Not what I'm suggesting... it'd need a light tube and one or more shells. Easy for one guy. Look up a couple posts, comment there, please -- that's where I explained it.
Sure, why not? A mortar is nothing but a tube. The shell could carry video and steering (even a little power steering - compressed gas or solid fuel), the soldier could fire it up, aim it as it came down, total time is point the mortar up, drop the round, flip the eyepiece down - five seconds, I bet. And all this tech is straight off the shelf.
A mortar will get behind a wall easily. Mortars are inexpensive, the rounds are inexpensive, and further they can have fins that could easily be computer controlled. Would have made a lot more sense to build a guided mortar system.
Presidents Bush and Clinton both believed there were WMDs in Iraq
Quite aside from the fact that WMDs have NOTHING to do with 9/11 (and if they did, there have been other hostile WMD (nuclear and other) armed countries in the world... did we attack Russia? Have we attacked North Korea?) That whole WMD thing is utter nonsense AND it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS ANYWAY. Even if it had been, it was shown - before the war was started - in detail that the reports of imported African aluminum tube manufacturing were inaccurate; the inspectors had found *nothing* and were consistently recommending more time to search (and that, only because they kept being told there was something where there was nothing.) The fact is, Iraq was a sovereign country and we had absolutely zero right or cause to go ballistic on them.
Still, you can't assign direct blame for 100,000 deaths in Iraq to Bush
Wrong. He is as responsible for those deaths as are Hitler and Tojo for the deaths in WWII. Bush created the situation where these things would inevitably happen. He *made* it happen. Just like the deaths from disease; no germ "had to" infect anyone, but he put the conditions in place by destroying their infrastructure. Once conditions are favorable, anything with any impetus behind it will now inevitably move in and grow in the newly favorable landscape. We had seen this over and over, in country after country that destabilized for one reason or another; Bush was no innocent going into this, thinking that flowers would grow where the bombs landed, that Iraqis would suddenly convert to Christianity, that the insurgents would go "oh, that's nice, but we'll just skip the opportunity." That's idiotic thinking.
The bottom line is that Bush utterly wrecked Iraq and he had NO good reason to do so; and in the process, he ALSO didn't address the actual problem: hijackers were taking over aircraft and using them as kinetic weapons. Instead of locking the cockpit and going on with life, he ALSO attacked Afghanistan... and in the meantime, the Saudi threat goes absolutely unaddressed, and continues to fund Al Queda.
The intended consequence of their actions was to kill people, while the US would have considered a bloodless war to be optimal. Trying to lay the blame on Bush completely ignores this fact.
Unless you think the sum of Bush's IQ plus all his advisors IQs, plus all his generals IQs doesn't break 100, that's ridiculous. Bloodless war, my aching back. Start at the beginning: There was NO reason for the war at all. The inspectors were inspecting, Iraq was threatening no one outside its own borders, Bush went all cowboy and stupid entirely on his own. He's a war criminal. I hope he travels outside the US (doubtful) and some clear-thinking country arrests his sorry, idiotic butt. We have a real terrorism problem, and he used that to further petroleum and other business interests. He invaded not one, but two sovereign countries. He didn't address the terrorism problem. He trampled all over our liberties. He destroyed our economy. The man probably embodies the single greatest cause of harm to the United States of America, on the most fronts, in the last seventy years.
I don't particularly care that he's superstitious; or that he's an ex-druggie and and ex-alcoholic; or that he's not too bright (that's what advisers are for); or that he can't speak English very well (although that does tend to make him a fail at diplomacy.) I *do* care that he is so clueless that he destroyed two countries without cause; that he screwed our economy in order to funnel money to his buddies; that he thought it was appropriate to grope the German prime minister; that he lied over and over again to the American people; and that he treated the constitution as "just a piece of paper", and not just in words, but in deeds as well.
I hope we never elect such a rousing failure again, but I look at credulous postings like yours and truly, I despair. How long will people try to defend Bush? Just man the heck up and admit you were wrong to back him, that he was wrong to do what he did, and LEARN from it, will you? Sheesh.
When you fail to separate Islam from Terrorism the terrorists also win.
I contend the opposite is true: When you attempt to dissect terrorism from the mother tissue, Islam, you play false: If such a separation was factual, they would not have reason to terrorize. Further, if you could actually do it, that is, separate the terrorists from Islam, they would no longer have any funding.
Islam is, at its very heart, a religion of conquest; of deep, bitter misogyny; of hate; of suppression of expression; and more. Having actually read the Koran, as well as the major Sunni and Shiite hadiths, when I see people thinking that Islam is a religion of "peace", all I can do is shake my head at how deeply they have swallowed the propaganda. Islam today is in the position that Christianity was about thousand years ago. Virulent, dangerous, oppressive and opportunistic. The Koran is, very much like the Christian old testament, a rich source of canned rationales that may be used to foment almost any level of conflict with non-Islamists imaginable. Which is not to say that they make any sense at a deeper level, but then, they don't have to: This is religion we're talking about, and it runs on belief, not knowledge, introspection, and induction.
The vast majority of Iraqi deaths were caused by insurgents backed either by Al Qaeda or Iran/Syria, which were far more proximate causes of those deaths than the US was.
I don't think you've been paying attention. We had no reason to go into Iraq. Those deaths are a direct result of our destabilizing the country, bombing it, destroying it's utility infrastructure, knocking its economy back to the stone age, and creating an environment that directly fostered growth of Al Queda and other groups; also, we destroyed Iraq's ability to defend the border with Iraq.
