j_b

are you suggesting that workers in developed nations should have to give up their jobs so that those in developing nations can have better paying jobs? western farm subsidies do hurt badly developing nations, and they should be stopped.

which probably explains why you regret not having had to work in sweatshops when you you were 10years old, why you absolutely refuse to take vacations (paid or not), do not observe the 40hour week and make sure you do not receive overtime pay when the boss needs you to work more, etc ... damn unions they really suck, don't they?

so the spin is: outsourcing results from failure of US education. one wonders what role lower wages in developing nations and greater profits for corporations play in this, peter?

do you mean failed like everyone else in central america and the caribbeans that ever tried to build spomething that we did not approve of? gee! i wonder what happened ... perhaps you ought to check the pedigree of the 'rebels'. do you mean when we found out that we had trained the coup leaders and they were on our payroll? and then we forced aristide to privatize banking, etc in exchange for holding back the coup leaders? yeah right! because in this case the people taking over the cities are not terrorists, right? wrong, they are paramilitaries with a very scary human right violation record. or is it because aristide was not a popularly elected president? wrong again, aristide was elected twice by an overwhelming majority and the wealthy political opposition does not have a prayer of reaching power through democratic means considering the economic disparities between the elite and haitians. or is it because aristide did not deliver what he promised? well, that's kind of hard to do when a country as poor as haiti faces an embargo from the most powerful nation on earth and when imf funds do not come through. which is not to say that aristide himself does not bear some responsibility. peter puget likes to call out where he sees hypocrisy (from his own strange point of view of course). no only does he seem to shirk his duties in a major way (terrorists versus rebels, promoting democracy versus the usual heavy-handed tactics such as coup and other destabilization attempts), but on the contrary he managed to stress the shortcomings of the few friends haiti has in the US without even bothering to present the context. way to go chump.

errrrr, the democrats did not loose the 2000 elections. sorry to have to remind you of this fact. moreover to invoke 'graciousness' and 'sportmanship' after having been exposed to conservative bile throughout the clinton years is irony at its finest.

and what makes you think she said this? and why would this be?

precisely, and let's not discuss the bush administration squeezing the aristide government. charges have repeatedly been made by members of congress about noriega's ingerence in haiti's affairs, but we would not read about it in Faux News. also they won't let the UN handle it because it's our backyard. the french have already said they were ready to move in under UN mandate.

i see you are planning on spending the better part of your adult life over there. i hope you like it. how can you not expect that shit is going to hit the fan in a major way both in the middle east and at home unless we backtrack soon. you people will never learn.

controlling oil, the most important natural resource to world economy, has underlined middle east policies for the better part of the 20th century. is there any indication that anything has changed? on the contrary all indices point to the increasing importance of controlling supply: oil is a dwindling resource, developing nations have skyrocketing needs, and we have not developed technlogies to deal with shortage. the long term trend of pump prices is up. no matter what.

poor dodge, but to answer your question: none. is this the "let's revive the cold war" thread? aren't you guys supposed to be pushing the "perpetual war on terror" these days? or do you think you need both to justify spending our children's future on the military-industrial complex?

let's not mention colonialism and its modern version. your generalizations about the western left are laughable.

what are the odds they would place markers during the year with the largest snowpack on record?

we all know that climate has been warming since the last major glacial, but warming has not been uniform, it has not been warmer than today (global average) in 1000s of years, and warming has accelerated this century (especially the last 50 years). the evidence for it is mounting and overwhelming. this is underlined by changes in ice extent on land and the ocean (arctic), and extreme droughts a mid-latitude and increasing precip at high mid latitudes. do you have a reference (scientific, peer-reviewed) to back up your saying the observed warming is a "natural progression"? i suspect nobody knows exactly the future extent of the weakening of the gulf stream toward western europe (warm ocean current) but data show it is already happening. paleoclimatic data in turn indicate that the gulf stream can shut off very rapidly (decades). yeah right! since nobody would go to war to control oil resources, nobody would go to war to control food or water (or as it were, send someone else to do their dirty business)

hubby: aw come on! it's your lead. i did the dishes last night! wify: and who washes your clothes? cleans the toilet? and on, and on ...

who needs science when one has direct, personal access to god

link to story Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. [go to link for rest of article]

or if you have broadband connection on both machines you can sftp your files over. ask computer support at work, as it may require an intermediate account which accepts remote login (like an edu account for example). sftp freeware is available on the web.

Thanks for the memory Of things I can't forget .... I know it's a fallacy That grown men never cry Baby, that's a lie We had our bed of roses But forgot that roses die And thank you so much http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

http://www.retrogrouch.net/MT/archives/000382.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4143594/ Was positive reading in Senate office caused by paper byproducts?NBC News and news services Updated: 8:13 p.m. ET Feb. 18, 2004 WASHINGTON - Investigators seeking the source of the ricin detected two weeks ago in a Senate office building have raised the possibility that the positive test that forced the evacuation of lawmakers and staff members may have been caused by paper byproducts, not the deadly poison, NBC News has learned.

are you certain you need life insurance?

probably not i have other guilty pleasures but not this one. it's ok though, contradictions are a fact of life. it does not mean your beliefs have to change to fit your practice.

the only thing i sense is bush going down (short of a miracle)

