the "Republicans" and the US for their actions that were initiated before we were even involved with them.
Also, if you think that they abandoned their research and implementation of nuclear weapons while we were helping them with light water reactors you are incredibly niave. The evidence, and the logic, point elsewhere.
Why would you use the word blame, and why would you not hold the people of the USA accountable for our actions?
I think that you mistake what responsibility is and its ramifications. We practice a representative form of government. We elected the people who gave the orders to invade Iraq and who started the war on terror. If "we the people" are not responsible, who is?
BTW, the US people ARE nice. However, we react badly when people fly planes into our buildings in the most populous city in our country, killing our citizens in a dastardly unprovoked attack. Your country might do the same if it happens to you.
even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.
They said the same things about Reagan when he tried to tear "down that wall," among other things.
It makes you wonder was he right all along and all the naysayers were full of krap. Or, does someone who follows through on what they say they are going to do, and who happens to carry around a HUMONGOUS STICK, get what they want more often than not.
You know what I have noticed....
Everyone saying that North Korea is the new threat sounds just like Clinton, Bush, Powell, and all the other leaders that said that Iraq had WMD's.
I bet if we invaded North Korea today we wouldn't find any nukes and all of you would turncoat and say that the government lied to us all to get us to invade them for their "insert consumer good here."
Someone better call Hans Blix and get him in there right away so we can know the truth.
I don't buy it, and I'm not worried at all. If they get out of hand all China has to do is militarily fart in their general direction and they will be wiped off the map.
Are the people really really innocnet?
Are you sure? Really really sure?
Are they not responsible for the power structure that is in place that allows atrocities to be comitted on a dily basis? Isn't it their children, brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers, and mothers that inform on eachother and man the prisons and the machines of death that terrorize the population to keep them in line? Aren't the people that turn a blind eye to iniquity of their peers and leaders complicit in the acts? If you watch as your friends and family are systematically subjugated, starved, tortured, even killed, are you not part of the problem?
People are responsible for their actions. Similarly governments are responsible for their people and the actions of a government can bring consequences to their people.
Also, if the grandparent's post is accurate the "innocents" are already being killed by the Korean government. If they are already being killed, and will continue being killed by the government, is it not prudent to put a stop to it now? Also, if the government has aggressive tendencies do you want to run the risk of them subjugating and destroying the people of other countries? Seriously think about a government that systematically kills portions of its own population and imagine what they would do to the population of a different country.
If the lives of the innocents are so damn important why haven't you done something already? They have been dying for quite awhile. Why do they all of a sudden matter more than they did yesterday?
"Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation."
This sentence seems to try to establish a causal relationship between Washington politics and the development of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans. If we briefly examine the timeline we see contrary evidence: Koreans try to get nukes, we offer to do something, they still try to get nukes in spite of our intervention, we change tactics, they still try to get nukes in spite of our new tactics. It is obvious that they operated from day 1 with the intentions of having offensive nuclear capabilities and the actions that we took did nothing to deter them.
I will posit this: regardless of the position of Washington, China, or any government other than the North Koreans themselves, the North Koreans would have sought out and acquired offensive nuclear technology.
The world is rapidly approaching a time and place where nuclear weapons are not out of the reach of any country with the desire to posess them. I can even see individuals with great wealth and/or political power with their own personal arsenal. Those that acquire them will do so for their own reasons and motivations and efforts to stop them will most likely prove fruitless.
Sleep well...
In the last 10 years cellphone usage has skyrocketed...accident rates have actually dropped by 10% in that time...then these arguments against cellphones in cars are pointless."
This statment is making a false dichotomy of dropping accident rates and increasing phone use.
Brake systems are much better than they used to be. With faster stopping disk brakes becoming more prevalent and with electronic assistance in the form of ABS and traction control it would amaze me if accident rates went up.
This doesn't even begin to address any improvements in infrascructure, a possible change in the accident awareness of the driving populace (except for those on cell phones!), or other intangibles that may have had a positive effect on how many accidents people have.
