markinore

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd call that a flip-flop!

And do you recall how you treated returning American soldiers? I was young then, but I remember....and you should be ashamed. I have nothing to apologize for how I treated returning soldiers. Many were my friends or my friends' brothers. Two of my friends' brothers did not come back alive. Some came back with their psyches badly damaged. I thought that some of the antiwar protesters I respected most were those who had fought in Vietnam and had the greatest direct perspective about what a travesty that war was. They were inspirations to me and many others. The people who most owe an apology to Vietnam veterans are the ones who sent them there for no good reason and neglected those who made it back.

And all those unfortunate incidents occurred just in time, because, as we all know, it is illegal to award an Olympic medal to anyone whose life has been free of personal tragedy.

As one who was coming of age in the late '60s and early '70s and who participated in a number of antiwar activities, I can say that it certainly was NOT a fad for me and many others. Many of us were sincere in our beliefs that the war in Vietnam was evil, and this obligated us to vigorously oppose it. I do understand, however, why opposing the war was perceived as a fad for some people. The cultural upheaval that accompanied the political upheaval was an attraction for some. For others, there was a belief that the cultural "accessories" (for want of a better term) would somehow lead to political changes. I don't know what Mark McLemore did, believed, or felt during that time. A close reading of his letter makes me curious. He says, "I remember that opposition to the war was a fad. . . ." Well, Mr. McLemore, were YOU opposed to the war? What did you do about it? His phrasing makes me wonder whether he actually was not opposed to the war at the time, and instead is commenting on what he regarded in others. ". . .almost all of us in Seattle adopted the fashion of pacifism because it was cool and a good way to get chicks." Again, this is a strangely disembodied way to characterize a highly contentious period in history. Did McLemore adopt the "fashion" of pacifism? If so, he did he get any chicks for his trouble? It has become a cliche to say "If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there." I disagree. I remember them and I was there. The period was fraught with excesses, mistakes, and stupidity, but it was also characterized by hopefulness, idealism, and nobility. Oh, and by the way, we were right about Vietnam.

So how does the kid survive going to the movies? Or to Wal-Mart? It sounds as if his chances of survival are pretty close to zero no matter what precautions are taken. That is not to be cavalier about trying to minimize the chances of someone inadvertently causing his death, but he's only in school for a fraction of the time.

Do you sincerely believe that we can kill our way to victory? Can we kill enough people to achieve peace? Security? If we blow up a mosque, a leader, a militia, will be able to get on an airplane without taking off our shoes and having baggage inspectors rip off our luggage? Isn't it more likely that we will inspire more numerous and more aggressive opposition? That is the history of this region of the world for the last 1000 years. You recognize that the politicians are craven and manipulative, and yet you buy into their public pronouncements that America will be safer if we kill enough Iraquis. Please help me understand your rationale.

Before the Crusades was the Islamic Conquests... Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Africa, Spain, Parts of France and the Byzantine empire were all attacked/conquered by the first series of Jihads. When making historical arguments, keep things in historical context. You're absolutely correct about the Arab conquests. The big difference is that those were motivated primarily by the same things that motivated most conflicts in that period--a desire to obtain material wealth. The Crusades, in contrast, were motivated more by religious fervor, specifically Christian extremism. Certainly, other religions and their extremist adherents have committed other notable atrocities. I just thought in the context of the original post--the good or evil that Christianity has done--a brief acknowledgement of the historical importance of the Crusades is worthy of mention.

CJ, I understand your skepticism. Here is an abstract presented at a meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine that I found interesting: Wingate sprints are the same as the Tabata intervals. If these data are true, it's a phenomenal result.

I think we would all agree that all those working for the U.S. in a military capacity, whether uniformed or not, should be financially supported in a way that adequately compensates for their service (to the extent that risking your life can ever be adequately compensated) and allows them to care for their families. My take on the data provided by Wirlwind is not that the overall payroll for the personnel is excessive, but that it is massive. That calls into question whether the American people as a whole benefit from this. If that expenditure is truly required for our defense, that is one thing. On the other hand, if that cost is for the purpose of imperial adventures, as in Iraq, and supporting defense companies profits, that is quite another. To me, that is why the term "war on terror" is absolutely perfect for the Haliburtons of the world. It is vague enough to allow rationalizing the irrational. Unlike WW II or even the Cold War, it can never be definitively won ("Well, we conquered Iraq, but bin Laden's out there somewhere, so we have to spend billions not just on conventional forces, but nuclear weapons, antiballistic missile systems, and everything else some military supplier can come up with."). Of course, to make people willingly pay taxes to pay for that, you have to keep them scared all the time. You have to hype the real dangers, possible dangers, and occasionally fabricated dangers. Then you have to assert simulataneously that the only defense, in addition to massive expenditures, is the Leader. Bush asserts, "America is safer," as his henchmen issue warnings. Kerry would be no better in this regard, incidentally, just smoother.

