Stonehead

Awight, you think you're smart, try this game. Pearls Before Swine The link takes you to the main page. Hover your cursor over the guy lounging on the couch. Then select the game called Pearls Before Swine. Good luck. Let me know if you win and how you did it.

Super Freak

To Be or Not to Be (Shakespeare in Hamlet) To Be Is To Do (Socrates) To Do Is To Be (Jean-Paul Sartre) Do-be-do-be-do (Sinatra) Scooby Dooby Doo (Scooby Doo)

I believe medals are all about recognition and as such, these remain visible manifestations of worth if the symbolism is not cheapened by the gratuitous granting of these honors. The struggle for recognition underlies the motivation towards and the expression of ideologies, religious beliefs, and honors. The human need for recognition has a biological basis and that basis is related to levels of serotonin in the brain. Francis Fukuyama further explains the significance of recognition. He credits Adam Smith and especially, Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments in explaining the importance of recognition among humans. Though economists have the notion that people seek utility, Fukuyama believes that Smith understood the more complex psychology underlying our behavior. In Fukuyama’s words, “In some cases we do want resources, but in many other cases what we want is the intersubjective esteem of another human being that recognises your dignity. Smith has this phrase where he says that when the rich man glories in his richness it is not that he lives to enjoy in private the money that he has, it is more that he is seen by other people as having achieved wealth and status. The reason Smith says poverty is humiliating is that the poor man is invisible to his fellow man and is not recognised as another human being.” And this also from Fukuyama: “I think a great deal of politics is actually not over resource allocation, it's over recognition struggles—gay rights, feminism, civil rights, all of these things are essentially demands that other people recognise you as an individual, or your group of people, as having a certain kind of moral status.” Again: According to Hegel, human beings like animals have natural needs and desires for objects outside themselves such as food, drink, shelter, and above all the preservation of their own bodies. Man differs fundamentally from the animals, however, because in addition he desires the desire of other men, that is, he wants to be "recognised." In particular, he wants to be recognised as a human being, that is, as a being with a certain worth or dignity. This worth in the first instance is related to his willingness to risk his life in a struggle over pure prestige. For only man is able to overcome his most basic animal instincts-chief among them his instinct for self-preservation-for the sake of higher, abstract principles and goals. According to Hegel, the desire for recognition initially drives two primordial combatants to seek to make the other "recognise" their humanness by staking their lives in a mortal battle. When the natural fear of death leads one combatant to submit, the relationship of master and slave is born. The stakes in this bloody battle at the beginning of history are not food, shelter, or security, but pure prestige. And precisely because the goal of the battle is not determined by biology, Hegel sees in it the first glimmer of human freedom. The desire for recognition may at first appear to be an unfamiliar concept, but it is as old as the tradition of Western political philosophy, and constitutes a thoroughly familiar part of the human personality. It was first described by Plato in the Republic, when he noted that there were three parts to the soul, a desiring part, a reasoning part, and a part that he called thymos , or "spiritedness." Much of human behaviour can be explained as a combination of the first two parts, desire and reason: desire induces men to seek things outside themselves, while reason or calculation shows them the best way to get them. But in addition, human beings seek recognition of their own worth, or of the people, things, or principles that they invest with worth. The propensity to invest the self with a certain value, and to demand recognition for that value, is what in today's popular language we would call "self-esteem." The propensity to feel self-esteem arises out of the part of the soul called emos . It is like an innate human sense of justice. People believe that they have a certain worth, and when other people treat them as though they are worth less than that, they experience the emotion of anger. Conversely, when people fail to live up to their own sense of worth, they feel shame, and when they are evaluated correctly in proportion to their worth, they feel pride. The desire for recognition, and the accompanying emotions of anger, shame, and pride, are parts of the human personality critical to political life. According to Hegel, they are what drives the whole historical process. --Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992)

