Stonehead

This thread is illogical.

True dat. Grass roots opposition to TPA runs high ( grass roots--scroll up to see list ). Several links: Patriot Act Author Has Concerns No pause in Patriot Act pounding Why Americans should celebrate Ashcroft's tour to defend Patriot Act Prevarications About the Patriot Act Patriot Act allows surge of secret searches in United States TPA seems to get dangerously close to eroding the right expressed in Fourth Amendment to US Constitution concerning search and seizure (called 'sneak and peek' by TPA supporters). I suppose the question is whether you trust all that power residing in an entity with little or no judicial oversight.

Hey, what ever happened to Oregon Senate Bill 742, the one that identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly? The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism. Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition. "Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill. Update: Senate Bill 742 in the state senate would enact new guidelines and strict punishments for acts of terrorism in Oregon Could be used to curtail peaceful protests infiltrated by agents provocateurs.

Two questions. What if we had come under nuclear attack when 9/11 occurred, especially in light of Bush's non-reaction. Why didn't the Secret Service guys hussle the President from harm's way considering that it was unknown whether further attacks would occur? For 27 minutes after Bush was told we were under attack, Bush did nothing. ''The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day - not only the seven minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op afterward - was, in my view, the most outrageous thing a President has done since Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court. Bill Maher: Bush on 9/11: It wasn't 7 minutes it was 27 minutes

"...today one in four Americans has some kind of mental illness, usually depression. One in four. Watch a basketball game. The odds are at least two of those people on the floor are mentally ill. Look around your house; if everybody else there seems okay, it's you." (source:Inside the Monkeysphere)

Gene blocking turns monkeys into workaholics

...how 'bout a story about an irate primate? Monkey bites boy in store

Sigmund Freud, too. But: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Yeah, I saw that ad too. I didn't believe his statement was stupid. It just sounded wimpy, like what a pussy. But I think the statement should be seen within a context where the fight against terrorism goes beyond military and/or covert action. The Christian Science Monitor has an article describing such an effort ( The US won a hearts-and-minds effort in the cold war. Such a victory may be needed again - but harder to win.). Bush may just as well lead the effort if he wins a second term. Religion plays a prominent part in this on-going conflict (terrorism in general and the "civil war" in Iraq). I find it interesting that Saddam's Baathist regime promoted a secular society but which allowed various religions to practice in relative peace. Now, with the new regime, their constitution states "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation". That just seems to set the stage for the persecution of Iraqi Christians (source: Why Iraqi Christians are Moving to Syria). I personally don't believe that Islam is a flawed religion in comparison to other religions. I simply believe that it is in dire need of reform ( Martyrs, virgins and grapes). Fundamentalism is the problem here as it is with its counterpart, Fundamentalist Christianity. Reformation of Islam may lead to a new Arab renaissance. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing for the world.

"See this? This here is corn. It's American corn. It's the kind of corn that made America great. It's the kind of corn I would want to be, if I were corn. And you would too. Don't misunderestimate the power and good of American corn."

http://www.need-directions.co.uk/ Probably not work safe

This Reuters news article supports what Will says.

They need to have more of this type of programming. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Peasant's Quest Embark on an incredible journey to vanquish the burninator!

Yeah, actually the same here. I don't know enough about the world as it is or if I could even begin to understand it objectively. This is one of the rare moments when I try to figure out what the hell is going on, to see the grand picture. And you're right, only time will tell. Maybe your great grandkids will learn about the liberation of Iraq and the growth of individual rights as we understand it. The Iraqis don't have the benefit of our cultural heritage that fostered these rights but I don't believe that their cultural history would necessarily preclude them from a future as we know it. Definitely some cross-fertilization of the cultures would have to result but I suspect our contribution will be greater.

