but from what i understand, unless you are juvenile, if criminal charges are filed against you, its a matter of public record. and by public record, that means the public and the press have a legal right to access it
now you could wax and wane philosophical about vigilante justice and such, but i think the presumption of vigilantism all the time is just as noxious as the presumption of no vigilantism possilbe
so the real answer to your questions about making this information public is that there should be guidelines, and it should be case-by-case. not no information provided all the time, and not all information provided all the time. but the presumption of vigilantism everywhere, which seems a way you lean, is just as naive as the presumption of no vigilantism possible
noise cancellation by matching the frequencies and volumes is actually not that wacky, because the tone i hear is very high frequency, very low volume, perfectly constant and a perfect tone. meaning it is simple, not complex. so it wouldn't be difficult to match and cancel out
however, the problem is, like a phantom limb, phantom hearing is deafness... its just that with tinnitus the matching circuitry in the brain is left in the on position rather than the off position
the tiny hairs in my ear at that frequency are dead, they aren't sending any info to the brain. the sound i hear, although perfect and simple and telling me the noise is external, is all in my mind. so even if i matched everything perfectly, there's nothing that would transmit the antioscillation to my brain;-(
the problem is that it is equivalent in both ears. but i agree with you that twiddling around that frequency, some sort of volume/ frequency oscillations, might just jigger the neurological circuit into noticing. thanks!;-)
"You lose again. The only way Russia figured into the equation at all, was peripherally. The fact that the West controlled Iran's oil, denied the Soviet any opportunity of topping any bid we might make for the oil. Don't even TRY to bring the cold war into the Iranian coup. Iran wanted money that the US and UK were unwilling to pay, so they toppled the Iranian government."
yes MORON, i KNOW that. what you just said in that quote is what 100% i know and believe
you are acting like i am defending operation ajax, which is obviously why you bought the retarded example up in the first place!
but no, MORON, what i am doing is using your own example AGAINST you: the cold war fear of the usa? BULLSHIT REASON
right? both agreed?
real reason: OIL
now we are in agreement, right?
if you remember, i bought up the operation ajax example 2 3 posts above to MAKE FUN of the bullshit reason the usa gave for operation ajax, because its the same bullshit russia is giving you for invading georgia. do you want me to find that post of mine above or do you think you can trace for yourself with your vast intellect the reason i bought up operation ajax
ok, now let's see if your vast intellect can follow the bouncing ball:
bullshit russian crocodile tears reason for invading georgia: the poor suffering south ossetians
real reason for invading: monopoly on oil and gas pipelines to europe
agreed? no?
so you understand real reason vs bullshit propaganda reason when it comes to operation ajax
GOOD FOR YOU
but you don't understand the difference between a real reason and a bullshit propaganda reason when it comes to the russian invasion of georgia
"calling the usa a thug is funny. it's especially funny when when you realize that mexico is the one who started shelling chiapas and then proceeded to invade it whilst committing atrocities just short of genocide against the chiapas population. it becomes downright hilarious when you learn that chiapas has been a de facto independent state since breakup of spanish empire and belongs neither to the usa nor mexico. why is this funny? because your entire childish tirade is built around the fact usa's the bully when in reality, it is mexico."
so this would be your words if the usa invaded mexico in support of chiapas?
there's your independent state after the break up of soviet union you ignorant fuck
gee, i dunno, i have an alterative point of view, you might find it somewhat wacky: imperialist assholes have put forth support of oppressed minorities in tiny neighboring states as an excuse for invasion for centuries. yeah, i know, i'm a wacky guy with a really radical theory, it might push the envelope on your intelligence, my really crazy theory
its about russian monopoly on gas pipelines into europe, you moron
so, according to your support for russia's invasion and division of georgia according to the tired reason imperialists have given forever, you support the american invasion of mexico to support chiapas as an independent country? yes or no. if yes, you are still a retard, but at least an honest one. if no, tell us why, when the reasons the usa would give for invading mexico to "liberate" chiapas would be the same as what you believe russia tells you about georgia, you dumb fuck
you want 100 examples from history showing this support of oppressed minorities to be a tired propagandistic excuse by imperialists from throughout history? you probably already know 100 examples, since you are such a brilliant student of world history, right?
military invasion is the ONLY way russia can help south ossetia, oh great student of peace and love?
its because of pipelines you fucking moron, russia wanted a monopoly. fucking ignorant douchebag. you understand petrodollar greed about operation ajax, but not georgia
so if the ussr can find some dudes in juneau who would support invasion, you would too?
solid fact: the propaganda reasons russia gives you for invading georgia, that you swallow unquestionably, are just as flimsy as the ones american apologists give for operation ajax: it was the cold war, we couldn't let iran fall under russian influence see? its all innocent
that reason of course is bullshit. and yet you believe that same flimsy bullshit when russia gives you it about invading georgia
oh, right, ossetia is not part of georgia, as a vastly intelligent student of world history, you know this
russia wants to control the PIPELINES you ignorant blind fuck. russia has its little feelings hurt about losing empire, you ignorant blind fuck. tibilisi was acting all uppity, so it deserved it, right?
Russian America (Russian: ) was the name used for Russian possessions in the Americas during the period between 1733 and 1867 in which Russia claimed the territory that today is the U.S. state of Alaska and established settlements farther south in California. Formal incorporation of the possessions did not take place until the Ukase of 1799, which established a monopoly for the Russian-American Company and also granted the Russian Orthodox Church certain rights in the new possessions. Contents [hide] 1 Russian discovery of Alaska 2 Russian settlement 2.1 1740s to 1800 2.2 1800 to 1867 3 Missionary activity 4 Sale of Alaska to the United States 5 See also 6 References [edit]Russian discovery of Alaska
The first written accounts indicate that the first Europeans to reach Alaska came from Russia. One legend holds that the first Russian settlement in Alaska was founded when boats from a 1648 expedition of Semyon Dezhnev, which was meant to go to the Anadyr River, were carried off course and carried to Alaska. There is no evidence, however, of such a settlement or settlements. It is possible that Dezhnyev and Fedot Alekseev, a Russian merchant, became the first people to sail into the Arctic from the Pacific through what is now called the Bering Strait.[citation needed] His discovery was never forwarded to the central government, leaving the question of whether or not Siberia was connected to North America. In 1725, Peter I of Russia called for another expedition. As a part of the 1733-1743 second Kamchatka expedition, the St. Peter, captained by Dane Vitus Bering, and the St. Paul, captained by Russian Alexei Chirikov, set sail from Russia at the Kamchatkan port of Petropavlovsk in June 1741. They were soon separated, but each continued sailing east. On July 15, Chirikov sighted land, probably the west side of Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska.[1] He sent a group of men ashore in a longboat, making them the first Europeans to land on the northwestern coast of North America. On roughly July 16, Bering and the crew of St. Peter sighted Mount Saint Elias on the Alaskan mainland; they turned westward toward Russia soon afterward. Meanwhile, Chirikov and the St. Paul headed back to Russia in October with news of the land they had found. In November, however, Bering's ship was wrecked on Bering Island. There, Bering fell ill and died, and the ship was dashed to pieces by high winds. The stranded crew wintered on the island, then the survivors built a boat from the wreckage and set sail for Russia in August 1742. Bering's crew reached the shore of Kamchatka in 1742, carrying word of the expedition. The sea otter pelts they brought, soon judged to be the finest fur in the world, would spark Russian settlement in Alaska.
