JohnB

Does he have any spare energy?

You're right, they use the word "clouds" twice. They also use the words "water vapour" twice, specifically; and Does that really justify the statement on RC; ? Given that the paper specifically says that the tests used could not "identify mechanisms"? The stated purpose of the paper was to compare what the models said the TOA flux "should be" with what the direct obs said it "is". To paint it as anything else is a strawman, pure and simple. (Although given Dr. Lindzen's preference towards his "Iris" hypothesis, such a connection is perhaps, to a degree understandable.)

Thanks for that, my perception was wrong. I had assumed that names like "Massachusetts" had come from non english speaking immigants. (Australia's early immigrants were all from England.)Again, thanks for clearing that up.

Cool. Does this mean I can use blogs and newspapers to rebut published papers too? Seriously. The Trenberth RC article is a classic strawman. From RC; What a load of crock. The abstract of the Lindzen paper; (Emphasis mine) I don't see anything about clouds there, do you? From the papers conclusions; (Emphasis mine) Okay, here they mention clouds, but only as a "possible" mechanism and only after pointing out that the data "do not specifically identify mechanisms". The purpose of the paper was to compare model predictions with real world observations and thereby attempt to get an idea as to climate sensitivity. To a great degree the mechanisms of this are irrelevent. The 11 models chosen (from AMIP for the IPCC AR4 no less) all predict TOA flux would reduce with an increase in SST temps. These predictions are being compared to ERBE observational data to see if the prediction is correct. (Funny, that's what I always thought "science" was supposed to do) Bottom line. The models used predicted the TOA fux would decrease with increase in temperature but the observations showed an increase. So, do real world obs trump the models, or do the models trump the obs? I know which one I vote for.

Firstly. Sorry if that came out in a confrontational way, it wasn't meant as such. It was a thought that occurred to me and so I was asking. You can't turn around in Oz without seeing Aboriginal place names (even Canberra, our capital is an Aboriginal name) and I realised that I'd seen or heard of few similar in the US. This might just be a perception thing and so I was asking to see if the perception was correct. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. Onwards: They did actually. The brownshirts were a civillian militia force given the legal power to prevent people from "disrupting" the rallies. The definition of "disruption" was left up to the brownshirts themselves. Some tactics used were illegal, but in many/most cases laws were passed to make the actions legal. It's amazing what you can legally justify if you write the laws and say it's "for the good of society as a whole". Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Government is only "of, by, and for the people" theoretically in a Democracy. Many forms of government are simply there for greater power to the few. Dictatorships, Meritocracies, Oligarchies and the rest have little regard for "the people" and much regard for the ruling class. I wasn't being unfair to the left in my spectrum at all. If you draw a line across a page and label the left hand end of that line is "Anarchy" and the right hand end is "Statism". Now put two short verical lines in the middle of the page close together. The one closest to the "Anarchy" end is the "Right" and the one closest to the "Statist" end is the "Left". Both are roughly in the middle of the spectrum trying to find a balance between individual and government control. The "Left" simply believes that on balance, slightly more government control is better than the "Right" does. Put another way. On a scale of 0% governmental control (Anarchy) to 100% governmental control (Statism) the "Right" sits at about 50% and the "Left" at about 52%. The actual and practical differences between the two are negligable. As you say, the Right can be more Statist than the Left on certain issues, so it would be interesting to create a scoring table by issue and see how the aggregate scores actually work out. Personally I think the Left would come out as slightly more Statist on slightly more issues and would therefore be slightly more Statist, but as I said, the difference would be small. More generally. Those Jesus nuts are worrying as well. A big difference between our nations is that we down here distrust authority. As soon as somebody wants us to wear a uniform and chant in unison we get very suspicious. (We do have school uniforms and uniforms for certain occupations, but that's about it) We don't have "Military" schools either. It's just not us. We've had various groups try it and get nowhere. The simple fact that the US has so many different types of these whackjob organisations shows (I think) a greater propensity towards this sort of behaviour. The saving grace is of course that they cover the entire political specrum and therefore work against each other. Should an issue arise that allowed them to work together, then I think you might be in for trouble. I disagree to an extent. I think that you are referring to the threat of "war" as the driver, whereas I see the driver being "The Threat" of war. It's just as easy to use "The Threat" of social upheaval, or "The Threat" of starvation. It's the use of "The Threat" that is the driver and not war per se. If you convince enough people the stakes are high enough, you can justify anything. This is one problem I have with the eco movement. From their POV, the stakes are the "survival of the planet" and therefore anything can be justified. For example "ecological stewardship" is a nebulous and undefined term. Is it more important that some human rights? Should the populace give up some rights in the name of "ecological stewardship"? Who will decide how many and which rights the populace will give up? I can't speak for your greenies, but if ours got any sort of power the quality of life and the life expectancy of Australians would drop. A simple example would suffice. Ours want a "nuclear free world", to that end they would close our one and only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Lucas Heights has one purpose, to produce the short lived radioactive isotopes used in the detection and treatment of cancers and other diseases. But it's not good "ecological stewardship" to have radioactive wastes around, so I guess the sick will just have to suffer and die, won't they? Both sides of the political spectrum have stupid ideas. Personally I can't see the difference between killing us off en masse by the right or one at a time by the left until we get the population down to a "sustainable" level. Both extremes would have us living in caves anyway. Many "Green" organisations believe that there are already too many people on the planet and are quite happy to let vast numbers die to reduce the population. I saw an interview years ago where one of the heads of Greenpeace (?) (I must find the video and check) said "If we don't send food next time there is a famine in Africa, there will be less of them to die the time after." You might want to look into why so many nations can't get funding for dams for clean water and electricity and exactly who is stopping those programs. Genocide is being practiced on this planet and it is being done in the name of "Saving the Planet".

