Bosterson

I am again going to ask you which decade you think this is. The Cold War is over. Using the word "socialist" instead of "communist" does not change its function as an epithet. You're a joke! Really! Sit down, "Spaghetti Monster". Yes. My allusion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke. You are learning!

Relevant passage: Note the word "feared." Can we be clear? No one actually says Zelaya actually was in the process of extending his term limit. His government was afraid that is what he was going to do if his referendum was allowed, meaning this was a preemptive deportation. Ok? You guys can bluster all you want about true patriotism and how to deal with dictators and whatever, but unless you can show me where Zelaya definitively was in the process of desecrating his constitution (ie, with respect to messing with term limits when doing so is expressly forbidden), then his referendum was not some emergency that required desperate measures, meaning there was clearly time for a democratic process to take effect without involving the military or a coup. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Zelaya should be allowed to disobey the constitution and change the term limits, but rather that the rest of the world is correct in condemning the Honduran government staging a military coup against its president.

Voting takes place within the confines of a Constitution and follows certain rules spelled out therein. Those rules are inviolate absent the steps required to change them. The Honduran president was trying to circumvent those required steps. Obama's support for Zelaya forces me to question how he views the rule of law. Synthesis: the first quote was made in reference to Chavez (and your usage of a picture of him), not about Zelaya. The second quote is about whether Zelaya was definitively circumventing the constitution regarding term limits, rather than (as his supporters suggest) trying to change corporate tax laws. (I have no idea what any of that has to do with Obama, but I'm sure he's happy to be included.) Please read better in the future.

I understand the references you made about Bush. Again, however, my question is whether there is definitive evidence that Zelaya's proposed referendum was actually about changing term limits. It seems like one side says it was, and the other says it wasn't, and since the referendum was about convening an assembly, it's not like it actually happened yet for us to find out. In response to your snipe, I certainly supported Bush's arrest and removal because I was personally offended that in all of his faith-based bully-pulpit-ing he marginalized my one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I will think about your hypothetical about Bush, though; I'm not sure what my answer is. In the meantime, I am actually genuinely interested in the answer to the question I posed above.

That Ralph Nader was an evil, evil man.

Sorry, that was totally a joke. Something about "suckers" falling for "trolling"? (@ KK-whatever his name is, not you.) Also sort of a play on what you said about Chavez = "the tyranny of the majority." I am not totally up on my current Venezuelan politics so feel free to correct me on this if I'm interpreting wrong, but it seems like what you were implying is that if you allow the majority to vote, being collectively stupid they will vote to perpetuate someone who will then do things no one else likes. So my comparison was with Bush, who we stupidly reelected and who then went on to continue doing things no one liked. I don't really think that's what Tocqueville meant by "tyranny of the majority" though.

LOL!!!!!!!!!! Out of curiosity, where does everyone think the government gets its money from? The great piggybank in the sky? I assume the use of "socialism" is a vague (and poorly understood) allusion to communism. If taxes are the problem, maybe we should embrace anarchy? (It has to be cheaper than government... right?) Besides, everyone loves to trot out the above quote, but we could easily rewrite it as:

The irreversible tyranny of the majority.

Did I miss something? I don't recall anyone mentioning Castro (Raul, I assume?). Chavez has publicly accused the US of collusion in the coup. Clinton is Obama's Secretary of State, ie, his foreign policy mouthpiece, so why mention them separately? And as for the "rest of the world," a partial list of who else condemns the Honduran coup: the UN the OAS the EU the Association of Caribbean States Paraguay Argentina Bolivia Brazil Colombia Costa Rica Guatemala France Germany Blah blah blah. Seriously, it is the rest of South America, and a lot of the rest of the world. I'm sure this means that they are all commies. It's cause we've all been watching Fox News.