A) we should not have been there, and B) if we had not been, those people would have led very different lives, with an emphasis on lives. They're dead now, and it is Bush the Lesser's responsibility that they are - he led us in there, and he did so under completely false pretenses.
Note that I'm not trying to glorify Saddam's regime in any way shape or form; I'm just saying that we had no legitimate reason to attack that country and that since we did, the consequences are on our heads.
Everybody at DHS and TSA -- heck, everybody in the government or who votes for somebody in the government -- should read Wasp, by Eric Frank Russell.
You want to dye yourself purple and put up annoying posters in Saudi Arabia? [sorry, inside Wasp joke]
Seriously, the TSA and DHS aren't the problem. Congress and the executive are the problem, and to the extent that anything they do makes it to the supreme court, they too are the problem. And it's not about teaching them that small assaults can create expensive responses: They know that, that's why they're doing it. The corporations make huge amounts of money off of this, and the politicians are 100% in the corporations pockets. The terrorists are a minor issue. Our government is the problem.
You think police around the country stopped trying to protect you when this ruling was handed down, or do you think it was business as usual?
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
And that is why (a) we all should ensure we have immediate access to strong defensive capabilities and (b), we should be able to use them in property- and self-defense. No criminal should know that the odds favor their being able to seriously encroach on the liberties of someone else and find them unarmed and helpless. All the police do is show up later, and half the time they would try and make you the criminal if you do the right thing. "Guy broke into my home, so I shot him." "Oh, you shot him? Do you have a "permit" for your gun? Was he all the way inside your house? Was your life in danger?" That's how far we have fallen. I'll tell you what, someone comes in a window in my house and it's going to take a lot of rags to clean their insides off my floor. And I'd have zero inclination to call the cops, either. I don't need them second guessing my family's safety, or trying to tell me that the life of some lowlife is worth more than whatever harm they might have caused if I'd let them proceed; not to mention what they'd do the next time they invaded someone else's home. Cross my threshold with clear intent to do wrong to people or property, and you instantly lose your right to breathe in the court of liberty.
An attack that is attempted but fails costs more than money. It exposes them to the chance of capture, and each captured person might turn over information that thwarts other attacks. Good security and isolation reduce that, but they also raise your costs and slow you down.
What you're missing here is that the Islamist terrorists are funded by Saudi Islamists, who in turn are funded by petroleum sales to everyone else, including us. It doesn't matter if the terrorists spend a million here or there. These people have the funds to spend billions on themselves on a whim -- and they do so. It is literally nothing to them to toss a million dollars out the window. Nor does it concern them to expend foot soldiers. They're a dime a dozen in countries that "educate" using the Koran and enforce their miserable goat-age ideas with Sharia "law."
We're doing the wrong things. We have been since day one. The problem is centered in Saudi Arabia and Islam, in that order. If we want this to stop, we have to make their actions cost them something that will matter to them. And that most definitely isn't at the level of the chanting morons who do the dirty work, or physically any part or parcel of Iraq or Afghanistan.
On the contrary: Speech does nothing to the politicians or the corporations that control them, but it does serve to let the populace vent. Because that's all it is - talk. No US citizen, or group of citizens, has the power, the resources, or the will to deal with this. Speech will only go when there is nothing else left to take.
Certainly, I think the premise is true. It's why terrorism continues to be a tool, and why it's so hard to get rid of.
It is only true because our government promotes the illusion of safety over the reality of liberty; and because they have absolutely no compunction about wasting the money they take from the citizens. After all, they can always take more. For the children. We can't stop this. The majority of the population is
completely taken in by this nonsense.
What's never been clear to me is how the economic impact to the target country helps towards the stated goals of the terrorists.
Anything they can do to discomfort us while keeping them in the forefront of our minds serves their purpose. They have goals, and in order to keep those goals in the public eye, they simply have to keep people thinking of them.
I read a book once, a work of fiction (unfortunately) where the media decided to no longer give space to stories about terrorism. If a plane went down, they'd just call it a plane crash. No manifestos were aired. Military retaliation by the government, on the other hand, was swift, cost-effective and devastating, always on the home ground or interests of the terrorists when it could be determined. I've always thought that was the ideal set of answers.
The politically correct crowd shakes and shivers at the idea of hitting Muslim interests. Instead, they tolerate our attacking entirely unrelated countries. For example, of the 9/11 attacks, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi; the funding was from extremist Saudi Islamists; and the remaining hijackers were from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon. In the current Wikileaks documents, the US state department speaks directly to the fact that the majority of Al Queda funding is coming from Saudi, and this was also known early on after 9/11.
So what did we do? We attacked Iraq, a secular country with zero connection to the attacks. It was purest theater, never mind that there was an ulterior motive (obtaining control of Iraqi oil resources and, I think, allowing Bush the Lesser an opportunity to finish what his daddy had (legitimately, in the wake of the Kuwaiti invasion) started.)
In the end, we spent a truly unconscionable amount of money (and are still spending it) for zero return on dealing with the problem. Bush, literally a war criminal, an aggressor with nothing but financial and personal objectives, is directly responsible for killing about a hundred thousand Iraqis for no legitimate purpose. Not to mention 3000 or so US service persons.
