"Well, your Honor, the first good indication of the defendant's speed was when I got a radar return signal with the unit turned off." WABASHA, Minn. - There's little doubt that a Stillwater motorcyclist could wind up his Honda sport motorcycle past 180 mph, but members of the motorcycle racing world question whether the State Patrol was correct to cite him for 205 mph last weekend. The State Patrol is standing by its stopwatch, and the speeding ticket a veteran trooper wrote for Samuel Tilley for driving his 2003 Honda RC51 on U.S. Highway 61 near Wabasha on the state's eastern border. Tilley faces misdemeanor charges of speeding, reckless driving and riding without a motorcycle license. He has declined repeated requests for comment from several media outlets in the past few days.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press first reported the details of the ticket, which is unofficially the highest ever written in the state, on Tuesday. Soon motorcycle enthusiasts were buzzing about whether Tilley really broke the 200 mph barrier. "Theoretically, it could happen — anything is possible — but I don't believe it," said John Ulrich, editor of Roadracing World, a magazine that covers sport bike racing. "Guys who want to break speed records and go over 200 mph have to go to great lengths to get there." Ulrich questioned the State Patrol's timing methods, in which a trooper in an airplane used a stopwatch to calculate how long it took Tilley to cover a certain distance. Other enthusiasts said if the timing were off by only a half-second, it would drop Tilley's speed to about 185 mph.
Continued on Page 49
#1
To get an RC51 up to 200 mph, they say, the owner would have to change the motorcycleâs transmission, fuel injectors and gears â and might have to add either a supercharger or pump nitrous oxide or methane into the fuel system.
That would be plain crazy! Only someone who owned a bike capable of 185 would even consider it.
Considering how, at 205 MPH, a vehicle travels some 100 FEET in the time it takes to blink, sanity isn't even part of the discussion. Running into a jackrabbit, prairie dog, squirrel or even just a littered beer bottle means taking the dirt nap. That is, if they find all of the pieces.
Tilley is a suicidal moron who should hereafter find it quite difficult to obtain basic liability vehicle insurance for anything below the high four-figure range.
Col Muammar Gaddafi is being accused by Palestinians of skulduggery after allegedly intervening to help a Libyan contestant in the Middle East's answer to Pop Idol - a six-month-long contest to find the finest singer in the Arab world.
The two finalists of Super Star 2, the second of whom is a Palestinian, will learn their fate tonight when the result of a week's frenzied voting by telephone, text message and e-mail throughout the Arab world is announced on the Lebanese-made television programme.
And if the Palestinians don't win? Dire Revenge[tm]!
Palestinians are enraged that Col Gaddafi - previously a reliable champion of their cause - backed a costly nationwide publicity campaign and arranged for free telephone calls for Libyans wishing to vote, in an attempt to tip the scales in favour of Ayman Al'atar, a Libyan dental student.
Wael Abbas, a senior official from the Palestinians' own national telephone company, said: "Muammar Gaddafi is wrong to open all the telephone lines for free voting calls in support of the Libyan singer. It is unfair, and immoral. We categorically reject it. This is a competition about fair play and recognising great talent, but he's not playing fair."
Spoken without a trace of irony.
Last week, rumours spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza that Col Gaddafi - who has declared himself a fan of the programme - is in league with the Syrians, whose champion was eliminated earlier this month. Some Palestinians suspect that he plans further ruses to influence the outcome in the final hours.
It's always a plot, enemies in league with one another. This spat speaks volumes about their worldview.
In Nablus, hundreds of students at al-Najah University, where Mr Hassan, 27, studied music, took time off to vote, apparently oblivious to condemnation of Super Star 2 by Hamas, the terrorist organisation, as a "trivial and a harmful" diversion from real problems, and immoral to boot.
Maybe Hamas should enter its own contender?
Actually, the contest is over now, and the Libyan won. Or, I should say, the Palesteninans lost.
#5
Back in the 80s, some researchers were testing new computer-based models for metabolic processes and, in the process, discovered that PCBs are carried across cell-membranes by estrogen.
Since all the safety studies on PCBs had been done with college-age males, the scientific consensus on safe levels of exposure were way too low, as they failed to account for the fact that women of all ages, and older men, have significantly higher estrogen levels than those undergrad guys.
That set off a big search for other such effects. The 70s style feminism that said there are no differences always struck this woman as stupid ... as did the suggestion that women are inherently social and consensus oriented and men are power hungry jerks.
#2
Don't forget Z. Princess Leia too. Remember : TWINS!
I expect someone at Scrappleface to suggest that the Islamofacists are composing a new call to prayer chant based on the "Darth Vader Theme", from "Star Wars"...
A poll just released suggests public support for Labour is draining away, with one survey even putting Tony Blair's party in third place for the first time in more than 20 years. A poll for the News of the World put Labour on just 28% as it goes into what will probably be its last annual conference before a general election in the spring, one point behind the Liberal Democrats on 29% and four behind the Conservatives on 32%. The last time Labour plumbed such depths was under the leadership of Michael Foot, and the party has not trailed both of its main rivals since the heyday of the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the early 1980s.
But a second survey for the Independent on Sunday suggested that Labour was still on top by a narrow margin, with a rating of 32% against the Tories' 30% and the Lib Dems' 27%. Both polls were conducted at the end of a successful conference week for Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems, and each recorded a seven-point boost for the party. They suggest that the issue of Iraq and the ongoing crisis over British hostage Kenneth Bigley are seriously damaging Labour ratings. And they indicate the mountain Mr Blair must climb in order to win voters' enthusiasm for the domestic policy agenda he is hoping to launch this week in Brighton.
The IoS poll found that Mr Blair is considered out of touch and inflexible by as many people as said the same of Margaret Thatcher just before her downfall in 1990. Some 63% said he was out of touch with ordinary people and 57% that he was inflexible, compared to 63% and 35% for Mrs Thatcher in September 1990. The poll suggested Labour would re-establish a clear lead if Chancellor Gordon Brown replaced Mr Blair as leader, with 36% saying they would then vote Labour, against 30% for the Tories and 24% Lib Dem.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/26/2004 12:53:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Subtitle: Labour pains?
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/26/2004 1:41 Comments ||
Top||
Taiwan's premier said Saturday that a government plan to spend billions of dollars on U.S. weapons would help the island defend itself if rival China attacked, as thousands of protesters marched in the capital to denounce the deal. The government wants to buy $18 billion worth of arms, including anti-missile systems, planes and diesel-electric submarines. Beijing opposes the sale of arms to Taiwan and has asked the United States to drop the deal. On Saturday, thousands of protesters marched through pouring rain in the streets of Taipei, describing the deal as the start of a wasteful arms race. "Spending taxpayers' money on weapons is not going to buy us security," said Eddie Shao, a 47-year-old accountant. He said Taiwan should do more instead to improve relations with China.
A lack of weapons won't help with security either.
