|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 2, 2004 8:15:19 GMT -5
I already knew about the aliens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 2, 2004 8:21:53 GMT -5
No doubt aliens are cool, but I hope they don't come here because we'd just try to kill them and then they'd vaporise us. I'd meet them on the moon though, so if you could set that up...I know some girls who are pretty lite in the standards department if you catch my meaning...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 2, 2004 9:01:24 GMT -5
JLLM - That is freaking awesome news about the extra terrestrial radio signal man. My feeling is that if it comes from nowhere near a planet or solar system, and is weak, then it was probably sent there remotely by alien beings in order to send out a clearer, unimpeded signal that might be more readily observed, and is now weaker because it is getting towards the end of it's battery charge, or something. In other words . . . we may have caught it just in the nick of time, before the power supply died out altogether.
Just yesterday I was going to post that bit that went out in the papers about them having discovered 3 new earth-like planets in solar systems relatively near our sector of space, somewhere in the Milky Way, that is.
Most definitely a super exciting time right now for SETI - afficionados and all those who suspect we are not alone in the universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 2, 2004 9:03:07 GMT -5
Drum you kick ass for using that screen-saver. When I get a decent enough system at home and go online there, I'll be sure to get it too someday. That is just so freaking cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Sept 2, 2004 9:47:57 GMT -5
I'd have the seti screensaver too, if I was using my own PC anymore.
I agree with your analysis of the signal thorny. It's now thought that a weak signal from a travelling probe would be a more energy efficient means of signalling other planets than sending out a fixed radio signal from your own planet, so it may well be a signal from a probe positioned in a 'quiet' sector of space.
It also makes sense not to draw attention directly to your own planet. We've sent out a probe with CD-roms showing our appearance, aspects of our societies, and a detailed map of our position in the galaxy. That's a bit of a risk if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 2, 2004 9:52:26 GMT -5
I still love it when you guys pretend that republicans don't have double standards...you guys make this all worth while. DED, who is making that claim, and where is it being made? Both sides have double standards. Both sides can be hypocritical. It's called politics. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 2, 2004 9:55:39 GMT -5
I'll admit my guliani commment was snide and pointless...but that guy just seems so fake to me. I don't really expect him to run through all of his beliefs, everybody is there just to kiss Bush's ass. I don't know about the moderates at the DNc...I thought there were plenty. Again the object isn't to challenge the beliefs of others in the party... you already know that though...it's sell their canidate. Personally I think it's kinda funny that almost all of the speakers, including Laura, disagree with him on those two issues. It's not a big gotcha type thing just kinda chuckle to myself funny. It's just that you and chrisfan trot out that double standard argument as often as possible...and frankly I'm amazed that you do it without an ounce irony...but you're just calling 'em as you see 'em, huh? Usually there are tons of dissenters...man it's miracle when you can get the dems to agree on anything, but even moderates and extreme liberals can agree they all hate Bush. DED, this is cut and dry simple to me. Name me three prominent Democrats who are pro-life. I'd try, but I honestly can't do it. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 2, 2004 10:20:16 GMT -5
Interesting article Mary. Boy, I sure think it would be great if journalists would apply that level of detailed breakdown of claims and jabs to BOTH sides. I cut off my note taking after a point, but here are a few responses.
On the counter-point (and a DNC talking point) that Cheney has also voted against some of the weapons systems voted against by Kerry -- the issue of Kerry's votes is not a matter of he voted against THIS system, or THAT system. It is the continued pattern of voting against so many systems. Any logical person who follows votes in Washington understands that there are times you vote against a bill because of SOME of the things in it, and that can then be presented as your voting against a componet of that bill that you actually support. But when you do that, you vote. Kerry has gone beyond just voting against MULTIPLE systems (and I emphasize multiple again because again, it's the pattern, not just one or a few). He has made speeches against them. He's had talking points against them. There's a necessary vote against something, and then there is BEING against it.
On NCLB -- education has seen some of it's largest increases in funding under Bush. It is a fact that each year millions (if not billions) of dollars are returned to the Treasury by states who are sent federal funding for education, and don't use it, so they lose it. So John Kerry's claim that NCLB is an unfunded mandate would be an example of John Kerry doing exactly what this article is taking the Republicans to task for doing.