Myst Online:URU Live. (Or what ever the current incarnation is actually called) Since the cavern is back I'm enjoying solving new puzzles.

A few points. 1. Nazis, like most political parties don't fall easily into the Left/Right spectrum. My personal belief is that this is because that spectrum is utter rubbish. A correct spectrum has Anarchy (Zero State control) at one end and Statism (100% State control) at the other. When viewed from this perspective, it's easy to see what Hitler and Stalin had in common. Both were essentially dictatorships, regardless of political name. They also fall very easily into the "Statist" end of the spectrum. The only difference I see between Left and Right as currently defined is that the Left is a bit more "Statist" than the Right. Both are "Medium Statists" meaning they only differ on the amount of governmental control they think id needed, but they both like the idea of wide reaching governmental control. 2. The Nazis came to power at a time when the previous political parties had failed completely WRT the economy. Inflation was rampant and unemployment extremely high. The Nazis were an acceptable option to the voters because the other parties had completely discredited themselves in the eyes of the voting public. 3. There was widespread public discontent with Germany's treatment at Versailles. The imposts made on Germany at the end of WW 1 were totally unfair and the people knew it. If anything was able to guarantee WW 2, it was that "Treaty". It attempted to humble a proud people. 4. The public were discouraged early on from voicing dissent by the brownshirts. These are not visible in the newsreels, but they were there and very active. Anecdotal I know but... My Great Aunt was actually at the Nuremburg rally. A young Aussie woman on holidays to Europe and she went to see the "big rally". Whenever she was asked "Did you do the salute?" she replied "Of course! The cameras don't show the brownshirts with their billyclubs beating people who weren't enthusiastic enough! I had my arm up with everybody else." 5. The Hitler Youth. As has been mentioned, these were formed to give young people "a sense of purpose" and "civic values". However they were not loyal to the nation or the Office of National Leader, but were personally loyal to Hitler himself. Which is why (as a non American) I find things like this extremely worrying. These young men don't have "hope" because of the system, the nation, or the Office of President, but because of the person. Who are they loyal to? Combat fatigues, marching, chants, it can be so easily turned into something else. These young men, insted of saying "Because of Obama, I'm inspired to...." should be saying "Because I'm American, I'm inspired to....." See the difference? "I am change. And this is what I wear." Presumably if you don't "wear" the right colours, you are not for change? Does this make you "bad" in those eyes? To be very clear here. Even though I'm nominally "right" I don't think Obama is setting up his own brownshirts. But an organisation has been created that could very easily be turned into one by somebody else. The existence of such an organisation is the danger, not what the current incumbent intends to do with it. (Although his comments on needing a civillian defence force to "protect the nation" are a bit worrying. Who are they going to be "protecting" you from? 6. Hitler and the Nazi philosophy built upon the works of Neitzsche, revered at the time. The whole concept of "Untermenschen" came from him and so the Nazi philosophy fit in well with the ideas of someone widely respected. If they were wrong, then Neitzsche was wrong, but Neitzsche was a great thinker and therefore right, and so also, the Nazis were right. I will add that the whole concept of the "Aryan" people was and is false. There never was any such race. Racism was endemic amoung Anthropologists and Archaeologists/Historians at the time. The idea was originally formulated in response the Indian Vedic Literature. It was believed that the "inferior" brown skinned people could not have created such a work and therefore a "superior" white skinned people must have invaded and written it. The "Aryan Invasion" of the middle east and the Indian subcontinent. There have never been found any item, relic, writing or remains that can be identified as of "Aryan" origin. They had no jewellery, pottery, language, town, village or building styles that could in any way distinguish them from any other people. Ergo, they did not exist as a distinct race or cultural subset. To give an idea of the absolute crap "science" that was in vogue during the 19th and early 20th century I quote from Wiki. The concept of certain "people" being naturally "superior" and "born to lead" was quite well ingrained in the European psyche of the time. I will note that there is a parallel with modern America. How many places, mountains or towns in the US have native American names? Or does everything have a "White Man" name? Why? Does the "White" American consider himself superior? Does the legacy of "Manifest Destiny" live on in another form? Could such things happen in modern times? Quite easily. For dramatic representations of how, I suggest the rise of the "Nightwatch" in Babylon 5 or the growth of the "Vistor's Friends" youth movement in the series "V". Sad to say, there is no shortage of people willing to be bullies in the name of a cause. The idea is simple. A is the problem. B is the solution. Anybody who isn't in favour of B is therefore an enemy. The more you convince people that A is really, really bad the easier it is to justify any tactics used against opponents of B. Lord Monkton referred to certain groups in Copenhagen as "Hitler Youth" because they acted like them, out to break up or intimidate the opposition. Such are the tactics of Totalitarianism. The "cause" doesn't matter, the tactics do. "And by their deeds, ye shall know them." (Or something like that.) Add to that control of the media and other areas can be from indirect inferences "By the way, Mr. Editor. How is your daughter? Is she enjoying her new school in the secluded countyside?" or from direct threats of reprisals. (Like calls for "Crimes against Humanity" trials for people who don't agree with AGW maybe?)

