Rusted Sky

Hell if I know.

I'm looking at the current crop of candidates. I've pretty much tossed out the idea of voting for a Democrat - as front runners you've got Obama the Anointed and Untested and the Queen Bee who is ENTITLED, you damn peasant, and how dare you question whether she'd be a good President?

The rest of 'em - eh. Edwards - no. Kucinich? No. He ought to concentrate on his wife, I think. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, woo what a hottie.) At least he doesn't have to run for President to get a date anymore. Biden? Doesn't play nice with others. Richardson? My folks were very unimpressed with him during his tenure as New Mexico governer. Kerry and Gore, thank heaven, don't seem to be running at the present time, although I suppose it depends on the definition of 'running'. The rest... no. I ain't feeling the love, people.

On the Republican side... man. So many to choose from, so many... so I'm going to wait and see for a while. I'm partial to Giuliani, and Cox is at least a FairTax supporter, though he hasn't held any office of note so I'm doubtful on his experience. The rest aren't sparking much interest.

Realistically, we've had Presidents who frittered away their time in office, and others who stepped up at times of crisis to do what they thought right. It'll be interesting to see what we get that seem up to the task.

Interesting - and more than a bit disheartening. It's not about the party and what's best for it - it's about what's best for the country. If they get my attention and agreement on that, they'll have my vote. But I think the current climate's got our politicians seeing the other side as more of a threat than Al Quaeda and a nuke-armed Iran could ever be. And THAT just won't cut it.

J.

I'm going to give the little guy (Who isn't so little - we just bought him some new shoes and he'll no longer fit in kid's sizes....) an MP3 player for his birthday.

But - an MP3 player implies content for it, and although I could fill it with plenty of old radio shows I'm not too sure how he'd like that.

So - does anyone know any 'kid-friendly' subscription music download sites? I know about Napster, but I'm a bit concerned about some of their content. Suggestions would be appreciated, and please remember he's 9.

Ah, how time flies.

J.

"A withdrawal now...will have a horrible end"

Yesterday afternoon, I sat down with Alaa Makki, who is one of the lead members of the Sunni block in the Iraqi parliament. As recently as two weeks ago, The Washington Post referred to Dr. Makki as having "close ties with the insurgents," and according to additional reporting from the same source, the Sunni block is threatening to withdraw from the cabinet out of frustration with the political situation--and so to destabilize the government. But Dr. Makki also made some news recently when he spoke out against the terrorist attack on the Iraqi parliament, which was perpetuated by that purported ally of the Sunni, AQI. Indeed, the very Washington Post article that reports his ties with terrorism suggests that Dr. Makki's group is severing its connection with AQI--although the Post worries that the isolation of al Qaeda will turn out to be a bad thing for Iraq's political futures. Be that as it may, I agree that there is cause for frustration in Iraq. Each block has its particular hot button issues, and is fiercely defending its interest. But unlike the Sadrists, who reject all suggestions of negotiation and compromise, Dr. Makki suggested an openness to negotiation and an interest in promoting nationalism rather than sectarianism. A couple of other points to note are his thoughts about the ISF and his reaction to the idea of a swift American withdrawal according to the timetable proposed by congress. Read what he says and see what you think.

They're pandering for votes - nothing more, nothing less. Oh, there MIGHT be a smidgen of principle there, but it's more important to slam Bush, to gain power, to get the CONTROL they see as their due since '00 when they tried to grab the election in Florida. (And to rehash that, there wasn't a single valid count that showed Gore winning, and I'm STILL pissed how they tossed out the military absentee ballots.)

Y'see, this is what I'm really, really disliking about the posturing the Democrats are doing now. They're not looking at ANYTHING but their short-term gains. The Iraqi people be damned, THEY can't vote. They think they can run on a 'Bring the Soldiers Home' platform - but they're overlooking something.

This isn't the '70s. The military's no longer composed of a mix of draftees that didn't want to be there, and folks who enlisted for a variety of reasons, including that most ignoble and maligned by the intelligentsia one - patriotism.

And what they're doing in Iraq is rebuilding a country's political system. The folks over there are getting a crash course in how to be political animals and activists - and that will stick.

You bring them home before they can finish the job - and they're not going to be grateful. They will see the Democratic party as the party which forced a loss in Iraq, as they did in Viet Nam. They will look on as the carnage runs anew in the ME, as Syria and Iran run amok and slice up the state establishing itself in Iraq... without US intervention. They will watch as the Dems make political hay out of it all. And they're going to watch the work that's been done, the progress that's been made, go down the tubes so the Dems can get a few more seats. Losing a war, because a win would be inconvenient.

