idrankwhat

Update: "Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in a final peace agreement, they have to be involved in discussions that lead to final peace," With logic like this I can understand why the Bush administration doesn't approve. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jemWR1dnH-ATQzPTG3EZpMf6uSogD902FDDG1

Actually, I think that Terry Jones should have written it. He's much better at explaining things "When Torture Isn't Torture" Terry Jones, The Guardian LONDON, 17 June 2004 - Donald Rumsfeld holds that torture isn't torture if causing pain isn't the objective. For some time now, I've been trying to find out where my son goes after choir practice. He simply refuses to tell me. He says it's no business of mine where he goes after choir practice and it's a free country. Now it may be a free country, but if people start going just anywhere they like after choir practice, goodness knows whether we'll have a country left to be free. I mean, he might be going to anarchist meetings or terrorist study groups. How do I know? The thing is, if people don't say where they're going after choir practice, this country is at risk. So I have been applying a certain amount of pressure on my son to tell me where he's going. To begin with I simply put a bag over his head and chained him to a radiator. But did that persuade him? Does the Pope eat kosher? My wife had the gall to suggest that I might be going a bit too far. So I put a bag over her head and chained her to the radiator. But I still couldn't persuade my son to tell me where he goes after choir practice. I tried starving him, serving him only cold meals and shaving his facial hair off, keeping him in stress positions, not turning his light off, playing loud music outside his cell door - all the usual stuff that any concerned parent will do to find out where their child is going after choir practice. But it was all to no avail. I hesitated to gravitate to harsher interrogation methods because, after all, he is my son. Then Donald Rumsfeld came to my rescue. I read in the New York Times last week that a memo had been prepared for the defense secretary on March 6, 2003. It laid down the strictest guidelines as to what is and what is not torture. Because, let's face it, none of us want to actually torture our children, in case the police get to hear about it. The March 6 memo, prepared for Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: If someone "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith". What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only "torture" if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else - such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice - then it is not torture. Rumsfeld's memo goes on: "A defendant" (by which he means a concerned parent) "is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control". Couldn't be clearer. If your intention is to extract information, you cannot be accused of torture. In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent "has a good-faith belief (that) his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture". So all you've got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn't think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy! I currently have a lot of my son's friends locked up in the garage, and I'm applying electrical charges to their genitals and sexually humiliating them in order to get them to tell me where my son goes after choir practice. Dick Cheney's counsel, David S Addington, says that's just fine. William J Haynes, the US Defense Department's general counsel, agrees it's just fine. And so does the US Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker. In fact, practically everybody in the US administration seems to think it's just fine, except for the State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV, who perversely claims that I might be opening the door to people applying electrical charges to my genitals and sexually humiliating me. So I'm going to round up all the children in the neighborhood, chain them and set dogs on them. I might accidentally kill one or two - but I won't have intended to - and perhaps I'll take some photos of my wife standing on the dead bodies, and then I'll show the photos to the other kids, and finally, perhaps, I might get to find out where my son goes after choir practice. After all, I'll only be doing what the US administration has been condoning since 9/11. - Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python (www.terry-jones.net)

Yes, including elite conservative snobs and then some. I'd say that quite a few people out there cling "to their need to feel superior to the little people by belittling their priorities - just because they are different - I'm sure it helps them get through their own little insecurities and gives them comfort" The only difference is in how "the little people" are defined.

certainly that crowd is clinging to their need to feel superior to the little people by belittling their priorities - just because they are different - I'm sure it helps them get through their own little insecurities and gives them comfort That description of "that crowd" sounds like a Nielsen profile of daytime TV watchers.

That's because they don't like any light shed on their own atrocities. When I read the book I decided to check with CAMERA to see how they responded to the atrocities that Carter listed. They were outraged but their responses dealt with small errors like the route of the separation barrier. Carter stated that it was ALL on Palestinian land. CAMERA replied by calling him a liar stating that only 80% was on Palestinian land. They don't deny or address the really ugly stuff in the book. The Bush administration ignored the issue for 7 years. It also ignored Israel's blatant violation of Bush's own roadmap. It also, with the exception of Powell's brief acknowledgment, completely ignored/ignores the Geneva Initiative, which in 2006 had the support of 52% of Israelis and 48% of the Palestinians according to the Israeli Truman Institute and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. The administration also ignored the Arab Peace initiative. In addition, the administration rushed to transport (arguably illegally) cluster bomb munitions to Israel so that it could litter the southern Lebanon countryside with thousands of bomblets in the 72 hrs before the agreed upon cease fire. In light of that pattern of hawkishness I'd say that Rice's presence this year, however sincere on her part, amounts to nothing more than a photo op and a time stamp so the administration could say "hey, we tried". So what? That doesn't mean the results weren't valid. Other than some shenanigans in Jerusalem that were sorted out, it apparently went pretty well. So basically, besides his successes you think he's arrogant and lame because he's not batting 1000? No one else in our government is even stepping up to the plate.

