Counterterrorism officials told Fox News that they are especially concerned about the possibility of a truck bomb and said an influx of credible intelligence has been received suggesting that Al Qaeda may be contemplating such a bomb.
I know personally of 4 to 6 cases of middle eastren men trying to buy 18 wheelers for personal use with cash (the 18 wheelers cost about 115,000 dollars!?!?), the fbi was called, but i don' know if any arrest were made.
Just so you know the fbi is not blowing smoke up you ass, they are doing one great job. And hopefully no lives will be lost.
cube
Friday, May 28, 2004
Thursday, May 27, 2004
This is my right?
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision said U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft overstepped his authority when he ordered Oregon doctors to ignore a state law that allowed them to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients who wished to die.
I firmly believe that it is a persons right to kill thierselves, and the government should not interfere in that right. That being said, actively killing the person with drugs is about even with turning off the machines keeping the person alive. Both require a willful action. I don't think doctors should be forced to kill someone one if they don't want to, they should be able to opt out of that class for moral reasons (much like they should be able to opt out of the abortion class and training). I also think the doctors should pay the families money to kill their family members (that is so, doctors don't make money killing people), of course it won't be enough money to make the families rich just enough money to make the doctor poor if he/she happens to enjoy his job to much.
Under the law, terminally ill patients must get certification from two doctors stating they are of sound mind and have less than six months to live. A prescription for lethal drugs is written by the doctor and administered by the patients themselves.
Why don't they just give them a gun, that would be so much cooler.
cube
I firmly believe that it is a persons right to kill thierselves, and the government should not interfere in that right. That being said, actively killing the person with drugs is about even with turning off the machines keeping the person alive. Both require a willful action. I don't think doctors should be forced to kill someone one if they don't want to, they should be able to opt out of that class for moral reasons (much like they should be able to opt out of the abortion class and training). I also think the doctors should pay the families money to kill their family members (that is so, doctors don't make money killing people), of course it won't be enough money to make the families rich just enough money to make the doctor poor if he/she happens to enjoy his job to much.
Under the law, terminally ill patients must get certification from two doctors stating they are of sound mind and have less than six months to live. A prescription for lethal drugs is written by the doctor and administered by the patients themselves.
Why don't they just give them a gun, that would be so much cooler.
cube
And Kerry never flips or flops
Kerry Will Accept Democratic Nomination at Convention
Of course the evil right wing will try to work this in to yet another case of Kerry flipping on an issue, of course he did not do that, he was just testing out the waters of public opinion before he made a decision....Eh.....Right?
I am beginning to think that the parties are working together in a plot to ruin America, how else could a moron like Kerry get chosen to go against Bush?
cube
Of course the evil right wing will try to work this in to yet another case of Kerry flipping on an issue, of course he did not do that, he was just testing out the waters of public opinion before he made a decision....Eh.....Right?
I am beginning to think that the parties are working together in a plot to ruin America, how else could a moron like Kerry get chosen to go against Bush?
cube
From CNN
Are you tired of hearing about terror alerts?
Yes 61% 4494 votes
No 39% 2824 votes
Total: 7318 votes
What the crap?
I am not tired of it, infact i listen very carefully, so that i will know when to buy my guns.
Of course the same people who are tired of hearing the alerts can't get over the fact that the FBI and CIA had information about 911 but did not tell anyone.
Either you want to know what the goverment is dealing with (and you get scared out of you pants or tired of hearing about them) or you don't want to know (because you don't care or you know that you will get scared).
There is not much gray area on this issue.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Why did they say that?
The casualty toll was mercifully better than expected: roughly 3,000 men were killed on the first day of Overlord (about the same number of people murdered in the attacks of September 11, 2001).
What was the point of that, it was also less than Saddam killed when he bombed the Kurds, it was also less than what the americans have killed during the Iraq war, it is about the same number the japs killed during pearl harbor.
Early in 1942 Roosevelt asked his listeners to have a map at hand to follow along as he explained the global situation, and stationery stores sold out their inventories.