Simple. Torture exists to terrorize a population (that opposes a dictatorship). "Tortures range from simple but brutal blows from a truncheon to electric shocks. Often the torture is more refined: the end of a reed is placed in the anus of a naked man hanging suspended downwards on the pau de arara [parrot's perch] and a piece of cotton soaked in petrol is lit at the other end of the reed. Pregnant women have been forced to watch their husbands being tortured. Other wives have been hung naked beside their husbands and given electric shocks on the sexual parts of their body, while subjected to the worst kind of obscenities. Children have been tortured before their parents and vice versa. The length of sessions depends upon the resistance capacity of the victims and have sometimes continued for days at a time." -- Amnesty International, describing the torture suffered by Brazilians at the hands of the military in the 1960s "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." -- A survivor of a raid by Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s "People had been mercilessly tortured simply for being in possession of a leaflet criticizing the regime. Brutality and cruelty on one side, frustration and helplessness on the other. They were being tortured and there was nothing to be done. It was like listening to a friend who has cancer. What comfort, what wise reflection can someone who is comfortable give. Torture might last a short time, but the person will never be the same." -- James Becket, American attorney, in Greece for Amnesty International, describing the torture suffered by Greeks under dictator Papdopoulos in the 1960s The above is what I think of when I hear the word, torture.

Wasn't it mentioned that blackmail was one potential motive? Those in authority use all forms of coercion to enforce power over others. Even if the suspects were innocent of particular actions, they could be used for future purposes.

If this 'war' is unconventional, then why do we have to stick to conventional means?

I think it’s time for a quote from a Reaganite suitable to adopt to the current situation: "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime." -- Ed Meese, former Reagan Attorney General So, it’s tough shit if you get caught up in a terrorist sweep. Just being in the wrong location could be your mistake. If things deteriorate to the point similar to what happened in Vietnam, then anyone capable of carrying a weapon could be considered a potential enemy. On the other hand, why be a fatalist? Things may turn out all bright and shiny. The birth of something new is always accompanied by the pain of emergence.

Here’s my 2 c’s. We prize the concept of due process in our American legal system, yet the same concept goes out the door outside of the U.S. In the name of expediency, due process is shed. Modern Machiavellians know that we must preserve a façade of moral uprightness but for all practical purposes sometimes ruthless measures have to be undertaken. If the ‘enemy’ can resort to the use of ruthless means, then should we strive to maintain moral uprightness and limit the full exercise of our power, thereby suffering losses at our enemy’s hands? Some suspects are taken to other countries for interrogation to be dealt with by foreign agents. That absolves us of staining our hands directly. Is anyone so naïve to believe that it could be otherwise? If you knew half the shit that actually happens, you’d be horrified or disgusted. Yeah, there’s a lot of rumors out there but some hold a kernel of truth regarding the true state of world and domestic affairs. Ok, here’s what gets me: FBI ABDUCTS ARTIST, SEIZES ART ( http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html ). It’s shit like this and the Brandon Mayfield affair that bug me. Where the hell is the due process in our own country? Is it going down the tubes?? What does the future hold? A future as a paranoiac reality of economic servitude and mindless entertainment (bread and circuses) where political criticism is stifled and freedom of thought is driven underground?

Seems there were actually two types of photos, one group comprising those that can be viewed as humiliating or degrading but physically harmless and then another group of photos that either suggest physical harm, e.g., the photo of the soldiers with the guard dogs surrounding the naked man, or depict consequences of physical harm. To lump all of the photos together is a mistake. A distinction should be made for clarity.

Chase the squirrel

It's a takeoff of the 'terror alert banana' ( http://www.victorisdead.com/luna/comments.php?id=200 ). The 'terror alert banana' changes color according to the DHS threat level. BTW, if the following story has any truth to it, then perhaps it would hobble a Kerry Presidency when he is investigated ( Kerry Took Cash From Chinese Military Intelligence ) or maybe it's just a plant.