And you can't see the problem with this? People have said exactly the same thing about Gypsies, Jews, Negroes, Gays, the Mentally impaired, intelligent people, the list is very long and bloody. Your reasoning stands squarely beside Pol Pot and his ilk. Fascinating. The people vote on every piece of legislation that goes into the House? So tell me why the Health Bill failed? Laws are written by lawyers and decided on by politicians, the people get bugger all say in it. Oh, they get to vote on how their rep has done (in general) once every 3 - 4 years or so, but they have no say in the writing or passing of each law. Asking "Isn't it obvious?" is normally the first sign of lack of proof. As Cap'n Refsmmat showed, the majority of murders are not done by re-offenders. Your argument is invalid. (General comments follow and don't apply to any individual nation.) In general I see this debate as a moral/political one. If we assume that the government in a democratic nation reflects the will (or morals) of it's people in it's laws, then I would rather live in a society where "Kill them" is not an option for solving societal problems. Whether people like it or not, the evidence is that having (or not having) the DP has little effect on violent crime rates. Violent crime is a societal problem, it doesn't come out of nowhere. If you keep your society structured in such a way as to produce violent criminals, then you will always have them. Your society is a factory that will keep producing them, no matter how many you kill. The only way to end violent crime is to end the processes that produce violent criminals. (Excluding the occasional nutter who is totally unpredictable) Death penalty or not, an affluent society that encourages people to be a part of that society has lower crime rates. It is the outcasts that become violent criminals. They become this because they are outcast, they don't feel a part of the society and therefore have no regard for the rules of that society. Is it a coincidence that most violent criminals are from poor areas with poor schooling and little hope of advancement or integration into society? They don't start violent you know. Generally they start small and work up to it. Why not try to find a way to prevent them starting "small" in the first place? iNow has mentioned in health threads that he has had to make some difficult choices in the past concerning buying medication. If he were from a different background and it was his son or daughter desperately needing medication, then it is not hard to imagine how stealing to pay for medication would become a viable option. And as time goes on, the stealing gets easier. They can't move because they can't afford to, so what do the young ones learn? The only way to get ahead is to take from those who already have. Add that to the resentment felt by the "have nots" for the "haves" and you create a breeding ground for violent criminals. So it is a moral/political choice. Do we want to live in a society that simply produces criminals and then kills them? Or, by removing the "Kill" option do we want a society that tries to find ways to prevent the production of violent criminals. While ever the "Kill" option is available, there is no need to make a society better and fairer. Violent crime is a symptom of societal disease, not a cause. Killing the criminals only treats the symptom and leaves the cause untouched to produce more. But hey, it looks good at election time because it shows that the pollies are "doing something" about the problem. I've made my choice. I would rather be part of a society that attempts to be better and fairer and tries to remove the things that result in violent criminals. Severian, my society will advance because we are trying to make it better for everybody from day one. Yours will stagnate because you will simply keep producing criminals and then killing them. You have no incentive to advance towards a better and fairer society and so you won't. The future of your society is in your hands, the choice is yours. Don't mess it up by only treating symptoms but not the cause.