But Premier Yu Shyi-kun, Taiwan's No. 3 leader, said the weapons were necessary to maintain the balance of power with China, located across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. "You fire 100 missiles at me, I fire 50 at you. You hit Taipei and Kaohsiung, I at least hit Shanghai," Yu said, mentioning Taiwan and China's most populated cities. Government officials have warned that Beijing's aggressive arms buildup will tilt the military balance in favor of China as soon as 2005, and Yu compared the situation with the "balance of terror" between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Taiwan's legislature is expected to vote on the arms purchase next month, and the government has been involved in a tough battle for public support. Since neither the ruling party nor opposition hold a strong majority in the legislature, the outcome of the vote is difficult to predict.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/26/2004 1:32:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They need new arms to fend off the flamer, Elton John.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/26/2004 1:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Actually, a very good barginning chip, You dear China yank baby Kim or we'll have a disposal sell of a couple old SSBNs to Taipai. Mobile, quiet, sitting off of stations in the Western Pacific.
Posted by: Don ||
09/26/2004 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sure, apply for statehood and admission to the Union and, if you're accepted, we'll let you vote. Australia is a little smaller than California and would be a welcome addition to the US. People who write this type of article forget that responsibilities and obligations come with the privilege of citizenship. America's freedoms have been paid for a thousand times over in blood and treasure.
#5
The world has a vote -- it's at the U.N. If the U.N. enforced its own resolutions, the world wouldn't have to be concerned with the U.S. elections. But the U.N. is both unwilling and impotent. What is the world doing about that?
I'll grant you that you folks "down under" have contributed a lot more than most. So, if you'll declare your independence and boot out all the influence of the royals, I'm certainly open to adding a few more states. Oh yeah, you need to drop those metric units and drive on the right too.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/26/2004 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
re: australia - bring the beer too! Foster's, Dammit! Mmmmmmmmmm
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/26/2004 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?"
We-- or our ancestors-- came here to America so we would no longer be bound by your stupidity, your laziness, your bigotry and your impulses toward socialist authoritarianism. We came here to get **AWAY** from your bullshit, and we're not about to let you export it to us.
If your own elections are so inconsequential that you want a say in ours, then perhaps you should think about just **WHY** your elections no longer matter much, and correct the problem.
In short, fuck off and die.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/26/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Hey, WE'RE in charge, so WE get to vote who will run THEM. I say we vote Margaret Cho the leader of North Korea, and Pat Robertson the spiritual leader of Iran (with Steven Spielberg as their President), as a start.
#10
We-- or our ancestors-- came here to America so we would no longer be bound by your stupidity, your laziness, your bigotry and your impulses toward socialist authoritarianism.
Just as a sidenote: Some of your ancestors came to America in slave ships -- and some other of your ancestors came from Asia a few thousand years before Colombus.
And it's kinda ironic to accuse Europeans as a whole of stupidity and laziness and *bigotry*. Imagine a person who says "I want to stay away from Jews because of their stupidity, laziness, and not to mention their bigotry".
The world has a vote -- it's at the U.N.
Well, no. First of all, USA, UK, France, Russia and China have veto rights, and a vote which can be vetoed is no real vote at all. If you abolished veto rights, then we might be getting somewhere. Secondly, much of the world is controlled by tyrannies, whose UN votes is controlled by said tyrants, not by the people in those lands.
I can't read the linked article either as it is login-only, but the basic principle that in a deeply interconnected world true democracy can't exist unless *everyone* had a vote on some level, is fundamentally correct. Isolate communities free of influence from and on others, no longer exist. A democratic Luxembourg wouldn't be truly free if it could be intimidated into submission by the threat of force from Germany or France. Their choices would be skewed. It it could be bullied into submission through trade embargoes or what have you, then again they wouldn't be truly free.
Only a completely isolationist and neutral country, like Switzerland, could claim that its government isn't applying undemocratic influence outside its borders. And even then you get elements that end up affecting everyone -- e.g. secret bank accounts of dictators? If you are part of the world you always affect people outside the moral authority that the consent of *your* governed nation provides.
The only logical solution to that is the establishment of a Global community of democracies, where that influence and counterinfluence is bounded in a system of law and democratic checks on a global level.
Ofcourse having the whole world vote for USA just on the basis of vague influence is ludicrousness, because then we'd have to have everyone vote for everywhere -- everything "influences" everything else. Until such a global community of communities can be established, an EU on a global level, this talk is just nonsensee.
But in the meantime how about a simpler system: Namely, having the people in occupied countries vote for the government of the occupying nations?
Wouldn't you say you have an atleast equal chance of convincing Iraqi and Kurdish people to vote for Bush, instead of Kerry?
And shouldn't what Iraqi people have to say about the situation be taken to account as long as it's American troops occupying their land?
If nothing else, it forces the occupier to be *nice* with the occupied. Certainly it seems to me that UK should have given Indians an equal vote when it was occupying India, or it wouldn't be able to call itself a democracy.
The problem now with the USA is not as bad, because 1) the Iraqis are far far less numerically than the people of India, and 2) because it's meant to be a short-term occupation. But still it exists, if smaller. In a better system, the people of Iraq therefore would have a vote in the US elections.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/26/2004 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The only logical solution to that is the establishment of a Global community of democracies
Seems Europe is very much opposed to this idea given its opposition to the democratization of...say...Iraq. Criticizing the Americans, our ex-PM in Canada once asked (paraphrase), "After Iraq, who will be next? Where will this stop?" Well, it seems that until the world is fully democratized, it should never stop. So assuming that your idea is a good one, why all this opposition to what the US is doing in Iraq?
having the people in occupied countries vote for the government of the occupying nations
Then might as well not have occupied them in the first place. An occupation by its nature restricts freedom on purpose, temporarily or not.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/26/2004 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"You're screeching Aris, that's not like you."
Thanks a lot, Shipman. I had a mouthful of food when I read that.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/26/2004 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Of course Aris is right. That sort of logic would ensure that no President ever considered what is euphemistically called a 'war of liberation'. There'd certainly have been no invasion of Iraq (the Iraqis would still be free to vote 99.9% in favour of Saddam), no US involvement in the Balkans, no Korea, D-Day, no war on Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. What a better world Aris's utopia would be...
#21
That sort of logic would ensure that no President ever considered what is euphemistically called a 'war of liberation'.
Why? He'd only have to believe that the liberated country would be grateful to be liberated, and then he'd not only consider it, he'd actually have an extra reason to be in favour of it -- since all this gratitude on the part of the liberated nation would translate into votes for him.
Explain your reasoning please -- why are you working with the assumption that "liberated" nations would never vote for the president that liberated them?
Rafael> Seems Europe is very much opposed to this idea given its opposition to the democratization of...say...Iraq
If you are talking about governmental positions, then the continent was almost evenly split on the invasion of Iraq, not opposed.
For popular sentiment, answered below.
After Iraq, who will be next? Where will this stop?" Well, it seems that until the world is fully democratized, it should never stop.