I can't imagine how you could use rationalism to try to contradict the evidence of this study when there is an excessive amount of daily empirical evidence of this behavior on any street in America.
Consider that the 10% reduction is true, just think how much we could reduce the accident rate if people stopped talking on their phones in cars altogether.
If you check with your doctor you will find that shorter dosages are being proscribed for many antibiotics.
Last time I spoke with my doctor she quoted studies to me that she said showed sterile cultures after TWO days of taking an antibiotic. That means that the infection is gone after 2 DAYS. It is not uncommon to see 5 day doses these days, rather than the 7 or 10 day dosages that doctors used to proscribe.
Personally, I think that blaming the patient for the growth of the resistance of bacteria is moronic. Bacterial organisms do this as a matter of sustaining their existence. In the population of a certain germ there are probably some that are resistant. If you kill off all of the non-resistant ones in a person all that will be left are the resistan ones. Then if those escape the body you will have a strain of resistant bacteria in the wild. Like, DUH!
Even worse, I was talking to a friend who works in a genetics lab in the Houston Medical Center. Her lab is working on a strain of anthrax that is quite virulent (more so than normal strains) and is also resistant to most antibiotics. She said that it is known that most bacteria already contain the genetic coding for resistance to most antibiotics. That's right, they have the genetic coding for resistance archived in their DNA already but that part of the code is just not active. It is not a strech to see that they could happen to reactivate that code and it would remain active in their biological successors.
There is only one way to really eliminate resistant organisms. Any time someone gets an infection we should just put them in an autoclave for a couple of hours, then burn what is left when it comes out. Using any kind of antibiotic will just make them resistant.
If we rule that soultion out as unworkable then we are left with either constantly updating our antibiotics, or doing as antoher poster said, custom designing an antibiotic for each organism.
"Very few people die from polio, it's the crippling deformities that make this disease so nasty"
Sure, few people die from this disease. In fact it is the complete destruction of the muscular and nervous support of their respiratory systems that kills them. Or it is the resurfacing of the same symptoms that they experienced during the active portion of the disease (when they are older and weaker) that kills them. Of course, not being able to breathe and drowning in your own fluids is NOT polio, so technically you are right. However, there is nothing more disheartening than watching a loved one slowly die over the course of a decade or more, not able to breathe on their own, not able to get out of bed, and constantly tormented by physiologically induced anxiety.
I wonder why is it that you do not think that polio should be immunized against? The vaccine is easily administered and quite safe.
Just so you know, my father could have easily died at a young age due to polio. If it were not for iron-lungs and the somewhat advanced medicine of the USA I would probably never have been born. Unfortunately, I do not think that many developing countries have medical facilities available that are comparable even to ours in the 1950's.
Trying to discount the suffering that polio causes seems unbelievably callous to me. Since you have probably not had first hand experience with it like I have I can excuse this as the ignorance of the uninformed. It is hard to remain objective, though, when I hear my father say that he wishes that he had died a few years ago when he was in the hospital, rather than suffer a continuation of the the pain and suffering that has been the hallmark of his lifetime.
I think that if you had been around someone who had a relatively bad case of polio you might see things differently. In an effort to let you understand some of what it is like I will ask you a question I ask myself sometimes when I think about my dad. What is worse: a disease that kills someone or one that makes you dispise being alive?
"...but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer. "
This statement seems to say that one tool is good for all circumstances and diversity of adaptation is merely a side effect of multiple evolution lines rather than a result of selection of those species that are better suited to teir environment. Simplistic at best, downright daft is more likely.
Explain the optical isomer problem with aminoacids and I will feel alot better about this "experiment".
"...is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines."
I happen to be a Christian AND am in complete agreement with you on this point.
In fact, the Bible agrees with you on this point as well. Without getting in to a Sunday school style dissertation I will simply state the position of the Bible.
According to the Bible itself, and God if you believe the Gospel, the things contained in the Bible should not be taught to unbelievers, nor discussed with them (except for the applicable Cristology, hamartiology, etc. that go along witht he gospel.)