Wouldn't it be interesting... if these political animals decided enough was enough? I'm not talking military coup - I'm talking folks getting out of the military and deciding to cut the legs out from under the Democratic party. Because they can tell when they're being used for political purposes.

"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."

What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."

It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.

It's not MEANT to be intrusive, of course... just a reminder of what should already be practiced.

But isn't it odd that this should come down now, after Reid proclaimed we've lost in Iraq? I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone high in the Democratic Party called up someone at the Pentagon and made them an offer they couldn't refuse. "Silence the troops. Or you won't get shit in the budget, ever again."

Don't get me wrong, I think OPSEC is vital. I also think that the poor sod who's given the job of OPSEC manager will be overwhelmed with trying to check emails and blogs - and a blanket proscription wil come down. Confusion will reign - and in a couple of years things will be clarified to the point where blogs are acceptable again.

But for a critical period of time - there will be silence from Iraq.

J.

Bill Clinton warns of looming disasters - Yahoo! News

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that disasters such as worldwide famine and an obesity epidemic could destroy the U.S. health care system unless politicians begin to look ahead and cooperate.

Clinton, speaking at a forum sponsored by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said governments fail to act even when disasters are anticipated because leaders are distracted by fulfilling campaign promises and scrambling to respond to immediate emergencies. Big-picture planning gets "crowded out," he said.

"This is coming," Clinton said. "And I know there is no great political constituency for it, but we can avert these disasters for not very much money if they can be put into the public debate and people understand clearly what's going to happen."

The Kennedy School is spending $1.5 million over two years to study why governments across the world have failed to act on threats such as heat waves and hurricanes, even when they know they are coming.

From looking back at Hurricane Katrina and forward to the absence of firm plans to cool the planet or stem malaria, some of the school's top researchers will study the roots of government inaction.

Planning for the future's really tricky, especially when you don't know what you're supposed to be planning for. Best-guess scenarios abound - but in the end, they're just guesses.

The real problem arises when you take those guesses and act on them as if they were hard fact. If that had been done in the '70s when global cooling was on the radar, or the "Population Bomb" advocates were predicting mass famines due to overpopulation - then it's entirely possible to base your suppositions about what to do about something which isn't a problem in the first place.

The human being is a pretty adaptable critter. We'll get by, as long as we react to what's actually happening instead of to what we're thinking is GOING to happen.

J.

Activists want chimp declared a person - Science - MSNBC.com

Arguably, the primates are our closest biological kin. I'm not sure they're exactly up to 'person' status yet, and this would be an interesting precedent to fight out in the courts. Are they intelligent enough to be considered 'people'? Or is it a result of years of training?

My big problem with it is - where would it stop? I know a lot of folks who treat their pets like people - dogs, cats and so on. If speech is a trait that would define a person, then I know a bird or two that'd qualify. (Hi, Linda and James!) So once started - where would it stop?

Tis a puzzlement, to be sure.

J.

Bots on The Ground - washingtonpost.com

The most effective way to find and destroy a land mine is to step on it.

This has bad results, of course, if you're a human. But not so much if you're a robot and have as many legs as a centipede sticking out from your body. That's why Mark Tilden, a robotics physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, built something like that. At the Yuma Test Grounds in Arizona, the autonomous robot, 5 feet long and modeled on a stick-insect, strutted out for a live-fire test and worked beautifully, he says. Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield.

Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.

The human in command of the exercise, however -- an Army colonel -- blew a fuse.

The colonel ordered the test stopped.

Why? asked Tilden. What's wrong?

The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.

This test, he charged, was inhumane.

So it was, so it is, so it will be. It says a good bit about our humanity that we'd imply feelings in inanimate objects and care about them - and it says something else that we'd be so quick to deny feelings in others and find ways to demonize them when they don't look like us or believe like us.

So it was, so it is... and so it will be. Maybe someday we'll learn to respect the other the way we respect our machines.

J.

Admittedly, it's a long-term worry - but it's something that Aaron's generation will have to deal with, or his children's.

Foreign Affairs - The Global Baby Bust - Phillip Longman

Summary: Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it's too late.

J.

Shouldn't BOTH sides listen?

French police arrest nearly 600 people in post-election violence

PARIS, May 7 (AP) - (Kyodo)— French police have arrested a total of 592 people across the country as bands of rioters protested conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential election victory Sunday, French media reported.

The police said a total of 730 vehicles were torched and 28 police officers were injured in violent incidents from Sunday night to Monday morning. Police fought stone-throwing rioters with tear gas, but it was not clear how many rioters were injured, according to Radio France.

