FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(S720 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) Kapkomet, do you know about a letter that was sent to President Clinton back in 1996 in regard to attacking Iraq even back then? Do you know whose signatures on that letter? I believe I do. But unless there are two very similar letters I think the one you are referring to – and certainly the one that spelled the PNAC agenda out – was in 1998 and not 1996. That letter was sent in January and urged Clinton to use his upcoming SOTU address to state that regime change in Iraq was now the primary focus of US foriegn policy. The signatories and would-be "Pax Americana" architects (Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Kristol, Bolton, Bennnet etc.) promised their full support of use of military force. Four years before 9-11 and three years Before GWB's first day in office, the PNAC powerbrokers had pretty much already committed us to another Iraq war, scheduled to occur as soon as a malleable enough administration took office.

It boggles the mind that someone can murder their own family. If life sucks so bad, take your own sorry ass out and leave the people you supposedly love alone.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Nothing like keeping your enemies and information close, eh? I do think it's wrong. Put him on all these committees after he's been cleared, or not. Oh yeah, these guys could teach Machiavelli a turn or too.

Time for a real head-scratcher: Now, is it just me, or is there something really wrong about allowing DeLay to sit on the committee investigating Abramoff if, by definition, that means Delay is also supposedly being tengenitally investigated??? I'd post this as a thread outside the Dem only thread, but frankly I've become convinced that nobody on the other side of the fence even cares when such blatant abuse of authority is revealed any more.

"Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all." -Garrett Hardin I first read Garrett Hardin's classic treatise Tragedy of the Commons 20 years after it's 1968 publication in the journal Science. My thoughts on the pitfalls of multiple-use of public land were greatly influenced by this work, and remain informed by it almost four decades after publication. At the outset, I'll clarify that although I favor greatly restricting/regulating the private exploitation of public lands, I am not of the opinion that all private exploitation is unsustainable. I am, however, very much of the opinion that as a nation our track record in regulating use to achieve sustainability – balancing profit for the private good with resource conservation for the public good – is abysmal and shameful. For this opening statement, I'll set aside the more egregious forms of private exploitation of public lands, including oil and natural gas extraction, mineral mining, and even logging. We will return to these later. I'll also focus on the economic side of the story, although many more pressing issues (biodiversity, habitat destruction, fire regime alteration, exotic species spread) are the true tragedies of the commons. For now though, let's focus on grazing, a private exploitation that intuitively seems to be among the most sustainable and workable from the standpoint of managing land in the public trust. Three days ago (2/6/06) the government announced the 2006 federal grazing program grazing rate of $1.56 per animal unit month (AUM – the forage needed to sustain a cow and her calf each month) for western state public lands administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. This rate, 13% less than in 2005, doesn't come close to the estimated $8.00-12.00 per AUM it actually costs the government to run the program. The Fall 2005 Government Accountability Office report revealed the federal grazing program operates at an annual deficit of at least $123 million, while private economists have put the figure closer to $500 million. The grazing fee doesn't begin to cover the costs of habitat remediation racked up by the program. Let those numbers sink in all you so-called fiscal conservatives. Federal subsidies to public land ranchers raise profits for this special interest group while taxpayers are on the hook for parhaps a half-billion dollars. And remember, we're talking about just one facet of public land resource exploitation for private benefit (which doesn't even take into account grazing on federal land managed by the National Park Service or Fish and Wildlife Service). The widening cost-benefit gap of the grazing program stems from reliance on a flawed and outdated 1978 fee rate formula that Congress was pushed to fix more than a decade ago but declined to do so, acceding to special interests and handing the rest of us the bill. Mining, Logging, oil/gas extraction, is just more – way more – of the same.

The last song on the disc should be Pale and Precious by the Dukes of Stratosphere (aka xtc.). It's the ultimate homage to Good Vibrations, but it doesn't let the cat out of the bag all at once. Rather, it adds layers of Wilson-esque "Pet Soinds" textures with successive verses until it hits you smack in the face in the outro instrumental, cheezy Moog monosynth and all. Definately a tune worth seeking out. I'll rip it from the disc and throw it your way if you can't come up with it.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) This is always a good one to write on a napkin when somebody tells you to "leave a tip" at a restaurant. I like to leave the ever popular, "Don't eat spicy foods right before bedtime."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) My personal fav is still "Brownie". Put a guy in charge of the largest emergency response agency on earth who hasn't ever been within a mile of a disaster. Aside from how dangerous that was, it was poilitically idiotic. As a Prez, you can be fairly sure that some large domestic disaster will occur during your term. And you KNOW that event could make or break your reputation. And you knowingly put a useless favor appointment in charge of FEMA? Moronic. On the bright side, he helped in the evolution of popular language. Now, when your boss tells you you're doing a "heckuva job" you know you have been "Brownied" and you had better start emptying out your desk.

This is insanely cool. The largest undisturbed bit of Asian rainforest left, too.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) I'll bet dollars to donuts it was a parent. An older kid more likely. My wife has had two such instances as a teacher in two different schools, and in both cases it was called in by 7th or 8th graders disguising their voices as best they could. Bot were expelled, needless to say.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 01:26 AM) The Administration hackjob who was forcing NASA to add the word "theory" to any paper referring to the big bang and who seemingly lied about graduating from Texas A & M Has resigned. I'd have posted this in that thread...but some mean person closed it for no obvious reason. I heard this on Democracy Now this morning and was quite pleased. This was the BushCo hack appointment story in microcosm. How many decades of extertise in the intelligence, natuonal secirity, defense, and science fields have been lost as career staffers have been ousted in favor of hacks whose only job qualification is unlimited and unquestioned support of BushCo policy?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 01:31 AM) Conveniently, just today, a new poll came out in that district showing that the re-election race for the fall currently is a statistical dead heat, 44-43 versus the Democratic challenger. Linky. Yeah, but if the GOP is the "Party of National Security" and the NM race is so close, isn't it interesting that she thinks her best bet is to say no to this administrations stance on national security at the expense of the rule of law?

House Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics..._r=1&oref=login

First rule of Fight Club: Don't talk about Fight Club.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) By the way, anyone remember the dude who's actions started this thread off? The guy @ Nasa? Turns out he never actually got his degree from Texas A & M, despite the fact that's what the NYT article said Holy crap. That is the most vile hack political appointment I've ever seen in my life. :o

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) But there ain't no wayyyy I'm ever gonna love you, but don't be sad, cause 2 out of 3 ain't bad........... Curse you. . .

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) Yes. I want you. I need you. But there ain't no way she's ever gonna love you. Don't feel bad. Two outta three ain't bad. [/Meatloaf]

Good old Turd Blossom taking care of business. http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 12:26 PM) Are you sure about that? Actually, no he's not. Not for the most visible whitleblower in this so far. Former NSA amployee Russell Tice confirmed that he is at least one of the several sources for the NYT story. From Democracy Now a couple of weeks ago:

Yes, a very short spoke. Despite our formidable brain power and current wild success. The average duration of defined species in the fossil record is 5 million years. Some persist much longer than that, but that's the average. The earliest fossil record of any members of genus Homo is from about 2.5-2.7 million years ago, which is only half of the lifespan of the avrerage species. Restricting consideration just to H. sapiens, we only go back 200,000 years. That is the blink of an eye iin evolutionary terms. The 'last second of the last minute' in the classic earth-existence-as-a-single-day analogy. You may turn out to be right about the techno-terror path our species is heading down. You are most certainly correct as to our increasing ability to destroy other species. But in terms of evolutionary success, although we are the inheritors of a unique lineage within the great apes, as a species we're barely a blip on time's radar.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) It is apparent to me that context is everything in this debate. FSJ actually believes that we are simply at the top of the evolutionary chain now & that say a million years from now something else most likely will take our place. But I don't believe that in any way, shape, or form. We're not at the top of any evolutionary chain, and thinking of evolution in a purpose-directed way like that is exactly the type of anthropocentrism and teleology that has no place in real evolution research and debate. Evolutionary "trees" are almost as bad a metaphor as "chains". Rather, think of the whole of organic evolution as better represented as a cross between the classic tree analogy and spokes on a bicycle wheel. A central origin gives rise to several outward radiating lines. Each of these lines can divide furtther until you get to the rim of the wheel. That is the present time. Not all of the spokes make it to the rim because many lines go extinct, while those that do represent the successful evolutionary lines that have survived to the present time. ALL of these spokes have to be considered the winners thus far in life on earth, because they persist while otther lines have gone extinct. Humans are but one spoke – and a very, very short spoke at that. We have been wildly successful, yes, and that success has been because our brains have become specialized over time, as opposed to the wings of some other successful group, or the specialized sucking moutth parts of some successful insect group, the capacity to non-lethally infect vast numbers of hosts in some successful parasite, etc. We're not at the top of any of these surviving evolutionary lines (unless you count our ability to selectively extirpate some of these as a measure of success). The bottom line is survival of populations and, hence, species, by successfully passing through the selective environmental filters in each generation and producing a maximum number of progeny with the inhereted capacity to do the same in successive generations. Using that measure, man is neck and neck with all other extant evolutionary linnes.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 08:10 AM) A better written article on why the outrage... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ll=chi-news-hed Yep, western idealism over freedom of speech aside, the free media can use some judgement to decide whether they should stir any particular hornets nest just because they have a free press right to. And I don't like the prospect of the media having to make those decisions and I don't condone the violence or think that it is in any way reasonable that Muslim prohibitions against depicting the Prophet should translate into such a firestorm of outrage when non-Muslims make such depictions. If the cartoons were published in a Muslim newspaper or something like that with the explicit intent to be perceived as a blasphemy, then I might feel a little different – again, mostly because there hornet's nests thast shouldn't be stirred just for the sake of doing so. I agree somewhat with Rex' assertion earlier in the thread that the 4 month delay between initial publication and the current global outrage suggests the crisis is intentionally manufactured. Whether it's primarily to divert attention from the Hajj deaths (how the heck can hundreds of people a year continue to die in pilgrim stampedes like that?), or whether fundamentalist anger is being fannned for some other purpose I don't really know.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 04:07 AM) Sure, the specifics are different. As they are when the actions of a previous administration is pointed out. He's saying the same approached that is being used in his examples. Which was not kosher before, but seems to be now. It's more than specifics. Nobody is trying to defend any of the religious extremists. It's not the equivalent of saying 'this administration can do such and such because the administration before did it." It's the equivalent of saying 'both administrations did such and such and BOTH were wrong for doing it." Not that it much matters. I understand what SS is sayig. And semantics aside, we all realize that Muslim thugs don't undermine the legitimacy of mainstream Islam as a peaceful religion any more than Christian thugs do to Christianity.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 12:32 AM) You all miss the point. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING. Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant. That's my issue with "your" arguments. Yep. And like Alberto informed us just today, don't forget the broad scale on which GEORGE WASHINGTON authorized electronic surveilance. And now, your moment of zen: Clearly Washington was a man ahead of his time. Either that, or it's just been so hard for these guys to keep the lies and the truth straight, that they've given up and now they're just winging it.