Stonehead

The future may be nuclear according to what Steward Brand says. He predicts that over the next ten years, "the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power." ( Environmental Heresies ) "The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power."

Which one of the following statements is false? I am a compassionate conservative. I am a fiscal conservative. I didn't avoid service in Vietnam.

I think it's time to reconsider that treaty. I don't know. What would the impact be of S. Korea falling to N. Korea right now? Would that really impact the U.S. in any meaningful way? The cold war threat of international communist expansion seems to have evaporated with the demise of the USSR. I'm not sure that China has that goal in mind - although regional, economic hegemony seems to be a goal of theirs. A strong Japan could be a reasonable counter to their threat, even at the expense of granting them an exception to nuclear nonproliferation. Perhaps, it is time to reconsider. But it's never happen. Recall the riots in China a few weeks ago, where it was originally claimed that the rioting was caused by reports of Japanese revisionism in their school textbooks. The Chinese government officially denied any involvement in inciting the riots. Yet, the truth of the matter appears to be that the Chinese wanted to smear the Japanese government in the world arena for petitioning for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. There was complicity of the Chinese government, and any statements coming out of their bureacracy must be taken with a grain of salt. Remember, Tianamen? But anyway, I digress. We're stuck. Just like we're stuck with Taiwan.

Are we not in a mutual security treaty with Japan where we promised to protect them under our nuclear umbrella? Need I also remind you that we fought a few wars in East/Southeast Asia because we believed it to be in our strategic interests? Is that no longer the case?

I don’t know if it’s my imagination or what, but I seem to recall that there were naysayers and complainers during the Space Mission of the Sixties. “Why don’t we quit spending money on ‘pie-in-the-sky' projects when there are so many pressing problems right here on Earth to take care of, like overpopulation, environmental pollution, war, poverty, etc.” Maybe it’s the influence of the military-industrial complex? Ok, you wanna be happy as an American consumer and taxpayer? You could replace the cost of the Iraq war with just about any large-scale government spending, for instance, the Space Shuttle program. I mean, you spend hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars and you damn well better get some consumer oriented spin-offs. Damn it, we’re paying for the thing! Well,Teflon, sure is sweet. Necessity is the mother of invention. Well, I say that necessity is often an afterthought, that the original impetus was more sinister in origin, say developing a better spying method. So anyway, the dividend for a Saddam-less Iraq is a safer Middle East?? That’s one possibility but I suspect it’s closer to the lines suggested by Gotterdammerung, that the plot actually concerns access to oil. I mean, imminent threats…doesn’t Iran and North Korea today appear to be more imminent than Iraq was pre-invasion? But, of course, our leaders have to have a pretext to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, don’t they? But in all reality, this is a changing world. And, maybe these changes are for the best, the best for our survival in a seemingly hostile world. First of all, I gotta say to those along the likes of j-b----Stop trusting the ‘old guard’. It doesn’t matter if you’re Right or Left. You’re going to get lied to by both sides. They know that having real power is never having to apologize.

So what you’re really saying is that it’s all just simple ineptitude? And, to further generalize from a specific, that there are no conspiracies either? But rather, that it’s a normal function of the mind to look for patterns even if there isn’t one? But then again... In the parlance of 'conspiracy theorists' () this is similar to what might be referred to as a 'false flag operation'. Definition: an "intelligence" term for a covert operation where agents provocateurs stage acts that are falsely blamed on their enemies. False flag operations can include fake radicals acting violent at a peaceful protest to discredit the organizers, a terror attack staged by an intelligence agency to blame on the nation's perceived or actual enemies, or fake dissidents who discredit government opponents by making illogical or easily disproved claims for their assertions of conspiracy and corruption. "Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice

It seems to me that the task is to identify the individual players or their proxies, whatever their nationality or affliation. It's foolish to indict the entire United States as a guilty party. That just smacks of US bashing. If you're still feeling guilty, just say a few 'mea culpas' and get on with the real task of finding the true culprits.

Disney Memorial Orgy--circa 1966 NSFW Follow the link back to see black & white with better resolution. BTW, Wally Wood, the artist, was an illustrator for Mad Magazine.