Afghanistan is little better. Does anyone think the extremist Saudis who drive this process with their funding are in the least bit concerned that we are stomping all over Afghanistan? Seriously? I mean, come on, really. What Islamic interests are present in Afghanistan? A bunch of goatherders and poppy growers... or in other words, nothing. The actual source of the problem, which I say again is clearly extremist Saudi Islamists, is completely isolated from anything we do, or can do, in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Further, those Islamists that are not extremists, or at least claim they are not, have responded to all of this with deafening silence as far as condemning the actions of their extremist sects and individuals. It is very rare indeed to find an Islamist that will speak out against these violent extremists. At some level, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the extremists are the brothers, cousins and associates of the non-violent Islamists... and they are entirely safe, because our government is unwilling to actually address the problem. The "whys" are complicated, but the upshot isn't: Our government has completely failed us in this regard. The security theater, DHS, TSA, all of that and the money and time it costs us... a huge waste of funds that does very little; so little, in fact, that in comparison with funding to deal with highway threats, one
which the Obama administration says will put 'countless' lives at risk, threaten global counterterrorism operations and jeopardize US relations with its allies
They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.
I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.
I don't know where you get the racism part, as Islam clearly bans racism
This is true. You can beat your wife no matter what color she is; you can stone someone to death (or hurl them of a cliff) regardless of color; and of course, you can believe in the great sky fairy no matter what color you are. Definitely no racism in Islam, nor Sharia law, nuh-uh. Islam is completely color-blind, just like it is blind to the equality of women, blind to why one should not intentionally target innocents in service of one's political views, blind to why silence and support is the wrong answer when extremist Islamotards get loose with hijacked aircraft, exploding shoes, and so forth. Well, I gotta go now, I have a cartoon to draw.
Well, if I'm going to be obsessed about someone, better me than you, and better my issues than yours. If you're not interested, simply ignore my posts. Or, if you're simply looking for an opportunity to be snarky, by all means, have at me. Though I kind of pity you if that's all you have to entertain yourself with.
The iPad's a bit awkward to walk around with in your pocket, isn't it?
Sure, but that's not how I carry it. I'm a photographer, and I've always got my DSLR (and a bunch of other photo-oriented stuff... grey card, mini tripod, video camera, etc.) in an army surplus utility bag; the bag's got a slot that fits the iPad perfectly. Given that the bag is hanging there anyway, it required zero lifestyle changes. Not saying this is for everybody, but for me, it was simply the obvious thing to do.
I can't see something that big ever being as universally accessable as a smart phone.
Well, the thing is, with a bluetooth earpiece, I never take the phone out of the bag, either. Wouldn't change how I use things at all, just where the bluetooth connection was going, really. Tap the earpiece, "dial bob", call made. Earpiece rings, tap it, answer. That's how I use my phone. If I have to interact with an address book, say, add you to it, I'd much rather have the real estate the iPad provides to work with. I'm old, my eyes are failing.
The only functionality I use in my phone these days is the address book. Everything else I do through my iPad. If they'd add phone capabilities to the iPad (a bluetooth earpiece and adding a CDMA radio would do it) then I wouldn't even need a "phone" per se. Sure, I want to carry lots of functionality, but the tiny, tiny universe of a phone's screen just doesn't cut it anymore -- the iPad simply crushed that whole domain for me.
As I'm carrying the iPad anyway, much less cumbersome and easier to use than a laptop, I surely am not tempted by Windows Phone 7, or iPhone, or Android. Once I took the step of deciding the iPad was worth carrying, smartphones simply became annoying.
Hopefully Apple/Jobs will see the opportunity and run with it. Add a couple of cameras, phone capability, perhaps an IR emitter for controlling my home widgetry... hopefully get rid of that ridiculous expanse of bezel and design in a decent grip on the backside... wireless charging and wireless sync... now that's what I'm talking about. That's how to get my money. [waves money around cheerily]
Even if such a wonder doesn't get made, it still boils down to phone+address book is all I have to go for right now. And I have to say, it's a relief to be able to skip every Engadget and Gizmodo post that is about a phone -- cuts my reading time down to a fraction of what it used to be, while the reality of it all cuts my phone bill down at the same time (because my phone is now a cheapie LG with no "data plan"), and all the while I've got more power and usability (particularly with regard to display real estate and touch surface) at hand -- with free wifi -- than can be crammed into the tiny bit of real estate smartphone designs provide.:)
No, sorry. You can't supersede the constitution by case law. That authority is not given to the government. The only way that a constitutional provision may be superseded is via exercise of article V. What you have here is arrogation of unauthorized power.
There is a branch of the US Government called the Judicial branch which interprets the laws including the Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?
I am aware that the judicial branch is awarded the power to decide cases on the basis of the constitution; this is article III. However, they have never been authorized the power to "interpret" the constitution. What they do is swear an oath to obey the constitution. I am, of course, aware of the arrogation of power made by the supreme court in this matter, but again, as it was never authorized by the constitution, they don't have a leg to stand on. As they have defined themselves the ultimate arbiter of what they themselves can do, this is very much a case of the fox having stolen the keys to the henhouse. The farmer is no longer running the show.
Sure, the words are important but they are often in conflict.
No, actually they are very rarely in conflict. The document is remarkably consistent, all things considered.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for so many people to understand.
That's because you don't understand what the constitution is. It is the authorizing document for the federal and state governments. It isn't something that is advisory; it is definitive. To the extent that the constitution does not address a modern issue, it is flexible in that regard by dint of including article V.
The Constitution (and laws and regulations) are not isolated unchanging things.
Certainly not. That's what article V is for.