And sometimes even tougher ones are needed in order to improve government. Ah, so the lesson is that only governments can engage in premeditated murder? That is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Talk about being able to be used to justify anything. Cutting off a thief's hand will also prevent his re-offending. You could use it to save on dentistry. Pull out everybody's teeth and the cavity rate will drop to nothing. Can't you come up with a better reason than "Me not like! Kill! Kill!"? The bottom line of your argument is that it is alright for the government to decide who is "expendable" and kill them. The bottom line for me is that it is not. Call it a philosophical argument if you want, but I believe that killing defencless prisoners is always wrong. You don't. You're quite happy to kill defencless people so long as it's "within the rules". While it is possible that someone might kill a prisoner anyway and abuse their position, under my way they do so in the full knowledge that the law is against them. Under your system they figure that with a good lawyer they might get away with it. Besides, wasn't "The State" going to kill them anyway? Wrong. I am quite happy to pay taxes so that those who need it can be incarcerated "for the term of their natural lives". Unless you are going to institute the DP for every crime there will always be re-offenders. Your argument is invalid. Prove it. It shouldn't be hard. The US with the DP has a national murder rate of 4.2 per 100,000 while Australia without it has a rate of 1.5 per 100,000. So obviously the DP has led to the much lower rate in the US...... Oh, oh.

I wonder who owns the chinese companies?

I do take your point, however the question here is whether or not to give them the legal right. I'm saying "No". A soldier in wartime can also commit atrocities, shall we give them the legal right to do so? One of the differences between our nations. We require a referendum to change the Constitution. While abolition is not part of our Constitution, as I said earlier an attempt to reintroduce the DP here would be electoral suicide. Also as I said before, if the gov is repealing the abolition, then I think that you would have bigger things to worry about than legal matters. How about because all those other penalties can be revoked? The DP is the one irreversible penalty. It's this very basic difference that puts the DP outside the graduated scale. So, do we stop using prisons or do we just execute everybody, regardless of the crime? And as I pointed out, you didn't. As to "potentially dangerous" I would suggest that from the ROWs point of view the US is far more than "potentially" dangerous. Would you care to do something about that? Once finished, we could plant a great garden with the words "Too annoying to Live" in letters large enough to be seen from space. Eating is required to live, the choice of killing helpless prisoners is not. In this case, the US is choosing to keep that company when it doesn't have to. Do you see the difference?