The Bible details the system of acquiring knowledge about God. It requires faith in Christ and the participation of the Holy Spirit as mentor. Unbelievers do not qualify under these circumstances and should definitely not have the contents of the Bible shoved down their throats.
Joseph Campbell makes a good point. I see this in the hipocrisy of people who profess to be Christians but will not engage in systematic study of the Bible. However, the fact that he recognizes this does not mean that he is able to extract that meaning himself or that he has the ability to refrain form attaching meaning to those individuals that is inconsistent with what they actually are.
Case in point: If you take the Bible to be its own authority on these matters, belief in who and what Jesus Christ is is the whole issue of the Bible and even the universe. To say that the meaningful signifigance of Christ is more important than belief in the existence of Jesus is contrary to Christian doctrine. In fact, belief in Christ requires BOTH, and to put one before the other is the quintesential misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about.
Regardles of all of this, Christians should scrutinize the Bible a little bit better and learn that we, as Christians, need to get out of politics and out of the school administration. The fact that so many Christians miss this point in the Bible further exemplifies the hipocrisy I spoke of earlier.
Then again it could be evidence of something worse than hipocrisy.
"Im a grammar God"
Missing punctuation: -5 points.
"Who the f*** cares, you knew what it ment, I mean obvioiusly since you made a stpuid post about it."
Let's see what we have here: Run on (-5), improper comma usage (-10), spelling/typos (-10), poor sentence structure (-5).
"Why even bother ?
Improper formatting of the ? punctuation (-5).
Total score: 60/100
Unfortunately you did not pass this assignment. Try again next year.
I bet you had an unfortunate run in with an easily irritated ruler-wielding english teacher or two in your time. Me too, but I hunkered down and tried to learn what she was teaching in spite of my burning hatred and my bruised knuckles.
No problem, however, since you asked why even bother I will try to explain. Some people feel that it is important to express yourself according to a set of non-arbitrary rules of English. There are various reasons for attaching importance to these rules, the least of which IMHO is aesthetic. More important is that communication has a purpose and it is, circularly, communication. When you use written language to communicate the conventions that we follow allow us to extract meaning efficiently and accurately. When English is used properly the only limitation to the transmission of information is the ability of the writer to properly phrase their thoughts and the readers vocabulary. Unfortunately, even with he best of intentions or the grandest of thoughts, if you do not write properly you run the risk of being misunderstood or just flat ignored.
Since you mention that they "knew what it meant" I will propose to you that you cannot say that for everyone who reads this site. I will also propose that it is incredibly inconsiderate to post something to a site like this without using you best language/grammar skills. It is inconsiderate to those who know what proper English is. Furthermore, considering the large number of non-Americans that read this site, it is unforgivably rude to those who are trying to learn English. They have a hard enough time with the strange rules and numerous exceptions in our language without having to look at the loads of crap that people spew instead of real English.
I find it ironic that people who are learning the language will often humbly apologise for their errors, but when you correct a native speaker (who should know better) they get indignant.
As a member and representative of the VVWC (Very Very White Coalition) I take offense to the use of the word "Cracker" to refer to criminals.
This is an injustice to those of us who were born with, or acquired through living in our parent's basements, skin with no pigment whatsoever.
Dammit dbacher, stop making sense and being all rational and stuff!
We're trying to bash the dogshit out of MS products here and you are messing it up!
Go to your cubicle!
"I believe the Finnish andrologist, Dr. Skro Tümm, did the SEMINAL work on this area of study"
Actually, the not-so-famous physician cousin of Sophocles did the deep, penetrating work in this field centuries earlier. His name: Testacles.
Bada-boom-ching!
"This isn't another "Black or White" issue where you accept it and be happy or don't accept it and shut-up like you Bush fanatics expect."
Actually, if you read the post what I said was essentially, don't use a good thing to criticise a bad thing. It may come back to bite you in the butt later.