They are a starting point for determing what is legal not the end. They are part of a complex web that includes court rulings and social norms.
Illegally so. The constitution authorizes the government. This is where it gets its legitimacy to exist. As soon as it starts doing things it was not authorized to do, it is operating outside the bounds of its authorization, and no longer exercising legitimately awarded power(s.) Your position is unsupportable. Which is not to say that you're wrong -- in the sense that this is, in fact, the current state of affairs. My point is simply that the current state of affairs is unauthorized.
What is unconstitutional about sales taxes (or any taxes, really) on state level?
My remark about constitutional compliance was a dig at what they used the money for, not how they got it.
For that matter, it would seem that there are very few things that a state can do that would be unconstitutional:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Well, there's the rub; the states are forbidden via the 14th amendment from abridging the privileges or immunities of US citizens; that's what "incorporates" the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) at the state level. It's pretty clear, really. Yet the states pretty well run the gamut of violating them, with the (mostly) exception of the 3rd.
Then there are ex post facto laws which are explicitly forbidden the states; they make them anyway. There's an identical prohibition addressed to the feds, they also make them anyway.
Then there's the prohibition (at the state level) for accepting anything but gold or silver in payment of debts. Whoops. The feds, it should be noted, were given the power to coin money, but not to print it. The link seems obvious to me, as of course are the limits of the enumerated powers, but congress has other ideas.
The idea that certain parts of the US Constitution selectively apply to the states is a relatively modern invention, and certainly wasn't there at the foundation
On the contrary, just read the document -- these things are plain as day. How can you argue with phrasing like "No State shall..." Just read Article I, section 10, and you'll begin to get the idea.
Even if you subscribe to it, I don't see how it would affect states' ability to tax things.
No, I don't think it would either. My remark about constitutional compliance was a dig at what they used the money for, not how they got it. If they arrange to take money from you, and then spend it on things they are forbidden to do, I consider that a rip-off. I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a state has the right (or the feds, for that matter) to collect money to pay for acts forbidden to it.
There are no sales taxes in my state. Trying to argue that Amazon is "ripping off" anyone seems like the wrong argument. On the other hand, states with sales taxes... now there one could make a good argument for ripping people off. Especially considering how far out of constitutional compliance most states are (just following the feds, I know.) As for roads, isn't that typically part of fuel taxes, a use tax, more or less?
We can know some things about the inside of a black hole even if our models can't describe them.
No, sorry, you can't. You can know things right up to the event horizon, but past there, it's all supposition, not knowledge. You literally have no idea what is going on in one of those. Or even if there's an "in" to talk about.
something existing before the universe isn't impossible
You don't know that; you're simply guessing. Since you can't describe the physics that put what you're claiming is evidence in place, you can't associate the two.
seeing through the big bang is not impossible.
Same answer. You don't know that; you don't have the tools to know that. Your observations are *entirely* of things in this universe, and again, since you can't describe the physics that put those things in place, you can't ascribe them to anything in particular.
objective observation should never be dismissed out of hand
Since no one has observed the monobloc and barring time travel or events in the very distant future, no one will, and further, since events and objects existing in our current physics don't in the least define any physics related to a big bang, I'll just remain skeptical for the moment. On the other hand, please feel free to let me know when someone figures out how to modify physics to account for a big bang.
To reiterate: Our current understanding of physics makes big bang *impossible*, just like perpetual motion. So what's needed here is either improve our understanding, which would be great, or else dump the idea because it is broken.
I've completely opted out of flying commercially since 2001. That's a protest that allows me to vote with my wallet. It has transferred tens of thousands of dollars away from the airlines, and I expect that trend to continue. In the interim, I've very much enjoyed driving about the nation, traveled internationally via cruise ship (though that is now beginning to suffer similar indignities as commercial passenger service), and learned that "luxury" train travel in the US appears to be something descended from Torquemada's collection of techniques.
The first car ride I took (that I can recall) was in 1959; like many American males, I've had a vibrant interest in cars since very early on. I've owned quite a number of them across the years. From that perspective, most of today's vehicles are amazingly well made, comfortable, handle extremely well, and are stupendously reliable - truly a joy for me to drive. That, combined with a lifelong passion for photography, and I have to say driving is something I've happily rediscovered over the last decade. Occasionally I rent a higher end vehicle that I would not normally have the opportunity to drive for a cross-country run; I can't even begin to tell you how much fun that can be if you actually enjoy driving. Large portions of the American west, particularly around the Rockies, still offer driving challenges worth taking on... it gets considerably more tedious, road-wise, as you get closer to the coasts (55 in what is essentially a supercar is kind of annoying), but on the other hand, the photo ops become quite numerous, so I sort of change objectives as I go.
I would suggest that if driving is an option you can consider, this is a much more effective -- and fun -- way to protest the approach taken by the government and the airlines. Like it or not, money is the longest, strongest lever you can apply in this society. Writing "TSA sucks" on yourself or going to the checkpoint in a kilt, sans underwear... these things don't really accomplish much, other than get you your ten minutes of infamy.
That's like saying it's absurd to study black holes because we can't fully model them.
No, it isn't. It's like saying we can't know what goes on inside black holes because we don't know how they work. It says nothing negative at all about trying to figure it out -- in fact, if you'd like a rephrase, what I'm saying is that they need to work on the physics until they can describe the singularity, in order that they may pursue reasonable extrapolation beyond that point. Likewise, we should continue to work on any and all knowledge that would tell us what actually goes on inside black holes.