Thanks TBK. Now, Mr Skeptic. Incorrect. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between killing a person while arresting or detaining them to killing them when they are captured and harmless. This concept is deemed true even in wartime. A soldier is expected to kill the enemy in combat, however once that enemy is captured, he must not be killed. You can use lethal force if he is trying to escape, but you can't strap him to a chair and kill him. This simple difference is the basis for the Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law. If you do not understand that killing in combat is different to killing a helpless and harmless person then that is not my problem. The rest of the civilised world understands the difference as do many, many Americans. Also, governments only have the power that we the people grant them. In a civilised society, pushing for the reintroduction of the DP would be electoral suicide. Any government that advocated or passed it would be out at the next election. If politicians understand that the citizens will not stand for something, they will not pursue it. There is always the possibility that the government concerned isn't worried about the electoral backlash because they aren't intending to have another election anyway. However if it has come to this, then I would suggest that the effected nation has far more to worry about than legislated penalties. And there are powers that governments are strictly forbidden to have. I believe that something called "The Bill of Rights" does this in America. You could always add another Article, you know. Incorrect. Apples and oranges again. Punishments dealt out by the legal system cover a spectrum. These include fines, probation and incarceration. A sliding scale is used for the reason that law and justice is often a grey area. So a person might be fined and the matter dropped, they might be fined and placed on probation or they might be fined and incarcerated, all depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances. We do this because it is impossible to legislate for every possible contingency. It's all well and good to say "If you murder, the chair is this way", but that is implistic and flawed. Do you sentence to death the father who has killed the man who molested his 7 year old daughter? The DP should be avoided because it doesn't fit into this graduated scale of punishment. Someone can't be a "little bit" dead. At least in the example above, daddy will one day come home to his little girl. Your way, he won't. My way: "Daddy hurt the bad man who hurt you and that was wrong. But you can visit him often and he will come home to you." Your way: "Daddy hurt the bad man who hurt you, so we are going to kill him." Is that really the message you want to get across? True, they can't be unjailed. But they can be released and compensated by the state for the injustice. This has happened in my State of Queensland. An Aboriginal man spent some 8 years in jail for the murder of a nurse. He was released after a long campaign finally got records released that showed it was impossible for him to have committed the crime as he was sleeping off a drunk in the local lockup at the time the murder was committed. My way: He's out, alive and compensated. (Although money seems a poor compensation.) And the reopened case caught and convicted the real killer. Your way: He's dead. End of story. And the real killer goes free. How many times has this happened? Or is it just a scary story? I understand how you came by that figure but so what? The actual dollar value of a human life is relative to the society and circumstances. I didn't introduce the word "priceless" into this debate but it is apt. Since the value changes dependent on so many factors, any attempt actually place a dollar value on human life is inherently and automatically wrong. Even your example of malaria vaccine is pointless. Without clean water the african will still die. Without Thor knows what else, he will still die. Human life is priceless not because it is above value, but because the value cannot be calculated. There is a difference. On a more general note. There is 6,000 years of recorded history that says that the DP doesn't work. If it did, we would have removed the violent ones by now. Also, once the violent criminal is caught and incarcerated he is no longer a danger to society. Why then kill him? He poses no danger, so the only reason left as justification is revenge. Revenge is a very poor thing to base a "Justice" system on. I will add that according to Amnesty International there are 139 nations that are abolitionist in law or practice and 58 retentionist. China, Cuba, Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe. What fine company the retentionist policy allows you to mingle in. This bit is also interesting; If the United States wants to continue this barbaric practice, then go for it. But don't ignore the fact that many US citizens want it gone for the same reasons that other civilised nations have abolished it. Even East Timor, fresh from the womb as a new nation made abolition almost it's first act of Parliment. "World Leader"? On this and other issues you are so far behind the rest of the industrialised, civilized world you don't even qualify as a pathetic "Hanger On".

