winsor

I think a vindictive bully is just what we need in the Oval Office. Actually, the only New Jersey Governor for whom I would vote for President is Christie Whitman. Many years ago I walked into the office at Spitfire Aerodrome, 7N7, and the owner had a look of shock on his face. "Do you know who that was that you just drove past? The Governor!" It seems he had been having fits getting approvals for grants for upgrades to the airport, with roadblocks at every turn. Christie Whitman had walked into his office unannounced, shook his hand, and asked what he needed. For over an hour she asked key questions and took notes. She then thanked him for his time, said she would see what she could do, shook his hand and left. She had driven herself, an hour each direction in a motor pool sedan, with no police escort or press presence. The airport now has had the runway repaved, new landing lights (I had become pretty good at landing in the dark), a rotating beacon and a non precision approach. The difference between Christie Whitman and Chris Christie is night and day. I would vote for Christie Whitman in a heartbeat but I would not trust Chris Christie as far as I could throw him. BSBD, Winsor

1932?

Working toward common goals is cooperation, a win-win proposition. Working at cross-purposes while trying to cut losses is compromise, a lose-lose scenario. Cooperation good, compromise bad.

We do not value compromise everywhere except in politics by any means. If you compromise your integrity or security you have none. A secret, once compromised, isn't. In addition, collaboration was the basis for summary execution in parts of Europe and Asia as 1945 progressed, so that is not viewed favorably across the board, either. Compromise in politics is akin to a motorcycle gang discussing true love with their intended object of affection. "Instead of the whole club pulling a train on you against your will, what say we compromise and you agree to take on the President and Sergeant at Arms willingly?" In politics, compromise is sought either by sluts or whores. A prime example of the former is Bill Clinton, who would go to any length to be loved. For latter you have Bob Dole, who would always extract a price for participation. Compromise is seen as a virtue by those who espouse the philosophy of "when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it." Those whose standpoint is to kick, scream, claw and bite are thus viewed as uncooperative and unnecessarily difficult by those given to compromise. Uncompromising is a virtue as much as being indiscriminate is a flaw. BSBD, Winsor

Oddly enough, a speedball does not include amphetamines. The appeal is apparently that, after the euphoria of the cocaine subsides, the narcotic makes the user feel mellow instead of climbing out of their skin. The greatest danger from speedballs is the differing duration of effect of each component. While someone binging on cocaine may do dose after dose, diacetyl morphine is effective for some 12 hours. Thus, if someone takes dose after dose with the same cocaine/heroin ratio, the heroin in their system is likely to build up to an overdose level. This is reportedly what happened to John Belushi. Methedrine is to Benzedrine as Heroin is to Morhpine. In each case the higher potency version has a higher pharmacological effect with a lesser load on the liver and kidneys, since it takes less of the drug to achieve a similar effect. When keeping fighter pilots up and about for mission after mission, Methedrine subjects the pilot to less toxicity than does Benzedrine or Dexedrine. Similarly, when someone is being treated for pain in a hospice, the drug of choice is Diamorphine (diacetyl morphine = Heroin). Since the patient is going to leave feet-first in the near future, whether or not they are addicted is a non-issue. The therapeutic dose of Diamorphine is 1/8 to 1/6 of that of Morphine, so the toxic effect of achieving a given level of pain reduction is reduced accordingly. So there is nothing inherently 'stupid' about either drug. I would simply submit that using them for non-medical purposes is ill-advised, regardless of legality. In any event, I think the 'drunken stupors' to which the good mayor referred are of as great a concern as anything else to which he might choose to admit. BSBD, Winsor

I am not sure if your reading comprehension is abysmal, you are intellectually challenged, you are simply being confrontational or some combination of the three. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and operate on the basis of the third option. I did not recommend any action that would result in a sustainable population of the most cognizant and productive members of the species, nor did I make any reference to a preferred ethnicity. I certainly did not say anything to suggest that Hebrew mythology was in any way better or worse than the nonsense touted by any other system of delusion. My point is that a bottom-heavy society overpopulated by a vast excess of the ignorant and superstitious is a recipe for the doom of our species. Since that is inevitable (there is NO way to change that reality), we are fucked. It is not a question of if so much as when and how bad. What you have said is beyond fucked up, and it comes entirely from you. Again, apply some reading comprehension and lay off trying to read between the lines. I can't believe I rose to such bait.

Dang, if it wun't fer all them ten dollar words, I'd be guessin' y'all wuz tryin' fer a PA.

Try 'speedball,' as in John Belushi's mode of demise.