Ever notice that Iraq is in the exact middle of the middle east, where we can intercept terrorist traveling in and around Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Saudia Arabia?
according to a senior official, the result of the administration's recognizing earlier mistakes, even if Bush himself would not concede a single misstep when asked about the war in his recent (rare) press conference.
I have heard rare associted with every single press confreence that the president has done.
cube
What was the point of that, it was also less than Saddam killed when he bombed the Kurds, it was also less than what the americans have killed during the Iraq war, it is about the same number the japs killed during pearl harbor.
Early in 1942 Roosevelt asked his listeners to have a map at hand to follow along as he explained the global situation, and stationery stores sold out their inventories.
Ever notice that Iraq is in the exact middle of the middle east, where we can intercept terrorist traveling in and around Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Saudia Arabia?
according to a senior official, the result of the administration's recognizing earlier mistakes, even if Bush himself would not concede a single misstep when asked about the war in his recent (rare) press conference.
I have heard rare associted with every single press confreence that the president has done.
cube
What?
First the strong stuff. The president reached for the rhetorical heights by citing the horrific beheading of Nicholas Berg, as part of his latest to convince Americans that Iraq and Al Qaeda are part of one and the same War on Terror.
So the men who killed Nick Berg, are not terrorists.
If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and (note: until this point I could have been talking about any of the environmental groups) kills innocent civilians like a terrorist ... It is a terrorist.
Their have been a few major terrorist bombing in Iraq, and don't forget the Zarqawi letter. If Iraq did not have connections to terrorist before we took them over they have connections now. Instead of waiting for the terrorist to come attack us we have taken to fight to them. Iraq is the new area in which they are going to fight the Zionist pigs. Which I know the thought of soldiers dying is not a pleasant one for anyone, most people would rather be fighting in Iraq than being attacked on our soil.
The challenge for Bush is to convince Iraqis and Americans that the U.S. is no longer resented in Iraq. It's not clear his five-point plan can get anywhere close to that goal, any time soon.
This writer did not suggest any ideas of his own, all he did was critique the ones that were out there already.
cube
So the men who killed Nick Berg, are not terrorists.
If it walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and (note: until this point I could have been talking about any of the environmental groups) kills innocent civilians like a terrorist ... It is a terrorist.
Their have been a few major terrorist bombing in Iraq, and don't forget the Zarqawi letter. If Iraq did not have connections to terrorist before we took them over they have connections now. Instead of waiting for the terrorist to come attack us we have taken to fight to them. Iraq is the new area in which they are going to fight the Zionist pigs. Which I know the thought of soldiers dying is not a pleasant one for anyone, most people would rather be fighting in Iraq than being attacked on our soil.
The challenge for Bush is to convince Iraqis and Americans that the U.S. is no longer resented in Iraq. It's not clear his five-point plan can get anywhere close to that goal, any time soon.
This writer did not suggest any ideas of his own, all he did was critique the ones that were out there already.
cube
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
So bush is wrong..Then what do you suggest.
Normally I find good in-depth articles at the Atlantic monthly online, but this article was simplistic in nature, biased, and close minded.
The strategy they [neo-cons] championed was the wrongest possible strategy for the wrongest possible moment in the wrongest possible region of the world.
History showed what worked against threatening states—containment and deterrence. Behind them, confident of the melting power of its way of life, the West waited out Soviet Communism
I think what actually worked against Communism was containment (preventing other states from turning to communism) , deterrence (on a military level: i.e. arms buildup), and engagement (on an economic level we out produced them).
They ditched the strategy that worked against a nuclear-armed superpower to launch a pre-emptive war against a toothless Iraq, which has been contained and deterred—and disarmed—since the Gulf War.
Which this author mixes the Iraq issue and the Israel issue, and comes to the conclusion that instead of attacking Iraq we should have pushed for peace in Jerusalem.
If there is a path to democracy in the Middle East, it begins in Jerusalem, not Baghdad
Which i don't know a lot about the general feelings of most of the islamic people,but i know they hate us because we support Israel and/or they hate us because we support globalization and are infidels. So just removing the Israel will not solve the problem. The authors solution is flawed for that point and that point only.