History of Alaska Prehistory Russian America (1733-1867) Department of Alaska (1867-1884) District of Alaska (1884-1912) Alaska Territory (1912-1959) Recent history (1959-present) Other topics v d e [edit]Russian settlement
therefore, what motivates the dutch forever after is evil and selfishness
and no dutchman can ever possibly criticize the russians then after that massacre, of course
meanwhile, the russians, look at those cute russians
when they tell me they care deeply about the welfare of the south ossetians, well now look, don't you get the BIG PICTURE (tm)? obviously, those cute russians are innocent angels, while you are a selfish evil dutchman
see, i am vastly intelligent student of world history. i see the BIG PICTURE (tm). and what world history has taught me is that the dutch are always motivated by pure selfish evil, while the russians are poor innocent victims fighting for justice
"I'm finished arguing whether Russia had any right to invade Georgia, because they did no such thing."
right. just like islas de la juventud is not REALLY part of cuba because i know some guys there who said so so the usa can invade now
what a fucking ignorant retard you are. no really. you say you are finished? dude, you never even got started. you're a fucking moron. i'm not hurling insults. i'm taking an objective measurement of your ability to think critically about the world: you're STUPID
georgia used to be part of the ussr. hell, stalin was georgian
and? that means its ok if the usa invades cuba? that makes it ok for russia to invade georgia? obviously no on either. so why the fuck do you believe any of your bullshit rationalization above means its ok for russia to invade georgia?
islas de pinas (the old name) had a lot of land that was owned by americans before cuba repatriated all of that land under communism. all those americans bought the land fair and square, so the usa has every right to invade... for justice!
the usa freed cuba from spain, with the blood of american servicemen, so cuba owes the usa big time, and the usa left cuba like a nice gentleman, left without a fight, so now cuba should allow the usa to take over islas de la juventud... for justice!
and other such pure fucking bullshit
and yet you believe that exact same bullshit, when russia says it about invading georgia. fucking amazing, your ignorant blindness
but there's a BIG PICTURE (tm)! yeah, there's a big picture you dimwit: invaders use any fucking reason they can think of to invade a country they want to. what, you didn't learn enough from your vast understanding of history yet you retard?
countries invade other countries all the time, and they always have their "reasons". hell, here's another bullshit reason for you: "because saddam hussein is building nukes". fucking laughable bullshit from the moment it came out of little drunk frat boy monkey gw bush's mouth. you understand that. you understand its bullshit
so why don't you fucking understand russia's reason for invading georgia is the same sort of bullshit? what the hell is wrong with you? there's always REASONS you dimwit. but when russia gives you its REASONS, you go "yeah, makes perfect sense". what a moron
and you keep fucking rambling on and on about operation ajax. dude! do you imagine i will defend it or something? it's like a parallel obsession in your brain, like the only thing you even understand about history. we get it, retard: the usa did something evil. the usa did something wrong. no one is disputing or denying that. what do you think operation ajax proves? that the ussr should now be excused because operation ajax occured? i mean, what exactly does fucking ajax fucking prove about russia invading georgia in any way whatsoever?
do you see how fucking twisted your stupidity is?
if you reply, i'm going to start babbling incoherently about how the dutch massacred indonesians in the banda islands to retain control of the spice trade. it was obviously greed, and yet the dutch say they care about human rights, hah! what liars and hypocrites, right?
and you have the audacity to criticize the japanese invasion of manchuria?
how can you do that, when the dutch massacred indonesians you fascist apologist?
huh?!
what the HELL do the dutch in indonesia have to do with the japanese in manchuria?
i don't fucking know, i'm just trying to play your game, i'm just thinking like you think
you're the asshole who keeps fucking babbling about operation ajax when we're talking about russia invading georgia
you ALMOST got by not mentioning the usa even once
i got faith in you kid, you can do it someday
as for your tip about looking at the big picture: many thanks. this is a blindingly radical concept that had never occurred to me before. you are truly a gifted mind beyond the realm of average men
and as for operation ajax: this had to do with cleaning bathroom floors, right? i had never even remotely heard of such a historical event until this very thread in which you brought it to my very attention. my gosh, where would i ever be without your laserlike cutting mind?
(snicker)
but you challenge me to make a meaningful post, so i'll drop the fun and games and repeat something i already wrote in a comment above for your benefit:
you don't read the histories of the world to explain why no one is responsible for anything in this world, you read it to understand the context of certain vile actions and behaviors, but it doesn't excuse ANYONE
i need to mention this, because this seems to be what your conception of getting the big picture means: " people do bad things, but there are reasons for it, so its ok they do bad things"
"A short study of Nazi Germany will make that clear. The loss of WW1, combined with the hardship and suffering of the Great Depression, aggravated by callousness and greed on the part of WW1's victors all contributed to creating Nazi Germany."
ok, and... so we don't criticize nazi germany? explanation=excusing?
or, to put it in the frame of this discussion: "yes, russia invaded a tiny sovereign neighbor because of that neighbor's internal conflicts, but america is a big poopyhead and i was talking with some guy on slashdot and he committed the crime of not criticizing only the usa 100% of the time... and so we can excuse russia for its crimes because there is a BIG PICTURE"
but revive an old enemy, like a retrovirus, and suddenly its nice to have that attic/ basement to rummage around in and pull out that old doodad, rather than having to build/ buy it all over again
the problem is that there is effort required to be resistant to a disease. whatever genes express for has a cost associated with it. so it pays to stop expressing certain genes, to be more efficient, and so HIV resistance has been abandoned over the years... but the threat hasn't gone away
so it ALSO pays to keep the genes for expressing that rare need should the need ever rise again. "junk" dna provides quick turnaround when dealing with rare/ uncommon challenges, without having to evolve the ability all over again
junk dna is genetic flexibility, accrued genetic wisdom over billions of years that can be called upon again a lot more quicker than re-evolving a trait. but it IS junk, for most normal time and places
so perhaps we should call it basement dna instead of junk dna?;-)
you might have an old cassette radio in your basement from the 1980s. what is that useful for? suddenly the power goes out. what's going on? plop some batteries in that cassette radio, tune into AM news, and find out. suddenly the completely useless is very useful: junk dna. once in a blue moon dna
you don't keep it on your kitchen counter, you keep it in your basement. your body has stopped expressing certain genes, but it doesn't throw them out, it just relegates it to the genetic basement
i hear a steady tone all day, and its not in my ear, its in my brain. i've grown used to it, accepting the fact i'll have this my whole life, and so it doesn't really bother me that much anymore, i go whole weeks now barely paying it any attention, and your mind just edits it out of daily life
but in the article they talk about the guy with the phantom limb pain... and they do a little trick with him standing perpendicular to mirror, and the brain sees two arms, and... voila, it resets the brain, no more phantom limb pain
amazing! wtf!?