This, of course, presumes that the whole big bang idea isn't simply a case of first observing a softball in mid pitch, then extrapolating the observed path backwards to a "singularity" where the ground emitted a fully-formed softball (after "inflation" adds a regular set of stitches, of course.)
And again, I'm not saying that thinking about this is pointless; I'm just saying that there are multiple reasons to be very cautious here, most of them carried on the backs of the fact that the physics we know simply do not work to carry the idea through the singularity.
When someone says "I have a perpetual motion machine", we are hugely skeptical; this is for one reason only, and that is because such a thing does not work within our knowledge of physics. We consider this such a huge problem that our reaction is generally scorn and laughter. Keeping in mind that the big bang has exactly the same problem, only far, far worse, a modicum of reserve is called for in accepting the idea as anything more than wildly speculative -- at least as far as I'm concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Not what I'm suggesting... it'd need a light tube and one or more shells. Easy for one guy. Look up a couple posts, comment there, please -- that's where I explained it.
Sorry I wasn't clear; I meant a smart weapon based on a mortar. See above a post or so.
Sure, why not? A mortar is nothing but a tube. The shell could carry video and steering (even a little power steering - compressed gas or solid fuel), the soldier could fire it up, aim it as it came down, total time is point the mortar up, drop the round, flip the eyepiece down - five seconds, I bet. And all this tech is straight off the shelf.
A mortar will get behind a wall easily. Mortars are inexpensive, the rounds are inexpensive, and further they can have fins that could easily be computer controlled. Would have made a lot more sense to build a guided mortar system.
Quite aside from the fact that WMDs have NOTHING to do with 9/11 (and if they did, there have been other hostile WMD (nuclear and other) armed countries in the world... did we attack Russia? Have we attacked North Korea?) That whole WMD thing is utter nonsense AND it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS ANYWAY. Even if it had been, it was shown - before the war was started - in detail that the reports of imported African aluminum tube manufacturing were inaccurate; the inspectors had found *nothing* and were consistently recommending more time to search (and that, only because they kept being told there was something where there was nothing.) The fact is, Iraq was a sovereign country and we had absolutely zero right or cause to go ballistic on them.
Wrong. He is as responsible for those deaths as are Hitler and Tojo for the deaths in WWII. Bush created the situation where these things would inevitably happen. He *made* it happen. Just like the deaths from disease; no germ "had to" infect anyone, but he put the conditions in place by destroying their infrastructure. Once conditions are favorable, anything with any impetus behind it will now inevitably move in and grow in the newly favorable landscape. We had seen this over and over, in country after country that destabilized for one reason or another; Bush was no innocent going into this, thinking that flowers would grow where the bombs landed, that Iraqis would suddenly convert to Christianity, that the insurgents would go "oh, that's nice, but we'll just skip the opportunity." That's idiotic thinking.
The bottom line is that Bush utterly wrecked Iraq and he had NO good reason to do so; and in the process, he ALSO didn't address the actual problem: hijackers were taking over aircraft and using them as kinetic weapons. Instead of locking the cockpit and going on with life, he ALSO attacked Afghanistan... and in the meantime, the Saudi threat goes absolutely unaddressed, and continues to fund Al Queda.
Unless you think the sum of Bush's IQ plus all his advisors IQs, plus all his generals IQs doesn't break 100, that's ridiculous. Bloodless war, my aching back. Start at the beginning: There was NO reason for the war at all. The inspectors were inspecting, Iraq was threatening no one outside its own borders, Bush went all cowboy and stupid entirely on his own. He's a war criminal. I hope he travels outside the US (doubtful) and some clear-thinking country arrests his sorry, idiotic butt. We have a real terrorism problem, and he used that to further petroleum and other business interests. He invaded not one, but two sovereign countries. He didn't address the terrorism problem. He trampled all over our liberties. He destroyed our economy. The man probably embodies the single greatest cause of harm to the United States of America, on the most fronts, in the last seventy years.
I don't particularly care that he's superstitious; or that he's an ex-druggie and and ex-alcoholic; or that he's not too bright (that's what advisers are for); or that he can't speak English very well (although that does tend to make him a fail at diplomacy.) I *do* care that he is so clueless that he destroyed two countries without cause; that he screwed our economy in order to funnel money to his buddies; that he thought it was appropriate to grope the German prime minister; that he lied over and over again to the American people; and that he treated the constitution as "just a piece of paper", and not just in words, but in deeds as well.
I hope we never elect such a rousing failure again, but I look at credulous postings like yours and truly, I despair. How long will people try to defend Bush? Just man the heck up and admit you were wrong to back him, that he was wrong to do what he did, and LEARN from it, will you? Sheesh.
I contend the opposite is true: When you attempt to dissect terrorism from the mother tissue, Islam, you play false: If such a separation was factual, they would not have reason to terrorize. Further, if you could actually do it, that is, separate the terrorists from Islam, they would no longer have any funding.
Islam is, at its very heart, a religion of conquest; of deep, bitter misogyny; of hate; of suppression of expression; and more. Having actually read the Koran, as well as the major Sunni and Shiite hadiths, when I see people thinking that Islam is a religion of "peace", all I can do is shake my head at how deeply they have swallowed the propaganda. Islam today is in the position that Christianity was about thousand years ago. Virulent, dangerous, oppressive and opportunistic. The Koran is, very much like the Christian old testament, a rich source of canned rationales that may be used to foment almost any level of conflict with non-Islamists imaginable. Which is not to say that they make any sense at a deeper level, but then, they don't have to: This is religion we're talking about, and it runs on belief, not knowledge, introspection, and induction.