They identified the wrong enemy (a state), attacked it for the wrong reasons (WMD), and in a way that strengthened our real enemy, the transnational terrorists of September 11
The author's suggestion is a mix between the same strategy that we took with the soviet union and solving the Israel problem. I have already shown how solving the Israel problem will not remove, the problem entirely. The second problem with solving the Israel problem, is the unpredictable time frame involved, they have been at war since Israel declared independence, long before most of the people in Palestine were born. They have been working towards peace since i was in high school, and they still have not achieved it. There are no guarantees that peace can be achieved, and the time frame is unpredictable at best.
The Soviet Union style methods of handling the threat of terrorism have flaws also.
The transnational terrorists that we fight against are a completely different enemy from the soviet union, on that the author and i agree. The general idea behind transnational terrorists is that you can't contain them, because they are transnational. Which that destroys one plank of the platform that we stood on against the Soviet Union.
Although, You can contain the spread of radical islamic countries, but that will not affect the ones that are already in place. The present radical islamic countries don't possess the sociological and economic flaws that communism had. The leaders can claim religions rights and oppress the people in Allah's name, all while using capitalism to fund their empires. Additionally, they are so far behind america in military and economic standards, that they will not attempt to compete in an arms race with us, such as the Soviet Union did. So containing the spread of the radical form of islamic government will not reduce the numbers of radical countries, but only increase their strangle hold on their own people, allow terrorist time to make high level government contacts, and allow the the development of WMD's.
Deterrence will also not work against the very devoted terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.
Although, You can deter countries from supporting terrorist groups, but that will only go so far, as is the case with Syria.
The last option in our soviet style armament is engagement. We can only isolate them economically, because of our economic strength. Can anyone say castro? Militarily we can threaten, but taking over countries is a messy, messy process. Can anyone say Iraq?
As shown above the battle against terrorism is a wildly different from the communist threat, and requires a new set of tools, which is what the bush administration has done.
In the next post i will go into the nature of terrorists, what terrorist need to survive, and the proper strategy that we should take against terrorists.
cube
The strategy they [neo-cons] championed was the wrongest possible strategy for the wrongest possible moment in the wrongest possible region of the world.
History showed what worked against threatening states—containment and deterrence. Behind them, confident of the melting power of its way of life, the West waited out Soviet Communism
I think what actually worked against Communism was containment (preventing other states from turning to communism) , deterrence (on a military level: i.e. arms buildup), and engagement (on an economic level we out produced them).
They ditched the strategy that worked against a nuclear-armed superpower to launch a pre-emptive war against a toothless Iraq, which has been contained and deterred—and disarmed—since the Gulf War.
Which this author mixes the Iraq issue and the Israel issue, and comes to the conclusion that instead of attacking Iraq we should have pushed for peace in Jerusalem.
If there is a path to democracy in the Middle East, it begins in Jerusalem, not Baghdad
Which i don't know a lot about the general feelings of most of the islamic people,but i know they hate us because we support Israel and/or they hate us because we support globalization and are infidels. So just removing the Israel will not solve the problem. The authors solution is flawed for that point and that point only.
They identified the wrong enemy (a state), attacked it for the wrong reasons (WMD), and in a way that strengthened our real enemy, the transnational terrorists of September 11
The author's suggestion is a mix between the same strategy that we took with the soviet union and solving the Israel problem. I have already shown how solving the Israel problem will not remove, the problem entirely. The second problem with solving the Israel problem, is the unpredictable time frame involved, they have been at war since Israel declared independence, long before most of the people in Palestine were born. They have been working towards peace since i was in high school, and they still have not achieved it. There are no guarantees that peace can be achieved, and the time frame is unpredictable at best.
The Soviet Union style methods of handling the threat of terrorism have flaws also.
The transnational terrorists that we fight against are a completely different enemy from the soviet union, on that the author and i agree. The general idea behind transnational terrorists is that you can't contain them, because they are transnational. Which that destroys one plank of the platform that we stood on against the Soviet Union.