Agreed.
So assuming that your idea is a good one, why all this opposition to what the US is doing in Iraq?
Because many people in Europe have an allergy against unilateral military invasions -- and by unilateral I mean unilaterally decided. Most of the nations there have suffered a military invasion after all.
And because many people didn't believe that Iraq couldn't be democratized like this? I still don't believe it can be democratized unless the Syrian or Iran regimes were to fall first -- there's a reason most democracies are neighbours of other democracies, and why tyrannies often create a wave of other tyrannies around them.
And ofcourse, because regardless of whether my idea is a good or a bad one, most people aren't sharing it? So many people are having fits over the idea of a simply *European* federation created with peaceful methods, a global union of democracies is quite a few centuries away yet. And enforcing democracy through military methods... that's definitely a tricky one for people to accept.
#22
Yeah Aris the mullahs should vote in the U.S. elections, too. They will be damn affected by the outcome, don't you think?
None of you actually read what I wrote, it seems.
If the mullahs only had one vote each same as all their formerly oppressed people, then to have the Iranians vote on American elections *after* the Iranian regime fell, and while American troops were occupying their country would hardly be a nightmare.
Most Iranians would *like* to be liberated after all, right?
#23
Explain your reasoning please -- why are you working with the assumption that "liberated" nations would never vote for the president that liberated them?
Explain your reasoning as to why a President in your insane-o fantasy world would want to take the risk. Would Blair? Or do you actually assume that US Presidents are so completely altruistic that they'd put their fate in the unpredictable hands of people of another nation.
You've really lost the plot, Aris. I won't deny it's amusing.
#26
Not a problem. We vote and are also obliged to pay taxes and stand by the constitution. If you renounce your sovreignity and become a State and if you are accepted by all means vote. But then you cannot raise a stink about nuclear armed or nuclear powered ships in your waters because they will be your waters no more. It seems to me more & more like a midedle age fiefdom, every one wants to be an underling of the chief with biggest balls.
#27
Did I miss the Ameican participation in the European elections of 1912 or 1938. We got a whole lot of say there!
Posted by: Don ||
09/26/2004 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Explain your reasoning as to why a President in your insane-o fantasy world would want to take the risk
You mean a President takes the risk of WAR, with thousands upons thousands of people being killed on both sides, including possibly thousands of dead civilians, but he can't take the risk of not being elected again.
If he can't risk his fucking *reelection* on a cause he considers worthy, then he shouldn't risk lives either.
Explain your reasoning as to why a President in your insane-o fantasy world would want to take the risk.
For the same reason that he took the risk of war on the first place.
In this case, such a risk was supposedly taken because you couldn't take the chance of a dictator such as Saddam to possibly equip terrorists with WMDs.
But here we see the old colonialism in your belief system -- the "unpredictable hands of people of another nation". Why don't you call them "subhuman Arab monkeys", to make your *real* point clear?
Some people babble all about democratizing Iraq, and the liberation of Iraq, and they count the possibly thousands of civilian lives lost as an acceptable sacrifice to make in order to bring freedom to the people of Iraq...
... but they can't actually risk the reelection of their favourite president. *You* can judge Iraqi lives a well-made sacrifice on *their* behalf, but they don't have the right to even influence your government.
You can't actually follow through with the idea that a democratically elected government only rules through the authority that the consent of the governed provides them. The consent of *all* the governed. If you have direct governance over a territory, with power to arrest people, or impose curfews or whatever -- they should have a right to vote on their government.
That's democracy. Democracy isn't the colonial-era British Empire.
Ok then, since Iranian missiles can reach Berlin now I think every German should vote in the Iranian elections, too. And since Greece tricked its way into the Euro with forged statistics I guess we should vote in Greece as well.
You already are influencing Greece with your votes through the EU -- which is the case regardless of whether crooks in Greece tricked their way in the Eurozone or not. I've already accepted shared sovereignty for my country. Through the EU system.
Ok then, since Iranian missiles can reach Berlin now I think every German should vote in the Iranian elections, too.
Well, the argument of preemptive attack is that you can not only *vote* in the Iranian elections, but actually invade Iran. Which I may well agree with, since I've been in favour of an attack on either Iran or Syria.
#33
But here we see the old colonialism in your belief system -- the "unpredictable hands of people of another nation". Why don't you call them "subhuman Arab monkeys", to make your *real* point clear?
We've had it all from Aris today. Insanity, absurdity, abuse, nationalistic insults, racist projection, general frothing at the mouth. I don't suppose there'll be many takers to play with Aris today.
#34
Cheers, Bulldog. Just explain to me, whether the reason you used to explain why Iraqi voters can't have a say on American elections isn't the same reason that the people of India didn't have a say on colonial-Era British election. "We can't trust the natives to vote sanely".
And please justify how an American president can risk a whole "war of liberation" against a nation, but will tremble at the idea of the liberated nation actually approving of said liberation.
Ofcourse my proposal has an agenda behind it -- ensuring that the occupying forces are humane, ensuring that they stay as long as they are felt by the native population to be doing good rather than bad, creating a system to prevent the possible reemergence of colonialism under pretexts of liberation, making sure than in any future war establishing a native democratic system will be a top priority, promoting democracy in the region by incorporating the population to an already established democratic system and making them feel they participate... so forth, so forth.
#35
You are an idiot, Aris. Your appreciation of reality is immature and absurd. You cannot argue without putting words in other peoples' mouths and foisting your own nationalistic prejudices on them. You raised the ridiculous question of whether vote Bush or vote Kerry and expect other people to take you seriously? Why don't you just admit you preferred Iraq under Saddam? You're a joke. Quit whilst you can still dig deeper.
#37
Aris, please consider checking into a psychyatric institution. For your own good, before it's too late. This is not to be meant a put down of any sort. I am trying to be helpfull.
Of course, you don't see that you have a problem, but it is apparent to everyone else.
#38
"So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?"
#41
And please justify how an American president can risk a whole "war of liberation" against a nation, but will tremble at the idea of the liberated nation actually approving of said liberation.
Subtle point perhaps but "liberation" was #99 on the list of reasons for deposing Saddam. Sure it sounds nice and humane and gives people a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but let's face it, there were more pressing concerns.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/26/2004 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Bulldog> "Your appreciation of reality is immature and absurd"
I appreciate reality just fine, since I know that the occupiers will never let the occupied have a say on occupier affairs. Given that, Ptah's response at #30 is actually the only honest enough and to the point: "We won't let them have a say, because they can't *make* us give them a say." All other talk is just nonsense, and any type of effort at moralization falls down flats.
In its foundation it's colonialist feeling just like in the good old days. The only thing that makes it better this time is what I've already said: that it's supposed to be for just a short-term period, and then a democratic Iraq will supposedly be able to tell you to take a hike. In short it's the *brevity* of the situation that makes it different, not any kind of better moral authorization.
