scrambler

Seems you either love'em or hate'em. Me, I don't try to lump everyone into one faceless mass called Mounties. I know some good people in the organization as individuals. But some people feel as Groucho Marx once said, "I wouldn't want to belong to an organization that would have me as a member."

Well, it looks like you strip them naked and tie their hands behind their back. No way to use a phone unless it's a hands free phone.

Strangely, I'm getting used to seeing cops in riot gear... "Welcome to Miami. Enjoy your visit." ( Photo Source---pictures of protest freaks )

All I gotta say is that those Iraqi teenagers and others who participated in the mutilation are clueless idiots. They're reaping the wild wind. I don't know if this was instigated by mullahs or if it's just the general sentiment of the people in that area. If it's the mullahs, then these guys have to be neutralized by whatever means necessary. If it's just the mood of the people then that's more difficult to remedy. One sentiment I heard expressed is that the Iraqi and Moslems in general feel humiliated. When a mob of humiliated people obtain a chance, they take their aggression out on objects of their hate. I don't know what was different with WWII and the defeat of Germany and Japan. But I suspect that the extended warfare drained their national psyches and that their defeat was overwhelming. Of course, the types of war were different. In WWII the civilian infrastructure such as manufacturing centers were decimated by carpet bombing. In Iraq, the bombing was selective and designed to attack the government support structures but keep much of the nation intact. From my vantage point, it seems that the Iraqis are getting a pretty damn good deal especially considering that they don't have an onerous tax burden imposed on them. Ok, what was the mission again? Is this an example of mission creep?

Hossein Barkhah of Iran dislocates his elbow attempting to lift 157.5 kilograms in the snatch category in group A of the men's 77 kilogram weight class at the World Weightlifting Championship in Vancouver, British Columbia, November 18, 2003. REUTERS/Lyle Stafford

does he bite the heads off of live chickens or what?

Still making your own ryebread? Jamestown weed also known as jimsonweed, datura, and angel's trumpet. Warning to would-be psychonauts ( Student cuts off penis and tongue after drinking hallucinogenic tea). A student cut off his own penis and his tongue after drinking an infusion of the latest drugs craze to sweep Germany. The 18-year-old, only named as Andreas W, from Halle in Germany drank a tea made with the hallucinogenic angels' trumpet plants. His mother said: "Andreas was behaving normally the whole day until he left the house and disappeared into the garden for a couple of minutes." When he returned to the house he was wearing a towel wrapped around him and was bleeding heavily from his mouth and between his legs. The emergency doctor who arrived a few minutes later said the student had cut off his penis and his tongue with garden shears and it was impossible to reattach the organs. Dr Andreas Marneros, from the local psychiatric hospital the student was admitted to, said: "Andreas will have to receive psychological help for years. Tea from Angels' Trumpets is extremely dangerous as the drug cannot be dosed."

Maybe demon is another word for something inexplicable that affects your life negatively but is beyond your control. Your inner life includes such things as fantasies and dreams. These things do not have material reality but they sure can affect your life. Same with beliefs. If you believe in the literal existence of demons or other supernatural powers, then I'd say that they exist in as much as they affect your experience.

What are the odds you'll ever have to experience the devil entering your body and running amok? In his new book, Life: The Odds, Gregory Baer estimates there are 750 exorcists active in the United States. He calculates that if each performs one exorcism a week, with two weeks of vacation, the number of exorcisms per year is 37,500. Assuming that a victim previously possessed will not be inhabited again, and taking into account the most-recent population figures, your odds of being possessed by the devil are 7,000-to-1 for each year. If those odds frighten you, do not lose heart. Baer gives tips to improve your chances if possessed. His advice: Seek a Catholic exorcist because they have a manual and experience, and try to avoid possession in the first place. source Oddities From the World of Exorcists It widely is reported that Pope John Paul II has dueled with the devil more than once. The Italian newspaper La Stampa reported in September 2001 that during a regular papal audience in St. Peter's Square a young woman cursed and insulted the pontiff in a strange and otherworldly voice. Several large men who subdued her reported the strange girl had "superhuman" strength. The pope personally prayed over the young woman and, according to Amorth, performed an exorcism. This is a good read. Who, after all, is performing these ceremonies? Have we not learned from modern psychiatry that mental illness is not caused by demonic possession? Or was C.S. Lewis correct in saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was in convincing the world he didn't exist"? Most of what the popular culture knows about exorcism and demonic possession is gleaned from The Exorcist, a film classic that celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. Since its release this imaginative horror picture, based on the novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty, has whetted an appetite and widespread interest in exorcism that in turn has produced other films, books and broadcasts that have tended to encourage the practice. Biblical literalists point to exorcisms performed by Jesus, citing Luke 8:26-40 and Mark 1:23-36. These accounts, as well as Ephesians 6:10-18, which are seen as a charter for spiritual warfare, gave rise to the practice of exorcism among early Christians. As a functionary of the Christian Church, the role of exorcist as an official office is mentioned in a letter by Pope Cornelius in 253, reports John L. Allen Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter. The practice continued within the church but became less popular following the Enlightenment, which brought with it Western rationalism and a bias toward science. The minor order of exorcism nonetheless remained a part of the regular training of priests for ordination. This wasn't changed until 1972, when Pope Paul VI removed the order of exorcism from the training of every priest and left it to the bishop of each diocese to appoint an exorcist. The rite and rule of exorcism stayed the same until 1998, when the Vatican released a revision. The new rule acknowledges that many of the conditions that once were thought to result from demonic possession now are recognized as mental disorders. On the other hand the Vatican stated quite clearly that the devil is at work in the world and Christians must beware.