I don't know if I'm really adding anything of substance to this thread or not, but here's two quotes that oddly seem to apply to many situations. "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Fredrich Nietzsche "There are facts. Facts matter. You just have to frame them properly." --George Lakoff

We already have an identification document--it's called the passport. Incidentally, the purpose of a driver's license is to allow one to supply documentation of meeting the minimum legal requirements to drive a motorized vehicle on public roadways. It's disconcerting to see the morphing of documents originally intended for a specific purpose being changed to become identification tools. The Social Security number (an unique identifier) was certainly not intended for use in broader applications of identification beyond the social welfare program. I'm just throwing this out, but I blame the corporations behind credit lending and consumer database compilation. I suggest that the industry would rather that we use driver’s licenses and SSN cards as identification due to the fact that these documents are rather ubiquitous as compared to passports. Here’s an interesting article to read by a security consultant named Bruce Schneier. (Schneier on Security). It’s a really worthwhile article if you have the time.

The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun." A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm

It seems that a lot hinges on the press tradition of using anonymous sources. The question arises, how do you verify a story and at the same time maintain the anonymity of your source? Because it is that confidentiality that provides the anonymous source with the assurance that the message will be passed on without the messenger being harmed. Whistleblowing appears to be a necessary action at times to discourage the abuse of power. Insiders have come forth with their revelations due to their pangs of conscience or for lesser motives. Now, I don’t know if I’m naïve enough to believe in noble intentions. I would rather believe that the majority of these actions were informed by raw political calculation. Today, I read about this George Galloway fellow, a Scotsman who also serves as a British MP and who was booted out of the Labour Party for his comments on Iraq. This fellow is accused by a U.S. Senate committee of conspiring with Saddam Hussein in the oil-for-food scandal. Seems Galloway really went into it today at a hearing before the Senate sub-committee for investigations. What I thought was interesting was the timing of the release of the British memo outlining the paucity of the case to go to war against Iraq. Maybe it’s nothing… Think about it though. The information gained from the Pentagon Papers would not have come to light if 'Deep Throat' didn't pass along the information and we still don't know the identity of the source. This exposure of classified information led indirectly to the toppling of a Presidency. Powerful stuff. The Valerie Plame affair, the secret war memos, the digital photos out of Abu Grahib...Each one of these revelations had political repercussions. But what is really going on here?

At the risk of sounding like a fool, here are my thoughts concerning the real issue, which I see as not about media, but about our conduct during war: The question is whether these actions were part of a concerted effort to humiliate and degrade in order to compel the prisoners to break down and yield. Or, were these actions simply a cruel and unusual punishment, sadistic in nature? With regard to the former, the issue arises whether the means was justified by the end goal. I personally don’t know the value of the information obtained under mental and physical duress, but it seems the larger repercussion of a negative global image is of a greater consequence to the security of our nation and to our interests around the world. I’m sure there are some who would argue this is really an issue of the control of information. However, if it is the latter case, which has been provided as the official line, then it appears that the ‘dogs’ just got out of control. Lower level soldiers were the only ones convicted of unlawful conduct with the lone exception of a commissioned National Guard officer who was reprimanded for not being fully aware of the situation. Certainly, there is a clash of cultures, some resulting from ignorance but other being willful and deliberate. What is the more definite pattern here? The beginning of the military mission was called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out by Muslims that only Allah could administer this kind of justice. So, the DoD backpedaled and changed the name in deference to followers of the Muslim faith. But then again, you have those such as Lt General William Boykin who has said that terrorists hated America because we’re a nation of Christian believers and that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan. Boykin told a Muslim fighter in Somalia, who insisted in the protection of Allah: "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3199212.stm) There is evil in the world but is it appropriate to see that world existing simply as black and white, right and wrong, Christian and non-Christian? We can’t cast the other guys as the Evil Ones and claim the mantle of righteousness for ourselves without delving deep into our own nature. Evil is inherent in our human nature, too . . . in our families, in our businesses, in our society. Are we going to claim the responsibility of acknowledging the color of our actions without resorting to a forced dichotomy of Supreme Good versus Supreme Evil? Finally, is it traitorous or unpatriotic to point out the evil and/or ignorance in our own ranks? Do we lose the larger ‘war’ if we institutionalize injustice as viewed through a larger lens than that alone of the cultural-historical perspective of our country? Is it simply an exercise of expanding our consciousness outward from tribal to global? Is this what Sun Tzu (The Art of War) refers to when he discusses the importance of moral influence in overcoming an adversary, which I actually believe, in this case to be a war between elements of ‘Progressive Modernity’ and ‘Regressive Religious Fundamentalism’?