i'm suddenly filled with hope for my tinnitus (false hope?)
if only there were such a neurological sleight of hand like those mirrors in that article, like that, but for the ear instead
i've been thinking about it... a movie of loud noise events without a soundtrack?
i don't know, some way like those mirrors to draw attention to the brain that, in fact, there is no tone playing, you can turn that circuit off now, thank you very much
but tinnitus is not uncommon, so me, or anyone else, who figures out the neurological sleight of hand like those mirrors and the phantom limb pain... to trick the brain into noticing: oh yeah, there is no tone playing, turn that off
the person who does that for tinnitus will win a nobel in medicine and become a millionaire, i promise
you can criticize tehran or moscow without being an american neocon drinking oil from the skull of a dead iraqi child
you can criticize washington without being a theocratic fundamentalist hypocrite or a mafiaesque imperialistic thug
both statements seem completely obvious, and i am repeating myself
and yet your entire spiel above operates on the assumption that i CAN'T criticize russia unless i am american ultranationalist
"I thank you for your rant, though. Obviously, I got under your skin. Now - do you even understand what Operation Ajax was all about, and what the consequences were? How about the Bay of Pigs fiasco? And, the CIA's operation with a shot up boat that got us involved in Vietnam? How many of our own sins are you aware of, and willing to admit guilt for?"
yeah, you got me: i worship gw bush as a god and i suck dick cheney's cock and i know absolutely nothing about world history and the usa is responsbile for nothing bad in the world and all americans are flowers and sing campfire songs of love
(rolls eyes)
all because i criticized russia
right?
pfffffffft
what a blind asshole you are. its so fucking predictable: criticize a government in the world, any government. instant reply: "well, america did..." america did what? rape children? decapitate pensioners? why does it FUCKING matter? america is the most vile evil country that ever existed on the face of the earth... and... and what? so you can't criticize anyone else without mentioning AMERIKKKA?
WHAT THE HELL DOES THE USA HAVE TO DO WITH THE CRIMES RUSSIA DOES?
i criticize nigeria, i criticize brazil, i criticize india, i criticize china...
"yeah but america..."
america what? why is it impossible in your mind that you can actually criticize a country besides the usa in this world, on that merit alone? without even mentioning the usa? why is it impossible for you to do that without thinking about the usa?
i'll tell you what it is, what you suffer from: you're ethnocentric. you are an ethnocentric american. yes, you really are
you know the blind stupid chest thumping american hillbilly who excuses everything america does? he's an evil moron right?
well, allow me to present the mirror image: the evil moron who blames the usa for every goddamn thing. he can't stop thinking about the usa
this is not intellectually honest of you
what is intellectually honest? a point of view of the world that is not biased for or AGAINST any nation in the world. the only morally and logically coherent point of view is a GLOBAL one
so when i comment on russia, or georgia, or china, if you are a blind ethnocentric person, you go "yeah but america..."
america WHAT????????? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICA
i'm not talking about the usa. is it possible for you to find the ability to criticize a place in this world without once thinking of or blaming the usa for something?
guess what: there are a lot of people and countries in this world, and they all don't revolve around the usa. yet, in your mind, they DO. it is impossible for you to think about any problem, or any country, or any peoples in this entire planet, without it leading back to something the usa did. that's you! who else is like that? in the mind of the blindly pro-american hillbilly idiot, it all revolves around the usa too. you're one and the same as he
who am i? i criticize russia, i criticize the usa, i criticize iran. i can do all these things, and i am not pro or anti american, nor pro or anti russian, nor pro or anti iranian. i am intellectually honest
you, you're not intellectually honest. you're a prejudiced, obsessed moron
i'll say it again, maybe it will sink into your thick skull:
there are a lot of people and countries in this world, and they all don't revolve around the usa
you take stock of events, and you admit where you have done wrong
but there is an alternative line of thought, that losers engages in, which is: you take stock of events, and you explain away everything as completely not your fault
"If you cannot condemn American actions when they are obviously done for selfish reasons (operation Ajax?) then you can't condemn Russian actions when they are done for what you consider to be selfish reasons."
what the hell does that have to do with anything? give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to all of them. at this point you can criticize russia? or: give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to none of them. so russia can now commit horrible crimes? what the hell does anything america ever did, whether america is the devil himself or a complete innocent angel, have to do with the evil russia did?
basically what you are saying is "russia doesn't have to be accountable for anything bad it ever did, because somebody, somewhere else, did something bad once"
this is how you think about the world. this is the paraphrasing of your words above
the way you think is the path of ruin for us all. we need people in this world to take MORE responsiblity and accountability, not less. and all your thinking is "this is how you take less responsibility: you observe somebody else did someting bad, so now its ok i did something bad"
no, idiot: america does plenty of bad things. russia does plenty of bad things. you admit to them. that russia did bad things does not excuse the usa. that america did bad things does not excuse russia. get it idiot? you don't read the histories of the world to explain why no one is responsible for anything in this world, you read it to understand the context of certain vile actions and behaviors, but it doesn't excuse ANYONE
now, according to you, and the way you think above, this bit of history gives america the right to do evil without explaining itself. why? because russia did something bad once. fucking bullshit, right? well that fucking bullshit is exactly your words above, in reverse
for example, you point out operation ajax. ok, and? this was something evil america did. so now what? now we can't criticize russia? now russia is allowed to do evil things? because operation ajax happened once? wtf?
you don't have any intellectual honesty. we need MORE repsonsibility taking in this world, not less, and your whole way of thinking is all about tearing down accountability and responsibility
you are what's wrong with this world. no, i really mean that. your rationalization is the exact same rationalization that goes through the mind of anyone right before they commit any crime in this world: "well someone else did something bad, so this crime is ok"
i have a job for you to do: criticize russia. criticize something bad it did. you will find out an amazing thing: you can still criticize the usa after you do that. that you can criticize BOTH the usa and russia, and that criticizing russia doesn't mean you're an american neocon, and that criticizing america doesn't mean your a russian apologist
there's a whole bunch of crap down there i needed at one time, and mostly have forgotten about. there's also a small chance i'll need something down there again, but usefulness is so marginal. but every now and then i'll notice a glimmer of something in the corner i had totally forgotten, and i go "holy crap! this is incredibly important!"