On Sunday night, about 5,000 people gathered at the Place de la Bastille, a favored gathering spot for right-wing supporters during the election.

Other fights with the police broke out in Toulouse, Marseilles and Lyon.

So instead, they riot.

Is it just me, or does it always seem the leftists in any society seem to be doing the rioting and street displays? The right, the more conservative sectors, the ones who actually seem to understand that as fun as it may be to riot and burn things down, that the next morning SOMEONE has to clean up and try to rebuild what the evening's excesses burned out, don't seem so inclined to quick use of the torch.

It's a lot of fun to call "man the barricades", but eventually someone's got to go open the stores and make sure the water and lights stay on.

And the ones quickest to call for riots are usually the furthest from that bit of 'reality'.

J.

AJacksonian, a frequent commentor here, has quite a background in geology. As such, he's put together 5 ways that the Earth can seriously do damage to humanity in Dumb Looks Still Free: Geophysics for the common man - pt. 2 Fun with disasters.

Personally, I fully agree with him that we need to diversify and seriously explore space with an eye towards moving out of this neighborhood ASAP...

J.

Scratch this joker off the list of folks I'd possibly vote for.

Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

Obama mentioned the disaster in Greensburg, Kan., in saying he had been told by the office of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that the state's National Guard had been depleted by its commitment to the Iraq War.

I know it's all political posturing, but stuff like this (and that) make it real hard to maintain my objectivity on the political front. I'm trying, but they make it so damn difficult.

J.

At the thought of change of the status quo, with France sliding into economic trouble and difficulties abounding in the country, when any suggestions are offered the immediate thought by the students is to go on strike. (Strike? Like they're doing something economically useful in the first place?)

Anti-Sarkozy protests in Paris, students strike | Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - French police arrested more than 100 demonstrators and hundreds of students went on strike at a Paris university as left-wing protests against president-elect Nicolas Sarkozy continued for a fourth night on Wednesday.

Some 300-400 demonstrators gathered on the Boulevard St Michel in the Latin Quarter of Paris, ostensibly to protest against a march by far-right supporters.

Shouting slogans like "Sarko fascist! The people will have your hide!" and "Police everywhere, justice nowhere!", the demonstrators were cornered by hundreds of police close to the nearby Luxembourg Gardens.

J.

Credibility hit = -25 points.

Stop The ACLU � Blog Archive � Did Howard Dean Manipulate KS Governor Sebelius Into Publicly Criticizing The White House?

Did Howard Dean order KS gov to lie about FEMA’s response to the Greensburg tornado?
posted at 6:44 pm on May 10, 2007 by Bryan

XM Radio’s Quinn & Rose made the allegation that DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date, on their show, The War Room, today. After I discussed the story via phone with both Quinn and Rose today, here’s what they sent me.

PLEASE NOTE: The following is information we have received from a reliable source. We have never been misinformed by this person in the past.

It seems that, on Sunday, a few hours after Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made her remarks about Bush sending all their National Guard Members and Resources to Iraq, she made a call to Brownback

Sebelius, was calling to apologize to the Senator for making the Political statements that she did. She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.

Jason - I'm afraid that the Democratic Party has reached a point where PARTY is more important than COUNTRY.

Governor Sebelius explained “Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we’re not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass.” She continued “I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush’s) numbers, you can’t really blame me for usin’ that.”

Then Sebelius explained the path to her comments. After Brownback told her that he was very disappointed in her, She pleaded “You know me Sam, I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t have to.” She declared “Howard (Dean) called me around 5 o’clock (in the morning) and told me not to ask The White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back. Dick (Durban?) called me an hour or 2 later and that’s when he told me we needed to use this ‘n’ said to talk about the Guard all bein’ at war.”

She then explained the thinking; “Speaker and Harry got so much heat on them from both sides over this damn war, ‘n’ they need to get the press on somethin’ else. I didn’t think it was right to use it like this either, but I didn’t see’s I had much choice in this climate, Sam.”

She the[n] apologized a few more times and promised that she’d try to move away from the comment when she and Brownback were to meet up later and tour the damage, but she had to so it without disappointing Dean and Pelosi.

I asked them to characterize their source, and they replied that she or he would be in a position to have knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Brownback and Gov. Sebelius and has never misinformed them before. Sean Hannity has called Sen. Brownback’s office to either verify or debunk the story, but so far the senator has done neither. There is word that the senator may attempt a “limited hangout” strategy this weekend, in which he acknowledges that the conversation took place but won’t remember the Dean angle. Such a strategy, if that’s what Sen. Brownback does, might be an attempt to maintain comity in what has until now been by all accounts a smooth relationship between the Democratic governor and Republican officials in Kansas. Comity shouldn’t come at the price of truth, however.

