Pangloss

Boy, some pretty heavy revisionist history going on there. Who do you think taught the conservative entertainment industry how to do its thing? But I'm sure it must seem that way to someone ideologically rooted in the left wing, just as it must have seemed to be the opposite to those rooted in right wing during the Clinton years. To those of us who don't find it necessary to adhere to one side or the other, however, the political devolvement of the last twenty years looks very different.

I'd like to respond to these complaints from a political perspective. In other words, this reply is not directed towards bombus in particular, but rather to the way these issues are paraded about by the far left. The plurality of this statment (again, this is commonplace, not just something from bombus) should be explained. The implication is that we've done this a lot. Are there a dozen Iraqs that I'm not aware of? We had unilateral multinational support for Afghanistan and the Gulf War, so I'm not seeing the plurality of this complaint. But maybe I'm in error? In other words, we should fund the United Nations, but not participate in it. And we should continue to provide billions in foreign aid, but not say anything about how it is spent, even if that means it all goes to dictators because nobody bothered to try and stop it. Isn't that obviously too simplistic? In point of (political) fact, nearly everyone, not just the far left, wants us to "intefere" in politics of other countries (i.e. participate). The complaint (again, as typically voiced) is not that we interfere, but that we don't interfere in the correct manner (as prescribed by whomever the complainers happen to be this week). Does anybody actually think Africa can clean up its own act? How's that worked out in the past? Ask any foreign aid worker, even ones who've voted Democrat all their lives, and they'll tell you that you can't bring a 3rd world nation into the 21st century by throwing it a stack of cash. It takes infrastructure, checks and balances, education, solid logistics, and people who know what they're doing. You know what we call that? A corporation. Why shouldn't we should support whatever regimes further our national interest? After all, that's what every other country on the face of this planet does. But ok, there's a commonly-made case that we should lead by example, and I'm all for that. But, interestingly enough, this would contradict the earlier point about not interfering in foreign affairs. Because, like it or not, by not stepping up and saying something when governments go bad, we are indirectly supporting their continuance. Or at least that's what we're accused off (the rise of Hamas being a commonly utilized example). This common complaint is an example of guilt by association. Who is "we"? And why are "we" responsible for redirected arms shipments that are, more often than not, already illegal? Ignoring the conflicting overtones from earlier complaints, let me just focus on the end of that statement. In general when this happens with American companies the resulting wages are not "starvation wages" at all, and in fact result in local economic improvement. How else do you expect the local economy to improve? Would it really improve faster if we just threw cash at it, or left it alone? Those are the only two alternatives you've mentioned here (and the only two commonly mentioned in these sorts of complaints). Wait, I thought we were supposed to leave them alone? Wouldn't that be interference? You got me there, I can't counter this point, not knowing the first thing about it. While we're at it, can we un-ban DDT for domestic use? I'd like to use it in my own yard, since there's no evidence that there's anything actually harmful about it. And I thought Malathion was still used in the US. Did I miss something? A fairly well-documented issue of growing concern for people who live in areas where such shells have been used (such as present-day Iraq). I can't find any fault here. That's a new one on me. Interesting. We import timber? I thought we grew it all ourselves (increasing, rather than decreasing, domestic forestation in the process). But hey, maybe you know something I don't know. Could be a valid point here. Wow. It's not every day that I get to respond to a boiler-plate litany of ideological insanities. That was fun! Please provide more! I've told you before, bombus. The world is just not black and white like it is when people listen to Air America (or Conservative Talk Radio). It's gray.

I wasn't responding to your posts about Iran; I'm off on a tangent. Anyway, name one nationalized oil industry that has not had to deal with charges of corruption.

China doesn't have communism, at least not of the variety being discussed here. Their economic success is based on direct repudiation of communist ideals, and the direct result of that repudiation is the largest middle class on the planet. Hardly an example of communistic success! (chuckle)

Actually as I understand it it suggests that that may be the case for some homosexuals. Not all. And therein lies the rub in terms of politics. You can't, for example, use that information to condemn efforts to "convert" people, because for all you know the ones being converted were gay by choice. That's a new one on me. Do you have any sources on this?

BTW, I saw a great movie over the weekend that's marketed in the US as "Days of Glory", and as "Indigenes" in Europe. Check it out if you get a chance. A very smart, frank look at patriotic enlistment and combat by French African Muslims during the second world war. Kind of a cross between "Saving Private Ryan" and "Glory".

Sure they do, just ask any parent or journalist. Aren't they the ones who write science policy now? Besides, my best friend's mother's hairdresser says it's so, and she's the one who put me on to The Secret, so it must be true.

Amusing quote from an article about the weekend's political happenings in France: Bwahahaha....

