Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:24 PM:Of the 935 lies purportedly told by George Bush, how many of them happened while he was "under oath"? How does that compare to the number of lies told "under oath" by his predecessor, Bill Clinton?

SWORN AT wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:56 PM:
Floyd asks how many of Bush's lies were under oath. Wrong question.
How many times did Bush refuse to testify under oath or allow his subordinates to do so?
How many people died as a result of Clinton lying about a purely personal matter?

The Crowing Hen .. wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:41 AM: … I woke up Wednesday morning to the noisy crowing of a hen. Not a rooster, mind you. I flicked my radio on before getting out of bed, and there was Hillary crowing about conquering Texas and causing the sun to rise on Beaumont. All that crowing, but no egg. Seems that Obama routed her in phase 2, the caucuses, winning 56%, vs. only 44% for Hillary. The net result: Obama won 91 delegates, and Hillary won 92 delegates. Hardly anything to crow about.

Expat Doug wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:08 AM:To Jack Wickstrom:

The actions, attitudes, and words of these radio hosts is why its called "Talk Radio" and not "Think Radio".

I do my part, by turning the dial, to keep it "Talk Radio" and not "Listen Radio"!

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:22 AM:Before you change the subject, the correct answer is Bush did not lie under oath and Bill Clinton did. If you try that line about sex on the job being "purely personal", you'll find it's just not true.

Marky Marx to Chris wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:24 AM:Your post from yesterday; “Most of these Marines are wet behind the ears and so full of this Semper Fi propaganda that they don't know what is going on in the real world of the Iraqis.” DOOOOODE That is so right on. I mean how would the Marines who’ve been there know what’s REALLY going on in Iraq. BTW, are you being home schooled, I think it’s really cool that your parents allow you time to interact on the internet with adults; you have so much to offer. Power to the peeps.

RE: Regaining Trust wrote on Mar 6, 2008 1:30 AM:How about quit censuring the blogs and print all that do no libel? How about covering important issues?

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:42 AM:Surely, I can sympathize with you, Kristine Hoyt. But look at this from an insurance point of view. The tree is 100 years old, and should Longs Drug buy the lot, the "tree" becomes their problem. Now, with 50-60 mph Santa Ana's blowing through the back country.. What if that tree just happens to fall on your car, parked in their parking lot? Are you then going to sue them cause your car got smashed by a tree you wanted to saved?

So help me God wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:42 AM:Floyd gives Bush too much credit. The 935 alledged lies were only about Iraq and were told by Bush et al. But what about the big one, when GWB put his hand on the Bible, took the oath of office and swore to uphold the Constitution?

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:16 AM:Interesting contrast in letters, between Helen Garcia today, and
Bridget Canchola back on Feb. 24.
Both appear to have Hispanic last names, so what is the difference here?
Helen Garcia apparently has no problem with a growing Hispanic community, and business's catering to those consumers.
While Bridget Canchola appears to want Hispanics to become more "American-ized." How one Latino can call another Latino prejudiced or fearful of their own ethnicity, is beyond me, but that's what Helen said. Go figuire.
As far as the "Little Mexico in Fallbrook" comment is concerned. Can that really be explained as being racist, prejudiced or fearful? I don't think so.
Being a white American myself, I've used the term "trailer park trash", which stereotypically denotes poor white people. My comment has nothing to do with their race, as much as it does the way they live, which to me, appears trashy. Perhaps Bridget Canchola is refering to maybe too many broken down cars on the front lawn? Or corn growing in the front yard? As is seen in Mexico, but typically not in America.
I've seen the exact same thing in trailer parks, so to me, it's not a racial remark. It's descriptive, perhaps a comparison of things she saw in Mexico. I have no dog in this fight, but it is interesting to see both sides, from Hispanic-Americans. One would hope, that one side would not attempt to silence the other by the use of these politically correct terms, simply because they disagree on what America should "look like."