At this point, I have no way of verifying whether DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and instructed her to lie about the federal response to Friday’s devastating tornado. But I will make some calls and see what I can find out. Quinn & Rose’s story does fit the timeline and does fit the Democrat M.O. of late, in which they find a way to blame every single thing under the sun on Bush and on the war in Iraq. Other Democrat governors have pre-emptively blamed the lack of response to disasters that haven’t even happened yet on Bush and the war in Iraq. So on its face the story strikes me as very plausible.

wcbstv.com - Greensburg Victim Rips Kansas Gov. For Comments

"You may have seen her on television when she said that, and she talked about Hummers, that we needed Hummers. There were Hummers sitting in front of my house every day. The National Guard was there," he said. "I saw people from all over who came right away to help and nobody sent them, they just came because they knew it was going to be big. The response was excellent, the rescue efforts were all night long, and I even made a comment to my wife later that night when we came back into our basement that I can't imagine anyone saying we had a poor response to this tragedy, that it was so quick and it was amazing."

Swigart says the general feeling around the town is that residents were overwhelmed by the immediate response, and that the governor's fuss was for her own good. White House press secretary Tony Snow responded to Sebelius by saying that there was no request by Kansas officials for extra equipment, and that if there is anyone to blame, it's her.

"I was told she wanted to run as vice president on the Democratic ticket, and honestly, I wouldn't vote for her if they paid me because of that one thing she said on television right there. It was a political slam is all it was," he said. "It was a political statement and as far as the military thing overseas, I support what they're doing over there, and the military that came here is doing a great job too."

She may have been, by some standards, an honest and upstanding governer. But for a few minutes, perhaps with urging or without, something slipped. Remember, comrades - PARTY is more important than COUNTRY.

J.

So, you drop the tax rate and...

Revenues go up. And up. And up.

Counter-intuitive, isn't it?

BizzyBlog � ‘Hug a Liberal Economist’ Week Continues (April Monthly Treasury Statement Shows Record-Shattering Receipts)

As noted previously, the April spending number was expected to go up, because April 2006’s spending was lower than just about every month before or after it in fiscal 2006. But total spending for the fiscal year thus far is still well below the 4%-5% level I assumed when I predicted that this year’s deficit will be $177 billion. At the same time, collections thus far are way higher than the 9% I was using. It would be nice to think that 11%-plus will hold, but I don’t think it will; upside surprises are, of course, always welcome, I’ll take 10% in a heartbeat.

So go and give one of your liberal economist friends a hug. They must be nearly despondent over this huge vindication of supply-side economics’ tenet that, within a relevant range, decreasing marginal tax rates will increase revenues. That case is sooooo closed.

I still think that the full-year deficit could be as high as $150 billion. But looking at the remaining 5 months, here is a not-improbable scenario: If May-September receipts come in 10% ahead of May-September 2006 (vs. 11.2% so far), and spending during that same period only increases 3.7% (the year-to-date increase has only been 3.2%), the deficit at the end of this fiscal year will be $81 billion — right where it was at the end of April.

Still, you’d think this dramatic fiscal turnaround would cheer up Capitol Hill. Instead, Congressional Democrats seem to live in a parallel universe — one that they claim is starved for revenues, with a runaway deficit, and is dominated by the rich who pay no taxes at all. The reality is that the wealthy are financing Democratic spending ambitions, and the deficit could easily vanish within a year or two if Congress has the good sense to leave current tax policy in place

And I, for one, don't want to return to the Carter era re taxation.

J.

Speakeasy - Speed Test

Been averaging between 8.5 and 10 mbit downloads lately. Uploads still stink at 350-370kb, but I guess you can't have everything...

J.

Speakeasy - Speed Test

Been averaging between 8.5 and 10 mbit downloads lately. Uploads still stink at 350-370kb, but I guess you can't have everything...

J.

Update: It's so fast, it posted this twice! (LOL)

J.

Or professionalism, either. I mean, come on - go take a look.

mediabistro.com: TVNewser

Now, because we live in a fascist country (just ask the folks on Kos, or Digg) we can expect CNN to be shut down immediately and the people responsible jailed in Gitmo, right?

Yeah. Sure they will.

J.

I predicted this a while back.

ABC News: Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

Well, no. The Democratic party, after all, has a great deal at stake in the status quo. You balance things - a problem (or percieved problem) against a voter block that thinks you should solve it. Promise to solve the problem and you've got that block locked down. But if you DO solve it, that block will no longer be indebted to you, and may well vote against you on other issues.