Perhaps very little but I believe that the situation shouldn't be viewed as just a military solution. I believe that lessons were learned from Vietnam and that new approach was taken with respect to Iraq. Still there are many issues to address. Bremer did make some mistakes such as shutting down the Shi'te newspaper and disbanding the Iraqi army. It does seem to be a process of successive approximation, putting the major plan in place and making dynamic adjustments as needed. If you reread my post, you might comprehend my point of view better. I make no statements in support or in opposition to the Iraqi situation as it currently stands, merely stating facts as I perceive them. No statements about what the military should have done or how they should have done it. No statements concerning Saddam Hussein. I believe it's a more informed and enlightened approach to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam in terms of the root problem, which appeared to be the self-determinism of the people in Vietnam and similarily in Iraq. Somehow, in Vietnam, all of the people came to be viewed as gooks and slants, in other words, as the enemy or in some way inferior whether they were Viet Cong or not. I see something similar happening in Iraq. There is a sense of superiority in some Americans as they treat the Iraqis. Is that not some of the problem? Or is it too painful to acknowledge some of the truth as the rest of the world sometimes sees us?

Perhaps my point of view is that, perhaps not. But in many respects, one could view the Vietnam conflict and the current Iraqi situation as ones involving self-determination of a people freed from the real or imagined shackles of Western power or other occupying powers. You see this same pattern around the world. It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that many of the wars of liberation on the African continent during the 60's and which had a strong Marxist component was largely fueled by the self-determination of the indigenous peoples. One could also make the case for the Communist Revolution in China, a country which had to suffer the insult of buckling to the European powers during the Opium War and other uprisings. The following are words spoken by a little brown man in a faraway country: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free. The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights." Those are undeniable truths. Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow-citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice. In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty. They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united. They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots- they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood. They have fettered public opinion; they have practised obscurantism against our people. To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol. In the fields of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land. They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolised the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade. They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty. They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers." --snip-- --Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh, 2 September 1945, Democratic Republic of Vietnam (subsequently renamed The Socialist Republic of Vietnam) Ok, so that has all the markings of a fledging communist. Perhaps they assume the mantle of self-determinism as their modus operandi. Now, I'm not in support of their position, only trying to understand the situation. You cannot neutralize the opposition by merely fighting against them. Sometimes that only serves to strengthen the opposition to fight harder. What I'm saying is that perhaps we should address the root cause of much of the problem rather than surgically attacking the various wasp nests of opposition. If we don't and instead pursue a policy of much bloodshed, then we may win some battles but lose the war.

Am I to understand that there was a transfer of power back to the Iraqis and that the current leader is a former Baathist, who can be as ruthless as Saddam was?

False pretensions leading to escalation of conflict: Vietnam--Gulf of Tonkin affair Iraq--trumped up WMD and other intelligence but more specifically using 911 as pretext for rush to war

www.flickr.com

Yes, the end is nigh... Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World

A young monkey at an Israeli zoo has started walking on its hind legs only — aping humans — after a near death experience, the zoo's veterinarian said Wednesday. "I've never seen or heard of this before," said Horowitz. One possible explanation is brain damage from the illness, he said. Monkey Apes Humans by Walking on Two Legs--Associated Press