Firstly. This is from the perspective of a citizen of a nation that has abolished this disgusting practice. Secondly. I was once a strong advocate for the reintroduction of the Death Penalty in Australia for much the same reasons as Severian listed. I changed my mind. Thirdly. Bascule and I are on the same side on this one, so the "pro" side are on a hiding to nothing. There are three things that changed my mind. One political philosophy reason and two moral. The political reason. To allow the DP in a nation means that you accept the political principle that a government must have the right to legislate for the premeditated murder of it's citizens. It was estimated that more than 500 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th century, compared to only 55 million during WW 2. By granting the power to execute to governments, you legitimise every one of those civillian deaths. From the Nazi death camps, through the Russian Gulags, the "Killing Fields" of Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge, the death squads of the Argentine Junta right up to the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan. What most people fail to understand is that all these deaths were lawful. They were done within the legal confines of the relevent nations. Every one of those atrocities was legal in the nation they occurred in. If you agree with the political concept that governments should have this power, you must also agree that governments have the right to exercise that power as they see fit. Because logically, if you don't think that governments should exercise the power as they see fit, then you must believe that they will not exercise this power wisely. If you believe they can't use it wisely, why do you believe they should have it? The bottom line is that if you think that governments have right to murder their own citizens then you forfeit the right to comment if this power is misused. You have to also accept that all those previous atrocities were quite all right and above board. For this political reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. The premeditated murder of a citizen by a government is always wrong. It has to be. The first moral reason. By having the DP, a moral choice has to be made. "Where do you draw the line?" There must be a point that "above the line" means the DP and "below the line" does not. This is a moral, not a legal choice. The law only defines the moral choice. It's easy to say "violent crime", but how "violent"? I think we can all agree that a thug beating someone within an inch of life classifies as "violent", but how is this different from a drunk lout doing the same thing? A man that beats his wife daily is a violent offender, do you execute him? What if he does it every second day? Only weekly? Where do you draw the line? And perhaps more importantly, how do you explain to the victim who was just below the line that they were not hurt enough? There is only one way to avoid this moral morass and that is to not have the Death Penalty. For this moral reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. It's existence creates a moral dilemma. The second moral reason. Wrongful executions. Regardless of how careful we are and how we structure our system it will always have an inbuilt flaw. It will be administered by humans and humans are fallible and will make mistakes. Knowing this to be true, then to institute or continue a system that you know will wrongfully execute innocents is not only morally repugnant, but (and I'm sure that bascule will back me up on this) contravenes international human rights conventions. The wrongful deaths are 100% avoidable and there is therefore no justification under international statutes for the death. So we must make another moral judgement, "How many wrongful deaths are too many?". I say 1 is too many. If we do not care about killing innocent people, how are we any better than those we are supposedly getting rid of? For this second moral reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. Even 1 innocent killed is 1 too many. While you cannot legislate morality, the laws and punishments of a land reflect the moral values of the people of that land. The moral values of civilised people say that institutionalised murder is wrong and is best left where it belongs, in the past. They say that we should take all practical measures to avoid the killing of innocents. Have we learnt nothing in the 6,000 years since Babylon? So, severian, to take your "Pros" in order. The argument is wrong on a number of levels, but two will suffice to counter it. a) The idea of using cost as a justification is repugnant. To argue thusly is to place a dollar value on a human life. Shall we use the same argument to deny medical care to the elderly? After all, their earning days are over and they will no longer generate wealth for the economy, it is economically better for them to die. And as you say, everybody dies eventually. I'm sure that nobody would agree with such reasoning concerning aged care, so why should it be acceptable for the Death Penalty? b) By removing the appeals process you are now more likely to wrongfully convict and therefore execute an innocent person. Also, while you are removing the cost of jailing people for a long time, you will drastically increase the number of convictions in general and your prisons will fill very quickly with lesser offenders. Unless you remove the appeals only for the Death Sentence and that is just plain silly. I can appeal a 6 month conviction for shoplifting but not a death sentence? Flat out wrong. While your system might remove the "core", it will generally not effect career criminals. The first offenders will still learn better ways to rob banks, steal cars and generally misbehave. 58% might reoffend, but how many of those are violent criminals? Probably included in your 58% are shoplifters and car thieves. Exactly how will "removing" violent criminals effect these? I would add that the violent ones could also be "removed" by placing them in a different prison. The "education" of the junior crims could be just as easily cut short by segregating them from the "hardened" crims. Death is not neccessary. The problem is not the existence of hardened crims, the problem is putting junior crims in with them. It is not about whether a convicts life is worth more or less than an innocents. It's about valuing life. Are there any other criteria we might use to decide whos life has greater value? Race? Religion? You either have a legal system that values life, or you don't. And if it doesn't, then welcome to the 10th Century. I'm glad you think it's weak, it is. 200 years ago the English used both the Death Penalty for "major" crimes and "Transportation for Life" for minor ones like stealing a loaf of bread. As a lot of people came to Australia this way I think that itis fair to say that it had no deterrent effect. In fact, since the DP has existed for all of recorded history and we still have problems its "deterrence" effect must be very small if existant at all. While you might prefer to die, the majority of people go to great lengths to avoid death. By all means use a bed sheet if you wish, but don't suggest that the rest of us become murderers doing your dirty work for you. I must also add (concerning wrongful convictions and executions); With such disregard for the lives of innocent victims (of the system) exactly how are you any better than those you wish to "remove"? You would condemn a person to death for killing 1 other, yet have no problems with killing 500 innocents? There is a problem here.