I think your points are valid rehmwa but I'm still having trouble with the comments being considered "elitist". I don't see that at all. He was dead on accurate. I'm willing to bet that blue, light blue and many of the white collars that don't get dry cleaned every day are bitter and cynical at the current situation and are seeking refuge in whatever it is that makes them comfortable. Gas prices have tripled, food prices are up significantly, medical expenses are up, debt is up, equity is down, the stock market is spazzing out with each earning or expected earning report, we're in an expensive war with the wrong people which is straining our military and fiscal future, etc. There's not a lot of feel good news out there and people are going to rely on those things in their lives that give them comfort. For some it involves jumping out of planes (even at higher jump costs). For others it may involve mountain biking, unloading a few hundred rounds of ammunition on the weekends, going to church, or maybe just venting their angst in a public internet forum. What I think is pathetic, but completely expected, is the feeding frenzy on the comments by Hillary and McCain. They're looking for any chink that they can exploit, hoping that it will be as vulnerable as an over driven microphone. But one could argue that Hillary and McCain's comments are elitist. Obama is acknowledging the reality of the situation that most of us are in while the other two are simply trying to make the middle class folks feel good about themselves by giving them lip service praise on how important they are. Politics is nasty stuff. I only hope that most people can see through the bullshit.

Got it! I bailed from PC and bought a new Macbook last December. VISTA made me do it. Best move I've made in a long time.

Carter is probably the MOST qualified person on the planet for this particular job. He's dedicated a significant portion of his life towards resolving this conflict and has done so with an honesty and fairness that the vast majority of our leaders lack. True conflict resolution addresses the root causes of the problem so that they don't flair up again in the future. He knows that, as does one of our Presidential candidates.

Yep, your bowling game and hydration habits are much more important than say....the names and ideas of likely foreign policy advisers.

Probably not. The things that the media choose to talk about typically amount to inconsequential noise. Case in point: MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner. SHUSTER: No -- MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right. SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean -- MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection? SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice." MATTHEWS: No. SHUSTER: He did. And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] -- MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu. SHUSTER: Exactly. MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

And aren't those the same people who typically cry out that they're sick of political correctness and how people need to be able to accept harsh truths?

Oh Al! I heard McCain talking about some guy named Albert Kaeda. Sounded like he didn't care much for him Actually I knew who you were talking about. I just want to make sure that his successor understands the difference between Sunni and Shia, Iran, al Qaeda, etc. Apparently McCain "misspoke" again in while he was talking to General Petraeus the other day. He's flying solo now. No Lieberman necessary for the correction. MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat? PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall? PETREAUS: No. MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

Unless the winner still can't remember who our enemies are.

I imagine most women who looked at that attachement nearly fainted over the pure sexiness of the scene. I'm sure that's what he's thinking. Gonna be damned hard for him to get a job when his potential employer digs that one up And I do apologize for posting it. I've been up since 4:12 this morning and it made me laugh out loud when I saw it. Still does

Fixed it. Hmmm....that would be a redundant sentence wouldn't it?

Wow, time sure has flown by He's just referring to that firey, quick tounged, CiC applicant's own words. Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain) McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

I'm getting a little frustrated with iMovie. It's probably me but I'm switching over from using Vegas and I'm used to having an easy to manipulate timeline. Splitting, slow motion and other simple edits are a bit more laborious than I would like. I'm thinking of going with Final Cut Express 4. I just don't want to spend the money yet. edited to add: I somewhat mispoke. iMovie08 won't let you slow mo or reverse so "more laborious" is an understatement.

Is the NRA still looking for a replacement? I think this guy wants the job.

I hear it goes well with Salmon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWeNyT66IqI (this one still cracks me up).

Roger that! We've got Pyramid Hefe on tap at the DZ. They're jumping today. I'm leaving work in about ten minutes and it's my BIRTHDAY!!!! YEAH!!!!!

Just to continue our discussion from the previous thread, it was/is a big mess. You had people who knew what they were doing when they made bad decisions but you also had many people who were clueless that were preyed upon. Some wanted to access their equity at any price and others were talked/tricked into deals, sometimes fraudulently, just to get those huge commissions. Greed was hitting everyone pretty hard. Yesterday on NPR they had an interesting story that touched on this. It's worth the listen/read. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89505982

The "Sam Jackson" choice made me think of a good combo. How about "Jules" and "Vincent"? edited to add: Of course that means you have to get two.

Thanks for the link. The response from Israel is typical. It's also very reminiscent of the argument that the US uses when it's deciding what language needs to be added to a UN resolution to keep the US from vetoing it. As for the pics, I was trying to post some images that were similar. The intent was to get reluctant readers to possibly research both sides of the situation but I won't hold my breath for that one. If I wanted to just bash Israel for using human shields I would have posted this article. Don't miss the video link on the right side of the page. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6432133.stm or this one http://i16.tinypic.com/4lqe2q0.jpg And by the way, your point about "wannabe" freedom fighters makes a valid point. When looking for some pics of Palestinian human shields I found quite a few showing voluntary shields rushing in to protect the fighters as they fled. Regardless, everything I've seen is ugly stuff, from both sides.

This reminds me of this pic: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b.jpg I'd love to see an updated version.

I agree 100%. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery.htm