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/thompson-m-02-17.html Shifting Gears When it comes to presidential elections, there may be more to the NASCAR set than meets the eye. Matt Thompson DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- President Bush flew to the Daytona 500 on Sunday in Air Force One, and, by all accounts, the people sitting in the grandstands loved him. He "was greeted … by a largely adoring crowd that sees in him the values it holds dear," according to The Washington Post. Many of the race's fans -- including Howard Dean's famously sought-after constituent, the guy with the Confederate flag slapped on the back of his pickup -- shared a distaste for Democrats. For Bob Hargett, who's 57, the Stars and Bars aren't just silk-screened across the back window of his brand-new silver Dodge; they're also tattooed on his left forearm, flanked by the words "Southern Pride." What does he think of Dean? "I can't stand him," he says. "He's a nutcase." Here, even a Wesley Clark endorses Bush. Clark, 22, a physical-education major at Gordon College, in Barnesville, Ga. plans to vote along family lines. "My cousin Corey's serving over there in Iraq," Clark says, "and he has support, and I guess I have support for him. So I'm going to vote for George Bush." A recent ABC News analysis of the exit polls from the 2000 election concluded that the "NASCAR dads" aren't swing voters at all, but, rather, a small and solid part of Bush's core constituency. It may not be worth it for Democrats to pursue these fans, some experts say. Apparently they weren't in Daytona. Just before the race began, people were becoming impatient to get to their seats, and the increased security prompted by Bush's visit was slowing things down. To my left, I heard someone ask, "Who's voting for Bush?" Someone else instantly responded, "Not me." I turned back to see who'd spoken, but I was no match for the hundreds of people behind me pressing onward. Then, suddenly, we stopped. A few feet away, I could see police officers and orange-vested security agents holding the crowd back. It wasn't long before everyone realized we were being delayed until Bush had completed his entrance into the stadium. After only a minute's pause, people started grumbling. Soon, they started yelling at the security detail. A few minutes more and they'd turned their ire on the president himself. "We want to see the race, not Bush!" shouted someone in the crowd. "Why didn't that SOB stay in Washington?" screamed Doug Shelby, the loudest of the voices. This is Bush's base? Tom Kremis isn't sure how he'll vote come November. "I don't know," he says. "I would probably vote for Bush. I did before." The Iraq War and the Medicare bill, however, have worn on Kremis' support for the president. Saddam Hussein, he says, "needed to be taken out, but I don't know if that was the right way to do it." Kremis adds: "As far as Bush and the medicine and so forth, I think I don't know what happened to that." His friend, Donna Call, meanwhile, admits to being impressed with the Democratic candidates. "I will say they have some real heavy shooters right now," she says. "I was really surprised at the whole primary season." Some of the Republicanism here, especially among the younger members of the crowd, could be described as perhaps nothing more than brand loyalty. NASCAR drivers cover every inch of their cars and uniforms with the brands of their corporate sponsors. Diehard fans mark themselves from head to hip with logos and tattoos to show solidarity with those drivers, surrendering every available inch of torso for companies to cover with product names. At any given minute, I'm passed by hundreds of walking advertisements for Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats, M&Ms, DuPont, Sharpie, Winston and Valvoline, among others. To some at the race, "Republican" and "Democrat" are just two more words to add to the list. An enterprising Democratic candidate might woo these fans away from their loyalty to the label. Consider Sean and Sean. Sean Bugg, 22, is rooting for Rusty Wallace in today's race, and wears the jacket of Wallace's sponsor, Miller Lite. Sean Clark, 23, wears a Budweiser jacket in support of driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. Miller Lite Sean has the stronger political beliefs of the two, mostly based, he says, on the beliefs of his Republican parents. Budweiser Sean, if he votes at all, will probably vote for Bush, too. "That Bush," Miller Lite Sean says, "he's going to keep shooting straight the whole time, basically. Bush is the one that went over there and handled shit, you know?" "Yeah," chimes in Budweiser Sean, "Definitely handled that." So is there anything a Democratic candidate could say to sway them? "I don't know," Budweiser Sean says slowly, after a moment. "Don't know about that. I'd have to hear him talk first." They're at least open to the possibility of changing their minds about who they're going to vote for. And even at the Daytona 500, a lot of people refuse to be labeled. Steve Carlson, 32, sports no product logos on his clothes. He's not a big NASCAR fan, just someone who came to see if it would be a good show. He didn't vote in the last election, and doesn't know which way he'd have gone if he had. A Democrat could win his vote, he says, by "dropping [the] party nomination and going independent, saying, 'This is what I really believe.'" But that'll never happen, Carlson says, so he'll wait and see if he'll be voting this year. Rosita Navarro plans to vote for "Anybody But Bush." But she hates the terms "Republican" and "Democrat." "I wish there was a Neo-Democrat[ic] Party," she says. "Something new." So perhaps it's not suprising that an impromptu anti-Bush rally brewed, lacking only the picket signs. Doug Shelby was denouncing Bush's policies -- and drawing agreement from the crowd. "We're $500 billion in debt and it's only getting worse!" he shouted. Overhead, Lee Greenwood sang "God Bless the USA." The crowd started chanting obscenities. After LeAnn Rimes sang the national anthem, the crowd above the grandstands started cheering; those below booed. Then Bush's motorcade drove by. One middle finger went up in the crowd, then another, and soon they were everywhere. As the crowd scattered to their seats, one of the few black fans I spotted at the racetrack ran by and saw me scribbling in my notepad. "Writing for a newspaper?" she asked. Before I could respond, she shouted, "Tell them Bush sucks!" Then she disappeared back into the fray. Matt Thompson is a reporting and writing fellow at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Matt Thompson

fancy that! no more grand discourse about objectivity and the role of the press in a democracy. i wonder what next ...