Memesis, putting people with different ideologies in mental institutions is what the Soviets did. Don't follow their example. You dislike my beliefs, same as I dislike the beliefs of many of you. That makes us ideological opponents, not candidates for a psychiatric institution.
And Mrs Davis, the sentence Fawad quoted isn't one of mine. In fact I called the sentiment ludicrous since vague "influence" is meaningless and *every* country is influenced by *every* else. That's why I proposed limiting the concept to occupied territories only.
#43
Sure it sounds nice and humane and gives people a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but let's face it, there were more pressing concerns.
Another good point.
Perhaps we can change the proposal to something different (and this is thinking out loud): "If we claim that a war is a war of liberation and that the people will actually *want* us to so liberate them, (in short if we ever pretend to be following the will of the enslaved people) *then* we'll have to give them a vote in our decision until they can vote their own government. If on the other hand we only justify the war through reasons of our own security, then we don't have to give them such a vote."
#44
FU. There' s a new doctrine called the Bush doctrine. It is called self defense. You guys weren't attacked. We were. I'd rather fight the war in Arabville than here. (that doesn't include the JAckass party and it's lefty compatriots-they go down at the ballott box). You don't like the USA fine. It doesn't matter. The USA isn't running a popularity contest on our defense and what we think is right for us. You want to make it end? Then get the fu__ off our case and take your Muslim terrorist buddies along with you. Until then look for more of the same.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
09/26/2004 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#45
Fred could you test an Aris mod where all the people who are still interested in what he has to say can go and leave the rest of us alone.
Aris find some new material. You really have become tiresome.
#47
LOL! So the world is worried that we are exercising our right to vote? Oh and they might not like it when their pick will not be elected? Isn't that just too damn bad for the world. If ANYONE in the world wants JFKerry for their leader I would be happy to trade him for ANY citizen that wants to come over here. Hell you can take his low class wife as well. She is living proof that money can't buy class. That way it will be a two for one swap. I guess a lot of the LLL are planning to 'flee' the country on November 3 and I wish them well. I only hope that they will renounce their U.S. citizenship after they leave.
#48
"Memesis, putting people with different ideologies in mental institutions is what the Soviets did. Don't follow their example. You dislike my beliefs, same as I dislike the beliefs of many of you. That makes us ideological opponents, not candidates for a psychiatric institution."
Aris, try to read my post and compare it with yours. If you were of sound mind, you would see what the problem is.
Your beliefs are your beliefs, I don't care. I don't even care if we are on the opposite end of political spectrum (we aren't because politics are multidimensional in their nature--the left-right meme is simply a reductio ad absurdum, but that is beside the point), your choices are yours as my choices are mine. It is completely fine with me.
It is your irrational tendency to reinterpret what people say, and projecting meanings into responses of others--that are simply not there, which is the issue. Your reality and the reality of 99% of people here is not the same. It is not a proof that you are certifiable, but it is a good indicator that something may be off.
I digress. I am wasting my time, almost certainly.
#50
Give Aris a break. Would you prefer that scumbag Murat??? ...talk about a nutjob.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/26/2004 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Memesis> Dude, if reinterpreting the words of others is the issue, then I'm far from the only one guilty of that sin in Rantburg. Just in this thread, Bulldog said that I should admit preferring Saddam in control of Iraq -- even though I've several times said that USA had the moral right to invade it, same as it has the moral right to invade any dictatorship to install democracies. Most other people here have labelled me anti-American even though I've often said that America is on the whole a positive influence in the world. I've been called a terrorist supporter. My nationality has been itself doubted several times my people who can't accept I'm Greek if I don't follow the stereotype of a Greek in their minds.
And the whole problem is that I interpreted Bulldog's actual motivation to be the same as old colonialist feeling with the inherent contempt for the untermenschen? That may have been very rude of me, perhaps, but hardly as *insane* as some of the things theorized about me.
#53
Now how did I know before I ever clicked on the comments - just based on the number of comments - that Aris was holding forth?
Guess I'm psychic. :-p
As for non-Americans voting in our election, sure. Achieve citizenship, pay taxes to the U.S., and you can vote.
Or you could just knock off the welfare-statism and BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL POWER YOURSELF. We'd love to have the help.
Or just continue to whine. Your choice.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/26/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Cyber Sarge...Psst! This Bud's for you.
I hardly seem to see what all the fuss is about. Nobody in ancient Greece seemed to mind when they warred on. slaughtered, and conquered others, same with the the Romans, or the Mongols, or the British, or the Irish, or the....(Well ok, so a little wishful thinking there).
The point simply is that liberals live in this abstract world where a warm fuzzy hug and a smile will cease hatred and create world peace. The belief that if you hand out free lunches to everyone, that all the world's problems will be solved.
Unfortunately, that is just a pipe dream. In the real world life is harsh and unforgiving where life isn't worth a nickel.
Aris, if you REALLY want to know what humans are like just go back a few years when Albania collapsed over a Ponzi scheme. It was total anarchy. Gangs of thugs and warlords sprouted up everywhere. It doesn't take much to make a "civilized" society revert to it's natural instinctive animalistic behavior.
If a 9-11 type of attack was delivered in ancient times, I can hardly believe that the Greeks (or any other country) wouldn't be slaughtering muslims wholesale right about now.
It is our "civility" that stays that hand though isn't it? The PC culture of the western world that allows us to wail to the heavens about America attacking Iraq, yet listen to the deafening silence from the world community about what is going on in Dafur.
Then, of course, let's look at America's track record. Of ALL the countries that America has successfully liberated, invaded, defeated, etc, etc., what ones do we still control? How are they doing present day? Japan? Germany? France? etc.
Lastly, if we woke up tomorrow and America and all of it's citizens were gone, would the world be a better place? Would the Chinese, Russians, French, Germans, or Iranians be better leaders? Who would you vote for Aris? Do you really think you would get a vote?
#56
98zulu> Dude, you too, you aren't actually reading what I'm saying.
"Lastly, if we woke up tomorrow and America and all of it's citizens were gone, would the world be a better place?"
No, as I've said before and as I quite freely say again, a world without America would be a worse place. That's pretty much the same with saying that "America is a positive influence in the world" which I just said again, in my last post. Did you happen to see it?
Once again, just to make sure you see it: "YES, America as a whole is indeed a good thing, and her influence as a whole is positive, and the world would be a worse place if it were to suddenly vanish." There you go -- that probably puts me in a 5% or thereabouts of philo-USA Greeks in my country.
#71
Anyway, before this bandwidth orgy ends, I just want to say, "No. You will not vote in the US election." And ima a certified US voter, so I have a say. FOAD. Period.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/26/2004 21:15 Comments ||
Top||
#72
Given that, Ptah's response at #30 is actually the only honest enough and to the point: "We won't let them have a say, because they can't *make* us give them a say." All other talk is just nonsense, and any type of effort at moralization falls down flats.
In its foundation it's colonialist feeling just like in the good old days.