To Kay; wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:17 AM:Just because the NCT's paper does not front for Jim Wood does not mean they are bias. Take off the rose colored glasses and you will also see this man's facade.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:31 AM:Speaking of "Today's bloopers are tomorrow's collectibles", Harry Hill.
I can't help but think that John McCain's remark the otherday will come back to haunt him. What am I talking about?
McCain told a crowd at Texas Instruments; QUOTE: "I will conduct a respectful debate. Now, it will be spirited because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica--- conservative Republican," he said, catching himself. "Hello?" he said as the crowd laughed. "Easy there." END QUOTE
That blooper will become tomorrow's collectible arrow in the DNC quiver as a strategy, when in fact, they will be engaging in senior bashing.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:13 AM:My first thought about Jim Wickstrom is: Does he work for Media Matters? I mean, they are the guy's who sit around all day listening to Right-wing radio, waiting for someone to "slip-up." I thought we lived in a free speech country? It's almost a Gestapo type mentality here. And really, how many listeners does Sean Hannity really have here? a million, 2? But, I digress...
I got news for Jim Wickstrom of "who" exactly is going after Obama. You might want to check the Hillary campaign. All roads seem to lead back to her campaign, and their surrogates.
And with 7 weeks to go until Pennsylvania those two are going to batter & bloody each other, more than any radio jock could ever do. Might I turn your attention to a quote of headlines from the otherday? According to the Los Angeles Times: "Going negative proved positive in Clinton's comeback."
Or how about the Asia Times: "Mud flies, Clinton wins." Wow! This things gone global?!
But my favorite comes from The Tennessean:
"Hillary resorts to desperate tactics to stay in the race."
7 weeks til what the Washington Post describes as: "Pennsylvanians Get Set for 'Iowa on Steroids'" Yes... yes It will.

to Floyd wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:16 AM:Are you honestly saying that a concerted effort to fabricate a reason for sending American troops to war, to die, is trivial compared to a lie under oath about an affair? Can you really be saying this? And are you saying that even though Clinton's lie disturbs you no end, that Bush's refusal to go under oath numerous times is ducky with you? Are you serious?

Karl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:16 AM:Scott Thom, have you checked out how much the government soaks us at the pump? State and federal taxes are 52.4 cents per gallon . California trails only Hawaii and Nevada as the most taxed states for gasoline (source California Energy Commission). This is 15% of the cost of gas at 3.50 cents per gallon. Think about it 15% and our government does not pull it out of the ground, refine it or truck it to distribution centers. I'd like to own a business that turns a profit like that for doing nothing.

Karl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:22 AM:Ditto to what Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 at 7:13 AM. I just had to throw that one in to stir the pot today. I'm off to play golf, have at it.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:33 AM:Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:24 PM Conservative tactic to deflect issue of Bush lies by comparing them to alleged lies of Bill Clinton. Clinton is not the issue. Bush is. He and his administration at his bidding told 935 lies that duped the American people into initial support of the Iraq War. A lie is a lie whether it is told under oath or not told under oath. God ain't going to ask you if you were under oath when He rhetorically asks you about your veracity.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:38 AM:I realize it's only one story, but that's two letters today {Harry Hill & Mari Hayden} about a wrong story: i.e. Pet sterilization becomes law in Los Angeles, Feb. 27.
Which bring me back to "my" favorite subject: The Gold Standard of Peer-Review.
QUOTE: "Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermines at least one of its main conclusions. Peer review is not considered a failure in cases of deliberate fraud by authors. Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters. Some do not even publish letters. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure.

Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust. It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the author's work, unless the paper deals with purely theoretical problems which the reviewer can follow in a step-by-step manner." END QUOTE
Let me state that one part, in particular, because it is my favorite:

Peer review, in scientific journals, ASSUMES that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is NOT DESIGNED to detect fraud.
Thus, the readers are left to decide "for themselves" if there was a peer review failure. And that takes research, lot's of research.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:43 AM:Oops! Three, my bad. Totally missed Kay Parker. Good thing we have a lot of people who really do take peer-review serious, and call the paper into question, when they print a bad story.
Which bring it full circle, doesn't it?
"Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure."
Thank you Kay!

ILLegals and crime... wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:44 AM:Mari Hayden points out some very disturbing info on illegals commiting terrible crimes against Americans, our children and how these children would be alive right now had our gov't been enforcing our laws and securing our borders. I took a minute to examine the website Gary Walker mentions at the end of his letter and was floored by what I read. I would recommend every concerned person go to that website for a very sobering experience. If the media reported the sad truth about the huge numbers of illegal alien crimes against Americans, that would probably change peoples perceptions quicker than anything else.

Nick wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:49 AM:Did anyone ever catch the ad in National Geographic from Allstate Auto Insurance? It says "The #1 killer of teenagers doesn't have a trigger, it has a steering wheel". You don't see them trying to ban and outlaw cars do you?

NIck wrote on Mar 6, 2008 7:53 AM:Thanks "Ron" & "Illegals and Crime"...... here comes "SD Raoul" and "The Peer-Reviewed Whizzer".