So it's best to string them along as long as possible, depending on the forgetfulness of the average voter.

But the Democrats made a REAL big deal this last election out of lobbying and ethics reforms. It's kind of hard to go "Ah, well, we didn't mean it..." and then expect to be taken seriously in the next election.

But, like Jason said - "Mostly my party runs around like chickens with their heads cut off." I guess it's okay then to not expect much from headless chickens.

J.

DETNEWS | Weblog | Politics

While running for eco-moralizer-in-chief in 2004, Kerry was asked by The Detroit News editorial board (see article here from National Review) what car he drove. Without any hint of irony, he said:
"Well, we have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a Jeep. . . and a PT Cruiser up in Boston. . .and we have some SUVs. . . and an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. . . and I also have a Chevy. A big Suburban."

Thanks for sharing. Wonder what Gore's driving these days...

J.

Things you should know before using Sitemeter � Michael Sync

J.

Looks like those who miss the good old days of the USSR see a 'kinship' in certain forms of Islam.

Gates of Vienna: A Communism for the 21st Century

Man, I'd love to see a history text from 2400...

J.

Gas Prices Hit a New Record at the Pump: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

NEW YORK (AP) -- Gasoline prices hit a new record at the pump on Monday, but gas futures prices fell on concerns that $3 gas will crimp demand. Oil prices, meanwhile, rose on reports of refinery problems in the U.S. and abroad.

Nope.

With the instabilities in the ME, are we drilling domestically? IOn ANWR, or off the coasts?

Nope.

Is there any push by the Democrats to take care of this problem?

Nope.

Any possibility in the near future of the Democrats addressing and perhaps coming up with a solution for this?

YGBSM.

High gas prices are now offically not a problem. We have a Democratically controlled House and Senate, and that means energy prices are no longer something that needs to be addressed in any fashion which will lead to a solution down the road. If it can't be used to bash the Republicans or Bush, it's not even worth noticing.

But if the Republicans WERE still in charge, you'd be hearing 24-7 how it's all Bush's fault, or the oil companies charging exorbitant amounts. Now that the Democrats are in?

Silence.

J.

Charlie's Diary: Shaping the future

By Charles Stross - who I appreciate the writings thereof...

Enjoy!

J.

ぷらぽん (shockwave)

Something called Plupon. You have to click ball combinations that make 10 or 20. And it's not QUITE addictive...

Enjoy!

J.

Hilton's Shrink: Paris is a Wreck - TMZ.com

Paris Hilton's delicate state of mind is keeping her out of the courtroom ... for now.

According to a declaration filed by Dr. Charles Sophy, a psychiatrist who has seen Paris "off and on" over the last six months, Hilton is "not capable of any meaningful participation" in a civil trial brought against her by diamond heiress Zeta Graff. In a $10 million lawsuit filed in 2005, Graff claims that Hilton spread "vicious lies" about her that were printed in the New York Post.

Paris' shrink claims that Hilton is "emotionally distraught and traumatized" from the May 4 hearing where she was sentenced to 45 days in jail for breaking probation in her DUI bust, and asked a judge to allow her sufficient time to recover. In the document, the head-doc goes on to explain that Hilton "Cannot effectively respond to examination as a witness or provide any significant input into her defense." In fact, Sophy claims that forcing Paris to participate on May 21 would "exacerbate her current mental condition." The horror!

Oddly enough, the pic of her at the article reminds me of some of the female puppets used in the '60's series "Thunderbirds". Kind of blank stare, exaggerated features, slightly out of focus...

J.

Is only as good as the inputs.

New Phytoplankton Model May Revise Warming Estimates

Global climate models are missing a good chunk of plant information that could significantly alter long-term climate change predictions. A new technique for modeling phytoplankton -- microscopic plants in the upper layers of the Earth's waters -- could reveal a much more accurate picture.

"(Other) modelers have populated their oceans with three or four kinds of plants, said Mick Follows, a researcher in MIT's Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate. "We’ve represented a much more diverse community, and allowed it to have interactions that regulate it more naturally."

Phytoplankton populations are constantly changing, which makes them difficult to predict. So the MIT researchers developed an algorithm using evolutionary principles to more accurately represent the microscopic plants. A more precise count is important because phytoplankton process carbon dioxide -- a significant contributor to global warming.

Scientists interviewed for this article said it's too soon to say whether the more accurate phytoplankton count will be good news or bad news for the global climate's future. But climate researchers will have a more accurate picture once they factor the new phytoplankton model into their estimates, they said.

J.

Rev. Jerry Falwell Dies

Rest in peace, Rev. Falwell.