Thanks, Aris, for Proving exactly everything that you've been accused of. Better to have kept silence than try to "interpret" what I meant.
Unlike you, I was STAYING ON TOPIC. I was referring to the demand that the world have a vote in picking the American President, not to the world's demand to have a say in what we do in Iraq. Turn in your mind-reading license: you just flunked the real-world test. Running to the implication that I said it based on colonial feelings, as if I was an imperialist, betrays an internal bias: That Americans are forever enthralled by their colonial past, leading them to believe that there is genocide in Darfur, while the EU nations, most notably France, has miraculously escaped its past and is incapable of acting in an exploitative manner that would excuse the murder of hundreds of thousands solely for oil! Niiiice company you EU nations keep...
The only thing that makes it better this time is what I've already said: that it's supposed to be for just a short-term period, and then a democratic Iraq will supposedly be able to tell you to take a hike.
This is called thowing a kilo of mud on us, cleaning off 700 grams, and expecting to be considered a friend for doing so. For instance, your statement implies that the only criterion that Iraq is really democratic is that it kick out and spit in the face the only power determined to help it BE democratic, and which has proven that determination by deeds, not words? That NO OTHER CHOICE IT COULD MAKE could possibly be proof that it is truly democratic? Suppose they thought that prudence would require the stationing of US troops in bases along the borders of Iran, and for the same reasons that that US troops have been stationed in Germany for so long? I do not need to prove to my enemy that I am a man by blindly accepting his challenge to bungee jump with the bungee he's supplying. It remains to be seen if the Iraqis are Arab enough to accept an equivalent challenge.
Of course, there are many European countries who have, in recent memory, given us more than enough experience in handling ingratitude for the sacrifices our sons, fathers, and fellow citizens have made.
And at the foundation, THAT is why we believe that the EU is doomed to failure, for you are being ruled by men having souls rendered small by the absence of that virtue.
#73
I was referring to the demand that the world have a vote in picking the American President, not to the world's demand to have a say in what we do in Iraq.
The thing about the American President was likewise how I interpreted your words, since that was the thing I was discussing throughout. So I was correct here. My only mistake was that I thought you were referring specifically to my comment about the Iraqis alone participating, rather than the whole world.
while the EU nations, most notably France, has miraculously escaped its past and is incapable of acting in an exploitative manner that would excuse the murder of hundreds of thousands solely for oil!
Actually I think that France often shows imperialist and colonialist attitudes, most notably in Africa.
On the mind-reading thingy I definitely seem to be more accurate about you, than you are about me.
For instance, your statement implies that the only criterion that Iraq is really democratic is that it kick out and spit in the face the only power determined to help it BE democratic, and which has proven that determination by deeds, not words
No, dear. My statement implies that a criterion that Iraq is really democratic is the *ability* to freely decide *whether* it wants to kick out and spit in the face the only power determined to help it be democratic, and which has proven that determination by deeds, not words.
#77
Korben Dallas and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg explained here.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/26/2004 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
#78
They can vote all they want...but it doesn't count and we get to shoot one uppity European of our choice for each of them that 'votes.' Better yet, I say we start demanding tribute from the rest of the world...they only exist on our sufferance anyway.
It's about time they paid for all the protection we give them.
#81
Jeebus, how many of you were doing one-handed typing while fapping or diddling your whacker in this thread? OMG, WTF, you should be ASHAMED of yourselves!
#82
Shoot. I failed to get the memo on being brief. As penance, I'll be hitting Fred's tip jar today or tomorrow, Tropical Storm Jeanne permitting.
Thank you Aris. I pride myself in striving to be predictable in each of my facets, and get my kicks by surprising people who delude themselves into believing that they've figured me out completely by displaying a different one of them at appropriate times.
Throughout the history of European integration, from the common agricultural policy to the introduction of the single currency, the major policy initiatives of the EU have always been French. French presidents strutted the corridors of Brussels and installed their choice as candidate for any of the EU's top jobs with the click of a finger. Not any more. Pascal Lamy, outgoing French EU trade commissioner, recently summed it up thus: "Things are changing," he said. "The French have to realise that Europe will be something different from a big France." A new balance of power since the "big bang" EU expansion to 25 members has left the French fretting on the sidelines, a predicament all the more frustrating considering that their rivals les rosbifs are now mustering more diplomatic firepower in Europe. Part of the problem for France is a linguistic one to do with the retreat of French and the spread of English in Asia and the former eastern bloc. Documents at the EU are now circulated in English rather than French. Even the Olympics used English and Greek exclusively this summer, prompting a Parisian protest.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Now if they could only get rid of CAP.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/26/2004 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thanks for posting this Bulldog. The Question now is non-french EU socialism any better? I love to see "Le Worm" hoisted on his own arrogant petard.
dam ther are to many french words in english. Damm Normans.
#3
Even the Olympics used English and Greek exclusively this summer, prompting a Parisian protest.
Bwahahahahaha! Hoo boy, that's rich. Imagine the ratings if the Olympics had been broadcast only in Greek and French. More remarkable than anything is how the French are marginalizing themselves with little to no outside help.
On a more serious note, France's joint naval maneuvers with China signaled a new low in abetting the free world's most significant communist enemy. For this one treasonous act alone, France should be ostracized.
#4
Whatever happened to Jacques poor tax for the world? What an idiot. It makes me really wonder what world they live in. Sure we all like taxes especially those administered by the UN. Cut me a break d__ head. I suspect as the French wine industry begins to crumble there will be a change in Paris. I for one wont buy anything related to the French backstabbing , arrogant hamster eating dufusses.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
09/26/2004 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Just a free trade zone? Hell, it's also a postal union.
Beate Ruhm von Oppen fled Hitler, worked for the British intelligence during WWII and became known, not only as a musicologist with a special love for Bach, but also as an authority on the Christian resistance to Hitler. She won the prestigious Geschister-Scholl prize in 1989 for her German edition of the letters of Helmuth von Moltke, the executed resistance leader.
She died recently and I thought Rantburgers might want to read my tribute to her over at Winds of Change, as she taught at my undergraduate school. Her stories about the resistance left no doubt in my mind that tyranny and evil must be resisted wherever they occur.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2004 11:56:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Foreigners have to wait at least 12 years, and Swiss-born children and even grandchildren of immigrants do not qualify automatically.
Sounds like a process I can heartily endorse here in the US. No more pregnant illegals struggling across to have their children born here (i.e.: citizens)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/26/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nope, I disagree strongly. Immigration has built and continues to build this country. Policies that grant children born here automatic citizenship ensure that the people who live here get bound to the U.S. The children learn our language and customs and become good citizens.
I'm happy to have foreigners who work hard, have something to contribute, and become Americans in spirt become citizens.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/26/2004 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
can tell you don't live in a border state, SW. Illegals are not educated, don't assimilate, and use far more services than they provide. We have hospitals in poor areas (like LA) that are closing because of the impact of illegals- using the emergency ward as their primary care, without paying. Your vision is pie in the sky where uneducated illegals are concerned
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/26/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I agree with Frank: Earlier waves of Immigrants came to the United States LEGALLY, waiting their turn in line. What's the problem of immigrants doing that TODAY and refraining from jumping the line illegally?