To clear up one point. Nobody has claimed you are an anti-semite. I asked the question whether you were, or just anti-Israel. Obviously you are simply anti-Israel, fair enough, now everyone knows where you stand. If you disagree with that conclusion would you care to find some posts where you thought the Israelis might have been in the right? My comments about the "fact finding" mission were clear, do you dispute anything I said? And if you don't, then you have to agree that the mission was at least "wrong" under the UNs own rules and it's findings biased. Have you even read the report? Or at least the conclusions? They read like fantasy. This was a war zone ffs! Once the bullets start to fly, nobody is guaranteed peace, security, free movement or health. Combat is an inherently dirty business, the rules that apply in peacetime can't be applied. The continued attempts by the mission to do so can only be called "a silly fantasy" at best. Concerning WP in particular; IOW. They are not banned, even though the mission would like them to be and their use is a judgement call. The mission is second guessing the commanders decisions, something they said they would avoid. I will also quote the mission again; Because of this, the UN did mission did not "rule" any action to be a war crime. And any claims that Istaeli troops have been found in any way "guilty" of anything are false. Or doesn't the presumption of innocence apply to Israelis? The mission also seems to be unable to be unable to understand who actually controls Gaza. Please compare these two sections; and (Emphasis mine.) So, just let me get this right. Hamas took "complete control" of Gaza in 2007 but in 2009 Israel is still responsible as the "Occupying Power" under the Geneva Conventions. The two positions are mutually exclusive. I notice also that you avoided answering my question "What would you do?". Your troops are under fire, do you call the artillery and level the area, an airstrike maybe? Or do you call in smoke? Whether you (or I for that matter) like it or not, the WP shells were probably the least damaging option. Having said all of the above, there are quite a number of things that the mission brings up that I sincerely hope the relevent Israeli authorities are investigating. There are a number of examples that if true, have a complete lack of military justification, and as such would constitute violations of International law. The Israelis are investigating, even the mission notes that fact. Perhaps it would be prudent to let the Israeli Justice system run it's course? PS. I add that the mission made no bones at all about referring to the actions of Hamas with respect to the continued missile and bomb attacks; (Emphasis mine.) I find it amazing that anybody could blame Israel for using military force in the defence of it's citizens against "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity".

I find that "put your right hand in, put your right hand out" solves that question.

Hm, so the first argument was that the Israelis were committing "war crimes" or acting "against the rules of warfare". Since that has been shown to be untrue, it now doesn't matter what the "rules" are, the Israelis are wrong anyway. For someone who is usually so big on reason and logic, your arguments have been entirely emotional. Are you an anti semite, or just anti Israel? Bascule, emotionally I happen to agree with you. It is a terrible thing that these weapons have to be used near civillians. It's always bad when civillians get caught between warring parties. But you are blaming the wrong people. If HAMAS came out in the open and fought like men instead of hiding behind civillians these injuries would not occur. The IDF cannot legally or morally be expected to take fire from people positioning themselves near civillians and not return fire. The IDF came under fire and used smoke shells to allow them to break the engagement. Are you suggesting that they should have withdrawn while still under fire and without cover? Are you suggesting that they should not have returned fire? You're quick to condemn. So come on General, your troops are under fire and you want to get them out. What are you going to do? Tell me what the Israelis should have done. And BTW, if you're really so pissed about it, read up on the "Shake and Bake" tactics used by the US in Iraq. These tactics are not illegal because America hasn't signed Protocol III either.

Just a few points. 1. The M825 WP shell is not an incendiary device as defined by the conventions as it is not "primarily" designed to burn things. It is a smoke shell. It does not discharge chunks of phosphorus, but 116 wedges of phosphorus impregnated felt. 2. It is an artillery shell and is therefore not "air delivered" and so again is not covered by the convention. 3. Israel is not a signatory to Prorocol III. (Neither is the US, BTW.) So, Israel used a weapon that was not illegal in a way that is not illegal, according to the rules of a treaty that they didn't sign. Can things be any more one sided? Within the rules of warfare there is always a tradeoff. A balance has to be found between achieving the military objective and causing "unreasonable" damage to civillian property or persons. Carried too far, then a military force would be in the position of being fired upon but not being able to respond due to the proximity of civillians. Such an outcome is untenable. I quote Para 451 of the UN report. (Emphasis mine.) The thing with using civillians as shields is that such practices are illegal. This is because, as it is not illegal to fire on human shields, it places the civillians in the direct line of fire. Being very blunt about it. If civillians are deliberately placed so as to impede a military objective, then they die. The attacker should take steps to minimise the casualties, but if they die, they die. The defender, not the attacker is held legally and morally responsible for the deaths. It can of course be argued that as HAMAS is not signatory to the Geneva Conventions they cannot be applied to the actions of HAMAS. This simply points out the glaring double standard of attempting to hold Israel to Protocols which they are not signatory to.