Nick wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:20 AM:Let's talk a little about weapons bans. Rwanda and Sierra Leone banned private gun ownership a long time ago, yet more than 1 Million people have been hacked to death over the last 10 years.
In the U.S., the states with the highest gun-ownership rates have by far the lowest violent-crime rates, and states with the tightest gun control laws have some of the highest violent crime rates, take Washinton D.C. for example.
Research by Jeff Miron at Boston University, examining homicide rates across 44 countries, found that countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. News reports in Britain showed how crimes with guns have risen 40 percent in the four years after handguns were banned in 1997. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but almost always arrive on the scene after the crime occurs.
It makes you wonder why the U.N. is pushing for a ban on ALL firearms around the world. They are still on a mission to ban firearms in the U.S. Good old D-CA Senator Feinstein was right there at the U.N. Summits going along with the U.N. and thumbing her nose at our 2nd Amendment rights, at least John Bolton put a stop to the nonsense.

I wonder wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:32 AM:When Michael Savage refers to Obama as "Hussein" I wonder if he tells his audience that it's not him saying it, that he's just repeating what Hillary said. Or if he has the integrity to take responsibility for his own behavior, whoever "said it first" (is this elementary school?). Our own friend Ron has no such integrity. He's like the schoolyard gossip girl, saying that Hillary said such and such about Obama, thereby insulting them both, and pretending to have no mouth himself. Great stuff Rhonnie.

Statistics and statistics wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:34 AM:In the world, Nick, the country with the highest gun-ownership rates have by far the highest violent crime rate and countries with the tightest gun control laws have some of the lowest violent crime rates.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:44 AM:Thanks to Nick for a plethora of information on the North American Union. Interesting stuff, although I do hope it is not true. The meetings between the three leaders have been documented. It is hard to believe we don't hear more about it in the mainstream media. The Wizz showed his true colors on the subject, 'nough said. BTW, I may be one of the few here who knows what MSCE is. I worked for a MSP during Y2K and my job was to help people understand that Y2K would have the same effect on our solution as it would have on a light bulb. Not sure if the Wiz would get that, but it was true. Thanks Nick, Regards C-1.

More straw from Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:02 AM:Ron, as you have been told here many times, no one claims that the peer-review process is perfect. The only thing DD or anyone else claims is that it's the best we have. Do you want to be a man and say straightforwardly that you believe that peer reviewed material is no better than any opinion piece because there are times when a faked paper gets through? Or that there are better sources of scientific information? No, of course not, because you don't believe these things. You're like the kid in the girls' room in 4th grade, whispering about others but never, ever daring to say what you are insinuating (because you know it's bunk). I can't understand why you persist in such nonsense despite being corrected so many times. Really, what's your problem with sticking to truth? What's your problem with even being corrected?

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:07 AM:Now, there are two sides to this story: "Oil companies are monsters in America." Scott Thom gave you his version, let me give you mine.
While it is true that Exxon-Mobil did post the largest single profit in history, they also paid the highest corporate tax on that profit. Now, no one is fooling anyone here, it's our money that pays their corporate taxes, if structured properly.
But, I'm pretty sure that no one knows that Exxon-Mobil's tax payment in 2007 was $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000).
And that is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid in 2006.
By the way, Exxon-Mobil paid it's taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income.
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes.
In fact, according to the IRS, Exxon-Mobil pays as much money in taxes, than the 65 million workers in the lowest tax bracket, the lower 50% of taxpayers.
But, it's not even that, that Exxon-Mobil would pay more, or less. It's irrelavent. What's relavent is this:
This Government requires Exxon-Mobil to pay these high taxes, and Exxon-Mobil gets their tax money from you, the consumer. So, who really is paying this tax? That's right, you are! Everyone like to think of this in very short-sighted, linear terms. It simply does not work like that. They take from one, and it rolls downhill to you. This Government is not doing you any favors, by taxing Exxon-Mobil. They are not doing you any favors by taxing higher earning small business's. Ultimately, YOU pay the tax. It's worked into the selling price. We all know the Fed's take their .18 cents, then the State takes their .18 cents for State
Excise, plus another .14 cents for Other State Taxes {California all by itself has .32 cents a gallon} making the taxation between State & Federal: .50 cents per gallon before figuiring local sales taxes. Exxon-Mobil makes roughly .09-.10 cents per gallon.
On a gallon of gasoline the State & the Fed's earn .50 cents. Now, really... Who's got their fingers deeper in your pocket?