Legal immigrants who speak English, who have skills, and who have a desire to assimilate are a strong asset.
Illegal immigrants with grade school educations who donât speak English and who have few skills arenât assimilating. The majority of births in California today are to Spanish speaking mothers.
#6
You are arguing apples and oranges. Frank, Ptah, A5032, do any of you have a problem with automatic citizenship being granted to children who are born to naturalized citizens? There is absolutely no reason to keep on granting automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented illegal aliens. That is simply fiscal suicide. Those seeking emergency room treatment better be able to provide documentation or find themselves deported once they recover. I don't want them bleeding to death on the doorstep, but they sure as hell should be sent back if they don't belong.
Hospitals should demand proof of citizenship or registered alien status before allocating a proper birth certificate. Undocumented aliens giving birth should have the parent and child's biometric data placed on record and then be promptly deported. Tough crap if they are now afraid to come to a hospital to give birth. They can go back to their country of origin to have their kids.
For registered aliens who are attempting to become American citizens, the citizenship of any children born to them should be contingent upon their becoming properly naturalized citizens. Should the parent commit any felonies before becoming naturalized, everyone gets deported to the parents' country of origin.
Remember to thank the current administration amongst others for refusing to tighten up on illegal immigration. Big business just makes too much profit that eventually finds its way into campaign coffers to willingly endure any substantial crackdown on illegal immigration. Even if those porous borders put Americans at risk of terrorist attack, not to mention economic attack.
As to Switzerland, those b@stards helped depopulate so much of Europe that they should be forced to accept 50% of their population as immigrants. Remember the Frontline program, Nazi Gold?
Computer owners in Germany will need a TV licence in future after German TV and Radio Licensing Authorities proved PCs could be used to watch the telly. The fee will be collected whether the computer has been equipped to receive radio and television with a "TV card" or not, and will apply to all PCs with an internet connection from January 1, 2007. Most private households already pay the state fee for TV and radio, but this could become a costly factor for commercial businesses using the internet. As most offices rely on the internet, they could face a significant rise in annual costs. The authority has not decided whether the fee will be collected based on plots of land, office units, or individual PCs. The move comes days after the authority decided to raise the monthly fee by 58p pence to £11.06 from 2005.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/26/2004 11:52:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
beaurocrats... no surprise why Germany is dying...
#5
Tom old boy, my phone is going down. Three cell phones with bookoo minutes per month and rollover + one land line for local calls only, and my phone bill is lower today than it was five years ago.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/26/2004 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think Tom maybe talking about the no farm left behind tax. It's important for the rural communites to have broadband access just like their city cousins even if the city cousins have to pay thru the nose to finance it.
#9
98zulu... those antenna buses are mostly for show. If you don't want to pay there is not much they can do actually because they have no right to enter your house if you don't let them.
But if they can prove that you've been watching without paying things can get expensive.
What if you only watch foreign TV. Europe is small enough that someone in Essen, say, can watch Dutch, Belgian, and maybe French shows. Do you have to pay to watch any or just those in Germany?
There's a fee for radio? So when I was building Crystal sets at age 8 or so, if I had been in Germany, I would have had to get a paper route to pay the radio fee?
#11
Totally unrelated, but...several years ago I was speaking to a German who could not grasp the notion of unlimited internet access for a flat monthly fee. Is there not such a thing in Germany? Or is it, God forbid, on a per Kilobyte basis?
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/26/2004 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
TGA,
TGA>>> Yes that's true, We've gotten the letters from them. Due to the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) we have with Germany we are exempt from paying the tax. Yes, when it comes to paying/collecting taxes the German government doesn't play any games.
Jackal>>> It doesn't matter, from what I've been told (please correct me TGA if I'm wrong), but it helps pay for the first 3 German channels.
If you want British TV you have to pay for SKY and such.
Yes, radio too! I think as long as you have either you get the tax. Kinda hard to say you don't have TV with that big 100ft Sat dish on the roof. Lol.
A German computer security firm has defended its decision to hire the self-confessed teenage author of the Sasser and Netsky worms. Sven Jaschan was arrested in his home town in Germany. Securepoint said its decision to employ Sven Jaschan offered the German teen a "second chance". The job offer has certainly reopened the debate about how closely anti-virus firms should work with the people it is employed to counter. Some anti-virus firms have criticised Securepoint, arguing that it is sending a dangerous message to virus writers. The importance of this cannot be understated. As the world increasingly becomes dependent upon digital technology, virus writers and hackers represent some of the most destructive individuals alive. Their activities constitute nothing short of terrorism. The innocent victims are not just our computers, but the precious hours we spend compiling vital information and personal experiences that can be wiped out at the click of a mouse button.
While the technology community is entitled to ask that we properly distinguish between hackers and "crackers" (i.e., those who overcome security measures without doing any damage), if those selfsame crackers then freely distribute their knowledge, they become party to the havoc wrought by hackers and virus writers who abuse that released technology.
Prosecution of those who write and disseminate viruses is fraught with myriad legal complications. Overly harsh blanket laws could snare innocent parties whose computers or servers were hacked and used to further disseminate a virus. Careful delineation of exactly what defines offenders is required to adequately apply legal penalties to those who willfully engage in this destructive practice. Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/26/2004 12:53:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
DISPATCH:
If it went your way, would we be in war with Iraq today?
KERRY: Quite possibly if Saddam Hussein didn't comply. But it would have been smart. At the time, I said and I supported the president, but I said look, you ought to take an extra period of time, if the French have some reservations, let's put it on the table. Let's have a U.N. Security Council meeting. I met with the security council personally one week before the vote, and I asked the French ambassador and the British and the Germans and the others, 'What are you prepared to do?' And all of them said they were prepared to stand up and enforce the resolutions of the United Nations, but they wanted the time to do it properly.
[...]
DISPATCH:
The issue now is what is achievable in Iraq and what is realistic in Iraq and beyond. President Bush said that his goal is to democratize Iraq, to remake Iraq perhaps to remake the Middle East, and make the world safe for democracy. What do you think is a realistic vision for what is possible in Iraq and the Middle East?
KERRY: We should have a summit. We should sit down with the European leaders and the Arab countries and really lay it on the table, say, "Yes, some miscalculations and misjudgments were made, but we all have a stake in this. The outcome is critical, not just to America but to the world." And that you cannot afford to have a failed Iraq. And that while some may not now want to put their soldiers at risk, and trade their bodies for ours, there are things they can do that are less risky that would be very significant in helping to show a global, concerted effort to win. This is a time for global statesmanship.
So, Kerry's big solution to the trouble in Iraq is an intenational summit? Idiot!
