Jim

No one said it was a gag. Just that it would incite the usual reactionary narratives from the folks who are a bit too sensitive about driving their Tahoes around the shopping malls(?). It's free enterprise at it's best, you buy 'em I'll sticker them!!

Opps! Was expecting a hit by the Gregwfish (where is that lively school these days?) but soccer dad Robbob came thru, hook, line, sinker.

And there's suggested rules for bagging big game: If the bumper is the same color as the body put it on the lower left back window. Then can scrape it off without harming the paint. Only chrome bumbers. Tag only the monsters, Excursions, Expeditions, Yukons, etc. No commercial or working vehicles Tag it only once, no repeats.

Big truck, small (fill in the blank)

If you actually need a rig - you're a contractor, bang nails for a living or such, -then you actually use the rig. It you have the macho-mobile to go pick up you're kids from school then you deserve to be humiliated with a sticker. I tagged ten shiny, never-seen-mud giants at REI this weekend.

A fun hobby for big-game hunters, especially in the shopping mall parking lots where most of these critters live. http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

Hey - this sounds like our new foreign policy!

Yep, gotta get with the sing-a-long. Flag, flag, flag, US, go, go, go. Don't ask questions, don't look around, and for God's sake don't dissent. It's downright unAmerican.

While against the war, I've been disappointed about some of the actions I've seen at some Seattle demonstrations (downtown - twice). They have been limited to a handful of folks but they have barraged people holding flags or troop support signs with insults. Seems like some tolerance for free speech. The pro-war guys were few, but polite.

While some of your points are valid regarding the needle in the haystack, it's the wrong question. A little history can be enlightening. The CIA help put Saddam in place and provided a list of about 800 opposition members who were rounded up and shot. We knew he was manic, but he was our manic in the cold war atmosphere. We provided him with biological and chemical weapons in his battle with Iran, with intelligence support. Saddam's big mistake was pulling on the leash too hard and invading Kuwait. Bad dog, bad!! Now we've set a new trend in world relations - invading a country on what they've done, but what they might do. Terrorism is the new communism. A facade to conduct unilateral operations, with little other justification, to secure "national interest". Yea, yea, Saddam is a brutal dictator. So are a number of other countries around the world. Do we plan to spend $200 billion per country removing regimes we disagree with? Algeria, with a horrendous human rights record, was recently praised by the Assistance Secretary of State for Mid-East Affairs say "... we could learn a few things from how they handle unrest". Like lopping of their hands I guess. Most of the arguments for the war are contrived, without any acknowledgement of our previous support for Saddam, and hyporcricy of our previous and current actions around the world. If Iraqs major export was coffee do you think we would be in there?

You should do a little research first. Many mail order places are selling glucosamine that don't meet dosage standards. So if they say it's 1500 mg, it tests out at say 1,000. Center for Science in the Public Interest had a good article last year and had a list of recommendations. I don't have the web site but it's easy to find. One brand they did list was Purtian's Pride. http://www.puritan.com You can get a 120 day supply for $24. Better prices in larger sizes. Avoid the Chondrotin - it has not been proven effective as has glucosamine.

Muffy, I don't think anyone would argue that the US should defend itself with vigor. But to blindly stumble on without examining the US role in the past in the mid-east, or elsewhere, is ignorant. We routinely and conviently forget how things got to the point where they are now. It's a collective amenesia, that somehow Saddam (for instance) got into power on his own (w/o CIA involvement), acquired weapons and technology all by himself (Europe, Russia, US all were in on this one).

Well RobBob it's not so simplistic. Maybe you could boil it down to another Hallmark moment, but my point is we supposedly stand for democratic values but regularly squash these to fill up our SUV gas tanks, or whatever the "US interest" is for that day. We shouldn't be expected to bail out every poor country. There's too much human suffering in the world for even us to solve. But maybe with our overwhelming weath and knowledge we could stop meddling so much and cause less harm than we do now.

Well if we're reaching back for examples of policy: We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948

I see the speechwriters are on task and keeping it to two syllables for our president.

Peter, First, your reply is thoughtful, as usual. The first question I have is who is McCain addressing as "Madame President"? Byrd's speech was given in the Senate. Was someone standing in? Or was this at another point. Anyway - My point for putting up Byrd's quote is that our unilateral, preemptive move in Iraq is a major change from US policy. Take a look at Daddy Bush's recent speech at Tuft's university last week. It's a bold step to attack a country for what it might do someday. McCain is a bright guy, but waving the flag around and giving us the o' fight for democracy stuff is horseshit. We've put in dictators over democracy before, continue to support them, or crush our old partners depending on how best they support our interests. Saddam is a bad guy for sure. But our recent rush to current events is arrogant. We'll see how it works out.

Hey Greg, any country has a better track record (except the old Soviets). Here's a unique concept - respect other country's sovereignty. The US is at the top of the list of meddling, violently, in other countries, most often squash democratic governments to protect "national interests". There's that phrase again. If you really don't know the history I could help you, but it's a long list. Not perfect? I know, we do the bad things for the right reasons. Please.

Oh yea. We've a great track record of that!

Hmmm. You mean don't support undemocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China (lots of trade there), Egypt, etc. We regularly support undemocratic governments as long as they sit up and bark when we want them to. When the start to pull on the leash too much we point to them and say "bad dog" to the world. Precisely what happend in Iraq. And don't forget how we have routinely forcefully placed authoritarian regimes in place of democratically elected governments. Rembember Iran (the Shah) and Chile (Pinochet) for starters, there's a long list.

Hey tom, I don't think there are any "facts" in the article that you cut and pasted. It's an opinion piece written by a graduate student in chemistry. No exactly a primary source.

Ah yes, democracy in action. What do the planners really think. An exerpt from the London Times. Notice you haven't seen reference to this leaked government document in any US media. "A classified policy document leaked to the Los Angles Times last week not only doubts the possibility of introducing democracy to the Middle East by 'domino effect' but considers Iraq to be the least likely crucible of reform because of its ethnic and religious divisions. That is why now, when we're perhaps just a few days from war and maybe only weeks from peace, the State department and CIA have still had no meaningful contact with the elected leadership of the Iraqi National Congress, a body which draws from all sects and ethnic groups. The attitude that informs this document, and the State department's institutional contempt for the INC, is at base racism disguised as hard-headed realism. It says: 'The towel heads can't hack it; the only way to achieve stability in the country is to install another strongman drawn from Saddam's Sunni minority.' "

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. . . . we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just." - John F. Kennedy (Link) "Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of a strong yet benevolent peacekeeper." - Sen. Robert C. Byrd (Link)

Thanks for the civics lesson greg - but I was responding to your implied point that the voters put Bush in place, he made the decision, so back off. If we're all supposed to sit on our hands after a decision is made and just nod like bobbleheads then decisions will always be made for and by the elite.

Greg - I partially agree with you, and it's good to see that you see the distinction between protesting a policy and supporting the safety of the guys on the line. I don't agree with the folks who say you're a commie if you protest policy. But one point - a majority of the voters did not vote for Bushy.

I look at the demonstrations as a sign of what we suupposedly stand for, the ability to voice an opinion in a democratic society. Passivity in a society is not a good thing. Democracy is supposed to be a mix of voices, not a sing-a-long.