I don't need to read up on shit. If you had ingested ergot and didn't know what the fuck was happening, then I'd say you'd get pretty damn hysterical. Freakin' demons and shit. Sure it wasn't Jamestown (jimson) weed?

I’m saying this again, if he’s found guilty, then HANG THE BASTARD. Allegations arose 10 years ago concerning child molestation. What the hell were the parents thinking to let their kids stay overnight at Neverland? Are they complete idiots? Unless MJ kidnapped the kids, I’d say the parents are complicit to some extent. I only need to remind you of the Wenatchee sex trials where allegations arose concerning child molestation and ritual satanic abuse. Convictions were overturned because no independent collaborating evidence was brought forth to confirm the children’s verbal accounts. Seemingly memory can be very malleable and part of the function of the mind is to complete the gaps in comprehension. For instance, a therapist, by asking leading questions, can unknowingly create false memories that a child believes to be true. A researcher, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, formerly of UW studied this phenomenon. This is almost reminiscent of the Salem witch trials where people were tried and hung based on the testimonials of hysterical people. It seems the thing that they feared most, robbed these people of rationality. Today, child molestation is the thing most parents fear. What if you were going through a contentious divorce and your former spouse accused you of child molestation based on the spouse’s coaching of the child? The thing that appears to be going right is that law enforcement has seemingly gathered a lot of evidence (or so it appears). If it goes to trial, then it’s going to be a costly one but hopefully the victim(s) will see justice. I wonder if the website with the child’s deposition will poison the jury pool? That’s one possibility considering the media coverage given to this case. It would be a travesty of justice if MJ is guilty but gets off. I’d think he’d better always have bodyguards around him because some angry parent will off him. I definitely believe he’s a pathetic freak.

I assume you're referring to Wesley Clark. In my statement above, I didn't allude in any way to the ideology of officers, just their allegance to, and understanding of our constitution. But since you brought it up, a 1998 survey estimated that only 15% of the US military officer corps identified themselves as Democrats. I recall reading that this was a big concern for Clinton and Gore at the time. And, by inference the other 85% would be Republican, Independent or nonaffliated. The general conception is that Repubs are strong on defense thus the assumed support. The elephant is a strange creature though. It shouldn't automatically be identified as having a Neocon face. Interesting to see how the big players are shaking out. Hugh Shelton has (is serving?) served as an advisor to John Edwards campaign though Shelton has not officially endorsed Edwards ( one link). This morning I read this headline: Former Air Force chief backs Dean candidacy : Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak of Lake Oswego helps bolster the presidential hopeful's military credentials. Here's a little snippet: "Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, has left the Republican fold and is backing Democrat Howard Dean in the 2004 race for president." Seems these big guys are jockeying for position. Nearly all of these military higher-ups sit on multiple boards of corporation, "easy money". In all fairness, every one of the candidates has dirt in his past. The ability to continue in political life is a testament to his strength. It takes a powerful man to steamroll his way beyond these mistakes, admirable in a way too. But how that person dealt with a problem in the past should be an indication of how that person will deal with it in the future.