Any of us can - it's no big deal. What is now 'Christianity' is essentially a European Pagan overlay of Hebrew lore and tradition, largely based on misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If you are a Jew, I expect you understand (we do not all agree, but we tend to get it). If you are Gentile, something like jewfaq.org is a good place to start. BSBD, Winsor

Like being Jewish? 'Being Jewish' is a tribal identity. There is no requirement for religious conviction to be a Jew - it's who you are, not what you are. If anything, the religious aspects of Jewish tradition are the Achilles' heel of Jewish society. Ironically enough, it is the religious aspects of Jewish tradition that various wannabe religions (Islam, Christianity) choose to emulate. It is fitting that Islam was the downfall of the Persian Empire, and it was Catholicism (and whiskey) to which Ireland succumbed. A remarkable proportion of Jews - even observant ones - are functional Atheists. "It's Bronze Age tradition, Bubbie, don't read too much into it." - A Rabbi you wouldn't know BSBD, Winsor

I'd say it was 100% consistent of what you might expect of that network. I do not generally tune in to any political fringe medium, but was recently in a household where MSNBC was regularly on. I was appalled (Al Sharpton?! ). It is as though each side of the political spectrum is competing to see who can be the most repellent. Looks like a tie to me. BSBD, Winsor

1) A population no more than 1.5 billion, consisting of the top socioeconomic demographic. 2) Absence of religion or other fantasy-based social structures.

Do you know what the individual components of the soul? I'm not a cobbler, but there is the insoul, the insteppe, the heal, and I think the wealt is an important part. I have worked with people who were very devout and apparently thought it was okay to seek a bride of tender years. At least I am moderately sure they were not pulling my leg. At the time I attributed it to insecurity; marrying a virgin meant that she could not know how much better in bed someone else might be, for example. The Bronze Age traditions of my tribe are a mix of agrarian and military cultures. The realities of keeping the tribe above critical mass when a significant number of the males were wiped out in one epic battle or another was addressed by having the surviving males inseminating the fertile females and ensuring the survival of the resulting offspring by doing so through the institution of marriage. Needless to say, our history is that of one big, dysfunctional family. In any event, it has been many, many centuries since we considered that approach to be viable. Indeed, polygamy has been generally proscribed in the Tribes, the exception being a few backwater groups in which it is accepted for first-generation immigrants. The Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are misinterpreted as the achievement of 'adulthood,' but that is hardly the case. At the onset of adolescence, the issue is the acceptance of personal responsibility, and that's about it. Though teenagers are biologically capable of reproduction, it is truly ill-advised for the usual long list of reasons - regardless of whether 'marriage' is a factor. Veterans of the War of Northern Aggression often had wives that were MUCH younger; the general consensus was that girls would marry so that were guaranteed the Veteran's Pension when the old geezer croaked. Maybe there was True Love (tm) involved, but money was apparently a factor (to a lesser extent than Anna Nicole Smith, to be sure). In any event, robbing the cradle is widely viewed as icky. The Profit Muhammad 'marrying' a nine year old is enough to make one barf. BSBD, Winsor

No Thanks, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to demonstrate the level of sanctimonious condescension that makes 'tolerance' so repellent, and earns richly deserved contempt for the fatuous assholes who espouse it as a virtue. Given the choice of having discriminating taste or being indiscriminate is a no brainer; I am thus unimpressed by those who eschew discrimination at all costs. It would greatly concern me if I was not viewed as bigoted in some circles. Carry on.

The opposite side of the issue would be the claim that heterosexuality is evil. Since that claim is pretty much non-existant then the need for tolerance of it is moot. Edit: Hang on a minute, that's not even right. The other side of asking for tolerance of gay people is tolerance of heterosexual people. Everyone tolerates heterosexual people. So much so that we're commonly referred to as 'people' and the rest is just assumed. (And hypothetically, getting pissed at people who swear isn't the same as bigotry.) With all due respect, screw 'tolerance.' I do not tolerate my gay and lesbian friends, I accept them. Their sex life not a matter of interest, as is the case with my straight friends. 'Tolerating' is the most sanctimonious and degrading approach that comes to mind. One does not tolerate something that is fundamentally acceptable; when one tolerates something, the implication is that it fundamentally sucks out loud, but "I, being so fundamentally wise and magnanimous, will see fit to tolerate this otherwise unacceptable thing because I am so wonderful..." Quatsch. If something is unacceptable, it is unacceptable. I do not grant someone the right to 'tolerate' me. BSBD, Winsor

If it's a good enough tactic for King Arthur, it's good enough for me.