J.

You can pretty well judge when a particular subject changes from a science to a religion - when it becomes completely unacceptable to question any portion of the dogma surrounding it.

With that as a criteria, the global warming controversy has passed for some from science to religion - but there are those who are really, seriously questioning the premises that form up the arguments for golobal warming.

As such, they're heretics to the orthodoxy of St. Al.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

J.

LiveLeak.com - ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt

Sigh. Is there no depth to which folks won't go to get the moonbat crowd support?

Note: If you're a Ron Paul supporter looking to spam this post because I'm not for him - well, yay for you and keep it to yourself. Based on what I've seen on Digg and other places on the web from the Ron Paul crowd, I'm going to make a sweeping generalization and say if you're for him, and feel your tactics are effective in getting people to look at your candidate and vote for him, there's no way in hell I'll vote for the man. If this offends you, that's too bad. Get your own blog, they're easy to do.

Have a nice day.

J.

LiveLeak.com - ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt

Sigh. Is there no depth to which folks won't go to get the moonbat crowd support?

Note: If you're a Ron Paul supporter looking to spam this post because I'm not for him - well, yay for you and keep it to yourself. Based on what I've seen on Digg and other places on the web from the Ron Paul crowd, I'm going to make a sweeping generalization and say if you're for him, and feel your tactics are effective in getting people to look at your candidate and vote for him, there's no way in hell I'll vote for the man. If this offends you, that's too bad. Get your own blog, they're easy to do.

Have a nice day.

J.

LiveLeak.com - ron paul believes the kennedy assasination was done by the american govt

Sigh. Is there no depth to which folks won't go to get the moonbat crowd support?

Note: If you're a Ron Paul supporter looking to spam this post because I'm not for him - well, yay for you and keep it to yourself. Based on what I've seen on Digg and other places on the web from the Ron Paul crowd, I'm going to make a sweeping generalization and say if you're for him, and feel your tactics are effective in getting people to look at your candidate and vote for him, there's no way in hell I'll vote for the man. If this offends you, that's too bad. Get your own blog, they're easy to do.

Have a nice day.

J.

Apparently he doesn't inspire much loyalty.

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, is declaring against his former boss after last night's debate embarrassment, where Mr. Paul appeared to blame 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy.

Of course, it'll all be seen as a conspiracy to silence someone telling truth to power. (One of the more flatulent social statements of our time, I'm afraid... Makes you feel good, stinks up the air around you, and drives folks who don't particularly appreciate the smell away.)

J.

Apparently he doesn't inspire much loyalty.

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, is declaring against his former boss after last night's debate embarrassment, where Mr. Paul appeared to blame 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy.

Of course, it'll all be seen as a conspiracy to silence someone telling truth to power. (One of the more flatulent social statements of our time, I'm afraid... Makes you feel good, stinks up the air around you, and drives folks who don't particularly appreciate the smell away.)

J.

Apparently he doesn't inspire much loyalty.

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, is declaring against his former boss after last night's debate embarrassment, where Mr. Paul appeared to blame 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy.

Of course, it'll all be seen as a conspiracy to silence someone telling truth to power. (One of the more flatulent social statements of our time, I'm afraid... Makes you feel good, stinks up the air around you, and drives folks who don't particularly appreciate the smell away.)

J.

There are certain times in a political campaign where single, simple mistakes can totally change the persona that's been crafted and disqualify a candidate. You remember, of course, the Dean Scream, the Dukakis Tank Ride, the Hart boat trip. And in these days of a 24/7 media cycle, I'm thinking the candidate that makes the fewest mistake or gaffs is going to end up the front runner.

And of course there are certain hot-button issues that candidates will be wise to not even approach, but may not be able to help themselves. Abortion is one, taxes another. Hell, I MIGHT even vote for Ron Paul if he makes one primary plank the FairTax - though I'd have to hold my nose and take a dose of Phenergan to manage it. (Note - that's MIGHT as in I MIGHT win the lottery if I buy a ticket. The odds are extremely, almost ridiculously long, but not totally impossible.)

It'll be interesting to see the last man standing in the two races.

(And no, I don't think Hillary will make it to the top in the Democratic race. Obama MIGHT - but it's difficult to tell.)

J.

There are certain times in a political campaign where single, simple mistakes can totally change the persona that's been crafted and disqualify a candidate. You remember, of course, the Dean Scream, the Dukakis Tank Ride, the Hart boat trip. And in these days of a 24/7 media cycle, I'm thinking the candidate that makes the fewest mistake or gaffs is going to end up the front runner.