It's impossible in the post-9/11 era to discuss the long-term effects of Christianity without discussing the Crusades. The Crusades began in the late 11th century. At that time, the Arab world had the highest level of scholarship and science, and Europe was the third world. The pope called upon the armies of Europe to attack and seize Jerusalem for no reason other than, well, it's a holy city to us and it's controlled by a bunch of heathens. That unleashed a 200 year period of destruction, loss of life, and waste of treasure. Jerusalem was ultimately taken and lost by both sides about a half dozen times before the Europeans got the hell out until after World War I. One interesting episode that perhaps foreshadowed more recent events: In one of the Crusades, when Richard the Lionhearted led his forces to the gates of Jersualem and was about to conquer the enemy, he suddenly stopped. He recognized that the problem was not taking the city, but devoting all of his army to holding it afterward. Naturally, this would have left England poorly defended and economically compromised. So he turned around and hauled ass back to merry old England. But then Richard the Lionhearted was a smart guy, he wasn't a religious fanatic who believed he was guided by God, and he had better advisers than Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Perle.

The Tabata protocol was developed by a Japanese researcher who tried to determine the optimum duration, intensity, frequency, and rest periods to improve endurance. He found that the best results were obtained with 20 seconds of exertion performed at maximum intensity with 10 seconds of rest for 4-7 cycles. This is done three times a week. Although this sounds like it isn't a lot of total training, the gains in endurance are said to be significant. I have been trying this for a little over a month. It is harder than it sounds. I have done the Tabata protocol on a stationary bike. Then I have tested myself on a running treadmill (to avoid confounding the results by a training effect) on non-training days. I do seem to be improving my endurance by both objective and subjective measures, but it is difficult to remove observer bias from the equation. Anybody else heard of Tabata or tried this type of training?

A friend of mine has these. I have used them but I don't like them. They are cheaper than buying a whole range of fixed dumbbells, but the weights rattle in their holders and they are awfully bulky. If you can't afford fixed weight dumbbells, you can buy separate bars, clamps, and free weights to achieve the same effect.

I was in Phoenix last week when Bush was there. They shut down the Scottsdale airport for almost 24 hours. I was told by a local that the Scottsdale airport is mostly used for private jets. So I guess the people who were most inconvenienced down there were those who going to vote for the motherfucker! A small bit of poetic justice, but a gratifying one.

Kosovo a quagmire? Do we have over 100,000 troops in Kosovo? Do we have a back door draft of reservists because our army is spread too thin in Kosovo? If you do think Kosovo is a quagmire, must you not admit that Iraq is a far worse quagmire? Let's face it, in all of America's attempts to "straighten out" other countries since WW II, we've gotten it right exactly twice: Japan and Germany. Both of these countries had the advantages of substantial ethnic and religious homogeneity and long-standing traditions of government, economic stability, and social order. In too many attempts at nation building (regardless of whether that term is used), America fails in one of two ways: either we install a malleable government that is eventually overthrown by a regime that hates us (see Vietnam, Iran) or we install a criminal or fanatic who we then have to deal with ourselves (Panama, Afghanistan). I guess the only question about Iraq now is which type of failure are we going to see?

Among the big differences between Clinton's and Bush's use of military force is that Clinton didn't use a rationale that proved to be false, didn't get troops bogged down in a quagmire, didn't expend resources that detracts from chasing down Al Qaeda, and didn't serve to augment the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda. I didn't particularly like Clinton either, but at least he didn't create a mess like Bush. Odd, isn't it, that those who were on Kerry's boat, those who saw him in action, invariably have the highest regard for him, and the attacks are coming from those who weren't even there?

Reagan never saw combat and I wouldn't say he was anything less than a larger-than-life man's man. My opinion on your stupid post. Obviously, combat is not necessary to prove one's manliness. Indeed, the "Terminator" himself, who doesn't hesitate to use the "girlie man" parody, never fought. I meant to contrast the supposed machismo of the original post, which demeaned Kerry's manliness, with the actual chickenhawk behavior of administration figures. Bush et al. did everything they could to avoid combat when they had the chance. It is disingenuous at best for them to cloak themselves in the mantle of fierce defenders of the country at this time. It is even worse in this context to demean Kerry, who volunteered for combat. Although, now that you mention it, what made Reagan so manly--aside, of course, from movie special effects?