Alf wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:24 AM:Well, "So help me God" at 5:42AM, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." does not seem to be anything binding, at least not to GWB. He has neither preserved, nor protected nor defended the Constitution. Quite the opposite, he has sought to do as much damage to the Constitution as he is able to do and with the help of The Cheney Branch, has succeeded in violating the 4th and 14th Amendments as well as habeas corpus rights of the American People, he will only stop if removed from office either by time or IMPEACHMENT. I do hope that whoever becomes the next President has more honor and a willingness to put an end to the types of abuses of power that GWB has perpetrated upon the American People. Regards, Alf.

The Economy, etc wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:35 AM:Well, I guess the Bushies can no longer say that the state of the US economy is something Bush can brag about. Should we blame him for the recession? If this were happening with Clinton in office, would we have blamed Clinton? And a small bomb detonated in Times Square. Does this mean the Bushies can no longer say he's protected us from terror since 911? Confusing, isn't it? I mean in Britain and Spain, their respective leaders were Bushies and both countries were hit by terrorists, the leaders were ousted, and there've been no attacks on those nations since. Sure is hard to pour all this complexity into an either-or mold!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:36 AM: The post from "Concerned-1" (9:02am) echoes those from the post added this morning at 12:00am by "Nick" near the end of yesterday's (3/5) posts, making a big deal about the MCSE and denigrating the PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE behind computer technology, as well as minimizing the seriousness of the Y2K bug that got FIXED because people actually listened to the "alarmists" and spent the dollars and labor to fix it.
I do not have my MCSE Certification and detailed computer knowledge is admittedly way over my head. I do not blather on about things I know nothing, and in an anonymous forum, do not claim to justify ANYTHING based on my own expertise, of which I claim none. I always back it up from outside sources.
That said, I do know what an MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) is. It is a technical certification by a specific computer provider (Microsoft) for technicians to be able to design, implement and configure software for various Microsoft operating systems. IT IS NOT AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE.
In contrast, my older brother graduated first in his class from a four-year college with a DEGREE (Bachelor of Science) in computer science. Upon graduation, he went to work for 3M for several years designing and engineering both hardware and software interfaces for large mainfraime computers, later coming back to Southern California to design hardware/software interfaces for advanced instrumentation systems at Beckman Instruments in Brea, CA, before leaving with other advanced engineers to form a very successful business.
While I have subsequently had the fortune to write published articles for pay in national magazines, my older brother beat me to it by having an article published several years ago on the actual design of computer chips. This was NOT published in "PC World" or any trade magazine, but in the kind of PEER-REVIEWED TECHNICAL JOURNAL that "Nick," who just has a techinician's certificate, denies even exists.
In addition to doing subcontract work for my brother's company (technical assistance in providing publishing for documentation, etc.) I have also done the same kind of subcontract work for large computer departments at major companies and know that high level engineers who design the actual CPU chip systems and operating systems, rather than "solutions" to run on an already-existing platform that others (systems engineers at Microsoft) have designed, are at a completely different level than an MCSE. An MCSE does not need to read PEER-REVIEWED technical journals, much less contribute to one. A full-blown systems engineer does. "Nick" is so far below that level he doesn't even know what it is!
For examples of the kind of PEER-REVIEWED technical journals in computer technology that "Nick" hasn't even heard of, go to Google SCHOLAR (where search results are restricted to peer-reviewed scholarly journals) and type in "central processing unit" or some other computer term and find sources that come from these types of publications.
And by the way, the first time I heard about Y2K was long before the turn of the century when he and others were already at work designing exactly the kinds of fixes that addressed this problem because people actually listened to the "alarmists," spent billions in dollars and labor and actually fixed the problem and, even so, there were sporadic problems that popped up at every one of the companies I contract with, though all of them tried to minimize public exposure to them for publicity reasons.
As I said, "Nick" denigrates and belittles the real science in PEER-REVIEWED journals that creates his computers, communications devices, and medical technology that he is, nevertheless, so eager to use in his everyday life. He rejects competent technical sources, but believes wacko, crackpot Internet rumors about claims of free trade agreements including provisions to "abolish the constitution," which was the original claim from "Concerned-1" (3/5 - 8:35 and 11:14am) I responded to that got him so worked up.

Nick wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:46 AM:To Concerned-1: You are more than welcome. You see, our Government has all the facts and info, they just have it buried and hard to find. Do like I did, and look into the Departments that have formed and then read the actual reports they are giving and it is downright scary. Far more that "The Hype called Global Warming" and Y2K.
It's also good to know there are actually some knowledgable computer folks out there as well.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:49 AM:To "Statistics and statistics": I have the facts, figures, and studies to prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. Washington D.C. has the tightest gun control laws in the Country, and they also have the highest violent crime rate as well. Shoot, just take a look at Baltimore, nuff said!