Concerning Waco: West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his OK. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge." "To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one." ________________________________________ Michael McNulty, an investigative journalist and Oscar nominee for his documentary, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, tells Insight that, "From the standpoint of what went on that operation had military fingerprints all over it. The chain of command being what it is, Clark had some responsibility, but to what degree we really don't know." McNulty takes a deep breath and then says, "My military sources tell me that Clark and his second in command got the communication from then-governor of Texas Ann Richards, who wanted help with Waco. At that point Clark or [Gen. Peter J.] Schoomaker should have asked themselves, 'Religious community? Civilians, they want our tanks?' and hung up the phone. Clark had to be involved at the tactical level, he had to know what the tactical plan was and he'd have to approve it. No one has ever asked these questions of this man. Clark wasn't even asked to testify before the congressional committee investigating the circumstances of Waco. For me the real question is one of character and, because of the cover-up that's gone on with Waco, it could even be a question of criminality. From the get-go, when the assignment came down from III Corps, which is the primary Army unit at Fort Hood and his division, Wesley Clark had the opportunity to say 'Hey, wait a minute folks, we're not gonna give tanks and personnel to the FBI to use on civilians!'" source Decide for yourself.

Well educated. Would that include Rhodes scholar?

It's believed that Wesley Clark was involved, though not fully known to what extent, in the assault on the Koresh compound at Waco.

Right, Muffy. I'm with you on that. But once you get beyond basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, etc. then there's another world of priorities (Maslow's hierarchy of needs). The freedom to think about your place in the world and your vision of how the world should be, that to me, exemplifies some of what the founders wanted to preserve. It's almost like the climber's ethic of wanting to challenge the world in yourself or of the world at large.

Hey you got an idea there. Needs some fine tuning. But I like it. Except for the part about the Kool-aid

Damn if only we could have it that easy. Unfortunately, one can't condense the Republican platform into one simple idea, i.e., fair reward for fair labor. There's a lot of other stuff you gotta consume along with that to be a party animal.

What're you gonna do? Move your family to the boonies and live off the land? Maybe gather a few other families and start a different society?

Spirit of the law refers to intent. So a reinterpretation of the law must be consistent with its spirit or intent. I made a mistake when I mentioned it earlier. Seems some people have a kneejerk reaction when reminded of the intent of the 2nd amendment, which I believe refers to the right to use lethal force to protect your interests, ideally those same interests that dovetail with those of your community. These people seem to get confused that talking about the intent equates to treasonous action. Far from it. Today the idea of forceably opposing government is absurd considering the overwhelming firepower of law enforcement and military. The Freemen and like were misguided fools. The 2nd amendment seems like an artifact of a distant time, not with respect to its intent, but due to complications yielded by change in weapon technology and its effects on society. Objections are raised when an individual or group uses firearms to commit crimes against the public at large. This, and the fact that the use of firearms to oppose gov't is seemingly absurd provide the impetus for gun control advocates to restrict this right out of existence. I don't believe that the need to obtain animal protein had anything to do with the 2nd amendment. A fellow could fish, trap, etc. to get meat on the table. Besides, wasn't most of their caloric requirements provided by grains and other plant sustenance? I thought it very interesting that on reading the Franks' article that he mentions intent as primary in the decision to strike Saddam. But it seems that intent would have to be coupled with capability to constitute grounds for pre-emptive strike.

Explain this further. I'm not following. Constant attempts to "ban" certain deemed offensive types of speech. (ie: with campus "speech codes"....not to mention their attempts to regulate conservative talk radio.) Constant attempts to subvert/re-interpret the second amendment....surely you understand what I mean. Liberals. That word carries a lot of different connotations. So liberals meaning big gov't, 'Big Mother', we'll dictate what's right for you, etc., and to some extent, the secularization of culture? With respect to Second Amendment, the original intent of the right to possess firearms was to rise up to oppose overbearing government (controversial) but at the very least, for defense against attack. It certainly wasn't put there so that we could have guns for hunting. As I understand the First Amendment, this is a safeguard to protect the individual's right to political speech, which includes criticism of the ruling government. I don't know. I'm not a Constitutional scholar. Seems that the interpretation of the law can differ with the changing times. The letter of the law will not change but the spirit of the law can be reinterpreted. ??? But we still retain our rights.

Times have changed. Maybe the worst case scenairo involving a constitutional challenge would be a severe fiscal crisis coupled with terrorist attack. Stuff of paperback novels. Perhaps the system is strong. Franks' ideas are a real possibility.

Explain this further. I'm not following.

Accomplished mission to topple Saddam and his Baathist Party from power Are we not in the occupation phase of the Iraqi operation?

Tommy Franks: Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties. If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.” Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack. “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.” Tommy Franks: Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack American Hero, General Tommy Franks: An Exclusive Interview