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, Kerry's adopted a policy of defeat. He's decided to write off Iraq and it's 25 million people, to let the United Nations blather away while he turns tail and flees.
Posted by: H.D. Miller ||
09/26/2004 6:54:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The French and UN would never have done anything -- anyone can see that. They were being very well paid to look the other way.
#4
I am at the point now where I just glance at the headline of Kerry articles and don't even bother to read the contents anymore. I am on a diet and Kerry's ramblings are like 100% empty calories.
Posted by: ed ||
09/27/2004 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
In the latest fallout from the Dan Rather fiasco over using forged documents to attack President Bush's National Guard service, CBS has killed a "60 Minutes" report that accused Bush of using forged documents to justify the Iraq war.
I just squirted coffee out my nose...
Insiders said the report was killed because it would make the network a laughingstock by criticizing anyone else over dubious documents after insisting for 12 days that Rather's forgeries were real.
Gee. Golly. Y'think?
The official reason from "60 Minutes" spokeswoman Kelli Edwards was: "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."
"Instead we'll just go on-screen and chant in unison "Bush lied! People died!" for the full 60 Minutes..."
The report, by veteran journalist Ed Bradley, was supposed to air Sept. 8 but got bumped for Rather's forgery fiasco. The shelved CBS report accused the White House of relying on obviously fake documents that purportedly showed Iraq sought "yellowcake" uranium from the African nation of Niger to use in a nuclear-weapons program.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2004 12:24:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think its time 60 minutes (along with all of its hosts) be put out to pasture.
The thing is -- Iraq really did seek yellowcake in Nigeria....
I heard these Niger docs were forged by the French Intel service, and were much more accurate forgeries than those cooked up by Lockhart & Burkett's mystery woman.
#6
And once again, twirling his moustache as he flings his black cape, Karl Rove disappears into the night, with a menacing "BWAHAHAHAHAHA!" Which leaves a solitary maintenance worker the unpleasant task of cleaning up those railroad tracks.
#7
TGA, it all has to do with the translation from French to English. Whenever something is written in French it looks and sounds real enough. But under scrutiny the truth is not in the words. EXAMPLE: Prior to WWII the Maginot Line was said to be impregnable by French officials. Of course the Germans didnât bother reading the French reports and just rolled over France in a couple of weeks. My conclusion is we have to stop reading French too and just KICK ASS!
The Federal Election Commission received a complaint Thursday asking that CBS be punished for broadcasting a "political attack ad" against President Bush in violation of campaign finance laws. The complaint, filed by the Center for Individual Freedom, accuses CBS and the Kerry campaign of colluding on a calculated attack on Bush. The network's "60 Minutes" program aired a now infamous segment Sept. 8 featuring discredited documents on Bush's National Guard service. "The broadcast segment bore far more resemblance to a political attack advertisement coordinated with and supported by the opponent's campaign and political party than to a journalistically sound, well-researched 'news story,' " according to the group's complaint.
The center's executive director, Jeff Mazzella, described the connections between CBS and the Kerry campaign as improper and in conflict with journalism ethics. He also said the network's actions violated federal campaign laws. Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart has acknowledged that CBS News producer Mary Mapes called him Sept. 4. Lockhart proceeded to make a Sept. 5 call to former Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, which allowed Mapes to advance the story on the purported Bush records. "If there had been no coordination, there would have been no attack story," Mazzella said. "CBS would not have been able to use the documents it so desperately needed for its assault on President Bush if one of its producers hadn't coordinated with the Kerry campaign."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/26/2004 5:26:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Center's web site claims to be non-partisan, but the fact they're for individual freedom rather than "social progress" or somesuch (and a tribute to Reagan) indicates they sit to the right of the aisle.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/26/2004 01:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This guy had a religious "come to Jesus" moment with an ole Dummycrat buddy who sides with the Swiftees. Given his conversion, he probably won't last at WaPo.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/26/2004 1:39 Comments ||
Top||
I followed a thread from CrushKerry.com to it. If it's legitimate, the document certainly makes Zell Miller's argument look awful good. The document even looks like it might have been generated on a typewriter.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/26/2004 1:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, he was right on the Division Air Defense Gun. :).....
#1
"The United States didn't join in the pledge to fight hunger and poverty. The Bush administration objected to proposals for international taxes as undemocratic and impossible to implement.
Why don't we have those honest UN Oil for Food Program managers headed by Coffee Ann Ann manage the fund?
"The Catholic Church assures all its commitment to eradicating the scourge of hunger and the other consequences of poverty from the world," the pope said.
John Paul: "We urge the UN to use all available OPM (Other People's Money) to be the foucus point of this effort. Just don't look for the Vatican to sell off any of our massive land holdings or the Pope Mobile." "We also share in the suffering of the poor and starving. Just last week my request to replace all of the Vatican's solid gold bathroom fixtures with solid Platinum ones was denied. Again, I feel your pain."
#3
As a Catholic, sometimes I just have to shake my head in disappointment (pedophile priests, this nonsense, etc.). Too many Jesuit socialists in positions of power in the hierarchy. The only thing that makes us look good is the Anglican church and ecumenical council (ECC)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/26/2004 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yeah, there's an imbalance of wealth in the world.
So the extremely wealthy Vatican should should give most of its wealth to the poor.
What, that's not what he means?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/26/2004 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Here's an interesting point Papa - in those countries in which woman are respected and given, both in word and practice, equal protection of the law as men, the imbalance of wealth seems to be the least. So, if you now just convince those states out of balance to simply modify their behavior, they can correct a major underlying cause for their materialistic poverty [not masked by waves of petro-dollars].
Posted by: Don ||
09/26/2004 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Why, Don, that might require affirmative action for women in the Vatican and further the cause for women as priests! Can't do that.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/26/2004 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Photo caption: "Pope John Paul II gestures during his weekly Sunday Angelus prayer"
It looks like a very angry prayer.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/26/2004 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
So the extremely wealthy Vatican should should give most of its wealth to the poor.
You beat me to it, Barbara. Thank you. Until the Catholic church can practice what it preaches, right down to equality for women both in the church and Islamic countries, they need to ... uh ... indulge in a little more silent contemplative meditation. Yes ... that's it, "silent contemplative meditation" is just what I wanted to say.
How the Church was so able to denounce communism and yet now remains utterly mute regarding the horrible abuse of women in Islamic countries is damning evidence of their bias towards blind belief instead of truly introspective spiritual discovery.
#12
Be gentle with the Prince of the Church; the market has been very bad for blue chips lately....... and those pedophilia dues the church is paying are a real drag on the bottom line.
#13
If there's anyone still willing, I call for a Fifth Crusade. Honestly.
Edward, that is something that I cannot do ... quite yet.
An honest-to-goodness Crusade is a tragedy that Islam will have to bring upon itself. A scant few more 9-11 or 3-11 atrocities will do it.
