chucK

Speaking of Clinton...remember when he was impeached by Congress (all sorts of hearings and stuff) for lying about not having sex? You were probably all over that. Well now it has become obvious that Alberto Gonzalez lied to congress (which is a crime) about not being involved in the discussions over which prosecutors to fire. Are the congressional inquiries into both of these matters justified? Unjustified? Or is there some reason one should go on and the other not?

Was Whitewater even being prosecuted before Clinton came in office? The prez can fire any of these attorneys he wants to, the catch here is that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to fire attorneys for political reasons then tell congress that they were firing them for performance reasons. Congress just called bullshit on that and is making them look bad for it. Sounds good to me. Isn't this the "accountability" administration? Maybe all this investigating will actually turn up some places where justice was obstructed (like firing Lam while cronies of Duke Cunningham were being investigated, or conversely promoting the guy investigating the Abramof stuff to a judge so the case could go cold).

Hey Chelle, I'm interested in the shoes and maybe the harness. Also the GriGri. I believe my workplace is very convenient to your workplace. PM me! Chuck

I don't think Matt mentioned that, but it is a valid point. My point was specifically based on "IF you really consider Iraq a lost cause". I think many people believe that, and also think it's just gonna get worse. If you really think that, then you should work to end our presence there, because the stakes are too high to play politics. I haven't been to Iraq and I don't talk to the generals or the Iraqi people. I read and watch more about this than a lot of people. If I were in congress and my better information told me what I am seeing now, my gut judgement would be that we have got to cut our losses. Iraq is not going to be a stable democracy for a long time, with or without our sacrifices. Your opinion probably differs. That said, it may be reasonable to hold off, let 100 more grunts pay the price with their lives or limbs, let 1000 more succumb to PTSD, because it looks like whether congress/Bush like it or not, the true decision point is gonna come end of summer. Supposedly, if things continue as they are, that's about the time when our Army and reserves will just not be able to keep this up*. Come September it's gonna be Draft or Draw Down. Is it OK to sacrifice just a small percentage more death and disability in order for Dems to keep a tighter stranglehold on Bush? Bush is a politician and he's running this war like a politician. No draft, no extra taxes are two big things that are hurting the war effort so that Bush can keep his political strength. At what point do you take over the reins from a fuckup? You don't think that time has come yet?

I think this bill is the "pursestrings". It is a budget bill.

If I read it correctly it seems like the main point of Matt's post was that he has problems with the House budget bill passed today(?) that mandates that we be out of Iraq by Summer of 2008. I have been struggling with this a while too. On the one hand we have the nasty situation Bush got us in. It is killing and wounding more Americans every day, as well as spending a ton of money (that could used to great effect elsewhere, education, medical insurance, deficit reduction, tax cut, etc...). Barring an amazing longshot, it is NOT going to get better. It would be nice to be done with this. On the other hand, we have the prospect that forcing Bush's hand and getting us out of there will play right into the GOP's hand politically. True believers will be railing for decades about how the Democrats lost the war. The reality of how bad it was before the Democrats decided to do something will, of course, be forgotten (in fact at least 30% don't believe it is bad right now). Bush knows all is lost there. His purpose behind the "surge" is 95% running out the clock and he is HOPING that the democrats will have to do something. He even "conceded" in a speech a while back that the congress could cut his war funding. Once the Dems have taken some initiative and forced a strategy, they must also accept some responsibility for the aftermath. So the choice comes down to this: Do we do what we think is right for the country in terms of the Iraq War, by pulling out, stopping the carnage, and perhaps try to limit the aftermath damage by responding to requests of assistance? Or do we continue to play the politics, give Bush free rein to fuck up more so we can be assured there is no way to blame the Democrats? Will it be better for the country in the long term to assure we get and keep these Republican crooks out of power? I think it comes down to this, if you really think getting out of Iraq sooner will be better than later, then you should support option A. Playing politics with our people's lives and our country's treasure is poor form. Keeping more democrats in office for longer may be good, but may be bad. You never know about those politicians (all Repubs aren't as bad as the current bunch in the administration). I think it's a better bet to sacrifice some Democratic party power for the good of our country and especially all those military people and their families who are being destroyed, rather than the other way around. So anyway, I'm down with this house bill thingy.

Taking our troops out of Iraq is a solution, though it is a solution to a problem different than the one you want to solve. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem of the US costs of the war, which includes tons of money, as well as thousands of deaths or disabilities to our military and guardsmen. Some even think that forcing the Iraqis to actually do their own dirtywork would slow the carnage in their current civil war. The problem you and GWB are hoping will be solved by leaving our people in the meatgrinder is the creation of a happy, secular and prosperous Iraq, free of Iranian influence. Sorry to break it to you buddy, but I think that train left the station a while ago. Time to start solving the tractable problems instead of wasting resources on insolvable ones. Bush is just running this thing out. He's hoping the Democrats force a troop withdrawal, then at least the GOP may be saved as zealots like you will say we only lost because we left (30% of the country still thinks going into Iraq was a good idea). Bush is keeping our people in the meatgrinder solely to salvage the Republican Party. It's shameless.

