STP

Random slice... Iggy Pop and Fatboy Slim LX8qYv6WGes

When I was younger and in college, things seemed much simpler. I lived on a shoestring budget, maybe 10,000/yr and still had plenty $ for cold beer. I thought I saw objectively and I had conviction for beliefs in a kinder, gentler world. Now, I'm older and things, rather than become clearer, have become more difficult to shoehorn especially the legacy left by people. How do you judge someone? On the multitude of merits and dismerits and how do you weigh these? Or on a singularity of traits selectively grouped together? For instance, consider former Supreme Court judge Hugo Black. Hugo was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black ). How do you judge him? I'm no fan of Helms but I'm not so quick to condemn him. I don't have the omniscient eye of God to see all of his deeds and judge his soul (Not that any of you believe in that kind of thing). Reality is an odd thing. Look at Saddam Hussein. From Fiat Justicia Ruat Caelum Excerpt: What was the offense for which Saddam Hussein was executed? Most people in a position to answer that question -- those with an attention span superior to that of the typical goldfish -- would probably say that Saddam suffered the long drop to the end of the rope as punishment for his multifarious crimes against humanity. That list would include waging aggressive war against Iran, the use of chemical weapons in that conflict and against his own subject population, or for other mass murders and acts of domestic terror. The correct answer, as former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi recalls, is that the formal charge for which Saddam was hanged was not the murder of millions or even thousands, but rather the execution -- following a proper trial, conducted under established law and settled standards of due process -- of 102 Shi'ite men from the village of Dujail. Those men were convicted of plotting and carrying out an attempt on Saddam's life when he visited the Shi'ite village 35 miles north of Baghdad in July 1982. At the time of that assassination attempt, Saddam was a subcontractor for the world's most malevolent regimes -- the one infesting Washington, and the one afflicting Russia -- and so he was obviously capable of bestial behavior. Yet in dealing with the attempt on his life, Saddam behaved as if he were a legitimate head of state*. Saddam let his security forces round up about 800 people and winnow from them the relative handful of people who had some direct connection to the attack. After a two-year inquiry, a 361-page indictment was compiled naming some 148 suspects. By that time, 46 of the suspects had died under torture at Abu Ghraib prison, a fate not unfamiliar to those imprisoned there under American rule following Iraq's "liberation." The remaining 102 were tried, convicted, and executed for the attempt on Saddam's life. Interestingly, the attempt by Shi'ite radicals to murder Saddam came just months after the Syrian regime of fellow Ba'athist Hafez al-Assad dealt with an uprising organized by the Muslim Brotherhood (a beneficiary of U.S. aid since the early 1950s, as Robert Dreyfuss documents in his book Devil's Game) in a small town called Hama. Assad dealt with that rebellion by unleashing his military and pounding Hama into blood pudding massacring an estimated 10,000-25,000 people. Saddam dealt with a much more personal threat in Dujail. Had he behaved as the prevailing caricature would suggest, that village would have been destroyed root and branch: The town itself would have been subject to Carthaginian destruction, and the extended families of its residents would have been liquidated. Instead, Saddam's government undertook to distinguish the guilty from the innocent and punished only those determined to have been complicit in the attempt on his life. Again, I'm not taking sides, just pointing out that things aren't quite clearcut. So, back to Jesse Helms... The last reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms ) in the Wiki for Jesse Helms lays out the rationale in somewhat sketch details for why some people see him as he might be remembered. But, hey just for laughs, also check out reference #25!! Gotta love Wiki. Looks like the content and references have been modified as of late 7/7. The link to reference #25 can be found here.. The last reference mentioned above can be found here.

There's a proximate cause for the fire, sure, but according to Hari Heath the root cause for the tinderbox conditions rests within policy objectives. Now, I'm not able to evaluate his position, just throwing it out there. Also, it segues nicely with the NW Forest Pass issue. Excerpt: In the words of Gifford Pinchot, who championed his cause and became the first chief of the Forest Service, “the fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use.” He said the federal forest reserves were needed, “rather to help the small man making a living than to help the big man to make a profit.” What began as a solution to the fraudulent schemes of the timber barons of a century ago now prevents many a small man from making a living, while disease and insects devour accessible timber. No longer helping the small man, the forest service now requires a “permit” to travel on many “wild” rivers and wilderness areas, or to park a vehicle near a cross country ski trail. By administrative edict, they have recently made it a crime for the public to drive on a majority of the forest road system. Through a “test program” called the “Recreation Fee Demonstration Project” they are applying the thin edge of the wedge to turn public lands into a private business for bureaucrats. “Four federal public land agencies have been empowered to test various ways to provide increased benefits to visitors of public lands through recreation-use fees,” says the Forest Service brochure, “Our National Forests.” Excerpt: The Forest Service is congressionally constipated with contradictory mandates which have given the agency's holdings the less than affectionate title, “the land of no use.” The original battle cry of the Roosevelt-Pinchot forest policy was “the fundamental idea of forestry is the perpetuation of forests by use.” Why not adopt such a policy under state management? This wouldn't mean and end to our valued wilderness areas. Under an orderly transfer of ownership, the remote and pristine wonders of our state's natural heritage could become state wilderness areas. The state could adopt wilderness policies promoting recreational use and management by nature, while allowing scientific, common sense, active management of the more accessible and productive public resources. Through the inaction of the current Forest Service, much of the already roaded public lands are being ravaged by disease and insect infestations. A tinderbox condition has developed from a century of fire suppression preventing nature's method of thinning the forest. In the absence of fire, failure to mechanically thin nature's abundance leaves our forests ripe for catastrophic fires, as forest diseases and insects generate the fuel. --Source: The Big Lie: Federal ownership of public lands Just last week, there was an MSNBC article concerning the Forest Service opening up land for subdivision development. Or, see here ( Closed-Door Deal Could Open Land In Montana