On the $87 Billion -- We all know that the Republicans are mis-using the Kerry quote, but when you're handed a quote like that on a silver platter, can you help but be all over it? The truth is, that John Kerry even reversed himself on this one. Before the vote, on Fact the Nation, he was ask if he'd support the $87 billion even if it did not pass in his proposed way (by rolling back the tax cuts). At that time, he said it would be irresponsible to not vote for the funding. But he did not vote for it. So is he saying he's irresponsible? Or that he does not stand behind his word?
Bottom line -- like I said, I think it's great journalism totake apart claims made by politicians like this. I wish that they'd do it all the time, and do it to both sides. I was taught in journalism school that doing just that is what covering politics is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 2, 2004 10:23:38 GMT -5
I agree drum, but you have to think long-term imo. My charge of negative campaigning by the Republicans - questioned by some of you who raised the red herring of independent advertising - seems to have gained weight with Cheney's rather sour performance at the conference. Contrast this with the democratic convention, where Kerry's professed intention was to avoid Bush-bashing rhetoric and have his party focus on the more progressive aspects of selling their own policies. I rest my case. Before I go googling for quotes from the DNC, I must ask -- did you actually watch each convention, or are you basing this on some perhaps unreliable newsource? |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Sept 2, 2004 10:56:32 GMT -5
hot cold
yes no
always never
conservative values
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Sept 2, 2004 11:15:39 GMT -5
On the counter-point (and a DNC talking point) that Cheney has also voted against some of the weapons systems voted against by Kerry -- the issue of Kerry's votes is not a matter of he voted against THIS system, or THAT system. It is the continued pattern of voting against so many systems. Any logical person who follows votes in Washington understands that there are times you vote against a bill because of SOME of the things in it, and that can then be presented as your voting against a componet of that bill that you actually support. But when you do that, you vote. Kerry has gone beyond just voting against MULTIPLE systems (and I emphasize multiple again because again, it's the pattern, not just one or a few). He has made speeches against them. He's had talking points against them. There's a necessary vote against something, and then there is BEING against it. These claims aren’t accurate either, based on this article. slate.msn.com/?id=2096127 |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Sept 2, 2004 12:24:14 GMT -5
Can somebody confirm to me that Zell Miller was a total lunatic last night? I wasn't around to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Sept 2, 2004 12:45:57 GMT -5
Mary said:
I assume everyone here is acting from mixed motives. I assume France, Germany, and Russia did have questionable interests in Iraq that were threatened by deposing Saddam. On the other hand, dozens of other countries and hundreds of millions of people across the world opposed the war on principled reasons, and these were probably part of the calculation as well.
I think that you’re missing that much of the non-Muslim world’s ‘principled opposition’ came AFTER the UN resolutions were quashed by by ‘The Troika’, lending validation to the notion that the USA was simply going too far…and having what THEN were convincing bits of UK/U.S. intel which world opinion DEMANDED be exposed for all to see. As proof. Which ANY thinking person could’ve caught the STRONG likelihood of the stupidity of exposing all your sources of such intelligence. But with the Troika circling their wagons tightly, suspicion(and opposition) was lit…
….and then by France in particular vowing to veto anything the majority of the UN would put a resolution to, the US could feel that there was more than met the eye regarding why.
…naomi klein wrote a brilliant article for harper's last month about the total bungling of the economic handling of postwar iraq and the deep resentment it has spurred among millions of iraqis, who found themselves suddenly unemployed, stripped of factories, and locked out of no-bid contracts. You can't blame France for this. Some of what's fucked up in Iraq is fucked up for one reason and one reason only: because the Bush Administration fucked it up.
It’s your right to place the blame where you think you see fit, but this ‘brilliant’ Naomi Klein article from which you quoted, had plenty of plausible holes in it…things like the need for quality control required to put up sound buildings and roads, quickly.(And I’m only seizing on one thing because I simply do not have the time to address this onslaught point-by-point) And done by construction EXPERTS. Quality control for materials being used, which includes NOT being necessarily ‘duty-bound somehow to necessarily depend on ‘Double-A Sodom’s Revolutionist Concrete Supply’ even IF they are local and need the work. Presumably ol’ Naomi checked the work records, conditions, operationability of facilities and trucks of those (6, was it?) companies personally before she came to her brilliant fail-safe conclusions? There needs to be some sort of expectation of uniformity/reliability to expedite the 5 year recovery plan that everyone’s expecting for this shattered country, no?