"america does bad things. therefore, its ok for russia to do bad things"
assume america is the most bloodthirsty, vile evil empire that ever existed in the history of the world
ok
in what way does this validate anything bad russia does?
"well see my neighbor, he stabbed his wife to death. therefore when i cut your arm off, that's excuseable"
very shallow efforts at rationalization, no?
a strong people are a people who can engage in self-criticism and take criticism from others. in fact, this is probably the most effective metric for true strength in the world, on any issue, from individuals to entire nations
so you have criticisms of the usa? good, fine, lets hear them. i welcome your criticisms. the usa is not perfect. i have plenty of problems with american behavior too. i spit on the gw bush administration. i recognize every subject of american aggression you raise in your comment and a whole bunch more you didn't mention
and now, guess what... its your turn. let us hear YOU criticize russia. let us hear you address my criticisms of russia. directly, rather than deflecting my words back emptily: "well, america is bad too, so you can't criticize"
what is this, kindergarten? are you 5 years old?
is it impossible for a russian to self-criticize or hear criticism of russia?
do you think this is a sign of strength on your part?
as is the problem with most potent drugs in difficult to manage delivery forms, its hard to calibrate the right dose that exists somewhere between intended effect, and death
because havana has political disagreements with the population there
oh, the people of south ossetia have disagreements with tbilisi? gee, fucking wow. so the people in south ossetia are like outlying regions in every goddamn country on the planet? awesome rationale for russian military invasion
russia is engaging in neoimperialism. to frame russian aggression against a small neighbor as some sort of defensive posture is the biggest pile of steaming bullshit imaginable. biden is absolutely right: russia is stuck in the 19th century. seriously, russians: what the hell is wrong with your country? why are you so goddamn ultranationalistic? why do you favor "strength" over justice? putin walks around with his shirt off, russians swoon, and the thuggish crimes of the veritable mafia that runs that country are forgiven
i now await my complete psychological deflections and projecting on others: more tired typical anti-americanisms when RUSSIA is the one engaging in military aggression (its the usa's fault, obviously, when russian tanks roll, obviously!), and other such completely intellectually incoherent attempts at justifying what is nothing more than obvious naked russian imperialistic aggression on a small southern neighbor
sorry if i sound so critical of russia. easy solution: just come find me and drive an icepick into a brain, pour some polonium in my tea, or dose my food with dioxin
for daring to question oh so unquestionable mother russia. or just shoot me in the street, like you do any other russian journalist who dare criticize the rationale and thinking of the strict party line of the dumbest ultranationalist russian thug, right?
heaven forbid a little self-critical introspection might actually result in a better russia, right?
russia is a pathetic thugocracy: "strength" over justice
that kind of "strength" will of course result in the weakest russia that will ever be, that will make the humiliation of the russo-japanese war look like a pride building exercise, mark my words russia. not that russia will ever find that out and correct its course. because criticism of russia is a crime
russia: self-criticism is the way to a better russia. only the psychology of a thug is antagonistic to this idea. and so without such introspection, you get the brutal thug life you deserve
i know tobacco is a stew of horrible glycosides, alkaloids, and other plant poisons (which of course, is all nicotine really is: its just the plant saying "stop eating me!"), and boiling tobacco in water might deliver far less nicotine and far more bitter tasting horrible for you glycoalkaloids
but still, there's got to be a cheap natural way to get nicotine without getting lung cancer and without forking over lots of money to pharmaceutical companies
Radioactive carcinogens In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263-0.036 pCi (0.97-1.33 mBq),[35] which is equivalent to about 0.1 pCi per milligram of smoke (4 mBq/mg); or about 0.81 pCi of lead 210 per gram of dry condensed smoke (30 Bq/kg). Research by NCAR radiochemist Ed Martell determined that radioactive compounds in cigarette smoke are deposited in "hot spots" where bronchial tubes branch. Since tar from cigarette smoke is resistant to dissolving in lung fluid, the radioactive compounds have a great deal of time to undergo radioactive decay before being cleared by natural processes. Indoors, these radioactive compounds linger in secondhand smoke, and therefore greater exposure occurs when these radioactive compounds are inhaled during normal breathing, which is deeper and longer than when inhaling cigarettes. Damage to the protective epithelial tissue from smoking only increases the prolonged retention of insoluble polonium 210 compounds produced from burning tobacco. Martell estimated that a carcinogenic radiation dose of 80-100 rads is delivered the lung tissue of most smokers who die of lung cancer.[36] The view that polonium 210 is responsible for many cases of cancer in tobacco smokers is disputed by at least one researcher.[37][38]
same neurological basis as a phantom limb, but far more rare (blessedly so)
it is probably one of the greatest definitions of hell on earth. the itch that never, ever goes away:
M. was willing to consider such possibilities. Her life had been a mess, after all. But the antidepressant medications often prescribed for O.C.D. made no difference. And she didn't actually feel a compulsion to pull out her hair. She simply felt itchy, on the area of her scalp that was left numb from the shingles. Although she could sometimes distract herself from it--by watching television or talking with a friend--the itch did not fluctuate with her mood or level of stress. The only thing that came close to offering relief was to scratch. "Scratching is one of the sweetest gratifications of nature, and as ready at hand as any," Montaigne wrote. "But repentance follows too annoyingly close at its heels." For M., certainly, it did: the itching was so torturous, and the area so numb, that her scratching began to go through the skin. At a later office visit, her doctor found a silver-dollar-size patch of scalp where skin had been replaced by scab. M. tried bandaging her head, wearing caps to bed. But her fingernails would always find a way to her flesh, especially while she slept. One morning, after she was awakened by her bedside alarm, she sat up and, she recalled, "this fluid came down my face, this greenish liquid." She pressed a square of gauze to her head and went to see her doctor again. M. showed the doctor the fluid on the dressing. The doctor looked closely at the wound. She shined a light on it and in M.'s eyes. Then she walked out of the room and called an ambulance. Only in the Emergency Department at Massachusetts General Hospital, after the doctors started swarming, and one told her she needed surgery now, did M. learn what had happened. She had scratched through her skull during the night--and all the way into her brain.
...