And of course there are certain hot-button issues that candidates will be wise to not even approach, but may not be able to help themselves. Abortion is one, taxes another. Hell, I MIGHT even vote for Ron Paul if he makes one primary plank the FairTax - though I'd have to hold my nose and take a dose of Phenergan to manage it. (Note - that's MIGHT as in I MIGHT win the lottery if I buy a ticket. The odds are extremely, almost ridiculously long, but not totally impossible.)

It'll be interesting to see the last man standing in the two races.

(And no, I don't think Hillary will make it to the top in the Democratic race. Obama MIGHT - but it's difficult to tell.)

J.

There are certain times in a political campaign where single, simple mistakes can totally change the persona that's been crafted and disqualify a candidate. You remember, of course, the Dean Scream, the Dukakis Tank Ride, the Hart boat trip. And in these days of a 24/7 media cycle, I'm thinking the candidate that makes the fewest mistake or gaffs is going to end up the front runner.

And of course there are certain hot-button issues that candidates will be wise to not even approach, but may not be able to help themselves. Abortion is one, taxes another. Hell, I MIGHT even vote for Ron Paul if he makes one primary plank the FairTax - though I'd have to hold my nose and take a dose of Phenergan to manage it. (Note - that's MIGHT as in I MIGHT win the lottery if I buy a ticket. The odds are extremely, almost ridiculously long, but not totally impossible.)

It'll be interesting to see the last man standing in the two races.

(And no, I don't think Hillary will make it to the top in the Democratic race. Obama MIGHT - but it's difficult to tell.)

J.

Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah.

New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests

First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners
May 10-13, 2007

Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0

Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%

Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?

J.

Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah.

New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests

First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners
May 10-13, 2007

Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0

Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%

Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?

J.

Ron Paul is supposedly zooming in popularity. Um, yeah.

New Yorkers Continue to Lead 2008 Nomination Contests

First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination
Based on Republicans/Republican leaners
May 10-13, 2007

Rudy Giuliani = 29
John McCain = 23
Fred Thompson = 12
Mitt Romney = 8
Newt Gingrich = 6
Sam Brownback = 2
Tommy Thompson = 1
Mike Huckabee = 1
Tom Tancredo = 1
George Pataki = 1
Duncan Hunter = *
Jim Gilmore = *
Chuck Hagel = *
Ron Paul = 0

Other = 2
None = 5
All/any = 0
No opinion = 8
* = Less than 0.5%

Okay, it's a joke, right? The whole Ron Paul thing? He's lower than Kucinich, for crying out loud. And he's supposedly a great leader? Don't you have to do something like... lead?

J.

Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...

I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.

I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.

Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.

Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.

Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Blame the Fed.

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century...

So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.

Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.

J.

Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...

I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.

I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.

Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.

Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.

Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Blame the Fed.

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century...

So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.

Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.

J.

Man, I can't believe I did this. I'm spending WAY too much time on Digg any more, and it seems most of the political posts are about Ron Paul - who seems to be, from all accounts, a Republican version of Chuck Norris. I've taken a look at his campaign web site, and, well...

I can only figure there's so much support for him because of the pity vote. There's just nothing THERE.

I've looked through his issues. I've dissected the one on taxes. It's standard political boilerplate, a nice listing of 'opinions', without a single commitment to DO anything about the issue. The bold text below is verbatim from his web site, the regular is my commentary on it.

Let's go through it, shall we? Direct from his web site, unedited... (but not uncommented.)

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

No argument there. I like lower taxes. I believe low taxes stimulate the economy. I think there's very few folks who actually, you know, WORK for a living that want their taxes raised. However, in this first paragraph - nothing about a committment to lowering taxes. We do have a point of agreement - which is what the writer of this bit wants remembered.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us.

Again, non-specific praise on tax cuts. After all, how can you disagree with these statements? And we get the point. Tax cuts are nice. They're tasty. They're shiny and sweet-smelling. Are you actually FOR them? I realize as a politician he has to circle a subject a half-dozen times before he takes a stand on it, but this is a campaign site and you'd think he'd want to cut to the chase. And $40 a month - well, it's better than nothing.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

Zip! Now we change direction, AWAY from taxes. By implied definition he's a 'real conservative' - but in the verbiage so far there's no "I support and will campaign for lower taxes." That's certainly something that can be inferred, but it's not stated so it can be backed away from. And 'low taxes' - where's the point at which they're 'low', and where are they 'high'? You can infer a lot into this one sentence, without any support elsewhere.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.

Setting the stage - if it looks like higher taxes will be needed, he can gracefully back away from any implied committment to lower taxes. Notice we've gone from taxes to spending, and there's STILL no comittment to cut ANYTHING?