THOSE standards/expectations seem to be being forced on the coalition(fast, faster fastest nownowNOW!) and we’re to have no control of the working conditions? Well, since the workers seems to be ‘expendable’ to the people whom they’re trying to help(or at least that Al Q’aeda-supporting portion), perhaps they also shouldn’t give 2 shits about quality and timetables either…
I posted this at another site on 6/25/2004 2:32 PM
....but third world does not have to mean second-rate humans...
'Second-rate' definitely is not the term I'd use but they definitely ARE different as products of their environments. The 'that's all I've ever known'-comment carries a LOT of weight, sad to say.....and I can say that I know this through my exposure to native Lithuanians here AND there, and to the country itself.
As perfectly FUCKED as the 'rudder' of totalitarianism is, it was still their rudder...directing their everyday movements for good and for bad.
Back in the 40s and 50s and 60s they were shipping so-called 'dissident people' out to fucking Siberia and Karelia, both to make it easier to steal the landowners' lands without having to continually argue down the line with them and then to avoid OTHER intellectual ideological opposition after FDR gave them up as WWII 'booty' to that cocksucker Stalin.
These peoples' levels of education has always been of a very high level, whether under the USSR or their self-government period...basically because the people there since the 40s understood the systems of European schooling, it's superiority and demanded that at LEAST. There came a pride in that and IF their kids were coming home unable to read (let's say) Chekov or do their math, the parents would rage on the teachers(a rarely needed thing, as I hear it)AND the teachers knew what the standard was. Since they too were Lithuanian tho forbidden to teach any so-called 'Nationalistic' subjects such as Lith history and FORCED to teach the Russian language and history...something they never would have CHOSEN to do.
But I know for a fact that the educational system there, a European model, would likely far outstrip nearly anything even here in the US...
Almost everyone there has an opportunity to study music and art with encouragement from the system....a HUGE percentage of people I meet play at least one musical instrument...
But I digress...braggin on my people...
Still, their situation there in that country is SO economically fucked, with massive emigration from this absolutely gorgeous little country to 'make a better life' and invariably the people would say 'Well at least we didn't want for anything, for heat, for food'....and this after 13-14 years of freedom already.
It's a dirty fucking trick which was played on them...and the same is with the Iraqis, IF they weren't UNlucky enough to be the ones being physically traumatized by Sodom's crew at least. As large as the percentage was and as visble as those having 'war' continually waged on them for all sorts of imagined offenses....even tho it was a LOT of people who got fucked with, there were still an absolute majority who knew there was shit going on, but they still lived their lives...and pretty comfortably, for years. It then becomes that Stockholm Syndrome where kidnappers win over their captives after they've done the WORST things to them, the biggest, to confine them and take their freedom and decision-making from them....
...and I am SURE that these people are generally at a much lower educational level than most Liths....and also take into account the disparate little 'tribal' systems which EACH wants its power and representation, sometimes in a very rational manner, but often as irrationally and violently as possible. THAT at least was never an issue in the Baltics; well not since the 15th century. But in Iraq or Afghanistan, until Sodom, until the Taliban went and 'smoothed things over' with a massive choke-hold, in their own favor....until then they knew nothing BUT that petty tribal bullshit with vendettas and turf wars being the norm.
I mean I'd wish to think that these people could just up and become industious, organized and learn to strive for themselves, but there's no 'system' yet and as they flounder to get there, they're going to be pissed off and through a misty retrospect, fondly missing what a great life they had.
The Soviet Union crumbled, aided by the US, by Ronnie Reagan, hell yes....BUT here WE are looking NOT like the ones who gave them the 'freedom' they deserve, but more like the ones who just flipped whatever security they DID have, on its ear...
The USSR's 'states' had no real culprit to blame...here, it's us.
Basically because we didn't have enough troops and organization to carry it off, or to at LEAST to put on a good enough show of "yes, our power-base finally WILL show up and you'll be safe"...even IF we knew they(the 'world', the UN)would be a long time coming...
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 2, 2004 12:55:05 GMT -5
He had a lot to say
He had a lot of nothing to say
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 2, 2004 13:03:26 GMT -5
--We'll miss him.
|
|