I suppose justification depends on where you stand. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I want the truth! Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to! Kaffee: Did you order the code red? Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do. Kaffee: Did you order the code red? Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!! Colonel Nathan Jessep on the Stand, A Few Good Men written by Aaron Sorkin ( http://www.whysanity.net/monos/fewgood.html)

You know, these 'Band-Aid' procedures will do little to nothing to stop determined terrorists intent on destruction, just as the passage of Real ID legislation will not prevent the illegal entry of organized and sophisticated terrorists. It's my belief, and maybe it's tinhat, but these actions are designed to make you comfortable with 'necessary actions for a secure state'. One of the few actions that I saw that would be truly preventive is the scrutiny and seizing of foreign assets used to finance sponsored terrorism.

This is a smokescreen just like the democracy in Iraq. So, keep focusing on the 'irresponsibility' of the press and the 'freedom' in Iraq.

I don't know if there is any hope in our future leaders. Just take a look at some of our youth:

Debate incident leads to injury The Herald-Sun Oct 1, 2004 : 5:57 pm ET CARRBORO -- After watching the presidential debate Thursday night, two UNC students ended up slapping each other while fighting over who Jesus would vote for in the election. According to a police report, the concept of "turning the other cheek" came up, and James Robert Austin, 19, of 1305 Granville Towers West in Chapel Hill, slapped Robert Brooks Rollins, 22, of 104 Brewer Lane in Carrboro, on the cheek at Rollins' house. After that, Rollins slapped Austin, and Austin landed on the concrete patio, possibly striking his head, according to the report. Rollins called for an ambulance, which took Austin to UNC Hospitals to be examined. Neither Rollins nor Austin wanted to pursue the matter further, the report said. --source

Tom Clancy new book criticises Iraq war (registration may be required; use BugMeNot & Firefox) His latest book, Battle Ready, is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni. Battle Ready looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict. In an interview today with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book's planning. Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation. Interview with Tom Clancy and General Anthony Zinni

That's your opinion and I believe a mistaken one. Gilmore is one of the co-founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organization which is similar in ways to the Access Fund but which deals with cyberspace rather than a physical place. Electronic Frontier Foundation--Defending Freedom in the Digital World The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was created to defend our rights to think, speak, and share our ideas, thoughts, and needs using new technologies, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web. EFF is the first to identify threats to our basic rights online and to advocate on behalf of free expression in the digital age. You might want to take a look at some of the current issues surrounding the use of the Internet, for example, some of the proposed legislation such as the Induce Act. Personally, I believe Gilmore is an advocate and is at the forefront of many pertinent issues regarding freedom of speech and other rights.

CNN recently carried a story concerning this case. (Government wants ID arguments secret ) excerpts: The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane. --snip-- "We're dealing with the government's review of a secret law that now they want a secret judicial review for," one of Gilmore's attorneys, James Harrison, said in a phone interview Sunday. "This administration's use of a secret law is more dangerous to the security of the nation than any external threat."

Maybe the current state of politics is a reflection of how we truly are. We'd rather downgrade someone else's character rather than focus on the issues. Maybe we shouldn't give a damn because the issues appear too damn complex or are simply unsolvable. Maybe we should focus on developing more effective ways of killing and maiming people because killing can seem to be a simple (and final) solution. Maybe we should focus on the War on Terror and target more governments (who cares about collateral damage anyway?--we're saving them from themselves!) for elimination because we think we can solve those problems better than domestic issues. Maybe we're lazy and hedonistic. Maybe leisure is better than rolling your sleeves up and working towards a solution to problems.

Hmm...this doesn't seem to be an issue that concerns anyone judging by the majority of responses. I guess I'll take the blue pill. BTW, if anyone's interested here's some background material on John Gilmore-- interview with Gilmore in NeoFiles . Oh yeah, and here's a bit of humor--- from the ACLU.

Merv, thanks for your opinion. My first thoughts were in line with what you stated, i.e., having to compile with identification requirements is a comparatively minor inconvenience, just a small sacrifice that must be made for the general welfare and safety of the masses. I wonder though if that is true then why did Gilmore, who does not appear unintelligent, file the case? If it's such an open and shut case with regards to what your common sense tells you, then why bother? Am I also to assume that you support an national identity card and if you do, do you support having such information such as your religious identity, ethnic background, political views, etc. linked via database to that card? Do you see no danger to liberty in this? Has the spirit of our Founding Fathers been superceded by the current realities of what constitutes life today? Will we see our Bill of Rights subverted in the name of the War on Terrorism? And a related question: Expediency is more important than Due Process, I mean, you should be judged potentially dangerous based on your reading habits? Remember when the FBI issued an alert to watch for people carrying a Farmer's Almanac as a sign of a potential terrorist? Questions...I only have questions.