That sand is running out of Islam's hourglass. While they obviously think that there is an endless supply of it in their region, others do not have quite as much use for such a lot of sand. Glass, on the other hand, has many useful applications ...
One nuclear terrorist attack will be all it takes to trigger an actual Crusade. Unless Muslims everywhere vocally condemn and actively agitate against terrorism, their lives aren't worth a plug nickel.
#14
I protest, guess that make me a protestant. I could care less what his holey ness says. It has no bearing on me what so ever. Martin Luther took care of that.
#15
The Catholic Church is right - we need to help the poor. IF you are a Christian it is incumbent upon you to do so.
(my opinion starts here)
Where the Vatican loses it is that they try the same old methods - government coercion instead of appealing to authentic Christian Charity.
Face it - taxes, in the end are a form of force: if you do not pay them, you go to jail. If you reist going to jail, you get manhandled by the police/state. If you resist that, you get shot and possibly killed.
I do not stand with the Vatican in the METHOD used to help the poor. I believe they have become misguided in that they have ignored a primary premise: all people should be treated as ends in themselves, not as a means to other's ends.
The most effective ministry I have ever seen for the poor is the Soup Kitchen run by our Parish. 100% volunteer staff, dontations for the Parish fo food, time and money, and donations of the "dented cans" and "day old" fresh goods from local supermarkets and restaurants. People get fed a hot meal, no questions asked, no sermons.
If the Vatican would advocate that (and press home the duty of Catholics to get involved in Life and Human Dignity issues), they'd be far more effective than when they essentially advocate taking my money at the point of a government gun.
#16
FYI women are equals in the church except for the scriptural and liturgical limits placed upon them in the Gospel.
If you wish to bend rules to suit your tastes, you may as well start pulling in gay marriage, polygamy, etc. That's the "go along get along" Catholic Church that countenanced and hid the Paedophile Priests. Of course that applies to more parts of the church than just female clergy. See above for how messed up the Vatican does get on social justice issues at times.
Women and men are not equal - we never have been and never will be. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses that allow us to fill some roles better than others. The dogma of the Church recognizes and reflects this fact.
#17
As far as men and women being differently treated in the Theology of the Catholic Church, it goes back to Genesis and the story of the creation - men and women bear different "curses". Its part of the theology of the Christian Church tath continues through the new testiment. Before the "curse", Eve gets the protoevangalium - note that Adam is not given the lineage, but Eve is. (Its only later in the Priestly accounts that male-oriented lineages come out - all the "begat - begot" stuff. The Yahwists approach things differently).
Yes, I'm a bit of a closet Biblical scholar, teaching myself Hebrew and Greek when I need to "drill down" on a particular passage - the King James is especially bad, and even the RSV hides some of the meaning and a lot of the Hebrew word-play that goes on in the Pentateuch - for instance, "Adam" Hebrew is a hominym [sound-alike] for "dirt". As an example of a missed connotation is the verse "God created man in His image, in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them." The "man" that was created is actually carries a connotation more like "humanity" as opposed to "a man". Not to mention the different connotations and social context for "in His image" (remember Hebrew had no word for "souls" so thats not part of the theology - the seperation of Body and Soul is a Greek concept that came into Judiasm when the Greeks conquered them).
Even the New Testament has some of these problems - consider the last line of the "Lord's Prayer": "Do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil". the Temptation" is more correctly rendered as "Do not put us to the test" - its an appeal for God to not let bad thigns happen to us where our faith will be tested, not God leading us by the nose into strip bars; similarly the "evil" we are to be "delivered from" is not a generic evil - the greek points more to a translation rendering "the evil one" and not "deliver" but to keep the evil one in abeyance.
As for the "men only" priesthood - its a long and detaield bit of Catholic theology, which, if you do not accept the Magesterium (apostolic teaching authority) of the Catholic Church, then you are free to disagree (protest = Protestant).
It breaks down to Christ using priests as His represntatives here (going back to all the Apostles being male, when, if Christ had willed it, He certainly could have ordained Mary of Magdala). And the theology of Jesus being the the "New Adam" (and Mary the "New Eve") for the New Covenant comes into consideration.
And priests are "in persona Christi" in their relationship between the Church and Christ - and "alter Chriustus" in acting as the presence of Christ.
There are further issues: the Church as the bridegroom of Christ (hence the Church is female - and only males are eligible to be Married to the Church as all priests and bishops claim - the Bishops even wear a ring as a symbol of thier marriage to the diocese)
Well, thats enough theology... you Non-Catholics can feel free to ignore it.
Some underpublicized facts, excerpted from Arthur E. Deway, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration in his 9/21 statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.
[...] As President Bush said last June, it is important that America be a welcoming society. We lead the world in offering resettlement to those in need, and we encourage other countries to develop resettlement programs. The US is an illogical society. In the aftermath of an attack from an alien culture, in the face of world wide ridicule, we don't close down immigration we open up our doors wider.
[...] These initiatives, which I will discuss, helped us attain our ambitious goals for the Fiscal Year 2004 program. After 2 years of adjusting to the changes brought about by 9/11, and continuing to respond to the end of Cold War, we have made a robust program. When September 30 arrives, based on anticipated developments, we project that refugee admissions will have increased nearly 80% over FY 2003, despite logistical and security challenges that kept per capita costs high -- $3,500 per refugee admitted compared to $2,200 in FY 2001. So long as we receive adequate funding, I am confident that we have a system in place that is capable of sustaining or increasing admissions numbers in coming years.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/26/2004 1:03:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
Thailand was scrambling to determine whether bird flu struck five people in a northern province as the World Health Organisation expressed concern that human-to-human transmission of the lethal virus had occurred. An intense investigation has focused on Kamphaeng Phet province, where a boy and a girl who died this month of severe pneumonia after coming into contact with dying chickens are listed as suspect bird flu cases. The 11-year-old girl's mother, who lived near Bangkok but traveled north to visit her daughter in hospital and then attend her funeral, returned to the Thai capital where she too fell ill and died. Her death is also on the suspect list.
#2
Aw, the poor wittle Muslims . . . confused by mosques calling at different times . . .
Evidently using your own watch to determine the time is unIslamic. Maybe because it forces you to think for yourself. After all, if you have to think to set your watch alarm, Allah only knows what you'll start thinking next . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
09/26/2004 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Everyday I receive complaints from people about the loudspeakers and when I ask them to make official complaints, they say they were afraid of being accused of being infidels or acting against religion," Zaqzouq said.
Which place is this, Cairo or Hamtramck? I'm sooooo confused!
"The opponents say this initiative is an American one, as if every step of reform should come through instructions from America," Zaqzouq said.
Patience, dear little Zaqzouq. This is only the beginning of "instructions from America." You had better get used to it.
So, is no one else here able to see Egypt's real intention behind synchronizing the azan? Confusion has nothing to do with it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Imagine how much more simple it will be for the mutawwaâin to identify and punish those slackers who are summoned to prayer and do not respond with alacrity. Your local thought police in action.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