BTW, your lady, Coulter says this Obama mortgage thang is just smokescreen. The real issue is Countrywide and Senators such as Dodd. As far as Obama, Rezko is the bomb.

Heh, I think some of the Republicans are running scared knowing that an Obama administration will have its hands on the surveillance apparatus. See how he changed his mind on the FISA vote. Consolidation of power is a two-party game. All of this shit about the morality or goodness or patriotism of the party members is just that----bullshit. There is no pendulum this time. There will be no Church Committee (as in Senator Church) hearings, there will be no impeachment; there will be will be none of that. Welcome to the 21st century, suckas. So, the shit might hit, really hit, the fan as early as this month or up to one year from now. You'd have to be crazy as a mofo to even entertain the very real possibility of a financial disaster, right? Are the gold bugs just fanning the flames? All I know is that whoever gets elected better be prepared to make the country, especially the middle class, deal with the pain of inflated prices for food, gas, etc, and of deflated prices for real estate, stocks. Cooler rational heads will spout about market corrections and so forth. But hey, don't worry the Machine is working as it should. References??--here's one of many: Not Your Grandma's Depression --mind you, it's not the WSJ or Forbes or Bloomberg. Disclaimer: This is teh Internets. Caveat emptor.

rq2_YKQGE_U

Just for not wanting to pay taxes, huh? Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid: Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War. These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor! What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of "undaunted resolution" was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters, but that the patriot's were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, "Out of respect to you, Sir." Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis's Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis's son would later die in British captivity, also. "Honest John" Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his children vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. New Jersey's Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man. William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned. Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British. When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778. Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolina that night. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate. Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!" Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the America revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." --source

Happy 4th, Ms GSHC!!1 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Republic of Cascadia!!!! Now, don't get your panties in a bunch. Some of us are Discordians! The JOKE's on you!

I don't dispute the human impact just as Nordhaus. It's just that hubris is the classic tragedy.

That's funny because "we are stupid we shouldn't do shit" came from your towering intellect.

I'm curious, do any of the models take into account any wildcard variables that might complicate the projected outcomes? For instance: Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes Sun goes longer than normal without producing sunspots I wouldn't suppose they do. Wouldn't it be ironic if despite our best efforts the mitigated effects were neglible? Who can predict the future with a great degree of certainty? I know from some studies in coral reef ecology that periodic perturbations are beneficial for the system. I'm not extrapolating this to our human system just making an observation.

2012 http://www.nasa.gov/mov/186071main_V-MiraAnim-Web2.mov

The Seven Words....NSFW BTyzTJTNhNk

The American Dream! kJ4SSvVbhLw

Arrgghhh! Shiver me timbers!

Yep, but he wasn't all about politics. He was just an astute observer of life and not that he was right but made you reexamine your understanding of things. YphEUa5LPjM

bWAl31G-f1E

The link source is embedded in the first sentence. The overall effect of the quote is to point out the money aspect of war. The source itself is a bit dated so it may apply primarily to military excursions immediately prior to the 1930's, again see source. I have no comment on our treatment of the American Indian or the heroin trade. Your mention of heroin reminded me of the triangle trade ( http://www.africanculturalcenter.org/4_5slavery.html .

"imi shimi pet pojida" Translation: "Here's hoping for a new era of mutual understanding." http://www.alternative-dictionaries.net/

It's a very convoluted game that the players are playing. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Israelis are playing both Sunnis and Shiites. I think Israel definitely is a top contender for 'shrewdest country in the world' and what they might lack is made up for by solid capability in armaments. So it seems a nuclear Iran would nullify Israel's nuclear first strike capability. Although I'm a little puzzled by the lack of reaction after Pakistan's declared nuclear status. There has to be more to this than just Muslim vs Jewish. Saudi Arabia seems to gain geopolitically with a weakened Iran. What's worrying is if something happens by our hand or Israel's then the potential economic repercussions could be huge.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

--Cal, tree-sitters both happy after judge rules Just like visiting the monkey house at the zoo.

Yeah, this article says FBI estimates $1B in losses from mortgage fraud schemes nationwide. I wonder if there were any other acts of fraud to lead the country to lose billions of dollars?

Have you heard about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?

It is what it is.