I would hardly think that "calling" the findings of a biased investigation noteworthy. Given that; 1. The resolution that set up the "fact finding" mission was clearly biased. Full text here. It is noteworthy that only Israel was to be investigated. It is also noteworthy that number of UN member States with strong histories on Human Rights refused to support the resolution. 2. At least one member of the "fact finding" team had publicly stated that Israel was guilty of "war crimes" before joining the mission. Letter to Times Online, January 11, 2009. In any even remotely fair system, the mission member would have been recused as predjudiced. 3. Mary Robinson (former High Commissioner for Human Rights) refused to chair the mission stating “I am afraid the resolution is not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas. This is unfortunately a practice by the Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable." 4. The mission acted as if they were getting honest information even though; "The Mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups. Whatever the reasons for their reluctance, the Mission does not discount that the interviewees’ reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals." Paragraph 438. 5. The mission in particular excluded as an expert witness Colonel Richard Kemp, a world recognised authority on urban warfare. Justice Goldstone stated; "There was no reliance on Col. Kemp mainly because in our Report we did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers "in the fog of war". We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate." It must be fascinating to investigate an urban conflict without actually listening to the experts in urban conflict. Or could it have been the good Colonel's statement on the BBC; "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." 6. Because of 2. the fact finding mission itself was in contavention of UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/46/59. "Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations in the Field of the Maintenance of International Peace and Security." Text here. Section 1 Paragraph 3 clearly states that : "Fact-finding should be comprehensive, objective, impartial and timely." Due to the pre admitted biases of members of the mission it can in no way be construed as either "objective" or "impartial". 7. To quote Paragraph 25 of the Missions report; "The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials." Oh goody, they don't have enough for a court of law, so I guess public opinion will have to do. 8. The mission strongly crticises the Israeli legal system while ignoring the fact that said system is roughly the same in all western nations. It also ignores that Israeli Legal Authorities are currently investigating over 100 cases of possible abuse that have been referred to them. Such actions can only be seen as an attempt to predjudice the outcomes of those investigations. I'm sure that Justice Goldstone would not hesitate to come down heavily on an "inquiry" probing an ongoing police investigation in his own land. 9. The report states in Para 1209 "There is, in particular, a lack of clarity about the concept of promoting “terrorist activity”: since Israel claims there is no real division between civilian and military activities and it considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it would appear that anyone who supports Hamas in any way may be considered as promoting its terrorist activity." While it is factually true that Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist organisation, well, so does the rest of the civilised world. 10. Even though the mission agreed to the phenomenal amounts of phone call, radio broadcasts and leaflet drops (Para 498) it found these insufficient. You be the judge: 11. For some reason known only to itself the mission has applied the standards of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" to a war zone. As the Israelis correctly point out, applying Article 6 to a combat zone for the purposes of determining war crimes is nonsense. That a civillian casualty be considered as being "arbitrarily deprived of his life" under Article 6 has grave repercussions for any nation engaged in conflict. So no, "calling" a pretty much forgone concluion from a biased investigation is not hard, is it? For those interested, the full pdf of the Goldstone Report is here. And Israels response is here. Both are worth reading. As a bit of background. WP smoke shells were used by the IDF in the vicinity of the UN compound because their armour came under fire from anti tank missiles. As such weapons are line of sight, it can only be called "standard practice" to attempt to blind them. The mission did not find any evidence that the AT missiles weren't being used, only the UN workers "didn't hear them". The contention that the IDF should have somehow known (perhaps telepathically?) exactly what weapons would be used against them in a given area and therefore should have had alternative means of dealing with them is patently absurd.

Because for the survival of the human race we need to not have all our eggs in one basket. The only way to ensure our survival is to have colonies elsewhere and the only way to establish those is manned flight.

The astronauts are quite brave enough. It's the politicians and accountants that need a spinal infusion.

I think that one of the problems with this type of debate is that everybody is assuming what is meant by the word "God". Specifically the Judeo-Christian one. However, it is possible that this Universe has a creator, a "God", who evolved in a previous one. Hence it is possible that if the Universe is cyclic, then the first cause of the Universal progression is unknowable due to the time factor, but the evolution of "God" is not. It should always be remembered that the question "Is there a God, the creator?" is totally separate from the question "Is this religions interpretation of God, the creator, correct?" The two should not be confused. The first can be true while the second is false.

Well now you know why some people are against body scanners.

bascule, sorry mate, I missed it. It's hard to tell sometimes. We cull (shoot) a couple of million a year to keep the numbers down and this has caused outrage in certain circles. People like PETA have suggested that we should administer contraceptives instead, as that would be more humane. How on Gods earth you administer contraceptives to 20+ million kangarooos is never explained. Believe me, what you put forward sarcastically would have been suggested in all seriousness by somebody. Angry Turtle. We do use trains, everything from normal goods and passenger trains to great monstrous triple headers pulling a few hundred coal wagons. The problem is with high speed passenger trains. AKAIK, we are the only place that has road trains too. Passing one of these suckers on the highway is an "interesting" experience.