"As others have stated, this is a democracy. A government representative of its peoples"
Restating my position in a more direct manner: Don't criticise things that an inimical administrations does if you would be happy if your preferred administration enacted them. Your reaction to them could shape the future party platform of your preferred administration.
To expand: I believe that space exploration is more important to the USA than either major party. If it is sidelined in future elections because of public reaction against the administration (and not the policy itself) it is detrimental to everyone; akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is, unless, you do not like increased funding for NASA. If that is the case then swing away, and more power to you. However, I was speaking to the constituency here and I am under the impression that most of us like the idea of space exploration.
"Anything Bush gives me is a coal and to you is a diamond."
This is exactly the type of thing that rattles my cage. It reveals a depth of prejudice and self destructive animosity that I cannot even begin to understand. I do not like everything that the Bush administration does. In fact, I personally have quite a bit of distrust for ALL politicians and because of this I am suspicious of what they do. If they happen to do something that I like, great, however I view most of the things that all administrations do as grandstanding in preparation for their next election. I cannot imagine hating a particular politician/party so much that I deride them when they do something that I like. I am already skeptical of them them all; the proverbial necessary evil. That some people become so brainwashed by one side that they forget that all politicians suck is pretty funny to me.
"We need changes to NASA, Changes to US politics and changes to our vision for America to get to Mars and YOUR beloved Bush has proven over and over and over again that he isn't the man for that job"
Number one, he ain't MY Bush. Number two, since he is just now procuring the funding for future exploration your statement makes no sense (with regard for Mars). It does, however, further expose your bias toward his administration. Keep in mind that there will most likely be (IMO) a democratic president next time. Looking at recent history (the link in my original post) democratic administrations have cut funding to NASA. If Bush sets into motion a monumental space program expansion it will carry over into future administrations and provide precedent for future investment by those successive administrations.
Considering democratic administrations penchant for reallocating space exploration funds for social programs I think that this could be an example of schitzophrenic synergy where we (the people!) actually BENEFIT from the 2 party system. Once the program has started and is supported by the people it wil be difficult to abandon it, regardless of who holds office. However, if someone dosen't get this ball rolling under a (historically abnormal) freespending republican administration it may never get rolling at all.
So, referring back to my original post which you masterfully misconstrued, take the good and be happy you with it. You may even get the chance to watch your own party see something of transcendent historical proportions to fruition. That is unless you tear it down so much out of spite that the next administration scraps the idea completely.
BITCHES!
(this is for all those who are using this to complain directly or indirectly about the current administration)
This is something GREAT for our country and ultimately our economy. Other countries will be begging to jump on board with us and help explore the universe around us. The new systems and soultions required to do next generation space experimentation will drive further advances in other areas.
And all you can do is bash the president, say we can't afford it, that it is a bad decision, etc. All because you dislike his other policies. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is what really makes me sick about people. They get a diamond ring from someone they don't like and they throw it in the outhouse. Morons.
I can't remember the number of times that I have read a discussion about NASA that was not replete with +5 insightful rants about how underfunded NASA is. Now that the government is increasing funding everyone is getting +5 insightfuls for naysaying the increase in funding. WHAT?!?!
For those who are politically motivated to attack the current administration under all circumstances, good or bad, just remember that NASA funding under the Clinton administration fell:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bowyer/030204. (I put in a Google search for "NASA funding clinton administration" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" to get the stats)
Please, have the maturity to take the good with the bad, be grateful for the things that happen that you like, and bide your time until the next chance to change things comes along. You never know who may be listening to what you say. If you use this as an opportunity to vent your dissatisfaction against the current administration when your preferred representatives get elected they might just look back and think that this is just not that important to you. (You in the collective sense)
As for myself, I agree that this is massively important to us. It is, IMHO, one of the areas that the USA can demonstrate that we can work with other nations in a harmonious way. Maybe I am a bit utopian, but I think that the questions that space exploration ultimately confronts (not the technical of how to get there, but what is there and why is it like it is) are universal with mankind. Because of this I think that they provide a chance for people to set aside things that can divide them and concentrate on a common goal. Sounds kinda sappy, but I believe that it is true. Whether I like the government or not, I see this increase in funding and dedication to this cause by the administration as a Good Thing.