The second theory seemed less likely. If the nerves to her scalp were dead, how would you explain the relief she got from scratching, or from the local anesthetic? Indeed, how could you explain the itch in the first place? An itch without nerve endings didn't make sense. The neurosurgeons stuck with the first theory; they offered to cut the main sensory nerve to the front of M.'s scalp and abolish the itching permanently. Oaklander, however, thought that the second theory was the right one--that this was a brain problem, not a nerve problem--and that cutting the nerve would do more harm than good. She argued with the neurosurgeons, and she advised M. not to let them do any cutting. "But I was desperate," M. told me. She let them operate on her, slicing the supraorbital nerve above the right eye. When she woke up, a whole section of her forehead was numb--and the itching was gone. A few weeks later, however, it came back, in an even wider expanse than before. The doctors tried pain medications, more psychiatric medications, more local anesthetic. But the only thing that kept M. from tearing her skin and skull open again, the doctors found, was to put a foam football helmet on her head and bind her wrists to the bedrails at night. She spent the next two years committed to a locked medical ward in a rehabilitation hospital--because, although she was not mentally ill, she was considered a danger to herself. Eventually, the staff worked out a solution that did not require binding her to the bedrails. Along with the football helmet, she had to wear white mitts that were secured around her wrists by surgical tape. "Every bedtime, it looked like they were dressing me up for Halloween--me and the guy next to me," she told me. "The guy next to you?" I asked. He had had shingles on his neck, she explain
Slashdot Mirror
but from what i understand, unless you are juvenile, if criminal charges are filed against you, its a matter of public record. and by public record, that means the public and the press have a legal right to access it
now you could wax and wane philosophical about vigilante justice and such, but i think the presumption of vigilantism all the time is just as noxious as the presumption of no vigilantism possilbe
so the real answer to your questions about making this information public is that there should be guidelines, and it should be case-by-case. not no information provided all the time, and not all information provided all the time. but the presumption of vigilantism everywhere, which seems a way you lean, is just as naive as the presumption of no vigilantism possible
and why waste it? its not a waste product
1. reduce friction between skin surfaces in tight spots. same reason you have underarm hair
2. retain pheromones for sexual attraction and cues
noise cancellation by matching the frequencies and volumes is actually not that wacky, because the tone i hear is very high frequency, very low volume, perfectly constant and a perfect tone. meaning it is simple, not complex. so it wouldn't be difficult to match and cancel out
however, the problem is, like a phantom limb, phantom hearing is deafness... its just that with tinnitus the matching circuitry in the brain is left in the on position rather than the off position
the tiny hairs in my ear at that frequency are dead, they aren't sending any info to the brain. the sound i hear, although perfect and simple and telling me the noise is external, is all in my mind. so even if i matched everything perfectly, there's nothing that would transmit the antioscillation to my brain ;-(
but thanks anyway ;-)
the problem is that it is equivalent in both ears. but i agree with you that twiddling around that frequency, some sort of volume/ frequency oscillations, might just jigger the neurological circuit into noticing. thanks! ;-)
"You lose again. The only way Russia figured into the equation at all, was peripherally. The fact that the West controlled Iran's oil, denied the Soviet any opportunity of topping any bid we might make for the oil. Don't even TRY to bring the cold war into the Iranian coup. Iran wanted money that the US and UK were unwilling to pay, so they toppled the Iranian government."
yes MORON, i KNOW that. what you just said in that quote is what 100% i know and believe
you are acting like i am defending operation ajax, which is obviously why you bought the retarded example up in the first place!
but no, MORON, what i am doing is using your own example AGAINST you: the cold war fear of the usa? BULLSHIT REASON
right? both agreed?
real reason: OIL
now we are in agreement, right?
if you remember, i bought up the operation ajax example 2 3 posts above to MAKE FUN of the bullshit reason the usa gave for operation ajax, because its the same bullshit russia is giving you for invading georgia. do you want me to find that post of mine above or do you think you can trace for yourself with your vast intellect the reason i bought up operation ajax
ok, now let's see if your vast intellect can follow the bouncing ball:
bullshit russian crocodile tears reason for invading georgia: the poor suffering south ossetians
real reason for invading: monopoly on oil and gas pipelines to europe
agreed? no?
so you understand real reason vs bullshit propaganda reason when it comes to operation ajax
GOOD FOR YOU
but you don't understand the difference between a real reason and a bullshit propaganda reason when it comes to the russian invasion of georgia
why is that, moron?
"calling the usa a thug is funny. it's especially funny when when you realize that mexico is the one who started shelling chiapas and then proceeded to invade it whilst committing atrocities just short of genocide against the chiapas population. it becomes downright hilarious when you learn that chiapas has been a de facto independent state since breakup of spanish empire and belongs neither to the usa nor mexico. why is this funny? because your entire childish tirade is built around the fact usa's the bully when in reality, it is mexico."
so this would be your words if the usa invaded mexico in support of chiapas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
tell me how the analogy fails
remember sudetenland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#Sudeten_Crisis
you want 100 other examples from history?
gee, here's a funny one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya
there's your independent state after the break up of soviet union you ignorant fuck
gee, i dunno, i have an alterative point of view, you might find it somewhat wacky: imperialist assholes have put forth support of oppressed minorities in tiny neighboring states as an excuse for invasion for centuries. yeah, i know, i'm a wacky guy with a really radical theory, it might push the envelope on your intelligence, my really crazy theory
its about russian monopoly on gas pipelines into europe, you moron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Cold_War_Origins
can't even keep track of the facts for your own sacred white elephant. i'm sorry this has escaped your attention, oh genius student of world history
now, here:
chiapas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiapas
independent ethnically succinct group of oppressed indigenuous peoples abused by mexico city and in open revolt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
so, according to your support for russia's invasion and division of georgia according to the tired reason imperialists have given forever, you support the american invasion of mexico to support chiapas as an independent country? yes or no. if yes, you are still a retard, but at least an honest one. if no, tell us why, when the reasons the usa would give for invading mexico to "liberate" chiapas would be the same as what you believe russia tells you about georgia, you dumb fuck
remember sudetenland you fucking moron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#Sudeten_Crisis
you want 100 examples from history showing this support of oppressed minorities to be a tired propagandistic excuse by imperialists from throughout history? you probably already know 100 examples, since you are such a brilliant student of world history, right?
military invasion is the ONLY way russia can help south ossetia, oh great student of peace and love?
its because of pipelines you fucking moron, russia wanted a monopoly. fucking ignorant douchebag. you understand petrodollar greed about operation ajax, but not georgia
you are A MORON
so if the ussr can find some dudes in juneau who would support invasion, you would too?
solid fact: the propaganda reasons russia gives you for invading georgia, that you swallow unquestionably, are just as flimsy as the ones american apologists give for operation ajax: it was the cold war, we couldn't let iran fall under russian influence see? its all innocent
that reason of course is bullshit. and yet you believe that same flimsy bullshit when russia gives you it about invading georgia
oh, right, ossetia is not part of georgia, as a vastly intelligent student of world history, you know this
russia wants to control the PIPELINES you ignorant blind fuck. russia has its little feelings hurt about losing empire, you ignorant blind fuck. tibilisi was acting all uppity, so it deserved it, right?
well, russia has every right to invade alaska:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Alaska
Russian America (Russian: ) was the name used for Russian possessions in the Americas during the period between 1733 and 1867 in which Russia claimed the territory that today is the U.S. state of Alaska and established settlements farther south in California. Formal incorporation of the possessions did not take place until the Ukase of 1799, which established a monopoly for the Russian-American Company and also granted the Russian Orthodox Church certain rights in the new possessions.
