scrambler

Yeah, looks that way from the look on her face.

I think she's climbing, not falling, on an overhang.

Minx!

Weasel words... So are you saying it is possible?

I didn't know that our Constitution could be suspended, in whole or in part. Wouldn't that take an Act of Congress, and not unilateral presidential action? I'll have to search that out. Disturbing... when would "we the people" ever want to do that? So, you're saying this future action is impossible and outside the realm of possibility?

Is that called getting 'Borked'?

Wouldn't it be cool to illustrate it with pictures!!

I thought this post was going to be about a drop in global IQ.

Muffy, were you feeling exhibitionist yesterday?

I bet that doesn't stop some from eating other things that smell occasionally.

I couldn't do without my computer.

Sofa King Low!

Not sure if this is true or not but I heard that the reason the French eat snails and such is that the French countryside was devastated during years of war including many religious wars, e.g., the Crusade against the Albigensians in the south of France. Consequently, they were reduced to eating these odd creatures to survive. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Fairweather, your leading question does no justice to either the French as a people or to the idea of freedom. Perhaps the question should be more specific such as do the French place limits on 'extreme' expressions of religious ideology? If the offending expression of religion clashes with the popular ideas of gender equality, then shouldn't the secular position overrule? If the offending expression is supported then doesn't that amount to official endorsement of the ideology behind the expression, which in this case appears to indicate the lower status of women by subjecting them to modify their behavior rather than the behavior of men? In other words, was the call for women to veil themselves in public something that was propagated by a rigidly patriarchial system? What limits do we as Americans place on the limitation of religious expression and does this infringe on our right to religious freedom?

Yes, this appears to transcend party affliation. 911 was the defining event that precipitated war with Afghanistan and Iraq leading simultaneously to domestic changes in civil liberties. Sign of things to come...?

The following article discusses a related subject regarding a disturbing trend in domestic affairs during war time (hot war) or times subject to a war mentality (cold war). Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front As its overwhelming victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, the U.S. military is the most effective fighting force in human history. It is so effective, in fact, that many government officials are now anxious for the military to assume a more active policing role here at home. Deploying troops on the home front is very different from waging war abroad. Soldiers are trained to kill, whereas civilian peace officers are trained to respect constitutional rights and to use force only as a last resort. That fundamental distinction explains why Americans have long resisted the use of standing armies to keep the domestic peace. Unfortunately, plans are afoot to change that time-honored policy. There have already been temporary troop deployments in the airports and on the Canadian and Mexican borders and calls to make border militarization permanent. The Pentagon has also shown a disturbing interest in high-tech surveillance of American citizens. And key figures in the Bush administration and Congress have considered weakening the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal statute that limits the government's ability to use the military for domestic police work. The historical record of military involvement in domestic affairs cautions against a more active military presence in the American homeland. If Congress weakens the legal barriers to using soldiers as cops, substantial collateral damage to civilian life and liberty will likely ensue. ---- source BTW, the acting President has extraordinary power. Suspension of the Constitution in whole or in part appears very possible even if only for a short while until reined in by the judicial branch.

I meant to post this several days ago when I first read about it. Anyway... High-Ranking Officials Admit 9/11 Could've Been Prevented "This was not something that had to happen." "They simply failed." ----— Thomas H. Kean, Chair of the independent commission investigating 9/11. Kean is a Republican appointed by Bush "They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." ---— Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11 "I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it." ---— Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11 "There were lots of warnings." ----— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "Should we have known? Yes, we should have. Could we have known? Yes, I believe we could have because of the hard targets [CIA operatives were tracking]." ----— Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Republican co-chairman of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11 "I cannot say for sure that there wasn't a possibility we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers." ----— FBI Director Robert Mueller "As of September 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on September 11th." ---— Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff (described by the Associated Press as "the Bush administration's top anti-terrorism prosecutor") "Had one human being or a common group of human beings sat down with all that information, we could have gotten to the hijackers before they flew those four airplanes either into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or the ground of Pennsylvania." ---— Senator Bob Graham, then Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; Democratic co-chairman of the joint intelligence panel that investigated 9/11 "If you put all those pieces together, I don't say you could have prevented September 11th, but there might have been some warning, had it been handled properly." ---— Vice President Dick Cheney This and much more are archived at The Memory Hole ( link) ________________________________________________________ December 17, 2003--9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston. "This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean. "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen." Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said CBS News source--remainder of news article _________________________________________________________ FYI, the bi-partisan 911 Commission consists of 10 people appointed by House and Senate leaders from both parties and by President Bush. The Commission is led by Republican and former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean. In addition to Kean, the commissioners are: • Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor and Democratic counsel of the Senate Whitewater Committee • Fred Fielding, former counsel to presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush • Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Mae vice president and former deputy attorney general under Janet Reno • Slade Gorton, former Republican U.S. senator from Washington • John Lehman, former U.S. Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan. • Timothy Roemer, former Democratic congressman from Indiana • James Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois • Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman from Indiana • Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator

Yeah my posts are sometimes facetious rather than all serious and shit all the time. What would be appropriate punishments for the above crimes? I don't know but what I would like to see is that the guilty are treated the same so that a celebrity who commits a crime is not afforded leniency. ...So all persons are treated similarly for the same crime excluding mitigating and attentuating circumstances.

Hey wasn't that the tag line for the Mr. Mike microphone commercials? Drive down the street with the top down in the convertible with your Mr. Mike until you see some pretty thangs. Time to be all cool and shit with your Mr. Mike. "Hey Good Lookin'!"

They're fallible creatures subject to human foibles. Maybe we should replace them with flawless machine intelligence. Or have the judges follow a rigid system of religious law that decrees punishment such as having one's penis loped off for putting it in the wrong place. Or neutering the subject by chemical castration then putting the eunuch to work in slave labor camps to produce cheap goods for the good folks.

I see inequity everywhere. Maybe our system of crime and punishment is fucked especially with our practice of trading expediency (time & cost savings) by plea bargaining in place of handing out the harshest sentences. I'm willing to believe that the judge has discretion to decide the particulars of sentencing within the guidelines set by law. He looks at the particularities of the crime, migitating and attentuating circumstances. Robbob also indicated that one of the crimes is a violation of Federal law, which could carry severe consequences. So maybe we should revisit the issue whether white collar criminals get lenient sentencing for crimes that affect a large number of people, e.g., devastation of 401(k)s in the Enron scandal or the Saving & Loan scandals of the 80's. These are not violent crimes or crimes against innocent children but damned I'd be pissed if they wrecked my parents retirement and caused them to live their 'golden years' in poverty and misery. Should these crimes be treated similar in punishment to that exhibited for blue collar crimes?

Awww...Muffy. Now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Logan's Run...pulp sci-fi B grade movie, counteracted the generation gap Zeitgeist of the late 60's/early 70's by advancing the scenario of the 'hope I die before I get old' idea to its illogical conclusion and actually acted as the original idea's antithesis. As a kid, I thought the idea that everyone over the age of 30 gets the axe was a nifty idea. Think of the opportunities! Rev up production, sex abundant! No, seriously I liked the idea of 'sanctuary' better. It harkened back to an older, simpler time when you could feel safe again despite the existential anxiety of a rapidly changing world.