I don't think you've been paying attention. We had no reason to go into Iraq. Those deaths are a direct result of our destabilizing the country, bombing it, destroying it's utility infrastructure, knocking its economy back to the stone age, and creating an environment that directly fostered growth of Al Queda and other groups; also, we destroyed Iraq's ability to defend the border with Iraq.
A) we should not have been there, and B) if we had not been, those people would have led very different lives, with an emphasis on lives. They're dead now, and it is Bush the Lesser's responsibility that they are - he led us in there, and he did so under completely false pretenses.
Note that I'm not trying to glorify Saddam's regime in any way shape or form; I'm just saying that we had no legitimate reason to attack that country and that since we did, the consequences are on our heads.
You want to dye yourself purple and put up annoying posters in Saudi Arabia? [sorry, inside Wasp joke]
Seriously, the TSA and DHS aren't the problem. Congress and the executive are the problem, and to the extent that anything they do makes it to the supreme court, they too are the problem. And it's not about teaching them that small assaults can create expensive responses: They know that, that's why they're doing it. The corporations make huge amounts of money off of this, and the politicians are 100% in the corporations pockets. The terrorists are a minor issue. Our government is the problem.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
And that is why (a) we all should ensure we have immediate access to strong defensive capabilities and (b), we should be able to use them in property- and self-defense. No criminal should know that the odds favor their being able to seriously encroach on the liberties of someone else and find them unarmed and helpless. All the police do is show up later, and half the time they would try and make you the criminal if you do the right thing. "Guy broke into my home, so I shot him." "Oh, you shot him? Do you have a "permit" for your gun? Was he all the way inside your house? Was your life in danger?" That's how far we have fallen. I'll tell you what, someone comes in a window in my house and it's going to take a lot of rags to clean their insides off my floor. And I'd have zero inclination to call the cops, either. I don't need them second guessing my family's safety, or trying to tell me that the life of some lowlife is worth more than whatever harm they might have caused if I'd let them proceed; not to mention what they'd do the next time they invaded someone else's home. Cross my threshold with clear intent to do wrong to people or property, and you instantly lose your right to breathe in the court of liberty.
We have enemies: congress and the supreme court. What we don't have is any means to fight them.
What you're missing here is that the Islamist terrorists are funded by Saudi Islamists, who in turn are funded by petroleum sales to everyone else, including us. It doesn't matter if the terrorists spend a million here or there. These people have the funds to spend billions on themselves on a whim -- and they do so. It is literally nothing to them to toss a million dollars out the window. Nor does it concern them to expend foot soldiers. They're a dime a dozen in countries that "educate" using the Koran and enforce their miserable goat-age ideas with Sharia "law."
We're doing the wrong things. We have been since day one. The problem is centered in Saudi Arabia and Islam, in that order. If we want this to stop, we have to make their actions cost them something that will matter to them. And that most definitely isn't at the level of the chanting morons who do the dirty work, or physically any part or parcel of Iraq or Afghanistan.
On the contrary: Speech does nothing to the politicians or the corporations that control them, but it does serve to let the populace vent. Because that's all it is - talk. No US citizen, or group of citizens, has the power, the resources, or the will to deal with this. Speech will only go when there is nothing else left to take.
It is only true because our government promotes the illusion of safety over the reality of liberty; and because they have absolutely no compunction about wasting the money they take from the citizens. After all, they can always take more. For the children. We can't stop this. The majority of the population is completely taken in by this nonsense.
Anything they can do to discomfort us while keeping them in the forefront of our minds serves their purpose. They have goals, and in order to keep those goals in the public eye, they simply have to keep people thinking of them.
I read a book once, a work of fiction (unfortunately) where the media decided to no longer give space to stories about terrorism. If a plane went down, they'd just call it a plane crash. No manifestos were aired. Military retaliation by the government, on the other hand, was swift, cost-effective and devastating, always on the home ground or interests of the terrorists when it could be determined. I've always thought that was the ideal set of answers.
The politically correct crowd shakes and shivers at the idea of hitting Muslim interests. Instead, they tolerate our attacking entirely unrelated countries. For example, of the 9/11 attacks, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi; the funding was from extremist Saudi Islamists; and the remaining hijackers were from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon. In the current Wikileaks documents, the US state department speaks directly to the fact that the majority of Al Queda funding is coming from Saudi, and this was also known early on after 9/11.
So what did we do? We attacked Iraq, a secular country with zero connection to the attacks. It was purest theater, never mind that there was an ulterior motive (obtaining control of Iraqi oil resources and, I think, allowing Bush the Lesser an opportunity to finish what his daddy had (legitimately, in the wake of the Kuwaiti invasion) started.)
In the end, we spent a truly unconscionable amount of money (and are still spending it) for zero return on dealing with the problem. Bush, literally a war criminal, an aggressor with nothing but financial and personal objectives, is directly responsible for killing about a hundred thousand Iraqis for no legitimate purpose. Not to mention 3000 or so US service persons.