Although, You can contain the spread of radical islamic countries, but that will not affect the ones that are already in place. The present radical islamic countries don't possess the sociological and economic flaws that communism had. The leaders can claim religions rights and oppress the people in Allah's name, all while using capitalism to fund their empires. Additionally, they are so far behind america in military and economic standards, that they will not attempt to compete in an arms race with us, such as the Soviet Union did. So containing the spread of the radical form of islamic government will not reduce the numbers of radical countries, but only increase their strangle hold on their own people, allow terrorist time to make high level government contacts, and allow the the development of WMD's.
Deterrence will also not work against the very devoted terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.
Although, You can deter countries from supporting terrorist groups, but that will only go so far, as is the case with Syria.
The last option in our soviet style armament is engagement. We can only isolate them economically, because of our economic strength. Can anyone say castro? Militarily we can threaten, but taking over countries is a messy, messy process. Can anyone say Iraq?
As shown above the battle against terrorism is a wildly different from the communist threat, and requires a new set of tools, which is what the bush administration has done.
In the next post i will go into the nature of terrorists, what terrorist need to survive, and the proper strategy that we should take against terrorists.
cube
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Drugs and patents
Safety and effectiveness are the issue, claim the drug companies. Because a generic drug manufacturer cannot make a drug that is exactly the same as the original drug, the public might be put at risk. Alterations to the drug will result in generic drugs that are less effective than the original drug or, even more serious, that could be dangerous to the user
This article brings up some good points, but all is points can be countered using the opposite point. Alterations to the class of drugs the reporter is talking about, could be bad, but they could also be good. The only thing you can do is make serious guess on what will happen when something changes based on complex models. This reporter has no data to back up his/her suggestions that allowing generic drug manufactures to bring biopharmaceuticals to market will result in dangerous drugs. I could suggest that the variations the companies introduce could actually make safer more effective drugs, and my argument would be just as valid.
The are essentially arguing the fact that small variations in the process could have major effects in the outcome of the drug (basic chaos theory 101). They fail to mention any positive outcome of the changes, and mention only the negative. All they suggest is that more law be put in to place to handle the problem, which since both of those are lawyers, that would make sense.
cube
This article brings up some good points, but all is points can be countered using the opposite point. Alterations to the class of drugs the reporter is talking about, could be bad, but they could also be good. The only thing you can do is make serious guess on what will happen when something changes based on complex models. This reporter has no data to back up his/her suggestions that allowing generic drug manufactures to bring biopharmaceuticals to market will result in dangerous drugs. I could suggest that the variations the companies introduce could actually make safer more effective drugs, and my argument would be just as valid.
The are essentially arguing the fact that small variations in the process could have major effects in the outcome of the drug (basic chaos theory 101). They fail to mention any positive outcome of the changes, and mention only the negative. All they suggest is that more law be put in to place to handle the problem, which since both of those are lawyers, that would make sense.
cube
Exclusive: that does not make sense
If bush was really in bead with the oil companies why wouldn't he tell them to lower the price of gas until the election and then they could do what ever they wanted to.
If we took over Iraq for the oil why are we selling it to ourselves for so much?
cube
If we took over Iraq for the oil why are we selling it to ourselves for so much?
cube
Soooo....when can i shoot things
Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one cornerstone of the gun control movement — the semi-automatic gun ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center (search) just one week after the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this March.
Woot! I am going to go buy me some serious guns?
As a side note this article was written by a man who really likes his guns, so he is very biased, but does pose good arguments for guns.
cube
Woot! I am going to go buy me some serious guns?
As a side note this article was written by a man who really likes his guns, so he is very biased, but does pose good arguments for guns.
cube
What's going on here
Has the leader of north Korea lost control, or is he playing a game that will take Japan our of the talks.
Only lord knows, but I hope this concession is the first drop in the flood.
cube
Only lord knows, but I hope this concession is the first drop in the flood.
cube
Kerry's grand idea
There are two reasons why we cannot be asleep at the wheel during this current energy crisis," Kerry said in the weekly Democratic radio address. "First, soaring energy prices are putting our economy at risk and second, our dependence on Middle East oil is putting our national security at risk. But it doesn't have to be this way."
I agree with that.
In the short term, the Massachusetts senator said, the United States should divert oil being used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (search) and bring it to market. The White House says, though, that would have only a negligible impact on pump prices. Kerry also said the country's leaders should demand that Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations increase supply.