PEER REVIEW wrote on Mar 6, 2008 9:56 AM:Question for Nick and Concerned-1:
For the record, please clarify:
Are you denying the existence of peer-reviewed journals in computer science?
Simple YES or NO response would be adequate.
Comment for Ron: as "More straw" noted, the peer review process is not perfect, just the highest standard we have so far.
That said, there are many examples of peer reviewed work, in all fields, where there are not only possible errors (including intentional fraud), but also conflicting conclusions and differing interpretations of data. It's just that the debate at that level is at a high level of sophistication, and in those areas there is no claim of a consensus, and it is said that the subject material is "not settled."
I think the point from DDWhiz is to point out that, at this highest level, the subject of climate change actually is settled because there is a virtually unanimous consensus.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:07 AM:What "fabricated reason"? The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 offering Iraq one last chance to comply with resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284. Hussein refused, as he had done during the preceding 12 years, so a multi-national force (including the USA) was assembled for enforcement purposes. It wasn't just "weapons of mass destruction" that caused the world to intervene: it was also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, human rights violations, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, using the proceeds of the "oil for food" program to buy weapons instead of food, withholding medical supplies donated by caring people worldwide, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991. In addition, Iraq was found to have breached it's obligations because it issued false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted to the UN. The world in general and Iraq in particular is now much better-off.

Karl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:18 AM:To "I wonder wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:32 AM" Your blinders are on so tight you can't even see the forest.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:24 AM:Paul Puma today, brings up a very good point, and I think that needs to be explored a little. He says: Based on his "15 years and discussions with business and government people there. The fact is that there is a mentality there that puts all infidels in the realm of the insect area and feels justified in stamping them out."
You know, Thomas Jefferson was probably the first American leader to take on this idea of "infidels being insects."
In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

"The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven."
Now, fast forward to today, and Bin Laden. What exactly is Bin Laden's "beef" with "the West?"
He focuses almost totally on two themes in his 1996 FATWA, entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
He is fixated on "Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators." And the source appears to be Muslim blood, spilled in "Palestine and Iraq."
Not once in his Fatwa does he mention the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, or the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. Many people cite this one case, as a root cause, but in OBL's own fatwa, he never cites it.
He instead focuses on Israels occupation of Palestine, and our occupation, at that time, in Saudia Arabia after the first Gulf War. It seems pretty obvious, to me, that what he wants is an ALL Arab Muslim territory in the Middle-East. As to Israel, he must see the United States as "propping up" this Zionist-Crusader in one of the two Holy sites. The other, I assume, is Mecca, when we once had armies in Saudia Arabia. And he's obviously miffed about secular Saud's allowing infidels onto the other Holy site. But, his mention of Iraq in 1996, is interesting. The only action we had taken then was to push Hussein back into Iraq from Kuwait. We had the whole world, the UN backing that war. And yet, he still finds this offensive, even though, we are told, that these two men, OBL & Hussein were sworn enemies.
In the end, what brings his thoughts together, for me, at least. Is his ressertation of the Muslim countries he cites as being victims of this so-called Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators, he lists: Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan. What he is listing are countries that were once under an Islamic Caliphate in the 12th century.
Interesting, huh?

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:32 AM:Karl @7:22 AM, "I'm off to play golf, have at it." Then {head snappping} ...
Karl @10:18 AM? Short day, buddy? Either that, or your fast! LOL

Chris to Just Curious wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:32 AM:Do you have any response to my blog for 9:05 pm yesterday? ...

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:33 AM: The post from "DD Wiz" (ME) (9:36am) requires a correction.
I stated incorrectly that I was responding to the post from "Concerned-1" at 9:02am.
Actually, the correct time of the post from "Concerned-1" that I intended to cite was 8:44am.
My error :-(

Publius wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:40 AM:Alf welcome back. We were worried about you. Thought maybe you had gotten into a bad batch of deviled eggs. Alright, alright......you've made your feelings about GWB and Co. perfectly clear on SEVERAL occasions, but how do you feel about the new field of liars? Cheers

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:40 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (10:07am) confirms that he knows as little about international relations as he does about science.
He cites the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and Saddam Hussein's ALLEGED violations of it as a justification for our ILLEGAL invasion.
This confirms "Floyd's" abject ignorance of the U.N. Charter, which in Chapter Seven (notably Articles 45, 48, and 5-51) specifies that enforcement of U.N. violations can ONLY be done by international action directed by the U.N., and NOT by individual member nations.
Thus, because the U.S. Constitution states in Article VI that itself and foreign treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land" superseding all other statutes passed by any state.
In violating the U.N. Charter to which we are signatories, the U.S. was not only in violation of International law, but also the Constitution. This should have been an impeachable offense.