"part of what you pay for is the assumption that the stories are timely, accurate, unbiased, and fact-checked"
/. railing against Fox for bias as well.
I find this comment fascinating. I consume fringe media like candy and one of the most common things I hear about is the media bias.
Tune into the pacifica broadcasts and you hear about how the industrial military government complex has infiltrated the media to the extent that they are controlling what words are used. They also flame the "mainstream media" for not telling the real story about just about everything.
Listen to Rush and he is (has been) proclaiming Liberal media bias on a daily basis. From Rathergate to the Clinton era this guy sees bias that solidly favors the liberals.
I hear tons of people on
So what I think we are seeing is that everyone is recognizing that media is biased in some way and people just want to pick a news presentation that reflects their own bias and listen to it exclusively. Maybe conflicting viewpoints anger, confuse, or (GASP) bore them. I think that the commentary of someone (blogger or commentator) with some perspicacity and a common viewpoint lends credence to people's opinions and feelings, and that is comforting to most people. Hearing them broadcast unabashedly into the ether for everyone else to hear/see gives them a feeling of community and even superiority.
Personally, I like to hear it all...both (or MORE!) tainted sides of the same sordid tale. I just wish that there was less rah-rah on both sides of the coin and more reason.
Example: Maureen Dowd used to be a fantastic edatorialist. Intelligent and concice, her opinions and observations, while not always agreeable to me, were rational and thought provoking. Then one day. something snapped in her and she became a vituperous cheerleader for hate. All her reason left and now she just calls people names and uses inflamatory language. Apparently there is an audience for this though. From this I gather that there are people with the same bias that want to read what she writes because they agree with it.
What I really admire and wish I caould see more of is "WHY." In other words, if you have a certain political position that shapes how you deliver media content tell me why.
Reason, thoughts, background knowledge, understanding of history, economics, etc. go into the mix to create an opinion or viewpoint and these thngs are important to deciphering the context of the presentation. Many times all we see is the end result of a certain worldview and not all the contributing background and thoughtful frame of reference that created them. I think that maybe, just maybe, other people want this "why" as well. I think that blogs are becoming more successful because they provide the why as well as the community experience of people who think like you do.
That and the fact that you can post on a blog and actually look like you are busy doing something worthwhile when your boss walks by.
I summed up your complaints in one (run on) sentence...
"There aren't enough good writers to make enough good shows to fill one station with good programming for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, much less 250 of them." --Me
Sometimes I think that they run the commercials to distract you from the horrible programs you are mesmerized into watching.
I work in a MINI Cooper dealership in Texas and I can definitely say that the Smart Cars will do quite well here.
There is a huge backlash against SUVs in Texas, and not by those granola munching tree huggers that everyone hates to stand next to on the bus, but by the much maligned Soccer Moms and Neo-yuppies that have kept the SUV business growing over the last few years. It seems that people that live in urban areas and that have owned a SUV would rather not have one again. I can't tell you how many people trade in F250 crew cab trucks, Suburbans, etc. here for MINIs.
Personally, I think that the fact that everything in Texas is so spread out and requires so much driving to get to will accelerate the demand for smaller more fuel efficient cars here, especailly when coupled with the rising cost of fuel.
I can cite a couple of things to back this up: A two to three month wait for a new MINI in Texas, a 8-10 month (maybe!) wait for a new Prius in Texas. In addition, I talk to quite a few people each week that not only know about the Smart cars but who also want to own one.
I will concur that in the more rural areas you won't see many of these, but that will be common to all places, not just Texas.
...I can't help envisioning a Hummer or Mack truck with some of these "smart" cars embedded in the radiator; kind of like butterflies or grasshopers you pick up on cross country trips.