Afghanistan is little better. Does anyone think the extremist Saudis who drive this process with their funding are in the least bit concerned that we are stomping all over Afghanistan? Seriously? I mean, come on, really. What Islamic interests are present in Afghanistan? A bunch of goatherders and poppy growers... or in other words, nothing. The actual source of the problem, which I say again is clearly extremist Saudi Islamists, is completely isolated from anything we do, or can do, in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Further, those Islamists that are not extremists, or at least claim they are not, have responded to all of this with deafening silence as far as condemning the actions of their extremist sects and individuals. It is very rare indeed to find an Islamist that will speak out against these violent extremists. At some level, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the extremists are the brothers, cousins and associates of the non-violent Islamists... and they are entirely safe, because our government is unwilling to actually address the problem. The "whys" are complicated, but the upshot isn't: Our government has completely failed us in this regard. The security theater, DHS, TSA, all of that and the money and time it costs us... a huge waste of funds that does very little; so little, in fact, that in comparison with funding to deal with highway threats, one
They said the Iraq war documents would put people at risk, too. They didn't, though, and the administration was forced to admit that after the release. Seems to me that Wikileaks, whatever their other merits or lack thereof, have been pretty responsible about how they handle this stuff thus far.
I'm less concerned with these leaks than I am with the day to day constitutional trampling the feds do, using all three branches of the government to leverage their oath-breaking.
This is true. You can beat your wife no matter what color she is; you can stone someone to death (or hurl them of a cliff) regardless of color; and of course, you can believe in the great sky fairy no matter what color you are. Definitely no racism in Islam, nor Sharia law, nuh-uh. Islam is completely color-blind, just like it is blind to the equality of women, blind to why one should not intentionally target innocents in service of one's political views, blind to why silence and support is the wrong answer when extremist Islamotards get loose with hijacked aircraft, exploding shoes, and so forth. Well, I gotta go now, I have a cartoon to draw.
Well, if I'm going to be obsessed about someone, better me than you, and better my issues than yours. If you're not interested, simply ignore my posts. Or, if you're simply looking for an opportunity to be snarky, by all means, have at me. Though I kind of pity you if that's all you have to entertain yourself with.
Sure, but that's not how I carry it. I'm a photographer, and I've always got my DSLR (and a bunch of other photo-oriented stuff... grey card, mini tripod, video camera, etc.) in an army surplus utility bag; the bag's got a slot that fits the iPad perfectly. Given that the bag is hanging there anyway, it required zero lifestyle changes. Not saying this is for everybody, but for me, it was simply the obvious thing to do.
Well, the thing is, with a bluetooth earpiece, I never take the phone out of the bag, either. Wouldn't change how I use things at all, just where the bluetooth connection was going, really. Tap the earpiece, "dial bob", call made. Earpiece rings, tap it, answer. That's how I use my phone. If I have to interact with an address book, say, add you to it, I'd much rather have the real estate the iPad provides to work with. I'm old, my eyes are failing.
There's no significant 3G service where I live, so wifi is pretty much "it." Thanks for the tips, though!
The only functionality I use in my phone these days is the address book. Everything else I do through my iPad. If they'd add phone capabilities to the iPad (a bluetooth earpiece and adding a CDMA radio would do it) then I wouldn't even need a "phone" per se. Sure, I want to carry lots of functionality, but the tiny, tiny universe of a phone's screen just doesn't cut it anymore -- the iPad simply crushed that whole domain for me.
As I'm carrying the iPad anyway, much less cumbersome and easier to use than a laptop, I surely am not tempted by Windows Phone 7, or iPhone, or Android. Once I took the step of deciding the iPad was worth carrying, smartphones simply became annoying.
Hopefully Apple/Jobs will see the opportunity and run with it. Add a couple of cameras, phone capability, perhaps an IR emitter for controlling my home widgetry... hopefully get rid of that ridiculous expanse of bezel and design in a decent grip on the backside... wireless charging and wireless sync... now that's what I'm talking about. That's how to get my money. [waves money around cheerily]
Even if such a wonder doesn't get made, it still boils down to phone+address book is all I have to go for right now. And I have to say, it's a relief to be able to skip every Engadget and Gizmodo post that is about a phone -- cuts my reading time down to a fraction of what it used to be, while the reality of it all cuts my phone bill down at the same time (because my phone is now a cheapie LG with no "data plan"), and all the while I've got more power and usability (particularly with regard to display real estate and touch surface) at hand -- with free wifi -- than can be crammed into the tiny bit of real estate smartphone designs provide. :)
No, sorry. You can't supersede the constitution by case law. That authority is not given to the government. The only way that a constitutional provision may be superseded is via exercise of article V. What you have here is arrogation of unauthorized power.
I am aware that the judicial branch is awarded the power to decide cases on the basis of the constitution; this is article III. However, they have never been authorized the power to "interpret" the constitution. What they do is swear an oath to obey the constitution. I am, of course, aware of the arrogation of power made by the supreme court in this matter, but again, as it was never authorized by the constitution, they don't have a leg to stand on. As they have defined themselves the ultimate arbiter of what they themselves can do, this is very much a case of the fox having stolen the keys to the henhouse. The farmer is no longer running the show.
No, actually they are very rarely in conflict. The document is remarkably consistent, all things considered.
That's because you don't understand what the constitution is. It is the authorizing document for the federal and state governments. It isn't something that is advisory; it is definitive. To the extent that the constitution does not address a modern issue, it is flexible in that regard by dint of including article V.
Certainly not. That's what article V is for.