Concerned-1 to Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:41 AM:Wiz, you have a serious inferiority complex. It's okay, we all know you are smart and verbose and profoundly opinionated. Now, go back to your Mac and let it all go...again.

Chris to Marky Marx wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:42 AM:You know I am talking about the lives of the Iraqis. Do these Marines live with them. Do these Marines go and visit the refugee camps. No. Do these Marines go to Syria and Jordan and talk to the refugees there. No. Do these Marines get involved in the politics and do they have access to the goings on behinde the scenes concerning seeing what is happening with the taxpayer money that is missing and reconstruction that isn't done or done properly? No. So this Idea that these Marines know what is going on just because they live in a fort and patrol a nice safe neighborhood is nonsense. How much does a janitor know about the decisions and problems facing General Motors? Nothing or only what propaganda the management wants them to believe. Have you got that now.

Chris to Floyd the Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:59 AM:Your science is off. All the missles that exceded the allowed range were being destroyed. You talk about Hussein witholding medical supplies. No it was the United States that was not allowing the needed medical supplies, that were exempted under the U.N. sactions,. Go to Cool war if you really care about getting your science right. You say Husseing was purchasing and importing prohibited weapons. What weapons. There were no prohibited weapons found after our invasion...

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:00 AM:Then what problem should you have with my pointing out it's own faults? More straw from Ron @9:02 AM? Nothing. In fact, you should be in agreement with me, in attempting to perfect the process, by exposing it's problems, rather than clinging to it as a means to resist any new information, that might happen to conflict with your world view.
For example, I say: The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. i.e. climate change. You say: The debate is over. Now, You tell me. How is that science?
I say: Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them.
You say: No, it's an open system, except... when they are funded by Big Oil, then they can't participate in any process because their tainted.
I just disagree. I've repeatedly pointed out that Lenny Bernstein, a 31 year veteran of Exxon-Mobil is the presiding author of the IPCC #3 & #4 reports. Apparently, he's good enough for this "Gold Standard." So, my natural question is:
Why not other scientists who disagree with the IPCC, or these so-called Elite Scientific Journals? Regardless of who funds them, or their perspective? Science is a continuing debate, the process is one of poking and prodding to find holes in theory. Either to recreate it or not, thus validating it, or defeating it.
If jealous reviewers prevent dissenting scientists from participation in elite journals, you do not have a real process. You, in fact, have an artificial one.
In order to be truly objective, you must listen, and consider other theories that might go against yours. But, to shut them down, or attempt to shut them up, or discount them by who or what funds them, just shows me, you don't trust your science to stand up to the strict scrutiny.
And to use the retort that all the scientists are on OUR side, is nonsense.
At one time, in all science, one lonely scientist took on the entire scientific world, lived through the repression, the rebukes, and the dismissals, only to have his theory proved. To deny there might be other causations, is to deny science. The science is not settled, it has in fact, turned political in a very, very dangerous way.
And before we start making massive changes to the way we do business, I'd personally like to know we're not chasing down a rabbit trail. Because, once we've enacted all of these massive carbon trading schemes, taxes, mercury filled lightbulbs, and smaller cars, I'd like to know were moving in the right direction. Wouldn't you?

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:00 AM:Hey, DD Wiz, you're slipping! Those "alleged" violations were shown to be true. And as you'll recall, it was a coalition of nations that took action against Iraq, not any one individual member nation. It looks like you may be a victim of the LIBERAL FUSILLADE OF BLATHER as well as an advocate, since you repeat the party line so well.

To DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:00 AM:Any programmer that was worth his weight dealt with the Y2K issue long before it became one. The VAST majority of that concern was basically a hoax used by consultants and fear-mongers to make a buck.