Combined days in combat of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle: ZERO! Girlie enough for you?

I like Mythos, but I have a very narrow foot that makes them not fit so well. About four months ago I bought some Evolv Bandits. The fit is excellent, and the rubber seems even stickier than 5.10 rubber. They have become my smearing shoe of choice. Consider Evolv, especially if your feet aren't real wide.

Oh, why don't you just admit it? You don't like any journalists unless they back you up. "Instigating" and "creating" news was a charge that has been directed for over 40 years at media in this country that covered civil rights protests, antiwar protests, and any other activities that government authorities didn't want to appear in newspapers or on TV. If your accusation is that Al Jazeera is biased, you're right. All media are biased. In the Arab world, where the traditions of independent journalism are of miniscule duration compared to ours, Al Jazeera is the only source of news that is not directly controlled by some government. Al Jazeera is unquestionably in a period of rapid evolution, and much of its reporting can rightly be criticized in terms of journalistic thoroughness, ethics, fairness, and other standards. Journalists in this country, with far less personal risk and far longer histories, can be criticized on these grounds as well.

Have you been saying, "The U.S. invaded Iraq to build a democracy. Naturally, we must squelch any independent media that do not support us unequivocally. That brings democracy." If that's what you have been saying, damn, you have been right!

God's rights: 1) God is allowed to go through the 10 items or less checkout line regardless of how much he has in his cart. 2) God is allowed to tell the same jokes over and over, and you have to laugh at them. He can also say "Hot enough for you?" on a hot day, but you don't have to laugh, just steaksauce ruefully. 3) God is allowed to pee in the pool. 4) God is allowed to keep his walkman on when you're talking to him--hey, if he wants to know what you're saying, he can just know, so get over it. 5) God is allowed to bet on football games, even though he knows who is going to win. He is not, however, allowed to change the outcome according to who prayed more before the game. There are others, but I was one of those Catholic kids who went to public school and only learned the short version at catechism classes.

We have always been taught that dropping the bombs was necessary because 1) the Japanese were so fanatical that they would fight to the death otherwise, and 2) it ultimately would save American lives. The following suggests an alternative hypothesis (http://www.counterpunch.org/price08062004.html):

I also am not thrilled about voting for Kerry. I am not sure that he will pull the troops out of Iraq or stand up to corporate greed or repeal the Patriot Act or stop the stupid military programs such as Star Wars. But I am going to vote for Kerry, and this is why: If Bush is still president, it may not mean a hell of a lot to me or a lot of others on this site. I have a good job and health insurance for my family. My kids go to good schools and will never be forced to join the army to pay for college and risk being shot for doing so. A lot of people in this country aren't as fortunate, and if Kerry is elected, there is a reasonable chance they will have a better shot at getting health care coverage. Kerry probably won't escalate the war in the Middle East. He is probably less likely to start additional wars. He may put more money into education. There's a better chance that the minimum wage will be increased. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but for the least fortunate Americans, that's the best they can hope for. Nader? I like him, too. He's one of the few prominent individuals who says (accurately), that we don't need a third party in this country, we need a second party. The Democrats and Republicans are both controlled by the same corporate interests and will never turn on their masters. But what are Ralph's chances of winning? Zero. So voting for him if you live in a state that is close will only help Bush. If you live in a safe state and want to do that, go for it. Or if you live in a state that is in the bag for Bush, by all means vote Nader. But if you're in a state that matters, it's hard to defend a Nader vote.

"Yea, and Moses led the children of Israel through the desert, and they found in their path a big fucking brontasaurus. "And the children of Israel said to Moses, 'We're outta here.' "And Moses said, 'Fear not, for the Lord sayeth continue on this path.' "And Moses looked closer, and saw that the brontasaurus had a thorn in its paw. And Moses removed the thorn from the paw of the mighty beast. And the brontasaurus left the path, and the children of Israel continued on toward the promised land. "And the children of Israel said to Moses, 'Yeah, but that was some scary shit.'"

Roosevelt: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Churchill: "I have nothing to offer you, but blood, sweat, toil, and tears." Bush: "I have nothing to offer you but fear." Bush's approval rating is at an all time low, and the only category in which he gets a majority approval rating is "defending against terrorism." So why shouldn't we be suspicious that last week's Orange Alert was politically motivated, especially when it turns out that the intelligence on which it was based is three years old? Oh, and by the way, the fact that this crap was bought into by all the TV networks and all the major newspapers should be a nail in the coffin of the idea of the "liberal" media.