Contents [hide]
1 Russian discovery of Alaska
2 Russian settlement
2.1 1740s to 1800
2.2 1800 to 1867
3 Missionary activity
4 Sale of Alaska to the United States
5 See also
6 References
[edit]Russian discovery of Alaska
The first written accounts indicate that the first Europeans to reach Alaska came from Russia. One legend holds that the first Russian settlement in Alaska was founded when boats from a 1648 expedition of Semyon Dezhnev, which was meant to go to the Anadyr River, were carried off course and carried to Alaska. There is no evidence, however, of such a settlement or settlements. It is possible that Dezhnyev and Fedot Alekseev, a Russian merchant, became the first people to sail into the Arctic from the Pacific through what is now called the Bering Strait.[citation needed] His discovery was never forwarded to the central government, leaving the question of whether or not Siberia was connected to North America. In 1725, Peter I of Russia called for another expedition.
As a part of the 1733-1743 second Kamchatka expedition, the St. Peter, captained by Dane Vitus Bering, and the St. Paul, captained by Russian Alexei Chirikov, set sail from Russia at the Kamchatkan port of Petropavlovsk in June 1741. They were soon separated, but each continued sailing east.
On July 15, Chirikov sighted land, probably the west side of Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska.[1] He sent a group of men ashore in a longboat, making them the first Europeans to land on the northwestern coast of North America.
On roughly July 16, Bering and the crew of St. Peter sighted Mount Saint Elias on the Alaskan mainland; they turned westward toward Russia soon afterward. Meanwhile, Chirikov and the St. Paul headed back to Russia in October with news of the land they had found.
In November, however, Bering's ship was wrecked on Bering Island. There, Bering fell ill and died, and the ship was dashed to pieces by high winds. The stranded crew wintered on the island, then the survivors built a boat from the wreckage and set sail for Russia in August 1742. Bering's crew reached the shore of Kamchatka in 1742, carrying word of the expedition. The sea otter pelts they brought, soon judged to be the finest fur in the world, would spark Russian settlement in Alaska.
History of Alaska
Prehistory
Russian America (1733-1867)
Department of Alaska (1867-1884)
District of Alaska (1884-1912)
Alaska Territory (1912-1959)
Recent history (1959-present)
Other topics
v d e
[edit]Russian settlement
[edit]1740s to 180
don't you know the dutch massacred bandanese?
therefore, what motivates the dutch forever after is evil and selfishness
and no dutchman can ever possibly criticize the russians then after that massacre, of course
meanwhile, the russians, look at those cute russians
when they tell me they care deeply about the welfare of the south ossetians, well now look, don't you get the BIG PICTURE (tm)? obviously, those cute russians are innocent angels, while you are a selfish evil dutchman
see, i am vastly intelligent student of world history. i see the BIG PICTURE (tm). and what world history has taught me is that the dutch are always motivated by pure selfish evil, while the russians are poor innocent victims fighting for justice
"I'm finished arguing whether Russia had any right to invade Georgia, because they did no such thing."
right. just like islas de la juventud is not REALLY part of cuba because i know some guys there who said so so the usa can invade now
what a fucking ignorant retard you are. no really. you say you are finished? dude, you never even got started. you're a fucking moron. i'm not hurling insults. i'm taking an objective measurement of your ability to think critically about the world: you're STUPID
georgia used to be part of the ussr. hell, stalin was georgian
and? that means its ok if the usa invades cuba? that makes it ok for russia to invade georgia? obviously no on either. so why the fuck do you believe any of your bullshit rationalization above means its ok for russia to invade georgia?
islas de pinas (the old name) had a lot of land that was owned by americans before cuba repatriated all of that land under communism. all those americans bought the land fair and square, so the usa has every right to invade... for justice!
the usa freed cuba from spain, with the blood of american servicemen, so cuba owes the usa big time, and the usa left cuba like a nice gentleman, left without a fight, so now cuba should allow the usa to take over islas de la juventud... for justice!
and other such pure fucking bullshit
and yet you believe that exact same bullshit, when russia says it about invading georgia. fucking amazing, your ignorant blindness
but there's a BIG PICTURE (tm)! yeah, there's a big picture you dimwit: invaders use any fucking reason they can think of to invade a country they want to. what, you didn't learn enough from your vast understanding of history yet you retard?
countries invade other countries all the time, and they always have their "reasons". hell, here's another bullshit reason for you: "because saddam hussein is building nukes". fucking laughable bullshit from the moment it came out of little drunk frat boy monkey gw bush's mouth. you understand that. you understand its bullshit
so why don't you fucking understand russia's reason for invading georgia is the same sort of bullshit? what the hell is wrong with you? there's always REASONS you dimwit. but when russia gives you its REASONS, you go "yeah, makes perfect sense". what a moron
and you keep fucking rambling on and on about operation ajax. dude! do you imagine i will defend it or something? it's like a parallel obsession in your brain, like the only thing you even understand about history. we get it, retard: the usa did something evil. the usa did something wrong. no one is disputing or denying that. what do you think operation ajax proves? that the ussr should now be excused because operation ajax occured? i mean, what exactly does fucking ajax fucking prove about russia invading georgia in any way whatsoever?
do you see how fucking twisted your stupidity is?
if you reply, i'm going to start babbling incoherently about how the dutch massacred indonesians in the banda islands to retain control of the spice trade. it was obviously greed, and yet the dutch say they care about human rights, hah! what liars and hypocrites, right?
and you have the audacity to criticize the japanese invasion of manchuria?
how can you do that, when the dutch massacred indonesians you fascist apologist?
huh?!
what the HELL do the dutch in indonesia have to do with the japanese in manchuria?
i don't fucking know, i'm just trying to play your game, i'm just thinking like you think
you're the asshole who keeps fucking babbling about operation ajax when we're talking about russia invading georgia
what a fucking moron
with the universe
you ALMOST got by not mentioning the usa even once
i got faith in you kid, you can do it someday
as for your tip about looking at the big picture: many thanks. this is a blindingly radical concept that had never occurred to me before. you are truly a gifted mind beyond the realm of average men
and as for operation ajax: this had to do with cleaning bathroom floors, right? i had never even remotely heard of such a historical event until this very thread in which you brought it to my very attention. my gosh, where would i ever be without your laserlike cutting mind?