As far as tricky locks go, be advised that it is illegal to lock a gun in an unattended automobile in a number of states. The principle is that someone who steals the car is a criminal, and has plenty of time to defeat the lock, so you have effectively just armed a criminal if your car gets stolen. One thing I most strongly recommend if you are going to carry firearms is video. Having one or more surveillance videos running at all times if you have firearms in a public place can serve to avoid a lot of grief (assuming you are scrupulous about adhering to lethal force protocols - which I also recommend). Think about it. If a group of people opine that you are in the wrong regarding a traffic incident when you are not, do you want to rely on their testimony regarding the use of lethal force? If you have video running, there is also no ambiguity regarding who was at fault in the collision. Photographs of the license and driver will serve as evidence if an uninsured driver leaves the scene of the accident, and, if there is any threat of violence, the best thing you can do is to get the hell away from it. Go ahead and get the CCW, but do not kid yourself that it is any kind of panacea. If you ever have to use lethal force in self defense, you have already screwed up repeatedly to find yourself in that position, and you are likely on a roll. A defensive firearm is like a pilot's emergency parachute. It's nice to have it on hand, but the only time you really need to use it is if you are officially dead otherwise - and its use may not change that outcome. I understand wanting to have a firearm on hand, but having one would not likely have improved your prospects in the situation in which you found yourself. I can think of a number of ways in which it could have made things infinitely worse. If all you are stuck with is repair of bodywork, you got off easy. BSBD, Winsor

WTF? The book is cited as fiction, and seems like a really dreary read. I find liars to be singularly uninteresting. I can not tell if you see these stories as typical of your ex or if you are claiming that they actually refer to her, but I am not sure if the issue is all that compelling one way or another. In any event, she is (apparently) your ex. If that is the case, it is strongly recommended that you get over it.

So the lives and health of minorities are worth more than non minorities? There was a story years back where a white girl and and black girl were raped (two different incidents) Both rapists were caught The white girl was raped by a black man The black girl was raped by a white man Both in the same city within two weeks of each other The black rapist got probation The white rapist got multiple years in prison Both had no priors The father of the white girl aksed the court why the well being of his girl was worth less than that of the black girl How would you answer this? If standards are good, double standards are twice as good. The rapist of the white girl had good cause for his bad behavior. "I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived!" 'Officer Krupke' - West Side Story

Not possible. White people are too well-liked.

Honkies have no appreciation for the use of a double-standard in the pursuit of justice.

And anyone who has read the C.J. Chivers book knows that the idea Kalashnikov invented the gun by himself is a myth. Ref: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/15/from_russia_with_blood 'Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.'

During the Diaspora, it was generally safer for Sephardim than for those in Ashkenaz (Germany) - though that is not saying much. Maimonedes was the person physician of Saladin, for instance, and Dhimmi were allowed to coexist to some extent. One problem is that the relationship between Muslims and Jews as defined in the Koran is pretty much dependent upon which Sura you read. In some places it is noted that every Prophet prior to Muhammad was a Jew, and that the 'People of the Book' should be given a pass. In others, the principle of killing anyone who sees fit to disagree with the Prophet holds sway. Muhammad himself was responsible for beheading some 600 Jews in one of his forays. The relative peace that existed between the Islamic and Jewish communities was doomed by the Balfour Declaration after the Ottoman Empire lost control of Palestine. Despite the Fatwa against Zionists put forth by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, it was still much safer to be a Jew in Palestine than in Germany. I know Rabbis who have Imams as close friends, all of them being extremely well educated. I could definitely see any of them helping each other out. Though I am appreciative of this one instance of good behavior on the part of the Islamic population, it does little to quell my disquiet regarding the bulk of the Islamic world. Given their track record, there is too high an assurance that they will revert to type. BSBD, Winsor

Customer complaints are fairly good indicators of harm in most cases. There was an article to the effect that Cracker Barrel had pulled their sponsorship (I just spotted the headline). Since advertising pays the bills, losing an account is a pretty compelling basis for canning an actor. In the marketplace 'fairness' does not hold sway. You could, for instance, be the best newscaster in the world, but if Toys R Us is the primary sponsor they can insist that a pair of cute 6 year old twins replace you, and that is their prerogative. If you can find someone who will pay more than Toys R Us to keep you, you will likely stay. You could have the most dismal ratings in your time slot, but a sponsor can pay an inordinate amount to have things their way, so even ratings are incidental to economics. If the advertising dollars are there, the show will stay on the air. Whether Mr. Robertson's Bronze Age take on things is good, bad or indifferent is immaterial from the standpoint of staying in business. He had every right to say what he did, and he did so. A&E had every right to send him packing, and they did so. Anyone who wants to hire him and get great ratings is free to do so, and I suppose he will get better offers than from A&E. It seems from my standpoint that things are working out for the best for everyone. BSBD, Winsor

It is now understood that violent crime is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain, so appropriate therapy is much more effective than any kind of punishment. It has been demonstrated that an intracranial injection of 230 grains of lead restores the chemical balance, and results in a much more peaceful individual. Studies have shown that such therapy has had a 100% success rate in eliminating further violent actions. Thus I agree with the good Congresswoman, we need less punishment and more therapy. BSBD, Winsor