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply – making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Blame the Fed.

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

Blame China, and Saudi Arabia, not a Congress that couldn't cut out pork if they had to. There's what seems to be an isolationist streak running through this guy's stuff. Don't know if it's intentional, but it's noticeable.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Ah, okay then. Didn't realize it was a checklist for spending in the 21st Century...

So. Tax cut promise? Nope. I see nothing - NOTHING in his collection of buzz phrases that makes me think he'd cut taxes. He MENTIONS tax cuts, but avoids coming out and promising them. "I promise to cut taxes by X percent across the board" - that's simple, straight, and to the point, isn't it? I'd even accept "I believe taxes are too high, and I'll try to cut them and government spending." as being relevant. But what he's doing is spouting out opinions that people can agree with, and not taking anything resembing a stand. I don't want a president who's idea of plain speaking is using hundreds of words to dance around a subject without actually touching it.

Okay - my chance of voting for Ron Paul has officially reached the chance of me winning the lottery WITHOUT buying a ticket.

J.

One of the less appetizing bits of social fallout from the cultural shifts that brought about the 60s and the 70s is a simple little phrase that was used as both a shield and a weapon.

And no, it wasn't "Have a nice day!" delivered with a thick slathering of cheerfulness. No, this was much darker and yet very appealing for the counterculture crowd.

"Question Authority."

As a phrase, it's pretty good. It's clear, succint, to the point... and carries a hell of a lot of frieght. "Question Authority" - and a President fell. "Question Authority" - and a war was ended. (That the consequences for the losing side in Viet Nam were pretty horrific didn't matter.) "Question Authority" - and a cultural shift happened that hasn't settled down yet.

But any more, that phrase seems to be used for a simple rejection of the status quo. If a structure exists, "Question Authority" allows the 'user' to ignore it or attempt to change it into something more to his liking. In fact, it virtually demands it.

"Question Authority" ... but what's the real authority you're supposed to question? The authority of the teachers in school who tell you that everything sucks and the US is to blame for all the evils of the modern world? The PC folk who are very quick to insist that every culture is good in it's own way, with the exception of contemporary American culture which is uniquely diseased and deserving to be torn down? How about the authority of the likes of Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson? Question the authority of the police. Of your local government. Of the cultural mores you were raised under. Question what you're taught in the schools. Believe nothing, question everything... But NEVER question the authority of those telling you that you should question eveything and believe nothing.

Taken to the logical extreme - you wouldn't be able to trust anything. The web of trust that the country depends on would vanish. The glue that holds the country together, the common bonds of civility and politeness, the idea that you could believe the guy at the store selling food that was safe and wholesome or the doctor would give you proper treatment for what ails you with medicines that are likely to do you more good than harm - it's all corroded away by that little phrase. And how much weakening of the structure of a country can be endured before it collapses under it's own weight?

One of the things that's rarely noticed by political activists, the ones that advocate tossing out the old order and bringing in a new, who espouse violent revolution against the status quo because what's going on is so terrible they can barely find the words to express their hatred of it... is so simple it's not even worth noticing. It doesn't need a Communist Manifesto to proclaim it, or a book-length essay from a philosopher/linguist that is so complex that only someone who has studied philosophy for decades can comprehend it - instead it boils down to two simple sentances that have been overlooked by the 'man the barricades' crowd for centuries.

It's easy to break things down and burn things up. It's a lot harder to build things that work and build things that last.

When you go kicking at the structures of society, you'd best make very sure that there's nothing vitally important in those structures, and that you won't cause more problems than already exist. Certainly there have been things in our past that needed to be changed - slavery is a big thing there - but there have been attempts to change our society that backfired in ways that weren't expected, such as Prohibition. Caution is advised - but it's hard to be patient when you're a visionary. You KNOW what has to be done to make things perfect for everyone. The real problem is to sugar-coat the solution so people will be willing to swallow it. Yet the visionary's ideas of perfection tend to overlook a minor point

Perfection in human affairs is pretty much impossible to come up with - any society based on human interaction is going to be flawed and imperfect. This didn't keep the ideological dreamers from working at it, and generating horrific nightmares. The 20th century is littered with the wreckage of countries that attempted to create perfection within their societies, and failed at a horrendous cost of lives and properties and at their most malignant sought to force their 'perfection' on others... again at a staggering cost of lives and property. The dreams of utopia are fueled by blood and built on mounds of bodies.

And the call to "Question Authority", appealing to the young, to those who don't seem to fit in, who chafe under what they feel are artificial restrictions on the freedom they desire, seems