Art wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:03 AM:I'm sure everyone knows that computer professionals say MCSE is short for Minesweeper Consultant, Solitare Expert.

to Floyd and DD wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:07 AM:DD makes a crucial point about the UN Charter that all Bush-defenders should note. I would only add that I was long ago sick to death of people saying that playing games with UN inspectors, and therefore violating UN resolutions, is in fact a valid justification for a bombing and invasion of a sovereign nation. From a moral perspective, a war is justified only if there is a real threat and if all else has failed. Neither of these conditions held in 2002, and the mind games that Saddam might have played with Bush or the UN are really irrelevant. In addition, we now know full well that Bush trumped up what meager arguments he made at the time. To me, this fabricated and orchestrated effort to justify an invasion is by miles more serious a crime than anything Saddam did in relation to the UN resolutions. That Americans can treat war so lightly absolutely boggles my mind in moral horror.

But Floyd wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:10 AM:Sorry, but you seem unable to read. As DD said, it was not the UN that directed the attack. It doesn't matter whether it was one or twenty nations in the "coalition", they were still individual member states acting on their own. Comprende? The invasion was, pure and simple, a violation of international law and the UN charter, and the US Constitution. It was also immoral to the core. Shameful. Do you see much difference between Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and our invasion of Iraq? I sure don't.

Chris to moderator wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:11 AM:I have had my last two blogs edited and I don't appreciate it. As far as I am concerned there was nothing that was way out of bounds concidering some of the stuff you let through.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:12 AM:Several of Saddam Hussein's palaces were used to stockpile medical supplies that should have been used to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. It's not me saying Hussein was purchasing and importing prohibited weapons, it was the UN. And you've proven the point about the prohibited missiles -- since Saddam had ignored resolutions and sanctions for over a decade, any destruction that may have occurred was merely a show without any assurance that all of the missiles were actually gone. The dictator of Iraq proved to the entire world he could not be trusted; I don't see why you do.

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:13 AM:No, Mark Cloud. It does not surprise me one little bit that the "Liberal media" - The New York Times would print first an endorsement of John McCain, to latter print-- gasp! shock! horrors! -- an editorial critical of John McCain.
Here's how this works in the DNC voice piece, i.e. The New York Times.
First, they endorse John McCain to T-off conservatives. They like doing that.
And latter, they will endorse Democrat's Hillary or Obama, and be critical of Republican John McCain.
A lot of us were born at night, but not last night. But, thank you for your concern.

Chris to Floyd the Scientist wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:16 AM:What coalition of Nations. It was Briton and the U.S. The U.S. bribed other nations to join and their presence was miniscule at best. Non of these nations joined because they believed in the war.

And finally, Floyd wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:17 AM:One last comment: you say that Iraq is better off because of our invasion. How in the world did you come to appoint yourself able to judge this? From what lofty vantage point to you sit that you can so calmly and easily judge the fate of a whole nation and its people? The many, many thousands of Iraqis who are dead, the millions that are displaced, the rest who live without a reliable infrastructure, the Kurds who were just invaded by Turkey, etc etc. Would you have the nerve to walk up to each of these people, pat them on the head, and tell them that you, Floyd, want to assure them that they are better off? That their losses and sacrifices are, in your opinion, definitely worth it? What nerve! Unbelievable.

Jimbo to Chris wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:25 AM:You're right, the situation in Iraq is screwed up and it is only the fault of the United States and the warmongering President Bush. The situation is much the same for Iraqi citizens as it was for Blacks in America after 1865. Before that there was social order in the Southern States, farming, railroads, a solid infrastructure. Slaves were protected and valued by their owners. The the evil Republican, Abraham Lincoln, staged an illegal and immoral invasion of the sovereign Confederate States of American and in a campaign of force and terror committed genocide against its citizens. Towns were bombed, innocents killed, infrastructure, farms, railroads, etc. destroyed. As a result, for over a hundred years afterward Blacks have been abused, lynched, barred from housing, schools, etc. where before they had order, jobs, and security. Bush is every bit as bad a Lincoln was in his treatment of Iraqis and the aftermath of his actions.

I wonder to Karl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:35 AM:Please explain how my 832 post indicated to you that I had blinders on. Is Ron, like Savage (and Chuck) smearing Obama? Is Ron taking responsibility for his own smearing? Has anyone denied that Hillary is playing dirty? Does Hillary playing dirty make it moral and fine for anyone to play dirty? Looking forward to your answers. Thanks.