About religion: Let us try a hypothetical exercise. Imagine, for a moment, that you wanted to create a memetic virus - a belief or system of beliefs of your choosing that would spread from person to person, instill its targets with specific thoughts or opinions of your choosing, and be almost impossible to eradicate once it had taken root in a mind. Why anyone would want to do such a thing is not really important for the purposes of this exercise, but there could be many reasons. Perhaps you were after personal gain and wanted to foster a belief system that would convince people to give their money and possessions to you. Perhaps you were an aspiring tyrant striving for the unquestioning obedience of the populace. Perhaps you were a political or military leader seeking to create the perfect army of fanatically dedicated and loyal soldiers. None of that truly matters. The question is, how could you create such a virus? How could you craft a system of beliefs that would inspire this reaction? The first thing you would need to do would be to find a way to insinuate your virus into a mind - to convince people to accept your new ideology. True viruses work by surrounding their 'payload' of genetic material with a protein coat that disguises them as innocuous substances. When the virus comes in contact with a cell, the protein shell is able to successfully dock with the cell membrane's receptors, like a key fitting into a lock. Once this has happened, the virus is able to penetrate the membrane and inject its own DNA into the nucleus of the cell. The same principle holds true here. To convince people to accept your memetic virus into their minds, you must disguise it as something innocuous, even something beneficial. Without a doubt, the best way to do this would be to convince people that the belief system you are offering them is good for them - that positive results will accrue if they accept it. The most rational way to do this would be to promise them a reward of some sort: money, fame, power, attractive members of the opposite sex, and so on. But that's needlessly complicated. Why not just go for the jugular? All these things are routes to pleasure, so let's just set them aside and promise your adherents pleasure in its pure form, undiluted happiness and bliss. That seems simple enough. However, there is a problem with this. If you promise people a reward you can't deliver, and then don't deliver, they will realize that your ideology is false and abandon it. How can we avoid this? The logical answer is to make the reward proposition a perpetually moving target: keep promising them that they'll get it if they work a little bit harder, do a little bit more for you. That way, if they don't get the reward you can move the blame from yourself to them, and they'll have to believe you. But there will always be sharp-eyed skeptics who'll want to see examples of people who have gotten this reward, just to prove it exists. So, as a final twist, let's move the reward to a place where no one can verify or disprove the fact of its awarding. Like... after death! That's the ticket! We now have a nicely unfalsifiable proposition. No one will ever be able to show evidence that you were wrong. The second problem is transmission. You may be able to sway a few people into believing you, but you can't spend all your time evangelizing. The logical solution is to add to the forming memetic virus a suite of beliefs that cause the newly converted themselves to want to spread it to others. Since we already have the reward proposition, that next step is a simple one. Convince your acolytes that it is beneficial to them - that it will increase their own reward further - to spread the good news to everyone they know. Better yet, phrase it in a more selfless form: convince them that they should convert other people for those own people's good. That way everyone can enjoy the reward they've already been promised. You now have your vector - a means by which the memetic virus can be spread from host to host. True viruses work in a similar way: they invade the cell, conquer its DNA, and in effect give the cellular machinery the message "make more copies of me." Your ideology is now poised to multiply in similarly explosive fashion. There's just one problem left. Medical science has defenses against viruses and other pathogens: antibiotics, vaccines, and so on. Yet viruses have their own counter-defenses; they can mutate and so gain immunity to the substances designed to kill them. How can we make our memetic virus immune to a cure? The answer, once again, is marvelously simple. Add to your virus another suite of beliefs. These ones will convince the infected that questioning the virus is wrong. Teach them that doubt is evil, that skepticism is to be set aside, that critical thought is to be avoided. Teach them that even a rational examination of their own beliefs will put them in serious jeopardy of losing their promised reward, and that instead, blind faith is essential. Trust me, your message will go. Don't think for yourself. Don't research. Believe what I tell you. Obey me and believe that I am always right. In this way, you will never give skepticism a chance to take root; you can cut doubt off at the pass. Your memetic virus is now ready to go. There are a few conceivable changes you could enact to make it even more effective: for example, you could balance the promised reward with a promise of punishment for those who stray, to ensure even stronger obedience among your believers. You could add that those who are not infected are in dire jeopardy of this punishment, to increase the urgency and effectiveness of its transmission. You could insert an instruction to believers to infect children as early as possible, before a strong 'immune system' of critical thinking skills can form. You could add rules and doctrines to create an entire culture based around this virus, so people grow up without ever being exposed to possible counteragents. But by and large, what we have now will suffice. Insert the 'payload' of whatever specific beliefs you wish it to instill, release it on an unsuspecting populace, and the rest is history. Of course, virtually every reader will by now have realized where this is going. Religion is precisely such a memetic virus. I am not necessarily claiming that religion was invented for any of the reasons described above. I am claiming that religion is the textbook example of a system of thought designed to stifle critical thinking and keep its adherents enslaved to doctrine. If you wanted to invent a system to hold people in mental thralldom, you couldn't do any better than the belief systems we already have. con't. here