I don't agree with diverting oil from the strategic reserve, because I think that would endanger national security also. It does not make sense to say we are dependent on foreign oil and then take away the only reserve that we have. Then once we have released the oil reserve, we have to tell other countries how to use their oil, there does not seem to be much difference between taking over a country for their oil and trying to force them to sell the oil to you cheap.
Another problem I see in all of this is that countries are in charge of running oil businesses. That really should be a private endeavor, but oh well.
He said his long-term strategy as president would include investments in alternative fuels and new technologies that are more fuel-efficient. He said he would establish tax credits to help make fuel-efficient cars more affordable.
There is already a tax credit. What I would do is put a small gas tax in place, put rules and regulations into place to force companies to produce more fuel cars, and then allow the private companies to apply for grants to reduce the price of their development of the new technologies. The money will come from the taxes. This is essentially taxing a problem to solve the problem. Of course the government could loan the money to the companies real cheap.
"We're at war and families are struggling to make ends meet, especially with rising gas prices," Kerry said. "For our security, our economy and our environment, we must make America energy independent."
At least he understands the problem, I just don't agree with some of his methods for solving the problem.
cube
I agree with that.
In the short term, the Massachusetts senator said, the United States should divert oil being used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (search) and bring it to market. The White House says, though, that would have only a negligible impact on pump prices. Kerry also said the country's leaders should demand that Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations increase supply.
I don't agree with diverting oil from the strategic reserve, because I think that would endanger national security also. It does not make sense to say we are dependent on foreign oil and then take away the only reserve that we have. Then once we have released the oil reserve, we have to tell other countries how to use their oil, there does not seem to be much difference between taking over a country for their oil and trying to force them to sell the oil to you cheap.
Another problem I see in all of this is that countries are in charge of running oil businesses. That really should be a private endeavor, but oh well.
He said his long-term strategy as president would include investments in alternative fuels and new technologies that are more fuel-efficient. He said he would establish tax credits to help make fuel-efficient cars more affordable.
There is already a tax credit. What I would do is put a small gas tax in place, put rules and regulations into place to force companies to produce more fuel cars, and then allow the private companies to apply for grants to reduce the price of their development of the new technologies. The money will come from the taxes. This is essentially taxing a problem to solve the problem. Of course the government could loan the money to the companies real cheap.
"We're at war and families are struggling to make ends meet, especially with rising gas prices," Kerry said. "For our security, our economy and our environment, we must make America energy independent."
At least he understands the problem, I just don't agree with some of his methods for solving the problem.
cube
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Old people are confused?
These comments are related the Medicare debate and seniors having too many choices.
I would like to state that I love old people, god bless them (and they need god's blessing more than most because they have a statistically higher chance of dying than most).
I also don't believe that old people are dumb and incapable of figuring out the new Medicare card issue, I just think it will take them years to figure it out. In general old people don't tend to handle new things as well as other younger people, such as computers. While most of them could still beat me at checkers, if we moved the game to the Internet, I would kick their old butts.
Of course, if my parents where having trouble trying to figure out something, such as a computer, Medicare, or how to eat, I would not expect the government to explain these things to them. I would make sure that I spend the time to figure it out myself, and then I would either make the decision for them or explain it to them so they could. On the other hand, liberals will want the government to take care of their parents and explain their healthcare decision to them also.
My definition of social responsibility is handling your personal responsibilities and handling it so that society does not have to.
Also, they saddest part of the entire debacle, is that old people have to spend their precious little time comparison shopping, when they should be enjoying the Florida sunshine.
Cube
I would like to state that I love old people, god bless them (and they need god's blessing more than most because they have a statistically higher chance of dying than most).
I also don't believe that old people are dumb and incapable of figuring out the new Medicare card issue, I just think it will take them years to figure it out. In general old people don't tend to handle new things as well as other younger people, such as computers. While most of them could still beat me at checkers, if we moved the game to the Internet, I would kick their old butts.