Is the evidence conclusive that extending/abolishing term limits was going to be Zelaya's goal with the referendum? His supporters seem to indicate otherwise; I'm just curious if this whole thing was based on consensus or speculation. Regardless, considering that yesterday would simply going to be a vote on whether to gather an assembly later, this military coup still seems way out of line. Did the Supreme Court think it was out of options or something? I mean, military rule, even briefly, should be considered the last resort, and I don't think they were there yet...

Depends. Will you be my neighbor (in the comradely, Mr. Rogers sense)?

i thought we were in full agreement about you being an overly wordy pedant and nincompoop? i suppose it's easy to miss during these highly technical and sophisticated musings at cc.com. Awwww. I don't hate you either.

WTF - Kimmo, do I agree with you about something? This is unprecedented!

Also: his term is not yet up. (It ends January, 2010.) People have suggested that his proposed referendum was to change the term limits, but all Zelaya has done so far is propose that there be a referendum on the constitution. (Others have suggested that the referendum would have been about the power and status of foreign corporations in Honduras.) Now we could argue about whether the Honduran Supreme Court was correct to declare the proposal of a referendum unconstitutional, and whether it was illegal for Zelaya to sack General Velasquez, but surely you cannot actually be in favor of a military coup d'etat in Latin America? How well did that work for Latin America (including the previous Honduran coup) all the other times it happened in the past fifty years? (And note that the role and influence of foreign corporations in Latin America, and the United States' hegemony about that issue, have been the driving factors in those coups.) Furthermore, your implication that our president should be in favor of the removal of a foreign leader simply because that person endorses policies you consider "communist" is same kind of outrageous thinking that led our government to cause the aforementioned fifty years of military coups in Latin America. You know, for all your whining about how liberals are all cookie cutter automatons who will think the same way as some arbitrary "left-wing" figurehead, your views and comments are the perfect prototype of the kind of conservative nonsense that our government has been propagating for a hundred years. I value that you do not agree with everyone else politically (diversity keeps things interesting), but seriously, commie-bashing? Which decade do you think this is?

Oh, I'm sorry, is this still the Cold War? Who knew!

America never loses. Just asking that makes you an unpatriotic commie leftwinger who hates America. Don't you know anything?

We have a winter squash growing that's like a foot and a half wide right now. Pumpkins are growing. Zucchini and one ball squash. Green beans, tomatoes are a forest and have set fruit (still green), garlic and shallots will be ready soon, chards and kale are tasty, snap peas, berries. A couple of peppers that could be edible (non-ripe) but the plants are still pretty small. Potatoes are doing well. Corn is maybe 6-9" tall. I need to get pictures of all this...

Addendum to the other response you got: after you stop watering them, wait until like 1/2 - 2/3 of the leaves are brown and they should be ready.

People keep telling me that. Give us the cliffnotes. Just got around to Wikipedia-ing this. Apparently Zeitgeist claims that 9/11 was an "inside job" (the terrorist pilots are actually still alive and in hiding!), that income tax is illegal, and also describes the aforementioned plot to create a North American Union. So Pete - are we supposed to watch it as evidence that yes, far too many stupid wackjobs have access to the media, or that yes, those wackjobs are all correct?

I don't know which state you're in, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out here in Oregon now that naturopaths are allowed to prescribe a broader spectrum of drugs even though the training required by law is significantly shorter for naturopaths than for doctors. Dude, watch out for that shit. I read Stranger With My Face as a kid and when you mess around with the astral plane, your secret twin sister will try to steal your body!

Hoping to hit Adams for a non-technical route later this summer. What kind of gear is needed? Specifically, what kind of boots? (I figure something decently waterproof for the snow, and then gaiters? Or could you walk up the thing wearing tennis shoes with crampons?)

Also, lest any of you decline to actually read the article, you might be amused by the part where the NYT writer compares the intelligence of John Birch Society members to that of grilled meat:

Is that the sequel to Red Dawn?

NYT article on the John Birch Society WTF? How do people like that still exist?

Eww - you have whooping cough? Good thing you weren't immunized. Quarantine thyself in Cafe Sensitivo!