You know, that's an interesting response, not that I disagree with you, but because it presents an interesting counterpoint to our concurrent thread on curse words. It's funny how society deems individual expression as paramount and noble -- but only up to a point. Surely a contradiction!

What I think is that if we're going to have a death penalty, then it should be applied consistently and justly, according to the law. But I disagree with enacting new death penalty legislation to cover additional crimes, no matter how heinous. It's a wrong law, and though it IS the law (and thus should be applied consistently), it would be wrong to expand it. Ultimately it should be removed. That statement in the article about the reason why there was no re-trial was weak in the extreme, by the way. Somebody was feeding an excuse to a reporter.

Agreed. But involved they very much are. The tragic truth is that we live in a world where what matters is not the improvement of lives of millions of children, but rather the trials and travails of Jane Doe of Springfield, single working mother of three.

Isn't it interesting how the far left insists that what's of the Earth belongs to everyone, EXCEPT when what's being discussed is oil under foreign countries -- then those countries are portrayed as doing something noble and positive when they nationalize. Why is local corruption more noble than a profiteering American oil corporation? Oh right, I remember -- because it's American.

Well gays can certainly be pedophiles. Just look at the Catholic priest scandals, which have lead to the revelation (what a pun!) that homosexuality is common in the priesthood. I think the problem you may be aiming at is that people often don't make a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, and I agree that this is a problem. Just because one is gay does not mean they're a pedophile. Presumably you're talking about the Democrats. It's an interesting correlation, though I know a lot of Democrats who disagree with the second paragraph. More accurate to say that those are common left-side ideological positions, rather than positions of the Democratic Party. But maybe you're reflecting off some official platform positions that I'm not aware of. Either way it's an interesting point.

If you get these gaps and noise while nothing else is happening on the computer then it could be a sign of a driver issue. Also have you eliminated external interference, i.e. other nearby electronic gadgets, especially near the speakers?

Unfortunately young children especially love repetition ad nauseum. It's what they live for. Just TRY lifting a six-year-old over your head, spinning them around producing great gales of laughter, and then casually leaving the room. Just TRY it.

One thing I don't understand is this notion that the border "cannot be secured". Why is a stretch of land less securable just because it's longer? Does the US border with Mexico constitute 9/10ths of the world's secured landspace? Of course not. So why this assumption that just because it's long it cannot be closed? Surely this is really more a matter of money (i.e. manpower) than physical constraints. I would really like to know what other countries spend per mile on their border security, and see that figure compared with our own spending per mile.

You make interesting points, Haezed, but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. But I think we agree on immigration more than disagree. Certainly the border needs to be more secure and I'm pretty tired of the mainstream right being dismissedly accused of being completely opposed to immigration. I see no hint of that in their policy at all. I think the "cultural" argument might be more successful if it were more specific. Most of the time that line of debate comes across as cultural phobia -- white people not understanding why their strange new neighbors with their great numbers of children spend so much time outside in the yard and street rather than couped up in the house studiously avoiding each other just like normal people. (grin)

Mercury poisoning is a myth? Or do you mean just its presumed impact on autism?

I disagree. Immigration was a clear intention of the founding fathers. It's not clear that they intended for it to be controlled, either. But it was a different world then and it's a reasonable extrapolation. But what "original" cultrure do you think they would have opted to preserve? Are you ready to don your hat of obeissance and daily prayer as prescribed by the relgious fruitcakes who first came here? Know much about tilling a field? Shepherding? Sewing quilts? I think you're forgetting something really important. What makes this country great is the willingness of immigrants to become true Americans. They embrace our culture so wholeheartedly that their immediate children become native speakers and think of themselves as Americans first and their parent's country second (and most of their parents will do the same). "Elected officials" didn't open that door. We all did. It really was decided.

Don't mess our pretty little heads over it?

Hooked.

Dual-core processors are turning out to be one of the greatest revelations in recent PC development. Especially when combined with front-side bus architectures operating at speeds approaching that of the processor itself. And on top of all that, we've got 64-bit computing essentially on our doorstep, with operating systems and hardware ready to go. Best of all, you can buy in to that environment on the cheap now. I'd say it's time to upgrade.

Genecks, if you open a command prompt and type HELP (and hit Enter), it will list the most commonly-used commands.

Of course science can explain everything. Just ask any research doctor or climatologist. They know everything, and will be happy to explain why it's all your fault!

I'm fine with gay couples and I've come to accept gay marriage, even with its tricky legal precedent issues (we can solve that problem if we need to). I'm not so sure about recent efforts to bring homosexuality into the mainstream. Some of that stuff seems to be less about equality and more about generating larger numbers of potential playmates.