Of course, if my parents where having trouble trying to figure out something, such as a computer, Medicare, or how to eat, I would not expect the government to explain these things to them. I would make sure that I spend the time to figure it out myself, and then I would either make the decision for them or explain it to them so they could. On the other hand, liberals will want the government to take care of their parents and explain their healthcare decision to them also.
My definition of social responsibility is handling your personal responsibilities and handling it so that society does not have to.
Also, they saddest part of the entire debacle, is that old people have to spend their precious little time comparison shopping, when they should be enjoying the Florida sunshine.
Cube
Friday, May 21, 2004
Well...Why don't you show them
"Others disagreed. "This is outrageous," said Blanca Castaneda, 30, a sociology graduate student at California State University, Los Angeles. "The students are fed up.""
Why don't you protest college and don't go to school?
Oh wait...That would make you available for the draft, and you think Canada is kinda cold?
I am sorry then, looks like you are going to have to suck it up.
cube
Why don't you protest college and don't go to school?
Oh wait...That would make you available for the draft, and you think Canada is kinda cold?
I am sorry then, looks like you are going to have to suck it up.
cube
test
this is a test email to see if I can blog while I look like I am doing work.
also, I can spell check my stuff better
cube
also, I can spell check my stuff better
cube
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Release the oil
I am confused, the democrats want the price of oil to drop?
I thought a higher price of oil was a good thing, because that meant people drove less, and polluted the environment less.
Or is their a plan that I am unaware of to give people a daily ration of gas, because it is the government's duty to give people oil and make sure that they can get to their living wage job.
The only good suggestion I have heard on the oil issue is that Bush should threaten to release the oil to scare OPEC into making more oil.
Of course it is not in the best interest of OPEC to keep the price high, the higher it gets the more people are going to start making oil, and the easier it is going to be to get into the oil business from scratch. Which that will ruin OPEC's hold on the market and they can't have that.
cube
I thought a higher price of oil was a good thing, because that meant people drove less, and polluted the environment less.
Or is their a plan that I am unaware of to give people a daily ration of gas, because it is the government's duty to give people oil and make sure that they can get to their living wage job.
The only good suggestion I have heard on the oil issue is that Bush should threaten to release the oil to scare OPEC into making more oil.
Of course it is not in the best interest of OPEC to keep the price high, the higher it gets the more people are going to start making oil, and the easier it is going to be to get into the oil business from scratch. Which that will ruin OPEC's hold on the market and they can't have that.
cube
Thought that i would share
Please vist this site, and also please tell anyone you know who is in Iraq to send pics to this site.
Most of the time this site is fairly crude, but this time they hit on somthing good.
http://www.rock103.com/warpics/
cube
Most of the time this site is fairly crude, but this time they hit on somthing good.
http://www.rock103.com/warpics/
cube
Makes perfect sense
Environmentalists complain that there is little appetite among Europeans for genetically-modified foods, and that the safety of GM products has yet to be conclusively proven.
The fact of there being a market or not being a market is not anybodies concern except the people selling the goods. It would actually be beneficial to the environmentalists for markets to be opened up and the people selling the GM food to go bankrupt. If fact that would be what the environmentalists would want.
Now safety is a concern but not the environmentalists concern.
None of their reasons for not having GM food made and sold has any thing to do with the environment.
That is just odd.
Cube
The fact of there being a market or not being a market is not anybodies concern except the people selling the goods. It would actually be beneficial to the environmentalists for markets to be opened up and the people selling the GM food to go bankrupt. If fact that would be what the environmentalists would want.
Now safety is a concern but not the environmentalists concern.
None of their reasons for not having GM food made and sold has any thing to do with the environment.
That is just odd.
Cube
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Exclusive: Questions from the enlightened
If money does not bring happiness.....
why are all the poor countries complaining about being poor?
Why are the democrats constantly complaining about needing more money for programs?
why are the socialist always trying to even out the wealth structure of America?
why are the republicans constantly pushing for poor countries to get rich?
why are the republicans working hard to get rich?
cube
why are all the poor countries complaining about being poor?
Why are the democrats constantly complaining about needing more money for programs?
why are the socialist always trying to even out the wealth structure of America?
why are the republicans constantly pushing for poor countries to get rich?
why are the republicans working hard to get rich?
cube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)