President to receive Purple Chin award President Bush has been nominated for a Purple Chin award for being injured in the line of duty during his May 22 mountain bike tumble. The commander-in-chief reportedly was thinking about ways to fix his bone-headed war without admitting any mistakes when he hit a loose patch of dirt. Critics dismissed it as a silly attempt to beef up his pathetic military record, first as a flighty National Guard pilot and now as a bumbling war boss foolish enough to don a flightsuit and pose with a bogus "Mission Accomplished" banner. Bush, who nearly made the ultimate sacrifice after choking on a pretzel in January 2002, also fell off a hi-tech Segway scooter in June 2003, and dropped his pooch Barney on its head last September. Media analysts differ on what the president might do for his next zany stunt. One suggested he parachute into a U.S. military compound in Iraq carrying a fake turkey for the troops. Another said he should accidentally shoot himself in the foot at an NRA fundraiser to divert attention from his malfeasant handling of the war. --see story (by John Breneman) about halfway down the webpage

This is boring... After supper she got out her book and learned me about Moses and the Bulrushers and I was in a sweat to find out all about him; but by and by she let it out that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people. (p2) --The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain

Yes! ...and they also want your children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, too. --excerpts of article following It seems there's no escaping America's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a California parent's attempt to get the phrase "under God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds that it represents an establishment of religion. The Newdow case is a Republican campaign strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. George Bush the elder used the Pledge to similar effect in his 1988 campaign against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who had vetoed a bill requiring public school teachers to lead their classes in the Pledge. It's probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a little before they lunge for a political hot-button issue. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending. What's so conservative about the Pledge? Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club. --snip-- Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society. Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"? -- Source: Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/11-04-03.html) Bastards!

What I've noticed is that the conservatives of this site tend to frame the issues and thereby maintain control. Some of them are masters of propanganda. What's required is to reframe the issue. It's like that question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Damned if you say either "no" or "yes". Reframe the issue so that you can answer that you have never beat your wife. Also, I believe some of them know that repetition tends to work on your memory so that what is clearly false begins to perceived as true.

Christ and AntiChrist http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880 Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends - Church - journalist Wayne Madsden - Brief Article According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ." --snip-- Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."

President Bush gets out of his helicopter in front of the White House carrying a baby pig under each arm. The Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes, and says: "Nice pigs, sir." Bush replies: "These are not pigs, these are Texan Razorback Hogs. I got one for Vice-President Cheney, and I got one for Defence Secretary Rumsfeld." The Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says, "Nice trade, sir."

Another one bites the dust... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/03/tenet.resigns/index.html Another key CIA official, James Pavitt -- the CIA's deputy director of operations who oversees all covert operations -- plans to announce his resignation Friday, U.S. sources told CNN Thursday. Oh yeah and here's another take on the Tenet resignation. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4634.shtml

""I'd like to know who leaked," Bush said in October. "And if anybody's got information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department, so we can find the leaker."" So um, why do you need an attorney? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/bush.leak/index.html

Must be that Berkeley t-shirt.

Shit, there were a lot of anthems and/or defining songs from that time--like "I'm Eighteen" Alice Cooper "Bohemian Rhapsody" Queen "Free Bird" Lynyrd Skynyrd "Time" Pink Floyd My guess...Maybe it's more an artifact of the boomer influence and the evolution of rock music. The giants of today are surrounded by other giants so it's hard to see much prominence. Back in the day, the pioneers of 70's rock could make their mark without being submerged. Couple that with the sheer numbers of young folks and that's a recipe for lasting significance. Then again, I could be all wet. As for "Stairway..", yeah, maybe they did have some special help on that song.

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4636.shtml President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind. In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.” Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. “It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.” In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration. “We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.” Remember the pretzel...? See picture in article. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.fainting/ Well, now here's the bicycle incident (see story and picture below): http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040523/D82NV4T80.html And, how could we ever forget the Segway mishap?