Pedestrian deaths? Obviously it's all about the oil. DRIVE OR DIE!!!!!!

Your post first says you don't think Iraq (Iran?) is all about the oil, then you conclude with a link implying that hydrogen cars (lessen our dependence on oil) will solve the problem? You make no sense.

GEt well soon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Did you even read the damn article? It tells how scientists found a often-used inaccurate estimate and worked to correct it. Seems to me it would imply you should trust scientists more, and perhaps be more careful about what you hear from politicians.

climb climb I always climb out of bed every morning up a mountain made of sand and I know this doesn't rhyme but the clutter on the table is getting out of hand

Here's hint that might help: When your instructors tell you that you should practice tieing and untieing your knots in the dark, with your gloves on, in a cold shower, they don't really expect you to do that. They're just kidding (sort of).

My proposed experiment would just quantify the effects of treatment on pure reaction time. It's an easy and convincing experiment that you could actually do to and see what happens in the population of main interest (yourself). On the other hand, your suggestion is only a joke! I'm pretty darn sure that you'd see a significant reaction-time effect under alcohol treatment, while I'm not quite sure what would happen with the herb treatment. I agree with your implicit assertion that reaction time is not the only facet of catching a falling leader. I think where herb (and alcohol) would cause a big effect is in the the ability to pay close attention for a prolonged period of relative inaction. I'm sure there have been experiments done on that.

Wow! Scary. Thanks for the writeup.

An easy reaction-time test. Have someone hold a yardstick (meter stick) vertically at the top and pinch your fingers about an easily remembered spot, like 10". Then open your pinch. Have the accomplice drop the yardstick unannounced. And pinch the yardstick as quickly as possible to prevent the drop. Note how far the stick dropped by where you are pinching. Do this about 10 ten times and average to reduce the variability. Now undergo your treatment of choice and repeat the experiment! Post your results here!

What's better, an interest only loan or renting? Please factor into your decision the assumption that in 30 years you're not going to be retiring and needing a place to live out your "golden years". In 30 years you're going to be decomposing.

If you want to have any chance at the tables you should have in your pocket (be willing to risk) 20 times your standard bet. Give the cocktail waitress a tip everytime you get your "free" drink and she'll return more frequently. Tip on "descending" Epinephrine, first you go up to the top of something, then follow the cairns, and when you get to a dropoff and are thinking, "WTF, how do you get down this, I don't see any more cairns", look to your left. Somewhere on Epinephrine descent

Anybody ever heard the Henry Kaiser song "Devil in the Drain"?

Those bastards that refuse to use their blinkers bug me more. My favorite bumper sticker of late: "Jesus would probably use his turn signal!"

I guess his use of the term "Islamofacist" is one instance where I think he is defaming Islam. Though that is more recent than the run up to war. You're right in that I can't think of a time when he specifically stated that Muslims in general are bad, and perhaps I am wrong. I do remember the case of the lawyer in Oregon who was locked up without trial for the Madrid train bombing mostly due to the fact that he had converted to Islam, but we can't really blame Bush for that any more than we can blame them for Abu Gahraib can we? I suppose the implication that Bush used the scary muslim bogeyman to sell his war may have been completely inside my own pointy head. I probably feel this way from the fact that they (Bushco) repeatedly tried to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam, when the closest link they had was the color of their skin. Where do you get this Michael Moore GWB and House of Saud thing? That's not my schtick, nor is the belief that the war was primarily about oil. I have never believed that and posted only once (in jest) about "blood for oil" after Bush cited oil as a reason for us to stay in Iraq. You are surely confusing me with someone else you disdain. Oh and I don't sip latte's or wear birkenstocks either.

No, I didn't write anything close to indicating that negative stereotypes were the reason we needed to invade Iraq (we didn't need to invade). The reasons Bushco invaded Iraq are (??? does anybody yet know?), but it was not because of 9/11. It was facilitated by 9/11. There was much hatred for Al Qaeda. Bushco parleyed that into fear of Islam, then made the brownskin connection to Iraq to SELL his game. He wanted to invade Iraq. Slurring Islam was a way to sell his project. Now Muslims are pissed at us. Whatever. I guess there's not really much of connection between this and Muslim pool parties anymore. oops sorry

Yeah, glad we're not on the metric system. My workday would be 66% longer!

To bring this back closer to the original topic: Our war in Iraq was sold by stereotyping people of a certain religion. Bush got support to invade Iraq because it is populated by many Arabs and many Arabs are Muslim and it was fanatical Muslims that bombed the WTC (no matter that Iraq was a secular state). The sense that one may be able to choose their own religion is tangential to this discussion. The essence is that an entire religious group was negatively stereotyped in order to justify a war of conquest. I could understand how that would piss off a bunch of Muslims (not just a few, the whole group)