Illegally so. The constitution authorizes the government. This is where it gets its legitimacy to exist. As soon as it starts doing things it was not authorized to do, it is operating outside the bounds of its authorization, and no longer exercising legitimately awarded power(s.) Your position is unsupportable. Which is not to say that you're wrong -- in the sense that this is, in fact, the current state of affairs. My point is simply that the current state of affairs is unauthorized.
My remark about constitutional compliance was a dig at what they used the money for, not how they got it.
Well, there's the rub; the states are forbidden via the 14th amendment from abridging the privileges or immunities of US citizens; that's what "incorporates" the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) at the state level. It's pretty clear, really. Yet the states pretty well run the gamut of violating them, with the (mostly) exception of the 3rd.
Then there are ex post facto laws which are explicitly forbidden the states; they make them anyway. There's an identical prohibition addressed to the feds, they also make them anyway.
Then there's the prohibition (at the state level) for accepting anything but gold or silver in payment of debts. Whoops. The feds, it should be noted, were given the power to coin money, but not to print it. The link seems obvious to me, as of course are the limits of the enumerated powers, but congress has other ideas.
On the contrary, just read the document -- these things are plain as day. How can you argue with phrasing like "No State shall..." Just read Article I, section 10, and you'll begin to get the idea.
No, I don't think it would either. My remark about constitutional compliance was a dig at what they used the money for, not how they got it. If they arrange to take money from you, and then spend it on things they are forbidden to do, I consider that a rip-off. I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a state has the right (or the feds, for that matter) to collect money to pay for acts forbidden to it.
There are no sales taxes in my state. Trying to argue that Amazon is "ripping off" anyone seems like the wrong argument. On the other hand, states with sales taxes... now there one could make a good argument for ripping people off. Especially considering how far out of constitutional compliance most states are (just following the feds, I know.) As for roads, isn't that typically part of fuel taxes, a use tax, more or less?
No, sorry, you can't. You can know things right up to the event horizon, but past there, it's all supposition, not knowledge. You literally have no idea what is going on in one of those. Or even if there's an "in" to talk about.
You don't know that; you're simply guessing. Since you can't describe the physics that put what you're claiming is evidence in place, you can't associate the two.
Same answer. You don't know that; you don't have the tools to know that. Your observations are *entirely* of things in this universe, and again, since you can't describe the physics that put those things in place, you can't ascribe them to anything in particular.
Since no one has observed the monobloc and barring time travel or events in the very distant future, no one will, and further, since events and objects existing in our current physics don't in the least define any physics related to a big bang, I'll just remain skeptical for the moment. On the other hand, please feel free to let me know when someone figures out how to modify physics to account for a big bang.
To reiterate: Our current understanding of physics makes big bang *impossible*, just like perpetual motion. So what's needed here is either improve our understanding, which would be great, or else dump the idea because it is broken.
I've completely opted out of flying commercially since 2001. That's a protest that allows me to vote with my wallet. It has transferred tens of thousands of dollars away from the airlines, and I expect that trend to continue. In the interim, I've very much enjoyed driving about the nation, traveled internationally via cruise ship (though that is now beginning to suffer similar indignities as commercial passenger service), and learned that "luxury" train travel in the US appears to be something descended from Torquemada's collection of techniques.
The first car ride I took (that I can recall) was in 1959; like many American males, I've had a vibrant interest in cars since very early on. I've owned quite a number of them across the years. From that perspective, most of today's vehicles are amazingly well made, comfortable, handle extremely well, and are stupendously reliable - truly a joy for me to drive. That, combined with a lifelong passion for photography, and I have to say driving is something I've happily rediscovered over the last decade. Occasionally I rent a higher end vehicle that I would not normally have the opportunity to drive for a cross-country run; I can't even begin to tell you how much fun that can be if you actually enjoy driving. Large portions of the American west, particularly around the Rockies, still offer driving challenges worth taking on... it gets considerably more tedious, road-wise, as you get closer to the coasts (55 in what is essentially a supercar is kind of annoying), but on the other hand, the photo ops become quite numerous, so I sort of change objectives as I go.
I would suggest that if driving is an option you can consider, this is a much more effective -- and fun -- way to protest the approach taken by the government and the airlines. Like it or not, money is the longest, strongest lever you can apply in this society. Writing "TSA sucks" on yourself or going to the checkpoint in a kilt, sans underwear... these things don't really accomplish much, other than get you your ten minutes of infamy.
No, it isn't. It's like saying we can't know what goes on inside black holes because we don't know how they work. It says nothing negative at all about trying to figure it out -- in fact, if you'd like a rephrase, what I'm saying is that they need to work on the physics until they can describe the singularity, in order that they may pursue reasonable extrapolation beyond that point. Likewise, we should continue to work on any and all knowledge that would tell us what actually goes on inside black holes.
This, of course, presumes that the whole big bang idea isn't simply a case of first observing a softball in mid pitch, then extrapolating the observed path backwards to a "singularity" where the ground emitted a fully-formed softball (after "inflation" adds a regular set of stitches, of course.)
And again, I'm not saying that thinking about this is pointless; I'm just saying that there are multiple reasons to be very cautious here, most of them carried on the backs of the fact that the physics we know simply do not work to carry the idea through the singularity.
When someone says "I have a perpetual motion machine", we are hugely skeptical; this is for one reason only, and that is because such a thing does not work within our knowledge of physics. We consider this such a huge problem that our reaction is generally scorn and laughter. Keeping in mind that the big bang has exactly the same problem, only far, far worse, a modicum of reserve is called for in accepting the idea as anything more than wildly speculative -- at least as far as I'm concerned.