Poor Jiimbo wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:38 AM:At 11:25, Jimbo shows us that he thinks he came up with a brilliant analogy. Forget that the southern states seceded. Forget that they were slaveholders. In fact, forget anything that might make the analogy appear to be what it is, absurd. Even Jimbo can't avoid the absurdity when he gets to the end and finds himself having to say that as a result of the Civil War, the African-Americans had it so much worse than before. Nice try, Jimbo. LOL

The Crowing Hen .. wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:40 AM: … I woke up Wednesday morning to the noisy crowing of a hen. Not a rooster, mind you. I flicked my radio on before getting out of bed, and there was Hillary crowing about conquering Texas and causing the sun to rise on Beaumont. All that crowing, but no egg. Seems that Obama routed her in phase 2, the caucuses, winning 56%, vs. only 44% for Hillary. The net result: Obama won 91 delegates, and Hillary won 92 delegates. Hardly anything to crow about.
Submitted 12:37am Re-submitted 11:38am

Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:41 AM:My good buddy Wiz @10:40 AM: is right. I have to admit. The U.S. Constitution states in Article VI that itself and foreign treaties constitute the "supreme law of the land" superseding all other statutes passed by any state.
Ah, but there is a little "wiggle" room.

Article 51 provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including "collective self-defense" (e.g. under an alliance). This has been cited as support for the legality of the Vietnam War, under Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) a Truman Doctrine, was primarily created to block further Communist gains in Southeast Asia.
Would we need UN permission if a NATO ally were attacked?
Under The United Nations Charter,
Article 33
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."
12 years of UN negotiations with 17 different resolutions, and no result.
But, then again.. Article 39 make it again fairly clear:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
If if what wiz is saying is that: We need to wait, indefinitately for a UN resolution to war & peace, which I think he does, then we would need the UN's permission to engage in war, of any kind. Do I have that about right?
I know the common colloquialism is: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", as stated by first used by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson.
Wiz, are you stating the UN Charter should be one? A suicide pact? Me, I think we need to recind some of these older treaties. And maybe, lose a few stories on the UN too. But, that's just me.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:42 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (11:00am) confirms that he knows as little about history as about science.
The 1991 Gulf War was a U.N. action. Sure, it was pushed by the Bush-I administration, but they did get that passed and enforced under the auspices of the U.N.
The 2003 action was a "coalition" consisting primarily and overwhelmingly by U.S. forces, with secondary support from the British and token support from several other countries, some sending as few as one soldier to justify having their name on the roster. It was NOT an official enforcement action by the U.N. and, as the act of individual member nations, was a violation of the U.N. Charter provisions I cited.

Karl wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:43 AM:To "Ron wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:32 AM:" Ron,
sometimes us semi-retired old farts forget what day it is. I made it down to the Club before I was reminded that Thursdays are Ladies day. No men on the course until noon. I will be leaving shortly and you wont't see me here for at least 4 hours Fore!!!!!!!!

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:43 AM: The post from "To DD Wiz" (11:00am) is another desperate effort by someone too lacking in originality or too embarrassed of their pathetic offering to actually invent a screen identity.
He/she states: "Any programmer that was worth his weight dealt with the Y2K issue long before it became one. The VAST majority of that concern was basically a hoax used by consultants and fear-mongers to make a buck."
"Nick" (and previously "Reardon") did not specify a time frame.
The FACT is that Y2K was an extremely serious threat to communications, transportation and many technical systems that are based on integrated circuitry, NOT just computers based on operating systems.
It is true that most companies addressed them in advance, but there were some that lagged behind, especially in international markets that could affect dealings with the U.S., and there was still some residual concern as to whether they found everything, which did prove to be a valid concern though, thanks to the fact that people listened to the "alarmists," was minimal.
The lesson is clearly that it is better to solve the problem sooner than later and, thanking you for that affirmation, I am hoping we learn the same lessons regarding climate change.
And, by the way, if we take the action and make the changes to reverse the conditions contributing to climate change (in conjunction with the natural factors), and we are successful and avoid disaster, I will be much happier to endure the ridicule of the ignorant people who ignore science but follow every bizarre Internet rumor about people trying to "abolish the Constitution," than if we ignore the legitimate scientists and get clobbered by a natural catastrophe many times the severity of Katrina, in which warnings from experts were also ignored.

But, ALF wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:43 AM:Don't you know it's a "living document?"

ORACLE = wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:55 AM: = The downward slide of the economy continues, chasing the dollar on its precipitous decline. It now takes $105 to buy a barrel of black gold, an all time record, and $988 dollars to buy one oz of gold. When will the dollar sink below the $1,000 mark for gold? There are many ways to measure the plummet of the dollar, but the NC Times published an article in Tuesday’s issue of the Business Section that is truly alarming: QUOTE “The price of sawdust has soar