(snicker)
but you challenge me to make a meaningful post, so i'll drop the fun and games and repeat something i already wrote in a comment above for your benefit:
you don't read the histories of the world to explain why no one is responsible for anything in this world, you read it to understand the context of certain vile actions and behaviors, but it doesn't excuse ANYONE
i need to mention this, because this seems to be what your conception of getting the big picture means: " people do bad things, but there are reasons for it, so its ok they do bad things"
"A short study of Nazi Germany will make that clear. The loss of WW1, combined with the hardship and suffering of the Great Depression, aggravated by callousness and greed on the part of WW1's victors all contributed to creating Nazi Germany."
ok, and... so we don't criticize nazi germany? explanation=excusing?
or, to put it in the frame of this discussion: "yes, russia invaded a tiny sovereign neighbor because of that neighbor's internal conflicts, but america is a big poopyhead and i was talking with some guy on slashdot and he committed the crime of not criticizing only the usa 100% of the time... and so we can excuse russia for its crimes because there is a BIG PICTURE"
zzz
at a particular time and place
but revive an old enemy, like a retrovirus, and suddenly its nice to have that attic/ basement to rummage around in and pull out that old doodad, rather than having to build/ buy it all over again
the problem is that there is effort required to be resistant to a disease. whatever genes express for has a cost associated with it. so it pays to stop expressing certain genes, to be more efficient, and so HIV resistance has been abandoned over the years... but the threat hasn't gone away
so it ALSO pays to keep the genes for expressing that rare need should the need ever rise again. "junk" dna provides quick turnaround when dealing with rare/ uncommon challenges, without having to evolve the ability all over again
junk dna is genetic flexibility, accrued genetic wisdom over billions of years that can be called upon again a lot more quicker than re-evolving a trait. but it IS junk, for most normal time and places
so perhaps we should call it basement dna instead of junk dna? ;-)
you might have an old cassette radio in your basement from the 1980s. what is that useful for? suddenly the power goes out. what's going on? plop some batteries in that cassette radio, tune into AM news, and find out. suddenly the completely useless is very useful: junk dna. once in a blue moon dna
you don't keep it on your kitchen counter, you keep it in your basement. your body has stopped expressing certain genes, but it doesn't throw them out, it just relegates it to the genetic basement
i have tinnitus
which, really, is "phantom hearing"
i hear a steady tone all day, and its not in my ear, its in my brain. i've grown used to it, accepting the fact i'll have this my whole life, and so it doesn't really bother me that much anymore, i go whole weeks now barely paying it any attention, and your mind just edits it out of daily life
but in the article they talk about the guy with the phantom limb pain... and they do a little trick with him standing perpendicular to mirror, and the brain sees two arms, and... voila, it resets the brain, no more phantom limb pain
amazing! wtf!?
i'm suddenly filled with hope for my tinnitus (false hope?)
if only there were such a neurological sleight of hand like those mirrors in that article, like that, but for the ear instead
i've been thinking about it... a movie of loud noise events without a soundtrack?
i don't know, some way like those mirrors to draw attention to the brain that, in fact, there is no tone playing, you can turn that circuit off now, thank you very much
but tinnitus is not uncommon, so me, or anyone else, who figures out the neurological sleight of hand like those mirrors and the phantom limb pain... to trick the brain into noticing: oh yeah, there is no tone playing, turn that off
the person who does that for tinnitus will win a nobel in medicine and become a millionaire, i promise
bored IT guy
yelling at strangers on teh intarwebs is a calm idyllic diversion, no?
you can criticize tehran or moscow without being an american neocon drinking oil from the skull of a dead iraqi child
you can criticize washington without being a theocratic fundamentalist hypocrite or a mafiaesque imperialistic thug
both statements seem completely obvious, and i am repeating myself
and yet your entire spiel above operates on the assumption that i CAN'T criticize russia unless i am american ultranationalist
"I thank you for your rant, though. Obviously, I got under your skin. Now - do you even understand what Operation Ajax was all about, and what the consequences were? How about the Bay of Pigs fiasco? And, the CIA's operation with a shot up boat that got us involved in Vietnam? How many of our own sins are you aware of, and willing to admit guilt for?"
yeah, you got me: i worship gw bush as a god and i suck dick cheney's cock and i know absolutely nothing about world history and the usa is responsbile for nothing bad in the world and all americans are flowers and sing campfire songs of love
(rolls eyes)
all because i criticized russia
right?
pfffffffft
what a blind asshole you are. its so fucking predictable: criticize a government in the world, any government. instant reply: "well, america did..." america did what? rape children? decapitate pensioners? why does it FUCKING matter? america is the most vile evil country that ever existed on the face of the earth... and... and what? so you can't criticize anyone else without mentioning AMERIKKKA?
WHAT THE HELL DOES THE USA HAVE TO DO WITH THE CRIMES RUSSIA DOES?
i criticize nigeria, i criticize brazil, i criticize india, i criticize china...
"yeah but america..."
america what? why is it impossible in your mind that you can actually criticize a country besides the usa in this world, on that merit alone? without even mentioning the usa? why is it impossible for you to do that without thinking about the usa?
i'll tell you what it is, what you suffer from: you're ethnocentric. you are an ethnocentric american. yes, you really are
you know the blind stupid chest thumping american hillbilly who excuses everything america does? he's an evil moron right?
well, allow me to present the mirror image: the evil moron who blames the usa for every goddamn thing. he can't stop thinking about the usa
this is not intellectually honest of you
what is intellectually honest? a point of view of the world that is not biased for or AGAINST any nation in the world. the only morally and logically coherent point of view is a GLOBAL one
so when i comment on russia, or georgia, or china, if you are a blind ethnocentric person, you go "yeah but america..."
america WHAT????????? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICA
i'm not talking about the usa. is it possible for you to find the ability to criticize a place in this world without once thinking of or blaming the usa for something?
guess what: there are a lot of people and countries in this world, and they all don't revolve around the usa. yet, in your mind, they DO. it is impossible for you to think about any problem, or any country, or any peoples in this entire planet, without it leading back to something the usa did. that's you! who else is like that? in the mind of the blindly pro-american hillbilly idiot, it all revolves around the usa too. you're one and the same as he
who am i? i criticize russia, i criticize the usa, i criticize iran. i can do all these things, and i am not pro or anti american, nor pro or anti russian, nor pro or anti iranian. i am intellectually honest
you, you're not intellectually honest. you're a prejudiced, obsessed moron
i'll say it again, maybe it will sink into your thick skull:
there are a lot of people and countries in this world, and they all don't revolve around the usa
"yeah, but america..."
lol
fucking pathetic
how does responsibility and accountability work?
you take stock of events, and you admit where you have done wrong
but there is an alternative line of thought, that losers engages in, which is: you take stock of events, and you explain away everything as completely not your fault
"If you cannot condemn American actions when they are obviously done for selfish reasons (operation Ajax?) then you can't condemn Russian actions when they are done for what you consider to be selfish reasons."
what the hell does that have to do with anything? give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to all of them. at this point you can criticize russia? or: give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to none of them. so russia can now commit horrible crimes? what the hell does anything america ever did, whether america is the devil himself or a complete innocent angel, have to do with the evil russia did?
basically what you are saying is "russia doesn't have to be accountable for anything bad it ever did, because somebody, somewhere else, did something bad once"
this is how you think about the world. this is the paraphrasing of your words above
the way you think is the path of ruin for us all. we need people in this world to take MORE responsiblity and accountability, not less. and all your thinking is "this is how you take less responsibility: you observe somebody else did someting bad, so now its ok i did something bad"
no, idiot: america does plenty of bad things. russia does plenty of bad things. you admit to them. that russia did bad things does not excuse the usa. that america did bad things does not excuse russia. get it idiot? you don't read the histories of the world to explain why no one is responsible for anything in this world, you read it to understand the context of certain vile actions and behaviors, but it doesn't excuse ANYONE
here's a random bit of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
now, according to you, and the way you think above, this bit of history gives america the right to do evil without explaining itself. why? because russia did something bad once. fucking bullshit, right? well that fucking bullshit is exactly your words above, in reverse
for example, you point out operation ajax. ok, and? this was something evil america did. so now what? now we can't criticize russia? now russia is allowed to do evil things? because operation ajax happened once? wtf?
you don't have any intellectual honesty. we need MORE repsonsibility taking in this world, not less, and your whole way of thinking is all about tearing down accountability and responsibility
you are what's wrong with this world. no, i really mean that. your rationalization is the exact same rationalization that goes through the mind of anyone right before they commit any crime in this world: "well someone else did something bad, so this crime is ok"
i have a job for you to do: criticize russia. criticize something bad it did. you will find out an amazing thing: you can still criticize the usa after you do that. that you can criticize BOTH the usa and russia, and that criticizing russia doesn't mean you're an american neocon, and that criticizing america doesn't mean your a russian apologist
isn't that fucking amazing you moron?
there's a whole bunch of crap down there i needed at one time, and mostly have forgotten about. there's also a small chance i'll need something down there again, but usefulness is so marginal. but every now and then i'll notice a glimmer of something in the corner i had totally forgotten, and i go "holy crap! this is incredibly important!"
"america does bad things. therefore, its ok for russia to do bad things"
assume america is the most bloodthirsty, vile evil empire that ever existed in the history of the world
ok
in what way does this validate anything bad russia does?
"well see my neighbor, he stabbed his wife to death. therefore when i cut your arm off, that's excuseable"
very shallow efforts at rationalization, no?
a strong people are a people who can engage in self-criticism and take criticism from others. in fact, this is probably the most effective metric for true strength in the world, on any issue, from individuals to entire nations
so you have criticisms of the usa? good, fine, lets hear them. i welcome your criticisms. the usa is not perfect. i have plenty of problems with american behavior too. i spit on the gw bush administration. i recognize every subject of american aggression you raise in your comment and a whole bunch more you didn't mention
and now, guess what... its your turn. let us hear YOU criticize russia. let us hear you address my criticisms of russia. directly, rather than deflecting my words back emptily: "well, america is bad too, so you can't criticize"
what is this, kindergarten? are you 5 years old?
is it impossible for a russian to self-criticize or hear criticism of russia?
do you think this is a sign of strength on your part?
because pre-soviet history allows for excusing any crimes russia commits
additionally, america does bad things. therefore, its ok for russia to do bad things
as is the problem with most potent drugs in difficult to manage delivery forms, its hard to calibrate the right dose that exists somewhere between intended effect, and death
if the usa invaded isla de la juventud?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_de_la_Juventud
because havana has political disagreements with the population there
oh, the people of south ossetia have disagreements with tbilisi? gee, fucking wow. so the people in south ossetia are like outlying regions in every goddamn country on the planet? awesome rationale for russian military invasion
russia is engaging in neoimperialism. to frame russian aggression against a small neighbor as some sort of defensive posture is the biggest pile of steaming bullshit imaginable. biden is absolutely right: russia is stuck in the 19th century. seriously, russians: what the hell is wrong with your country? why are you so goddamn ultranationalistic? why do you favor "strength" over justice? putin walks around with his shirt off, russians swoon, and the thuggish crimes of the veritable mafia that runs that country are forgiven
i now await my complete psychological deflections and projecting on others: more tired typical anti-americanisms when RUSSIA is the one engaging in military aggression (its the usa's fault, obviously, when russian tanks roll, obviously!), and other such completely intellectually incoherent attempts at justifying what is nothing more than obvious naked russian imperialistic aggression on a small southern neighbor
sorry if i sound so critical of russia. easy solution: just come find me and drive an icepick into a brain, pour some polonium in my tea, or dose my food with dioxin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#Assassination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko#Dioxin_poisoning_controversy
for daring to question oh so unquestionable mother russia. or just shoot me in the street, like you do any other russian journalist who dare criticize the rationale and thinking of the strict party line of the dumbest ultranationalist russian thug, right?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/russias-gangster-state/
heaven forbid a little self-critical introspection might actually result in a better russia, right?
russia is a pathetic thugocracy: "strength" over justice
that kind of "strength" will of course result in the weakest russia that will ever be, that will make the humiliation of the russo-japanese war look like a pride building exercise, mark my words russia. not that russia will ever find that out and correct its course. because criticism of russia is a crime
russia: self-criticism is the way to a better russia. only the psychology of a thug is antagonistic to this idea. and so without such introspection, you get the brutal thug life you deserve
i wonder why there's never been a tobacco tea?
i know tobacco is a stew of horrible glycosides, alkaloids, and other plant poisons (which of course, is all nicotine really is: its just the plant saying "stop eating me!"), and boiling tobacco in water might deliver far less nicotine and far more bitter tasting horrible for you glycoalkaloids
but still, there's got to be a cheap natural way to get nicotine without getting lung cancer and without forking over lots of money to pharmaceutical companies
lots of other nightshades have nicotine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae
but nightshade has uh... other "slightly" more hardcore chemicals, heh
what a poisonous aggressive plant family, damn these guys are deadly
tobacco even naturally concentrates polonium and lead... seriously, i think this plant is trying to kill us folks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Radioactive_carcinogens
the phantom itch
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
same neurological basis as a phantom limb, but far more rare (blessedly so)
it is probably one of the greatest definitions of hell on earth. the itch that never, ever goes away: