Woman to Woman

By E. Lewis

September 4, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Given how many people can’t tell the difference between an Arab, Hispanic, North African and a Native American, I don’t think so.

Profile behaviors first.

By candide

September 4, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Since blonde Norwegian grandmothers have a low record of terrorism I think racial profiling is totally appropriate in a desperate situation.

By Balbes

September 4, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Hey http://koni2006.ifrance.com/frontline-fleax-254.html "> Frontline Fleax , [URL=http://koni2006.ifrance.com/frontline-fleax-254.html] Frontline Fleax [/URL], http://middhorm.ifrance.com/car-i8nsurance-price-187.html "> Car I8nsurance Price , [URL=http://middhorm.ifrance.com/car-i8nsurance-price-187.html] Car I8nsurance Price [/URL], http://middlef.iespana.es/atlantic-city-expr4essway-363.html "> Atlantic City Expr4essway , [URL=http://middlef.iespana.es/atlantic-city-expr4essway-363.html] Atlantic City Expr4essway [/URL], http://gnom555.iespana.es/online-affilliate-program-298.html "> Online Affilliate Program , [URL=http://gnom555.iespana.es/online-affilliate-program-298.html] Online Affilliate Program [/URL], http://middlef.iespana.es/atalntic-city-expressway-46.html "> Atalntic City Expressway , [URL=http://middlef.iespana.es/atalntic-city-expressway-46.html] Atalntic City Expressway [/URL], http://samtakoy.iquebec.com/ticket-yznkee-85.html "> Ticket Yznkee , [URL=http://samtakoy.iquebec.com/ticket-yznkee-85.html] Ticket Yznkee [/URL], http://belkaq.iespana.es/fior9cet-generic-74.html "> Fior9cet Generic , [URL=http://belkaq.iespana.es/fior9cet-generic-74.html] Fior9cet Generic [/URL], http://gnom555.iitalia.com/online-clsas-31.html "> Online Clsas , [URL=http://gnom555.iitalia.com/online-clsas-31.html] Online Clsas [/URL], http://samtakoy.ifrance.com/online-master-degrewe-351.html "> Online Master Degrewe , [URL=http://samtakoy.ifrance.com/online-master-degrewe-351.html] Online Master Degrewe [/URL],

hoop

By The72John

September 4, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Seems to me that if we live in a world “where security agents are freed to clear Grandma through security more quickly than a single young Arab-looking man”, that the next wave of terrorists will probably look like grandma.

By Lyrazel

September 4, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Who is more likely to be stopped in America’s airports? General Accounting Office issued a report of customs searches of 102,000 airline passengers. It found that black women were 9 times more likely than white women to be x-rayed after a frisk or pat-down search, but less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband.

See we ALREADY DO racial profiling at airports!

By Hillary

September 4, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

http://weight-watcher.acb.pl/ weight watcher [url=http://weight-watcher.acb.pl/]weight watcher[/url]

By candide

September 5, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

Racial profiling is only one tool. You can be fooled. For example Shaunti looks like she could one day be a Norwegian grandmother, by my standards not a likely terrorist. But you would need to interview her. As she speaks you would get the notion she is a Christian Talaban fanatic. So racial profiling must be combined with interviews. Those expressing evangelical notions need to be considered likely terrorists.

By chuck

September 5, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Good morning, I was unable to respond last week to you Renee. The schedule was a little too hectic.

Renee, I would love to see you become a Christian. I do want that for everyone just as Christ wanted it for everyone. I understand that you are not open to that, but you made an interesting comment:

However, I would be willing to have a discussion or debate with someone, if they would be willing to hear my side, and my way of thinking. And while you don’t try to convert, so to speak, you and Randy do think your way is the truth. Just because it is your truth, doesn’t make it my truth. You may feel like fire and brimstone is in order for me, however, that doesn’t make it so.

I would be glad to listen to your side. I’m very interested in what you have to say on the topic. You have shared snippets of your opinion, but I would gladly listen to the details. As for the Gospel being “my truth” Christians don’t and really can’t think that way. It is either THE truth OR it is a LIE. Either God meant what He said or the whole enchilada is out the door. If Jesus lived a sinless life and was then the sacrifice for our sins that means that He could not have lied. So when He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man cometh to the Father, but by me”, He was either telling the truth OR He has no saving power. After I became a Christian, I questioned EVERYTHING. My teenage years were spent trying to discern the truth of the Bible. While I remained a member of a Baptist Church, I studied other denominations and faiths extensively. I had a good friend who was Jewish. I went with her to Synagogue a number of times. I visited Pentacostal churches, Methodist churches etc. I took a high school course and a college course on comparitive religions.

I hardly ever accept anything ANYBODY says about the scripture without first studying it for myself. So I didn’t come to these beliefs haphazardly or just because some preacher said it. I also didn’t follow “blindly” as you put it, nor do I do that now. The thing is, I can never think of the Word of God as “my truth”. If it not UNIVERSAL TRUTH, then it has absolutely no use to me or to anyone else. BUT IF IT IS UNIVERSAL TRUTH, then ANYONE who dies without Christ is bound for Hell. Now tell me the truth. If you knew people were headed for an eternity in torment, wouldn’t you be passionate about warning them?

I have tried to “convert” some people on this blog. One was “Terry” who was dying of cancer. He was on about 2 years ago and then he wasn’t. I don’t know what happened with him, but I hope he is in heaven now. I’ve tried to put the good news of Christ in my posts often. I, however, don’t have the power to convert ANYONE. God calls to them through various means, including blog posts and then individuals make the choice as to whether or not they will believe. Nobdy can do it for anybody else. I hope this clarifies a couple of things for you as to my motivation. I think you are an intelligent woman who is fully capable of figuring things out on your own.

By 2D

September 5, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

There are lots of things that should be done to enhance the screening processes at the airport, many of them are mentioned in Diane’s response. However, she did no refute the use of racial profiling. She merely indicated that profiling, in and of itself does not guarantee better security.

Unless someone can come up with a reason to show that racial profiling makes travel more unsafe, TSA should be able to use it in their effort to screen passengers.

By candide

September 5, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

The hell with all this talk about the stupid Bible. It was written by sado-masocists and other disturbed people.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 5, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

From Lyrazel — Who is more likely to be stopped in America’s airports? General Accounting Office issued a report of customs searches of 102,000 airline passengers. It found that black women were 9 times more likely than white women to be x-rayed after a frisk or pat-down search, but less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband. See we ALREADY DO racial profiling at airports!

Wow!! I didn’t know that!! But I highly suspected it! I travelled to Canada and Bermuda last year and both times I was stopped, asked questions, and pulled aside. My luggage was pulled off the plane and searched too. I was trying to figure out if I had “THIS WOMAN IS A CRAZY A$$ TERRORST!!” stamped on my forehead!!!

By TramadoL54488

September 5, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.

By chuck

September 5, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

I think that they should screen EVERYBODY, but they should go the extra mile with those who fit the profile of terrorists. They shouldn’t give the little old lady a pass, but they should really look long and hard at those who are from countries that have sponsored terrorism or who otherwise fit the profile.

As a white male,with a tan, dark hair etc. I have been profiled every time I have flown. I always have to take my shoes off, they always search my carryon. I have never been called to the back for special screening, but a 17 year-old white girl traveling with our group to Romania in June was taken back and patted down.

My wife was given extra attention back in April when we flew to NYC. She doesn’t look anything like an Arabic woman. As long as they make sure we are as safe as we can be, I don’t care about the inconvenience. Anybody that travels by plane and doesn’t go to the TSA web-site to see what is NOT ALLOWED, is nuts anyway. They deserve extra attention.

By Jack

September 5, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

The TSA procedures are a joke. Do we “feel” safer? Hell no.

By Renee

September 5, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

chuck - I will respond to you shortly. On the topic at hand though, I actually do agree with your 9:45 comment. Everybody should be screened. Racial profiling will not make it safer, because unfortunately, the terrorists will know how to get around that. If they don’t search blonde haired, blue eyed women, then that’s who they will use to get by the system, or that’s who they will look like.

By lozen

September 5, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

“The trick is not to let the victims know they’re under attack.”
This week, Dupont, the chemical giant, slashed employee pension benefits by two-thirds. Furthermore, new Dupont workers won’t get a guaranteed pension at all — and no health care after retirement. It’s part of Dupont’s new “Die Young” program, I hear. Dupont is not in financial straits. Rather, the slash attack on its workers’ pensions was aimed at adding a crucial three cents a share to company earnings, from $3.11 per share to $3.14. So Happy Labor Day. And this week, the government made it official: For the first time since the Labor Department began measuring how the American pie is sliced, those in the top fifth of the wealth scale are now gobbling up over half (50.4%) of our nation’s annual income. So Happy Labor Day. We don’t even get to lick the plates. While 15.9% of us don’t have health insurance (a record, Mr. President!), even those of us who have it, don’t have it: we’re spending 36% more per family out of pocket on medical costs since the new regime took power in Washington. If you’ve actually tried to collect from your insurance company, you know what I mean. So Happy Labor Day.

But if you think I have nothing nice to say about George W. Bush, let me report that the USA now has more millionaires than ever — 7.4 million! And over the past decade, the number of billionaires has more than tripled, 341 of them!

If that doesn’t make you feel like you’re missing out, this should: You, Mr. Median, are earning, after inflation, a little less than you earned when Richard Nixon reigned. Median household income — and most of us are “median” — is down. Way down. Since the Bush Putsch in 2000, median income has fallen 5.9%. Mr. Bush and friends are offering us an “ownership” ociety. But he didn’t mention who already owns it. The richest fifth of America owns 83% of all shares in the stock market. But that’s a bit misleading because most of that, 53% of all the stock, is owned by just one percent of American households. And what does the Wealthy One Percent want? Answer: more wealth. Where will they get it? As with a tube of toothpaste, they’re squeezing it from the bottom. Median paychecks have gone down by 5.9% during the current regime, but Americans in the bottom fifth have seen their incomes sliced by 20%. At the other end, CEO pay at the Fortune 500 has bloated by 51% during the first four years of the Bush regime to an average of $8.1 million per annum.

The loot Dupont sucked from its employees’ retirement funds will be put to good use. It will more than cover the cost of the company directors’ decision to hike the pension set aside for CEO Charles Holliday to $2.1 million a year. And that’s fair, I suppose: Holliday’s a winning general in the class war. And shouldn’t the winners of war get the spoils? Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “ARMED MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.”

By Billy

September 5, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

I love Greg Palast. He was the one who uncovered the Bush theft of Florida in 2000 before the election, but the supposedly “LIBERAL” Media didn’t mention it until after the election.

By Archie

September 5, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

I think Diane is right on this topic and Shanti borders on being well, racist. Heck, America’s security people had already identified the 9/11 hijackers but noone acted on it but the chance to harass black folk is just too good to pass up. There has only been one event like 9/11 but there have been other terrorist type acts perpetrated here in the U.S. and they weren’t by people from the Middle East. Also terrorists have people black,white,yellow that are willing to do whatever, but obviously there are not a lot of people willing to blow themselves up in the name of some cause. Diane wins this debate easily.

By Jack

September 5, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Lozen. Your post sounds that of Marx. Good idea, we’ll just give everyone the same amount of money to live on and we’ll all be one big happy lower class.

By Brian Curtis

September 5, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Jack: Actually, yes, that WOULD be better than our current situation… where one big, unhappy lower class is systematically exploited and abused by a few plutocrats.

By lozen

September 5, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Jack, hard to believe you got that one simple idea out of that post.

By 2D

September 5, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Lozen… Interesting post. While I don’t necessarily agree with Jack that you sound Marxist, I do wonder why you are connecting this with the current administration.

Do you expect government to ensure wealth is distributed in a more “equitable” manner (i.e. max/min wages, defined work hours, etc. a la France and Germany)???

Do you think that the current administration has done something different than others to cause the statistics and trends you have stated (i.e. was this trend occurring continuously from the mid seventies until now)???

Do you not believe that other factors have contributed to the statistics and trends you have stated (i.e. how has the increased numbers of DINK families, or simply the dual income family that was not prevelent 30 years ago affected this trend)???

By Mara

September 5, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

2D - Unless someone can come up with a reason to show that racial profiling makes travel more unsafe, TSA should be able to use it in their effort to screen passengers.

I would’ve said “Unless someone can come up with a reason to show that racial profiling makes travel safer, TSA should not be able to use it in their effort to screen passengers.”

By The72John

September 5, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Lozen. Your post sounds that of Marx. Good idea, we’ll just give everyone the same amount of money to live on and we’ll all be one big happy lower class.

This is the false assumption that conservatives and others ALWAYS make when the inequity of wealth distribution that currently exists is brought up. I realize that we’re conditioned by current right-wing talking mouths to make knee-jerk association with Communisim and Socialism, but that simply isn’t right.

Concern for flat and declining middle class wages does not mean that one favors Socialism or “everyone making the same”.

What do you think makes our economy function effectively? Do you think that it’s healthy for an economy to have more and more of the total wealth availible within the economy shift upward to an ever-shrinking top percentage of the population? As the trend continues, what do you suppose is going to happen to our very consumer-based economy?

The point that lozen and others make is not that the earning of profit is evil, or that corporate success is evil, it’s that when the goal becomes “more more more” rather than simply being successful, everyone else suffers, and ultimately the economy suffers.

As companies have become obsessed with bottom line profit, they have slashed pensions, health care, halted salary increases for all up their top management…this is leading to a decline of middle class income that will ultimately undermine the basis of our economy and lead to recession or even depression.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Unless someone can come up with a reason to show that racial profiling makes travel more unsafe, TSA should be able to use it in their effort to screen passengers.

Hmm…typical conservative Orwellian response…hey 2D, drugging people into insensibility while they fly would probably make travel safer, too, wouldn’t it?

It seems you are severely underestimating the intelligence and ability of terrorist groups…why in the world don’t you think that they would adapt their tactics so that racial profiling wouldn’t be an issue?

Race is a convenient right-wing way to make people think that “something” is being done. So, while you’re sitting happily in your plane seat while some completely innocent Middle Easterner is having a body-cavity search, a blond-haired Irish guy with freckles and a toothy grin is strolling into the plane with a bomb in his bag.

By Billy

September 5, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Lozen. Your post sounds that of Marx. Good idea, we’ll just give everyone the same amount of money to live on and we’ll all be one big happy lower class.

Nice, Jack. You take that from Limbaugh’s talking points or Hannity’s?

No one ever suggests the overthrow of the elites through force. No one believes, as much as the right would like us to think otherwise, that giving everyone the same amount of money is ideal. The right has done a tremendous job of using the media for portray the left as such. No, we are not Marxists. But a little socialism wouldn’t hurt.

I’m not talking about everyone getting the same thing. I’m talking about maintaining some semblance of fairness in the system. I’m talking about making sure that families aren’t falling through the cracks by the bucketload. I’m not talking about leveling the playing field. I’m talking about simply allowing the lowest among us to at least get sight of it. Not financial equality, but some sort of safety net.

For while I am not a Marxist, while I do not advocate the overthrown of the upper classes, while I believe people are entitled to make what people are willing to pay, I also know that everyone has a breaking point. When many people, all at once, are pushed to the breaking point, bad things will happen. If you look at most terrorists and gang members, you will find some common traits. Among these: poverty, a feeling of oppression, and lack of voice in the society that engenders that feeling.

So, I’m not advocating that the lower class rise up and overthrow the upper, but when it happens, don’t say that you weren’t warned.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 5, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

hmmm Lozen interesting post about Dupont earlier. However, with that added rant at the end, I’m beginning to wonder about the author’s sanity…………

By Chilao

September 5, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Blah should be real proud of Dupont’s actions, it would mean that people, in order to plan for their retirement, cannot count on the government via soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security, nor can they count on their employers, since they are soon to be worthless for providing a retirement program, and people will be left to give their money to the WallStreet coke whores.

oh, wait, there’s a topic, racial profiling. I have to agree that when there is racial profiling, it will be the little old ladies or the Irish(what’s up with Pick on the Irish? j/k) OR who was it, those Montana Freemen/McVeigh types. or Randall is it? The Army of God folk? Treat everybody suspiciously. LOL Oh wait, they already do.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 5, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

What I can’t understand is that when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Okalhoma, why didn’t the government start profiling WHITE MEN? I mean that would’ve been a prime example of profiling at work across unilateral lines!!! FACT: Most of the “home grown” terrorist organizations in America are inhabited by white, middle-class, men. Why aren’t they profiled?

By Lyrazel

September 5, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

As companies have become obsessed with bottom line profit, they have slashed pensions, health care, halted salary increases for all up their top management…this is leading to a decline of middle class income that will ultimately undermine the basis of our economy and lead to recession or even depression.

Hmmm, here is the conundrum……….>

There are significant members of the middle class who own stock and want to see the rise of stock to benefit themselves too. An increase in jobs managing portfolios for the middle class has also opened up all because of the gains one can make speculating the stock market. What companies have done by slashing all benefits has occurred under the approval in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The gains brought by these corporate cuts furthered a significant population into becoming wealthy investors. Just as companies who moved business overseas gained profits, Americans holding stock in those companies prospered.

Revolution will never happen with a middle class entrenched in the dream of massive wealth within their reach if they accept status quo. Get back in your cubicle…

By Billy

September 5, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

oh, wait, there’s a topic, racial profiling. I have to agree that when there is racial profiling, it will be the little old ladies or the Irish(what’s up with Pick on the Irish? j/k) OR who was it, those Montana Freemen/McVeigh types. or Randall is it? The Army of God folk?

I never fly. I mean never. I flew to Cancun en route to my honeymoon in 2003. We were stopped and our luggage searched when we arrived. Why are you going through our luggage when we’re already off the plane? Is there nowhere more private you can take us before you rifle through the lingerie my wife packed for our freakin’ honeymoon?

Then, when we were boarding the plane, I was pulled aside, patted down, and my shoes searched. They tried to get my wife to go ahead and board. For the record, I have brown hair, blue eyes, a reddish goatee, and one of the palest complexions you’ll ever lay eyes on. Not exactly what most people think of as far as terrorists are concerned. Then again, I fear the Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs more than I do Osama Bin Laden…

By 2D

September 5, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

John… Actually, if you had read the entire post, I also stated that racial profiling alone was not the answer, but that several things needed change. Please stop trying to label me as any political ideology b/c when some other issues (i.e. environmental) come up, you might change your mind.

Short of screening everyone, which would be the best method of screening, terrorists will be working to get around the system. Even then they will try. So, that is a lame reason to not attempt a particular screening method.

I based that statement off of the assumption that TSA will / can not screen everyone. So, if they are not screening everyone, I ask myself would TSA be better off screening purely random folks, or targeting their screening based on profiling??? I say profiling is better because as of this point in time, it appears the vast majority of terrorists fit a particular age / religious / racial profile. That’s not any political ideology. It’s purely logic. It’s not one hundred percent, but what is outside of screening each and every individual??? Nothing. that’s why that is the most secure policy.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Please stop trying to label me as any political ideology b/c when some other issues (i.e. environmental) come up, you might change your mind

If only you didn’t sound like an arch-conservative on pretty much every topic we’ve discussed…

That’s not any political ideology. It’s purely logic. It’s not one hundred percent, but what is outside of screening each and every individual??? Nothing. that’s why that is the most secure policy

But it isn’t actually logical. It’s an emotional response, not a logical one. Emotionally you think that all terrorists are middle-eastern men, therefore you feel emotionally comfortable with racial profiling as a means of safety.

The LOGICAL response is to appreciate organizations like Al-qaeda for the intelligent, adaptive groups that they are. Disregard the horrific nature of their organization and its philosophies and goals for a minute, and realize that they whatever they are, they are not stupid. Now…why would an organization that has proven to be adaptive, clever, effective and smart continue to send through men who look like a racially profiled terrorist?

Maybe they wouldn’t…maybe they would use people who look just like you or me, and rely on our own foolishness to provide the chink in our security that they are looking for. That’s why profiling by race is a waste of time. It’s not “logical” at all.

By GOB

September 5, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

*I have tried to “convert” some people on this blog. One was “Terry” who was dying of cancer. He was on about 2 years ago and then he wasn’t. I don’t know what happened with him, but I hope he is in heaven now. *

Jeez, so now you are actually wishing that posters die??? jk

By Jack

September 5, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

No Billy. My opinion. Don’t listen to Rush or Hannity. they both kiss-up too much. I do like Savage though. Susy Homemaker’s post is real logical.

By Billy

September 5, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

2D — Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. Look to southeast Asia — Indonesia, et al — to find the place this surge is occurring. The way I see it, as Islam spreads the potential for Islamic terrorism will be from an increasingly ethnically diverse population. And it still does not account for the McVeighs of the world.

By Zack

September 5, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Islam is a religion of vile hatred. Acts like 9/11 are applauded. It’s unfortunate that our “Christian” president insists on calling it a religion of peace. What a false statement.

If you think I’m being harsh on Islam, I have two words for you: Study it!!!!!

Yes, we should profile racially at airports. Why are we opting not to protect ourselves in an effort to be politically correct toward those who hate us?

Please ponder that last question for a moment.

By Chilao

September 5, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

interesting read on Islamic Fascism:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525865419&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Disregard the horrific nature of their organization and its philosophies and goals for a minute,

Yeah let’s all just drop our gaurd for a minute and see what happens. Remember 9/11 was teh second attempt to blow up the WTC…..we disregarded the first attempt.

By GOB

September 5, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Yeah let’s all just drop our gaurd for a minute and see what happens.

But doesnt this assume that we are already racially profiling at airports and it has been quite the success? I dont think either of those statements are true

By The72John

September 5, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Yeah let’s all just drop our gaurd for a minute and see what happens. Remember 9/11 was teh second attempt to blow up the WTC…..we disregarded the first attempt.

Wow…you’ve really outdone yourself on the “taking things completely out of context” front with that one, Bruce. Just when I thought you couldn’t be any more irrational.

By Billy

September 5, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Yes, we should profile racially at airports. Why are we opting not to protect ourselves in an effort to be politically correct toward those who hate us?

Please ponder that last question for a moment.

Because race and religion are two different things! As I was trying to say — we are seeing more and more Muslims who are not Arabs. Hell, the Ottoman Empire was Muslim, but they weren’t Arabs. Not to mention the fact that if you took one hundred Lebanese and Israelis, dressed them indentically, and stood them side by side, you’d have no way to tell who was from which country.

Your racial profiling logic only works if (a)all terrorists are Muslim, (b)all Muslims are Arabs, and (c)all Arabs are Muslim. None of these things are true, so your argument is about as pointless as the rest of the crap you post.

By Mara

September 5, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

why is it labled “politically correct” when it’s merely trying to live up to the ideals of our founding fathers that all men (people?) are created equal and all are equal under the law? Why is it “P.C.” to believe that constitutional protections are the right of ALL Americans, and not just those who look like Edith and Archie?

And it might surprise you, Zack, to learn that “they” don’t hate us. They hate what our foreign policy has done to their countries and they, rightly or wrongly, blame the American government. Not individual Americans but the monolithic “America”. It’s very easy to turn the “enemy” into a monolithic, faceless, inhuman entity. Extremists of all stripes tend to do this, Muslim and Christian. Just look at your own writings and you’ll see what I mean…

By Mara

September 5, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Bruce. We disregarded it so much that the perpetrators/planners are rotting in federal prison even as we speak. Speaking of disregarding…heard anything about Osama lately?

By Chilao

September 5, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

heard anything about Osama lately?

see the author on TV this weekend?, written a book about Osama’s background and since, who thinks he is probably in Yemen? Right where we are looking, I’m sure. LOL

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

““taking things completely out of context” front with that one, Bruce. Just when I thought you couldn’t be any more irrational.”

You taught me well!

“heard anything about Osama lately?”

As best I can tell we are still looking for him. But we wouldn’t be if Clinton would have “nabbed” him when he had the chance. Dollar to a doughnut says he helped PLAN the first attack on the WTC….. No wait if he had he would be in prison right?

By Renee

September 5, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

*Islam is a religion of vile hatred. Acts like 9/11 are applauded. It’s unfortunate that our “Christian” president insists on calling it a religion of peace. What a false statement.

If you think I’m being harsh on Islam, I have two words for you: Study it!!!!!*

Why is it soooo hard for some people to understand it’s not the religion but the extremists. Perhaps you should study Islam more, unless of course, you have evidence of the religion not the extremists exhibiting vile hatred.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

You taught me well!

Hardly.

But we wouldn’t be if Clinton would have “nabbed” him when he had the chance

He never had the chance to “nab” him, which you would know if your sources of information included anything other than talk radio.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Just so you understand, Brucie, this (corrected for spelling errors):

Yeah let’s all just drop our guard for a minute and see what happens. Remember 9/11 was the second attempt to blow up the WTC…..we disregarded the first attempt

is pretty much the opposite of this:

Disregard the horrific nature of their organization and its philosophies and goals for a minute, and realize that whatever they are, they are not stupid

The former seems to be some knee-jerk right-wing regurgitation that attempts to paint liberals as somehow weak on terrorism, whereas the latter is sound intelligence strategy - know your enemy, so as not to underestimate him.

Now, Brucie, pray tell us where your little bit of nonsense came from? It wasn’t Logic Land, for sure…

By Chilao

September 5, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Imagine if Clinton had gone for a Regime Change in the Sudan and envisioned a Bring Democracy to the Sudan via military adventure.

Just imagine…LOL

By SusieHomeMaker

September 5, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Newsflash A lot of *women have now joined some of the suicidal terrorists organizations, (remember when the PLO was strictly men — Israel started cracking down then more women started to join?). So, if a woman dyes her hair blond, puts blue contact lens in, has a Swiss passport and wears make up and changes her name to Beth Hunter, would she be spotted as a terrorist with racial profiling?

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

they are not stupid!

Anyone that would strap a bomb to themselves because someone else told them they would receive virgins when they got to heaven sounds about a smart as you are John Boy!

By The72John

September 5, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Anyone that would strap a bomb to themselves because someone else told them they would receive virgins when they got to heaven sounds about a smart as you are John Boy!

Hardly credible coming from a fundamentalist Christian who believe equally implausible things.

However, your reaction is unsurprising. You, like most ignorant Americans convinced of their own superiority, fail utterly to appreciate difference between cultures and mindsets. Because you think that being a suicide bomber is “stupid” then anyone who is a suicide bomber must not be intelligent. Unfortunately, intelligence and zealotry are not mutually exclusive.

Keep underestimating, though, Bruce - it’s your kind of ignorance and provincialism that we’ve come to expect from the right-wing.

By Mara

September 5, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

But we wouldn’t be if Clinton would have “nabbed” him when he had the chance.

And just when did he have the chance? From what I understand, the 9/11 Commission report has thoroughly debunked the right-wing myth that Clinton ever had a real opportunity to “nab” him. But I suppose you have better contacts than the commission, not to mention better intel than State, Defense and CIA combined. None of which agree that Clinton could’ve nabbed him when he had a chance. Try looking at other sources besides Red State, The Free Republic, or the Heritage Foundation. As Fox Mulder used to say “The truth is out there…”

By chuck

September 5, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

72john. I hate to tell you but this statement you made was absolutely wrong:

He never had the chance to “nab” him, which you would know if your sources of information included anything other than talk radio.

How about the LIBERAL L.A. Times. Here’s the article:

December 5, 2001 Talk about it E-mail story Print

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn’t respond.

The U.S. Can’t Allow Justice to Be Another War Casualty

Ghost of a Tribunal Should Haunt Ashcroft

Bush Was Right to Abandon Treaty

Culture Shock

Hate Hits the Mainstream

more >

By MANSOOR IJAZ President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him—monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn’t want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden’s personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim’s bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan’s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they’d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries—ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000—three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen—I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States’ closest Arab allies—an ally whose name I am not free to divulge—approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family—Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

By Mara

September 5, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

John, if the plotline of the movie “Red Dawn” were to ever occur, do you think Bruce, Zack, and their ilk would be condemning the suicide bombs and terrorist tactics of “The Wolverines” militant group? To be morally honest, wouldn’t they have to condemn the “terrorists”? And wouldn’t that make them just like the Vichy french?

LOL!!!

quittin’ time. Air kisses for everybody :^*

By The72John

September 5, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

72john. I hate to tell you but this statement you made was absolutely wrong:

Chuckie, please refer to Mara’s post, as she is absolutely correct. The 9/11 Commission dismissed this. It is a popular right-wing myth.

But thanks for your ever-enjoyable cutting-and-pasting.

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Mara,

That is just a MOVIE. The way you and John Boy think we have no enemies to worry about. But let’s go with your statement. You and John Boy would be running around showing the terrorist where the militant groups were in hopes it would save you from the same death! From your statements I call you cowards. Intelligent but still cowards…

John Boy says KNOW YOUR ENEMY but what he really means is SIDE WITH THE ENEMY in hopes to save yourself and you agree with anything he says. SO much for thinking for yourself.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan. These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim. 4 Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all. U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody. According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policymakers during 1996.

A cut-and-paste, just for Chuck. Straight from the horse’s mouth.

By Billy

September 5, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Bruce, Mara’s and John’s point was that terrorism is a tactic of a person or group of people that feels that it has no other avenue through which to affect change. If the tactics are stupid and evil when they are used to forward a cause you are against, then you’d be hypocritical if you didn’t condemn them as such when they are used in a last-ditch effort to maintain your way of life.

By The72John

September 5, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Bruce, you mildly retarded buffoon, where do you come up with this nonsense?

The way you and John Boy think we have no enemies to worry about

Huh? Gosh, where did we ever say that…

You and John Boy would be running around showing the terrorist where the militant groups were in hopes it would save you from the same death

How do you figure, foolish wanktard? I think Mara was actually insinuating that you and your right-wing cronies would HAVE to join the invading force and rat out the resistance, in order for you to be consisten. Or possibly you are just being insulting because you are too stupid to realize that liberal =/= coward.

John Boy says KNOW YOUR ENEMY but what he really means is SIDE WITH THE ENEMY in hopes to save yourself and you agree with anything he says. SO much for thinking for yourself.

Seriously, Bruce…are you just making things up now? I’m pretty sure I have never said anything of the kind.

You right-wing robots are so funny…you’ve bought into this nonsensical idea that because we opposed (from the beginning, before there were actually any terrorists over there) the invasion of Iraq that we are somehow friends of terrorists.

Actually, wanktard, it’s YOU people who dropped the ball on the war on terrorism by high-tailing it out of Afghanistan into Iraq the moment your beloved Bush-wanker worked up enough public fervor to push through his long-desired invasion of Iraq. We liberals were quite happy with our actions in Afghanistan - the ones that ACTUALLY AFFECTED TERRORISTS.

By NetBanker

September 5, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

As best I can tell we are still looking for him. But we wouldn’t be if Clinton would have “nabbed” him when he had the chance. LOL…and we probably wouldn’t have experienced 9/11 if the Bushies had listened to the Clinton’s outgoing warnings about security and had the FBI been paying attention to their own field agents. The ‘blame game’ isn’t productive looking that far back.

I’m a fence rider when it comes to profiling. On one hand I don’t like the idea of innocent people being harassed based solely on racial or ethnic characteristics. On the other hand when trying to stop a crime that is primarily perpetrated by a particular racial or ethnic group why not focus overburdened people and resources where they’ll be most effective?

I fly regularly and even as a total WASP have had my bags searched, computer tested for explosives residue, and been frisked…its just the price to pay for the convenience of flying. I’ve heard people complain about how much of a hassle airport security has become and that they’re rethinking trips because of it. Each time I have the chance I give them the “Don’t you DARE!” pep talk. I remind them that when they change their life or make different decisions ‘because security is a pain in the a$$” then the terrorists are winning.

By lozen

September 5, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

You people really are crazy Bruce. To accuse Mara and John of being on the side of the terrorists is inexcusable. Just shows what you kind of people will resort to when you lose the argument and can’t think of anything else to support your argument.

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

“Mara’s and John’s point was that terrorism is a tactic of a person or group of people that feels that it has no other avenue through which to affect change.”

These terrorist have been terrorist for many a year. Surely the change they want to make would have hapopened long before now. I do not believe we were trying to disrupt their way of life until after 9/11. Condoning what terrorist do, and why they do it is as bad as doing it yourself. IMO

Several of the bloggers here are very prideful about wanting people to “think for themsleves”, but then defend these acts of terrorism when clearly the terrorist are not thinking for themselves.

By Kevin

September 5, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Well said NetB. By far yours is the most sensible post of the day.

By Bruce

September 5, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Shut Up! You are nothing but a lip sinker. You echo whatever they say and never have anything orginial to say. THNK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!

By NetBanker

September 5, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Hope everyone had a good weekend. I’m starting to think the Right may be related to Superman in some strange way…able to leap gapping chasms of logic in a single argument.

By eodb vpiq

September 6, 2006 12:28 AM | Link to this

hxjmvqkdu ahjgm qykwslz aqfry wgln pgsql puqh

By Hillary

September 6, 2006 04:45 AM | Link to this

hello word tramadol hcl [url=tramadol-hcl.td.pl]tramadol hcl[/url] tramadol hcl [url=tramadol-hcl.td.pl]tramadol hcl[/url] roulette [url=roulette.qe.pl]roulette[/url] tramadol hcl [url=tramadol-hcl.td.pl]tramadol hcl[/url] roulette [url=roulette.td.pl]roulette[/url] tramadol hcl [url=tramadol-hcl.td.pl]tramadol hcl[/url] texas holdem [url=http://texas-holdem.ir.pl/]texas holdem[/url] texas holdem [url=texas-holdem.uk.pl]texas holdem[/url] partypoker [url=partypoker.uk.pl]partypoker[/url] partypoker [url=partypoker.uk.pl]partypoker[/url] partypoker [url=partypoker.uk.pl]partypoker[/url] texas holdem [url=http://texas-holdem.ir.pl/]texas holdem[/url]

End ;) See you

By TramadoL65553

September 6, 2006 05:10 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.

By TramadoL34644

September 6, 2006 06:35 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Lip sinker, Bruce? Lip sinker? (fyi - the “sink” part of that is short for synchronize…) Now, I’m no member of the grammer police, but really…Bruce, at least try!

I do not believe we were trying to disrupt their way of life until after 9/11

Bruce, didn’t you know that the American government has supported (and still supports) some of the most repressive, despotic governments in the world? Since World War Two, America has been the leader of the Free World (as we defined it). We opposed Communism, which needed to happen, but we did it by supporting any type of government that was not communist, which was wrong. America has supported dictatorships, repressive governments of every stripe, all in the name of freedom. Saddam Hussein is just the latest example of a dictator supported by us that, in the end, turned out to be an enemy.

We still support repressive governments that we say are allies. Israel is one of the more repressive governments on the face of the Earth with regards to it’s Palestinian minority. Saudi Arabia is a run by one family to the detriment of the rest of the people in the country, Egypt is almost a police state, Kuwait another monarchy, “Red” China is still not democratic, and the list goes on. I haven’t even mentioned the regimes we’ve supported in Latin America and Africa.

September 11, 2001 happened, in part, because we insist on supporting repressive governments. Our biggest failure in foreign policy has been our failure to support all free and open societies where democracy is practiced, or at least attempted. Too many times have we allowed fledgling democracies to fold because of lack of support and leadership. Russia may revert back to a totalitarian state unless we help them become successful, and a successful Russia may become the most important ally we’ve ever had.

You are far too insular if you don’t think that our foreign policy has deeply affected the lives or ordinary people all over the world, often for the worst despite our best intentions.

but then, what do I know? According to you I’d be happier wearing a burqua under a Taliban-like government (which makes absolutely NO sense considering my feminist bona fides…but who ever said conservatives had to make sense with their diatribes?)

By The72John

September 6, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Saudi Arabia is a run by one family to the detriment of the rest of the people in the country

Don’t forget the Saudi religious police who routinely arrest people for violations of the Saudi religious laws, and who are responsible for the burning death of 15 school girls a year ago - when their school was on fire the Religious Police prevented them from leaving the building and prevented the male firemen from entering because the girls were not properly attired.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

“a year” should have been “a few years”…I believe it was 2003 but don’t remember for sure. Early typos.

By chuck

September 6, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

OKAY john. I’m sure you know more than the ACTUAL GUY doing the negotiations, who said:

*But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan’s data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they’d get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries—ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000—three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen—I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States’ closest Arab allies—an ally whose name I am not free to divulge—approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.*

And this:

In December 2001, ‘Vanity Fair’ published a devastating expose of the Clinton Administration’s mishandling of repeated offers by the Sudanese government, some dating back to 1996, to provide Washington intelligence on terrorism - particularly with regard to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.(1) Part of what was offered to the Clinton Administration were several hundred Sudanese files on al-Qaeda and its members.(2) The Administration also passed up the opportunity of interrogating two al- Qaeda members who had clearly been involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in east Africa. In keeping with its very questionable Sudan policy (3), the Clinton Administration rejected all of Sudan’s repeated offers. The implications of this studied indifference are clear. As ‘Vanity Fair’ stated: “September 11 might have been prevented if the U.S. had accepted Sudan’s offers to share its intelligence files on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda files.” It had also earlier been revealed that in addition to offering the Clinton Administration intelligence on al-Qaeda, the Sudanese government had in 1996 also offered to extradite Osama bin-Laden - just as Khartoum had extradited the international terrorism known as “Carlos the Jackal” to France.(4) This offer was also rejected by the Clinton Administration.

And This from the Washington Times:

*Sudan’s then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa flew in for a secret meeting with Timothy M. Carney, the U.S. ambassador to Sudan, and David Shinn, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department. Both Carney and Shinn were State Department veterans. Also present was a middle-aged man who was a member of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (Africa division) at the time and is still active with the agency today… The CIA believed, and its representative told Erwa at the time, that some 200 al-Qaeda terrorists were holed up in Sudan. (The actual number, the author learned in Khartoum in 2002, was as high as 583… .)

Five days later, Erwa again met with the CIA operative. This time, the two State Department officials were not present. Erwa and the CIA officer were alone as they decided the fate of Osama bin Laden.

Sudan offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden at this meeting, according to Erwa. He brought up bin Laden directly. “Where should we send him?” he asked. This was the key question. When Sudan turned over the infamous Carlos the Jackal to French intelligence in 1994, the CIA covertly provided satellite intelligence that allowed Sudanese intelligence to capture him on a pretext and escort him to the VIP lounge at the Khartoum airport. There, he was met by armed members of French intelligence and flown to Paris in a special plane. Would the CIA pick up bin Laden in Khartoum and fly him back to Washington,D.C.? Or would bin Laden go to a third country?

The CIA officer was silent. It was obvious to Erwa that a decision had not yet been made. Or perhaps his offer was not quite believed. Yet, the Sudanese official was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario. Finally, the CIA official spoke. “We have nothing we can hold him on,” he carefully said. Erwa was surprised by this, but he didn’t let on. He was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario, a silent and quick operation to seize bin Laden and bring him to justice… .*

And that Conservative “RAG” the New York Times which I believe you were praising a few months ago:

*August 17, 2005 State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996 By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden’s move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam “well beyond the Middle East,” but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that “his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of ‘Arab mujahedeen’ receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum,” in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden’s history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department’s warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990’s while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had “not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration’s active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden’s movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents.

Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996, rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, “the question was getting him out of Sudan.”

“The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his activities any way you could,” he continued. “There was a lot we didn’t know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and try to maximize the opportunities to nail him.”

Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden “wasn’t recognized then as the threat he is now,” Mr. Ereli said. “Yes, he was a bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the prominence that he later came to be.”

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an “ideal haven” for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports “allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked,” and his public statements suggested an “emboldened” man capable of “increased terrorism,” the assessment said.

While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could “inconvenience” him, the assessment said, “even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide.”*

By The72John

September 6, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

That’s not my conclusion, Chuck - it’s straight from the report of the 9/11 commission. All the cuts-and-pastes in the world won’t alter that fact.

But continue to believe the myth.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

John, I do remember that incident. And yet, the Saudi government is considered a “friend” of democracy…

how about our policy to deny people, especially women and children, needed medical attention if any person in a sevice group even mentions abortion? We’re not talking about providing abortions, or even advocating their use. Just mentioning it, even if it’s only in their literature, is enough to get their USAID monies revoked. This is money that pays for malaria vaccines, TB treatment, desease prevention, and on and on and on. But better to let the poverty-stricken sicken and die than for them to find out that the procedure even exists.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

how about our policy to deny people, especially women and children, needed medical attention if any person in a sevice group even mentions abortion? We’re not talking about providing abortions, or even advocating their use. Just mentioning it, even if it’s only in their literature, is enough to get their USAID monies revoked. This is money that pays for malaria vaccines, TB treatment, desease prevention, and on and on and on. But better to let the poverty-stricken sicken and die than for them to find out that the procedure even exists.

Just goes to show that religious zealotry is evil whether it calls itself Osama or calls itself Chuck.

By Brian Curtis

September 6, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

John: Congratulations! For once, you’ve got Chuck raving about something other than the Bible. It’s a refreshing change.

By chuck

September 6, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

The New York Times prints MYTHS. I am so glad to know that John. I’ll remember that the next time you quote one of their articles. Did you note the date of the NYT article? August of 2005* just a few months **after the 9/11 commission report as I recall. I could be mistaken.

So just for the record, do we now ignore every article that appears in the mainstream media?

By lozen

September 6, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Ohhhhh, Bruce such a gentleman aren’t we? I repeat some of the things “they?” say, actually. And there’s no way you can shut me up you know. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

By chuck

September 6, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Oh yeah, BTW, they were quoting Clinton’s ambassador to the Sudan who was IN THE MEETINGS. Some myth.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

John: Congratulations! For once, you’ve got Chuck raving about something other than the Bible. It’s a refreshing change.

It won’t last. Bible verses will be forthcoming shortly, I am sure.

What’s funny about “Chuck” is that he posts these articles, but I don’t think he really reads them. For instance, the NYT article includes this:

But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had “not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim

Now…seems like I said this. Chuck probably googled (as always) and just stuck anything with “Clinton” and “Sudan” onto the blog for our reading “pleasure”.

Chuck and his right-wing cronies attempt, as they always attempt, to place blame on any and all Democrats whenever possible. This pathetic attempt to grant overwhelming significance to an event only through the lens of hindsight is like blaming Hitler’s mother for not strangling him at birth.

Perhaps we should look farther back, to the Reagan administration and its support of Bin-Laden for blame? One could certainly make the argument that without US funding “back in the day” Bin-Laden would never have been a threat to begin with.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

So just for the record, do we now ignore every article that appears in the mainstream media?

No, we read the actual article and see what it actually says, Chuck. Not what we want it to say, which is what you are doing.

By cqok dcjnr

September 6, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

xcsy inlamtuow yjoix xoidafy siznpcvyx czbf bryvfu

By The72John

September 6, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

*The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden

Hmm…

By Mara

September 6, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

chuck - did you even read your own post? This excerpt is from your 8:45 example of the NYT story…Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990’s while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had “not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

As for Ijaz -

Fox News analyst Mansoor Ijaz has made the claim that he brokered the deal to turn over bin Laden, as a sort of freelance diplomat. Ijaz claims that in 1996, he opened talks with the government of Sudan. According to the December 5, 2001 Los Angeles Times, Ijaz says, “From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.” Was this a legitimate offer? According to the 9/11 Commission’s final report, the answer is no. In the 567-page report, the 9/11 Commission mentions Ijaz only once, as an end note on page 480: “In February 1997, the Sudanese sent letters to President Clinton and Secretary of State Allbright, extending an invitation for a U.S. counterterrorism inspection mission to visit Sudan. The Sudanese also used private U.S. citizens to pass along offers to cooperate…but these offers were dismissed because the National Security Council viewed Sudan as all talk and little action…U.S. officials also feared that the Sudanese would exploit any positive American responses…”

From page 110 of the report: “Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.”

For years now, conservatives have battered Clinton over his “failure” to accept bin Laden on a “silver platter.” Ijaz has made the cable news circuit on many occasions with his claim that he brokered a deal to hand over bin Laden. Of course, conservatives have always believed the Ijaz story and never accepted the Clinton administration’s explanation of the “offer.” As Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger wrote in the July 13, 2002 Washington Post: “Although less was known about Osama bin Laden in 1996, when he left Sudan, than has been learned since, U.S. officials pressed the Sudanese to end their support and sanctuary for bin Laden. But no senior Clinton administration official — from the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department or the National Security Council — is aware of any offer by the Sudanese to turn bin Laden over to the United States…” Berger also adds, “…that he (Ijaz) was not used as a channel of communication by the U.S. government to the Sudanese reflects the disinclination of any administration to use self-appointed diplomats to conduct official U.S. business — given uncertainties over motivation and interest. Indeed, other governments complained to U.S. officials that Ijaz represented himself — incorrectly — as acting on behalf of the U.S. government.”

for the rest of this article - http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004072813.html

sorry for the Cut-n-Paste but chuck started it…

By The72John

September 6, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

sorry for the Cut-n-Paste but chuck started it…

Doesn’t he always?

By Chilao

September 6, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Like if BinLaden was taken out in the Sudan, there would not be anyone else at all capable of similiar activities. well simple minds like simple “solutions” so no surprise there. LMAO

By Chilao

September 6, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Clinton should have just done a regime change in the Sudan, would have spared all that current Darfur misery.

yeah, yea, that’s it. (think Jon Lovitz)

By Mara

September 6, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

and now that ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11” is coming out and without a doubt, even though everyone admits that it’s a dramatization and not a factual account, the wingnuts will be there screaming about how it “proves” that it was all Clinton’s fault. ABC said it planned to run a disclaimer with the broadcast, reminding viewers that the movie was not a documentary. But we all know how easy it is for some to pretend that fiction and fact are the same thing. The fact is that Richard Ben-Veniste and some of the other 9/11 Commission members who were treated to an early screening of the movie were surprised at how the incident was presented.

“As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Chilao _ I love Jon Lovitz!! Yeah…Morgan Fairchild, my wife. That’s the ticket! Yeah…

kills me every time :^D

By Mara

September 6, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

This is weird. Where’d everyone go?

By Republican National Committee

September 6, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

John, Keep up your good work here on W2W for us. With all your mindless name calling and lack of any intelligent discussion of the issues, you’re helping to guarantee another Republican sweep in November.

By Billy

September 6, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

This is weird. Where’d everyone go?

Well, I had work to do…

By DOG

September 6, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Chilao, you know you’re a dog like me!

By DOG

September 6, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

I do think it’s unfair to criticize Clinton for any foreign policy missteps, however. We all know that he had more important issues to worry about. I repeat (finger wagging), “I DID NOT have sexual relations with that woman”

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Also, John, I just read the weather report. I know you were p** at Bruno last week, but did you have to take it out on the whole darn country? But then again, “Hell hath no fury like a ……” Personally, I thought there has never been a more appropriately named hurricane. ; > ]

By Chilao

September 6, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

This is weird. Where’d everyone go

See, Mara, I had this premonition….LOL

By Mara

September 6, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

I disagree that it’s unfair to criticize Clinton for his foreign policy missteps, but it is unfair to make up missteps to ctiticize him for…

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

As for the “intelligence” of our “politically correct” airport screening procedures: I had one elderly male patient who had an artificial leg (he was 93 years old and a WWII veteran). The screeners wouldn’t accept his explanation of why the metal detectors went off, so he was taken to a room where he had to strip to his underwear. Sure makes a lot of sense to me.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

I disagree that it’s unfair to criticize Clinton for his foreign policy missteps, but it is unfair to make up missteps to ctiticize him for…

The Wrong continues its persecution of Clinton years after his departure from office, yet they constantly attack “Bush Haters” for not showing the respect to him that his office is supposedly due…

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

The truth is, Mara, that the threat from “political Islam” is very real, is growing stronger every passing year, and is not going to go away through appeasement. And, like it or not, you, as an American may be a target one day. I can hear you already “See, that’s why I want Dubya to pull his head out of his butt and play nice with these guys. Then they’ll LIKE us and leave us alone.” In the words of the great philosopher, John Lovitz. “Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

I can’t answer for any others in the WRONG, John, but my dislike of Clinton is mainly for the moral damage he did to our great country during his Frat House Presidency from 1993-2000. Other than foreign policy, he wasn’t a bad Prez in terms of policy. Of course, many investors feel that he and Greenspan ignored the obvious financial storm clouds that led to the dot.com bust beginning in 1999. As for that, I think Clinton either didn’t know what to do, didn’t really care, or may have even let it happen to give Dubya the worst possible start to his Presidency.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

I had this premonition - and you were right!! Scaaaarrrryy! LOL!

The Wrong continues its persecution of Clinton years after his departure from office, yet they constantly attack “Bush Haters” for not showing the respect to him that his office is supposedly due

But that’s different. Clinton is hated because he’s one of those immoral, latte swillin’, flag-burnin’ libruls that hate ‘Murika, apple pie, and my momma.

The left only hates Bush because he’s an honest, decent, conservative Christian man and they’re a bunch of whiney-pants losers. That hate ‘Murika. And apple pie.

ROTFLMAO!

By The72John

September 6, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

but my dislike of Clinton is mainly for the moral damage he did to our great country during his Frat House Presidency from 1993-2000

What nonsense. Clinton didn’t do anything that other Presidents of the past have done. The only difference is that he got caught. And why? Because the Republicans dug it up in an attempt to destroy him.

The truth is, Mara, that the threat from “political Islam” is very real, is growing stronger every passing year, and is not going to go away through appeasement

I guess the right-wingers think that if they contintinue to use words like “facism” and “appeasment”, invoking WWII memories, that enough people will believe them.

Why am I feeding the Bruno-troll?

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Billy, if you like, I would enjoy having a polite, reasoned discussion with you here one day regarding the limitations of Scientific Reasoning and why the Big Bang and Evolution as an explanation of the Origin of the Universe and the Orign of Life are bigger pieces of Science Fiction than any Philip K. Dick or H.P. Lovecraft story ever written. I appreciated your explanation last week that you’re not a hard core Science guy. Actually, I only studied that crap myself to be able to debate the Science Dogmatists in their own terms. One of their favorite debating techniques is to dazzle people with important sounding B.S. Bruno can handle A’hoes like them anyday.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

The threat from Islamic fundamentalists is real!? Gasp!!

The truth is, Mara, that the threat from “political Islam” is very real, is growing stronger every passing year, and is not going to go away through appeasement

and it’s not going to go away through changing our way of life to suit them. So why don’t you go hide under the bed with the other chicken-sh*s, ya scaredy cat. *I refuse to let the threat of a bunch of bullies, be they Islamic fundamentalists or timid little conservatives, destroy my ideals of what this country stands for…freedom and equality. I will not go about cowering in fear to a bunch of militants. But you and your cowardly ilk are perfectly free to do so. Go on. Run and hide, baby. Go ahead, give up your liberty. Give up your civil rights and protections. Be afraid! Very, very afraid…

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Mara, you really don’t want to get in a mockery contest with Bruno again, do you? I know your fellow members in your Mutual Admiration Society eat up the intentional misspellings, but are you really impressing anyone else? Seriously!

By The72John

September 6, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

One of their favorite debating techniques is to dazzle people with important sounding B.S. Bruno can handle A’hoes like them anyday

Don’t you mean Bruno IS a a’hoe like them?

By Billy

September 6, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

As for that, I think Clinton either didn’t know what to do, didn’t really care, or may have even let it happen to give Dubya the worst possible start to his Presidency.

That is every bit as asinine as the accusation that Bush knowingly let the 9/11 attacks take place.

And Bill Clinton’s frat house presidency? Seriously? As opposed to GWB’s clear history of frat house antics? Drunk driving? Coke? Skipping out on the Air National Guard? Getting away with it all because of Daddy’s money, power, and contacts?

By DOG

September 6, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I really do want to have an intelligent discussion with you and Mara, John, for 2 reasons. (1) In my heart, I believe that true conservatism is the solution to the problems in our country today. So you know, true conservatives have no prblem with gay people, foreigners, or anyone else just based on their “social category”. That’s strictly a liberal habit. (2) Religious wackos like chuck are not true conservatives. While he mouthpieces conservative talking points, his “religious psychosis” poisons his views. (3) The threat from “political Islam” is not going to go away with out some kind of confrontation. Personally, I’d rather the US win in such a confrontation, and not the Arab lowlifes.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

For the record, yes, Bruno is one of the biggest A’hoes ever—His arrogance and pomposity know no limits. He can dazzle with the most important sounding terms ever. Is this the model to you which to aspire to, John?

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Billy, the diffence between Dubya and Clinton is that Dubya eventually grew up and left the Frat Boy stuff behind. Clinton’s poor character and stunted emotional growth as a child never allowed him to do that.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

I really do want to have an intelligent discussion with you and Mara, John,

No, actually, you don’t. You want to continue to troll, just like you have been for two weeks. If you actually wanted a serious discussion you wouldn’t be constantly changing your handle, pretending to be someone else, or inventing alternate identities to serve as your cheerleading squad.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Is this the model to you which to aspire to, John

Now…earlier you were making fun of Mara’s spelling…perhaps you should look to your own posts first. Grammar first, Bruno, grammar first.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I would even like to have a M2M talk with you one day here on W2W about why your views toward gay people are decidedly non-Christian, non-coservative, and just plain hateful. I know that the Libs have been unable to make even a small dent in the armour you have built up around your position, but I believe I could take the discussion to a little deeper level they can by exposing and examining the ugly assumptions one has to make to arrive at such a position. If you are willing to do this, I will personally lobby the Stanford-Binet people to restore your 149 IQ certification.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

(head shaking with disgust)

new poll out today…

Asked whether former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 52 percent said he was not, but 43 percent said they believe he was. The White House has denied Hussein’s 9/11 involvement — most recently in a news conference August 21, when President Bush said Hussein had “nothing” to do with the attacks.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Billy, the diffence between Dubya and Clinton is that Dubya eventually grew up and left the Frat Boy stuff behind. Clinton’s poor character and stunted emotional growth as a child never allowed him to do that.

Oh yes…the Shrub just OOZES maturity…like on that footage of him shooting the bird at his staff, or when he insulted the reporter’s sunglasses, or that time a couple of weeks ago when he was confronted with questions he couldn’t answer, so on three different occassions (having obviously not learned the lesson the first time) he insulted a reporter’s suit…

Yup…he’s a big boy!

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

And Mara, please read my words more carefully before you go on the attack. Never once have I said that the problem we face is a bunch of nutty terrorists. NOT AT ALL. I speak only of “political Islam”—i.e the incredible funding which groups like Hamas and Hezbollah receive from both all the governments in the Middle East AND a huge number of Muslims who make contributions to these groups every week at their mosques. The terrorists would be only a nuisance without this widespread support throughout the Muslim world. If you check the facts, the average Muslim in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter) is not peace-loving.

By Lyrazel

September 6, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

While the blind-sighted seems to be against Clinton does no one ask who was funding the Taliban in Afghanistan for 14 years in their fight against the communist scourge? Yes, that would be GHB and RR who believed communists were a far greater evil than predatory Islamist extremists… both quoted praise on how the Taliban penalized growers of poppies and eradicated supply…and now we are blaming the Taliban on increase production of opium…how curious.

By Billy

September 6, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Bruno — You know, I would engage you in such a discussion, but I come here to discuss the topic of the week. That isn’t the topic. Nor was it last week’s. Nor the previous week’s. That’s why I might have lashed out at you before — because you won’t stick to the topic. You insist on derailing it — and derailing it, and derailing it — until you are talking about the topic you feel like spouting off about.

Well, I’m not going for it. I don’t care about your opinions on the origins of life. I don’t care about your supposed education. I don’t care about your delusional applications of Heisenberg’s Unfuckingcertainty Principle to anything other than the objects to which Heisenberg himself applied it. And since we are not discussing atomic and subatomic particle physics (go ahead and correct me on that) I don’t care what you opinions are on the applications on even the objects to which it actually refers.

So…you say you only studied “that crap” only to be able to debate science “dogmatists” in their own terms. Well, that’s basically admitting that you’re not a scientist, but a biased jackass who wanted to learn enough about scientific theories to try and shoot holes in them but not open your mind enough to accept the possibilities. You are the quasi-modern incarnation of the earliest evolution deniers. You are taking the fact that science cannot, at the present time and with the present technology, explain and fully prove eveything in the universe and then twisting that fact to “support” your previous notions. All of which was, you admit, your only reason for sttudying any science in the first place.

One of my favorite shows on TV is House. Last night, House said something that I’m going to apply to you today. “The seventh level (of happiness) is you going away.” Seriously. Go away. Come back when you want to discuss — rationally — the topic of the week, and can do so without attempting to belittle others here for being, evidently, so intellectually inferior to your vaunted intellect that we cannot even grasp simple, complex theories and the way they are connected to completely separate issues.

Begone.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Now, now, John, watch the jealousy—Just because you were never creative enough to try out other names, don’t get your panties in a wad. I would actually love to have an intelligent discussion with you. Are you capable of that? If your comments throughout the day yesterday are any indication, I believe your emotional state doesn’t allow you to do that very often. And that’s a crying shame, John, because you ARE the “Object of My Affection”.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

John,…you ARE the “Object of My Affection”.

John, did he just hit on you?! LOL!

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Billy—Sorry I drug in a lot of negative debating techniques (belittlement, mockery, etc.)into our discussion. However, I don’t believe I was the first to bring such techniques here to W2W. As for Heisenberg, etc. the point, Billy—and John—is that folks like you keep falling for the Big Lie of Science: Just give us enough time and resources, and we will figure out all the answers to everything. Godel and Heisenberg’s discoveries in Logic and Physics disprove that. The “truth” is that reality is far more complex than our limited human brains can comprehend. It’s not just a matter of getting more powerful microscopes. Due to the great initial successes of penicillin and the Polio vaccine, Big Medicine has been perpetuating the same Big Lie for the last 60 years. Of course GOD reminds us with AIDS, the ebola virus, etc. that our arrogance is usually unfounded.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Now, now, John, watch the jealousy—Just because you were never creative enough to try out other names, don’t get your panties in a wad

Oh look, he made a panties joke - that is SO creative and original.

I would actually love to have an intelligent discussion with you. Are you capable of that? If your comments throughout the day yesterday are any indication, I believe your emotional state doesn’t allow you to do that very often.

Other than my comments to Bruce, who deserved them, which ones are you referring to?

And that’s a crying shame, John, because you ARE the “Object of My Affection”.

Fixation, is more like it.

Bravo, Billy - Bravo.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So, sorry to bore everyone here. The fact is, I’m not sure how long my body’s going to last, and would enjoy helping other intelligent people see the light about the truth of Life before I check out of here. In practical terms, respect for Life (or lack of respect for Life)is critical to all of our decisions as individuals and as a society. Unfortunately, the Big Lie of Science that Life is somehow mechanistic and has no intrinsic meaning (i.e. Existentialism)has filtered into so many areas of our lives and has led us down the wrong path in so many ways.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Now don’t play hard to get, John. Actually I’m not gay mself, but have many friends and relatives who are. Do you like me any better now, John?

By Brian Curtis

September 6, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

I see Bruno’s back with his prancing and ego-stroking. Maybe if enough strangers on an Internet forum are impressed wit him, he’ll feel a smidgen better about himself!

C’mon, everybody, chip in. Give the loser a few compliments so he can pretend he’s intelligent and interesting. It’s the compassionate, liberal thing to do.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Now don’t play hard to get, John. Actually I’m not gay mself, but have many friends and relatives who are. Do you like me any better now, John?

Not particularly, no.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - speaking of the “War on Drugs”…guess who was visiting Afghanistan this week. Columbian narcotics agents, supposedly to advise Karzai on anti-drug operations. But considering that, at best, the Columbians only able to intercept 20%-30% of their own domestic coca production, and the impact of the poppy crop on Afghanistans economy, how effective (and serious) do you think the Afghan government will be?

By Mara

September 6, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Billy - I had tears in my eyes at the end of last evenings “House” episode.
I disagree with the plot idea to hide the effectiveness of the cortisol treatment from House though. Now he’s gonna think that he needs drugs to effectively function as a diagnostician.

By Mara

September 6, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Brian Give the loser a few compliments so he can pretend he’s intelligent and interesting. It’s the compassionate, liberal thing to do

Okay. If it’ll make him go away…

Dog, you must be one handsome and irresistable human being, what with your rapier wit and your obviously superior intellect.

(hack, hack. gag!)

By Osama

September 6, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Yes, finally a great question here on W2W: How do you get rid of people like me? Sorry, compliments won’t due the trick. You Libs are rather naive, aren’t you? Maybe you could call the UN in to deal with Bruno. They’ve done such a great job everywhere else. Just make sure to budget in plenty of extra money for Khofi Annan’s relatives. They always get a “cut” of the action, you know.

By chuck

September 6, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Just so you know john, the reason I posted the article is because Clinton’s own appointee said that Clinton turned the chance down. If the Ambassador to the Sudan was in the meetings shouldn’t he know whether or not the offer was made?

The LA Times article was written by the guy doing the negotiating. Shouldn’t he know if the offer was made?

Not only that, but Clinton himself said in in more than one interview on ABC news, that the offer was made but that he did not think that they had legal justification to take him at the time.

By Osama

September 6, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Yes, I can see once again that the Libs will be no real barrier to my plan of world domination. A couple of small nukes, and poof, they run for the hills. W2W today, the rest of the AJC next week! How much more on topic could my observations be? I know, I’m ruining your “good little thing here”, but I’m really curious to see what your ideas will be as to get rid of me? Hint: Randy’s ideas of how to deal with me scare me much more than John and Mara’s. So don’t be too hard on Randy.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

You know, for someone who claims to be so original in his thinking, our boy-Sybil certainly does stick fairly close to the right-wing talking points.

By The72John

September 6, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Whatever Hannity tells you is true must be true, eh, Chuckie? No matter how many other sources (like…oh…the 9/11 Commission) refute them?

Good little monkey-boy, Chuck. Good little monkey.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

If you accept my debating challenge regarding homosexuality, chuck, we need to agree on the ground rules: (1) No Bible quotes in place of real discussion. (2) No tremendously long comments or overly frequent comments so as not to annoy the others too much. (3) To save time, I propose we analyze the assumptions behind your view, rather than debating too many “facts” about homosexuality itself.

To start, we should agree on exactly what your “position” is, and the meaning of the words we will be using.

As such, I believe that your view is this: ” I, chuck, oppose homosexuality because it is described in the Bible as being a sin” Is this correct? If not, please correct me so that I can try to understand your viewpoint in the way that you want me to understand it.

Also, please give your definition of the words “oppose” and “sin”, since I believe these words will be critical in hashing out your position. Thanks, DOG

By DOG

September 6, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

And, Billy, if you think that understanding the real meaning of the word “GOD” is extremely unimportant, than I won’t badger you anymore. As for your comment that I am starting my discussion from a prejudicial viewpoint—YES, EUREKA, YOU GOT MY POINT! Important question: Do you think I am unusual in that way? Do you really think “Scientists” don’t do the same? I hope it doesn’t rock your world too much, but the plain fact is that they do also, as do you, John, chuck,and everyone else here. But, don’t take my word for it, study all that “crap” for yourself if you like, then get back to me. They’ve used a brilliant PR strategy, however, the past 100 years or so by contrasting themselves from religious nuts, thus getting the public to eat from their own “Tree of Knowledge” in their little self-constructed Garden of Eden.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

So you too, Billy, if you ever want to really hash out these topics, I would like to try to do that in a more pleasing way to you and the others here. I would make the same offer to BC, but I don’t have much hope for him. He’s dumber than dirt and arrogant to boot. You, on the other hand, seem to have a more open attitude.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

And, finally, Mara, I’m trying to contain my excitement about your compliment today. After all, I did choose you over Renee as my dream date. James Carville will be so jealous! So, how old are you, honey? Single, I hope? If not, kick that loser out, the Big Dog’s movin in! I picture you to have brown hair with some length to it, with a pretty face and a pleasing figure. Pant, pant. I think even Chilao will be jealous if I land you, girl, and that’s really saying something. Love, DOG P.S. Did anyone ever figure out just who let the Dogs out? I know John’s dying to know. See you tomorrow afternoon, sweetie.

By Chilao

September 6, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Billy, the diffence between Dubya and Clinton is that Dubya eventually grew up and left the Frat Boy stuff behind. Clinton’s poor character and stunted emotional growth as a child never allowed him to do that.

y’all hear our Frat Boy Prez is really into the flatulence humour? Not surprised, are we? LMAO

By Billy

September 6, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Bruno — The difference between the biases of scientists and the biases of right-wing nutjobs and, perhaps, yourself, is that scientists’ biases are open to the possibility that they do not know all the answers and to evidence that their conclusions are incorrect. Science cannot measure the metaphysical. Its realm is the natural, not the supernatural. If, however, science were able to measure it, and scientists were able to prove God did not exists, you and, yes, Chuck, Randy, Zack, and Osama would not be willing to accept the evidence. If, on the otherhand, scientists’ experiments in the metaphysical were to prove God’s existence, they would come right out and say so.

Scientists are different from religious nuts for exactly this reason. Plus, plenty of scientists who believe in the Big Bang and evolution are religious. They just don’t pretend to know the mind of God the way you and your ilk do.

By Tina

September 6, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

This is just interesting to me- I don’t think security is good these days- a lot more on people’s minds then before but hardly anything new has come- Just now they have a certain number they need to search which is on the barcode they scan your ticket with. I ordered my tickets online and was searched every time and put in a long line that goes the extra mile here in ATL for searching passengers. A white girl, red hair and braces- 21- There isn’t racial profiling yet- it is just whatever your ticket tells them to do- you think they pick you out- I notice once I get to the security line where they scan your ticket that’s when they tell me to go to the extra line- has nothing to do with what you look like. Grandma is no different!

By DOG

September 6, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Billy, You might double check my comments—I’ve never defined GOD to you or anyone here, so how can you speak of whether this “GOD” can be discovered or not and whether anyone can know the mind of this “GOD”? You and chuck may be surprised to know that I’m no philosophy lover. I agree with chuck that it’s generally a bunch of windbags trying to make a name for themselves. But, unfotunately, to measure human “truth”, we can’t get away from the fact that it is humans alone who can measure that truth. As such, some “epistemological” and “pedagogical” considerations always need to be addressed in any discussion of Big Stuf, like GOD. Of course, many people label all such discussions as “pedantic” in nature.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Also, I am not religious in any way, so no “proof” or “disproof” of “GOD” would sway me either way anyway. My observations about GOD—which, BTW, can only be defined as the TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS—are more the musings of a Scientist who is willing to tackle such questions with a straight face and an open mind, than a nut like chuck who is only trying to substantiate his own prejudices.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

You see, by defining GOD as the TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS, you take “GOD” out of the metaphysical realm, and straight into the realm of Physics, which is the most “Scientific” of all the sciences. No proof is needed for the TOTALITY, just look around. Chuck thinks GOD is a human-like being out in space, or something wacky like that, but that’s not my definition.

By DOG

September 6, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

But, the sad part is that our “western” way of thinking is so fragmented (hello Sybil-boy), that each discipline focuses on only one small part of the puzzle, and no one is looking at the big picture. This is also a very common problem in medicine. So, crazy or not, I’m trying to put it all together before I check out.

By TramadoL51932

September 6, 2006 09:09 PM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.

By TramadoL91469

September 7, 2006 05:53 AM | Link to this

Basically nothing noteworthy happening right now, but eh. Today was a complete loss. I haven’t been up to much recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

Ahh, the much vaunted (among mystics) “holistic science,” without all those trifling, petty details like evidence and experimentation. Yep, that’s a better approach to finding the truth—just go with your gut!

Bruno, you’ve been thoroughly humiliated here over the past two weeks already… do you really want to keep coming back for more? Heck, most of the time you manage to embarrass yourself without anyone lifting a finger, what with your “I didn’t say that, and if I DID, it doesn’t mean that because everything means what I want it to mean.” That’s some sad and desperate scrambling, little boy.

You’re not picking up on the fact that you’re as much a narrowminded zealot as Chuck is, just in a different (and more pretentious) way. Of course, zealots never do realize that—it’s a defining trait.

But if it’ll make you feel better, I’ll toss in a compliment too: “Bruno, you often manage to form complete sentence with correct grammar. And while you don’t know what you’re talking about, you do speak with very firm conviction—kinda like Bush does! So you’re presidential, in a way.”

Good boy. Dance for us! Good boy!

By Renee

September 7, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Okay, out of everything I missed yesterday, I choose to comment on house. Excellent, except for the fact that as usual, the last season ended with a huge cliff hanger that they barely touched on (in my opinion).

Mara, I think it’s a bad idea to keep the knowledge of the cortisone from House as well, and I’m surprised that Cuddy and his friend (I forget his name) are conspiring together to do so.

In the words of John yesterday…Why do you all continue feeding Bruno??

By Lyrazel

September 7, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

So, Bush has finally admitted to having detention centers outside the US. Remember this means Condi Rice lied straight face to not just our government during inquiries but to other nations, their press and assorted diplomats. Remember that flat out denial the US maintained NO PRISONS outside of the USA? So as this administration implodes with further revelations does anyone doubt Fearless Leader’s honest policies? What other admissions will the Bush Administration lay on us?

Mara, it is now legal for Indians in Columbia to grow cocoa leaves for religious and personal consumption. However if you look at it from the Indian point of view, they had tried to cooperate with the government and produced legal crops: corn, bananas…and when brought to market could not find any exporters…not even to US markets…

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

did you hear about the press conference with Bush, when asked a question, gave some not-quite-related-tangent answer?

reporter then said “But that is not what I asked”

Prez replies “well, that was how I understood the question”

CLASSIC

By Tina

September 7, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

You people are so strange????

By Mara

September 7, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - I did know that some small amount of coca is allowed for personal/religious use and about the disasterous attempt to convert to legal money crops. I wasn’t tossing rocks at the Columbians, just noting the difficulty they’ve had in their country, and now they’re advising others. Personally I think the “War on Drugs” has been as big a failure as the “War on Poverty” and “Bush’s War of Choice”. I say legalize the whole kit ‘n kaboodle, tax the hell out of it, and educate, educate, educate about the down-side of recreational use.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

People are strange when you’re a stranger Faces look ugly when you’re alone Women seem wicked when you’re unwanted Streets are uneven when you’re down When you’re strange Faces come out of the rain When you’re strange No one remembers your name When you’re strange When you’re strange When you’re strange

The Doors

By DOG

September 7, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

BC, As I stated earlier, I have no hope for you. You haven’t offered one real rebuttal to any of my observations about Science and Scientists. The fact is you’re way outmatched by me, but are too arrogant to admit it. Unfortunately, I’ve met a lot of half-wits like you in my life, especially in the field of education. I don’t know what you do for a job, but I pray it is NOT in education.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Mara, I couldn’t agree with you more that the “War on Drugs” is a total failure. I believe that your suggestion to regulate and tax is much more intelligent. While other countries often wrongly complain about our influence around the world, I can see how this bogus “War” is a total failure both in results and in terms of PR for the US.

By chuck

September 7, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

So john, President Clinton’s OWN WORDS:

Ex-President Clinton’s Remarks on Osama bin Laden Delivered to the Long Island Association’s Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY Feb. 15, 2002

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it’s interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

**They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ‘cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.**

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

‘It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.’

— William Arkin NBC military analyst

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

INTERACTIVE

• Global dragnet Key figures and developments in the hunt for al-Qaida

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

By DOG

September 7, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

So, BC, let me simplify things for you once more. The Big Lie of Science is that physical processes in living creatures are all “simple”, mechanistic processes which will be fully explained “one day”. I’m telling you and everyone here that not only is that not true, but that Mathematics and Science themselves prove that such a notion is foolish. Unfortunately, very few people go far enough in their education to discover that. Of course, common sense alone should “prove” that to you , BC, but you have chosen to put on some big blinders for some reason.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

I think Chilao’s song quote (“People Are Strange”) well supports my argument that, as humans, we can’t even know ourselves, let alone the TOTALITY. Billy Joel echoed the same sentiment as well in “The Stranger”. Carlos Santana, of course, takes you to spiritual levels that Science can’t come close to describing (check out the cd “Caravanserai” if you don’t already own it). Sure, someone can say “We’ve observed that happiness=a certain cascade of chemical reactions”, but I think most people understand that such reductionistic arguments miss the point.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Bruno — The seventh level of happiness is you going away.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

So ultimately, BC, you’re merely trying to defend “Reductionism”, which has been thoroughly discredited by real Scientists like Robert Rosen. Mr Rosen is no “holistic crackpot”, but a highly respected Biologist who realized that the quaternary folding patterns of proteins can’t really be explained in terms of “normal physics”. The point, BC, is that the incredible complexity of the TOTALITY cannot be fully described by Science, and never will be.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

So, explain yourself a little further here, if you would. I keep arguing for UNCERTAINTY, and you accuse me of being overly certain. I argue for keeping an open mind to things we don’t fully understand, and you call me a dogmatist. Apparently we’re not defining these words in the same way.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Chuck, sorry you didn’t accept my challenge to intelligently discuss homosexuality. Is it ever your goal to try to grow as a person, or is it all about finding more Bible quotes and press releases to back up your cradle-to-grave prejudices?

By Tina

September 7, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

You people haven’t focused on the actual topic of discussion- all this religous talk- maybe you all should do something more with your time- the comments are supposed to be ab the topic- incase you couldnt read the article up there… .

By Billy

September 7, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

I think Chilao’s song quote (“People Are Strange”) well supports my argument that, as humans, we can’t even know ourselves, let alone the TOTALITY. Billy Joel echoed the same sentiment as well in “The Stranger”. Carlos Santana, of course, takes you to spiritual levels that Science can’t come close to describing (check out the cd “Caravanserai” if you don’t already own it). Sure, someone can say “We’ve observed that happiness=a certain cascade of chemical reactions”, but I think most people understand that such reductionistic arguments miss the point.

Bruno — The seventh level of happiness is you going away.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Billy, Your “seventh level of happiness” is your own concern, I have no obligation to meet it. My “seventh level of happiness” is to see lights go on in people’s heads when they realize all that they’ve been misunderstanding and ignoring in life. So, if you have no obligation to fulfill my criteria of happiness, then I have none to meet yours. Sorry.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

The point, BC, is that the incredible complexity of the TOTALITY cannot be fully described by Science, and never will be.

The point is that you have no basis for the “never will be” part of the above statement. You, Mr. I-Argue-For-UNCERTAINTY, cannot know what future science will reveal. If you, as you claim, see God as the “totality of all things”, then I say science is the means through which we can come closest to understanding God. Science has revealed more about the true nature of things than anything else has. It’s funny, really. You claim to be a scientists who thinks science is overrated. You seem to have this Buddhist/Jedi belief in the interconnectedness of everything in the universe, yet you seem to have a nihilistic viewpoint about it all. You may think that creating this walking paradox image about yourself makes you look thoughtful or whatever, but it really just makes you look like the jackass you are.

No, on second thought the point is that you once again are not discussing the topic at hand.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Billy, Your “seventh level of happiness” is your own concern, I have no obligation to meet it. My “seventh level of happiness” is to see lights go on in people’s heads when they realize all that they’ve been misunderstanding and ignoring in life. So, if you have no obligation to fulfill my criteria of happiness, then I have none to meet yours. Sorry.

Bruno, the seventh level of happiness is you going away.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Didn’t the leading edge Scientists of the day once argue the sun revolved around the earth? I mean, think about it, we see it come up on one horizon and it moves across to the other horizon. Makes sense. And after all, it is the one moving across the horizon.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Tina - we often tend to go off subject on this blog, if you don’t like it, this may not be the blog for you!!

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Last thought for you BC: On the “molecular level”, there should be no “purpose” or “intelligence” according to Pure Physics. For complex organs like the ear to “evolve” from simple celled organisms is physically impossible according to a purely “Scientific” explanation. Of course, common sense will tell you the same thing, but I know you’re lacking in that area. Your problem is that you’ve made it an either-or proposition: Either the “Scientists” are right, or the “religious nuts” are right. The truth is, of course, that “truth” is too big of a concept to be fully captured by any one way of understanding. If you noticed, I reject crazy religious explanations like chuck’s because his ideas don’t pass the common sense test either. As a real Scientist, I am reluctant to just dismiss things we don’t understand withthe comfort you apparently can.

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Bruno comforts himself with his touchingly simplistic assumptions and opinions by calling them “common sense.”

Just like bigots and zealots have done throughout history.

I’m with you, Billy; happiness is Bruno babbling to himself instead of pestering people trying to have discussion about something OTHER than his blinding brilliance and obvious superiority.

Time for another compliment: “Bruno, you spelled reductionism correctly… although you’re the only one who brought it up, so once again you’re arguing with voices in your head rather than anything actually stated here.”

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

So, if you want to shut me up, BC, just show me how a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms can spontaneously arrange themselves into lipoproteins. They don’t, so you can’t. Just show me ONE “missing link” from evolution. You can’t, because they don’t exist. If the mechanism of evolutionary change is truly something random, like “background radiation” (the current “theory”)then we should see an abundance of all type of mutations not only in the fossil records but here in the present day world. Where are they?? Not ONE has ever been found. So tell me again, who is the dogmatist here, and who is looking at reality?

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Chilao, according to Einstein, it is equally valid to envision the Earth circling the Sun, or the Sun circling the Earth. Neithe point of reference is more “objective” than the other. So, the “Earth-centered” astronomers who were laughed at so hard were actually exonherated by Einstein.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Sickle cell is a mutation.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

You see, Chilao, the measure of “Scientife Models” is not TRUTH, because reality is way stranger than we will ever comprehend. The benchmark for theories is simpy “usefulness”. Scientists accept the heliocentric model of planetary motion not because it is more TRUE than an earth-centered model, but that it is simpler to think about. The biggest point is that the Universe exists and works well without any explanations on our part. However, idiots like BC constantly confuse reality with their own thoughts about reality. They’re two very different things.

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

(shaking head) Bruno really is getting dumber and dumber with every post. With every statement you maake, Bruno, you show how little you’ve bothered to try to learn and how the most facile, easily refuted anti-evolution arguments have become your mantra.

You’ve already trotted out the Second Law silliness… and when you got thoroughly whipped with that one, you retreated into claiming that the Second Law means whatever is most convenient for you. Now you’re trying the “missing links” argument? Seriously? MISSING LINKS? How sad is this? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe)

In one sense, you’re right… there are no ‘missing links,’ because they’re not missing. If you’re asking about transitional forms in the fossil record, there are literally THOUSANDS of examples for anyone who cares to look. (You can see a few at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.)

You also drag in the “truly random” line, which again demonstrates your grade-school understanding of evolution. Mutation is random; natural selection is not. A-duh. You should at least TRY to raise a few arguments that aren’t in the Top Ten Dumb Creationist Lies list.

Sheesh, we could spend all week trying to educate you away from your so-called “Common Sense” and into actually looking at the evidence, but as Billy has pointed out: the topic this week is racial profiling. Not your unparalleled genius and open-minded supremacy over us lesser lifeforms.

Pseudo-intellectuals are fun to prod; they’re just so CUTE when they get all riled up and outraged!

By Jack

September 7, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Lions and tigers and bears.

Oh My!!

By DOG

September 7, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Billy, PLEASE keep thinking about the “never will be” part of what I’m saying. It’s our only hope in this world. Because, by accepting “never will be”, we as humans can refocus on what the most important thing of alL; GOD’S LOVE. Without GOD’S LOVE, we not only couldn’t live for even three seconds, we wouldn’t be here in the first place.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

But, remember, GOD as THE TOTALITY is a very different concept from the average person’s understanding of some benevolent grandfatherly figure hanging out in space somewhere. This is Physics, not metaphysics. There is no guy out in space. What is GOD? I can’t tell you exactly, but I get glimpses once in a while when I think about how e^(i * pi) - 1 = 0. I can stare at Euler’s discovery till the end of time and never understand how that all worked out like that.

By chuck

September 7, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara, let’s do that. Legalize it all. That has worked so well with alcohol. I mean since it became legal again and we started educating people about the dangers, Teens have almost completely stopped using it. Let’s put drugs in the convenience stores because once we educate the children, they would never use them.

That my dear is exactly why liberals lose elections.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

To show you I’m fair, BC, I just went to the link you suggested. Unfortunately, it was shut down. Did they read my W2W posts and realize thier error? BC, I’M NOT A CREATIONIST. NONE OF US KNOWS HOW THIS MAGIC LIFE GOT STARTED—ITS JUST THAT SOME OF US ARE HONEST ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT. Now, if you were a man, you would go to Amazon.com and check out “life Itself” by Robert Rosen concerning how the quaternary folding structures of proteins can’t be explained by Science. (Of course, I’m not convinced that the primary, socondary, or tertiary structures can be explained either). Show me you’re a man.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

BC, for a simpler challenge, try to find a real scientist who truly iunderstands the Special Theory of Relativity, and run by him my observation that it is TOTALLY CORRECT to think of the sun revolving around the Earth— just as “correct” as envisioning the Earth revolving around the Sun. It’s just a matter of convenient visualization, not “Truth”.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Again, chuck, my disappointment with you is that you, of all people, should recognize that GOD’S intelligence is so far above anything a man cold come up with. But, you keep elevating your own manly thoughts and creations above GOD’s CREATION.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Last Science connection for you, then I gotta run for the day. The Special Theory of Relativity sheds light on the meaning of “perspectives”, i.e. “points of view” in showing that two different observers will never exactly see things the same way. That doesn’t mean that reality is inconsistent, but that we can’t see that reality from any perspective but our own. Geniuses like Einstein (and Ghandi and Carlos Santana) can “transcend” their own limited perspective to give us glimpses of the big picture. Sorry you don’t want to see all that beauty, BC, it really is a crying shame.

By chuck

September 7, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dog, First, I don’t have any desire to “debate” you on any issue. It is a waste of time. Second, I don’t have time to do that at all this week. This is likely my last post for today unless I can squeeze something in before practice this afternoon. Third, the “seventh level of happiness” is disappointing you. Fourth, if you want to see my positions on the issue of homosexuality, go back to the archives and read them. Click edit at the top of the browser click find and then type in “chuck”. Read all of my posts. Then, when you think you know what my positions are, counter them.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Last Science connection for you, then I gotta run for the day.

Promise? Cause, Bruno, the seventh level of happiness is you leaving.

By Pixie

September 7, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Tina, you must be new. If you had been reading this blog, you would know that this blog even has “joke Friday”. I think it okay to discuss anything you like on here.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

anybody hear Carlos Santana on the Shakira Oral Fixation: VOL 2?
I had to get up and pull out the jacket, since the guitar was unmistakable, and cher nuf

By Mara

September 7, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

chuck - yes, exactly like alcohol. Yes, we once tried having alcohol prohibited and how’d that work out? Why didn’t we keep it illegal? Because anytime you prohibit a commodity that a large numgber of people want, eventually someone is going to provide it illegally. Control is forfeit and crime increases. From rum-runners endangering other motorists, vendors cheating the tax man, speak-easies brewing their own poisonous “bathtub gin”, cops taking payoffs, and organized crime gangs, Prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. And despite your hysterical tirade, we wouldn’t have to allow convenience stores to sell it, just as we currently don’t have to allow them to sell alcohol. The whole point is that legalization would give the government control of who gets it and where it’s sold. Just like it authorizes the sale of alcohol. Ever heard of a “dry” county? Ever tried to buy beer on Sunday in Georgia? Ever heard about store owners being busted for selling alcohol to a minor? Or tobacco for that matter. Another drug that the government arbitrarily decided to let individuals dicide whether to use or not.

Just like alcohol and tobacco, if you don’t want your kids using it…teach them not to use it. And just like those two vices, the choice of legality shouldn’t be dependant on you being able to teach your children to be responsible.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

I accept your surrender , chuck. I knew you were never man enough to take me on. You have time to type out three hour long posts, but can’t summarize your position on homosexuality in one sentence. Hmmmm, sounds a little suspicious to me. The real reason is, of course, when you boil it down that simply, your position falls apart.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

well said, Mara, and legalization would also take away the Glamour Appeal many illicit substances have.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Mara, you’re absolutely right again in your analysis of Prohibition. But don’t forget, chuck’s a control freak. He’s not happy for people to make up their own minds, he wants to pass laws to make up their minds for them “for their own good”. If he were born in Afghanistan, he would be a Taliban member.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Mara - you definitely deserve the tiara dear!!!!

By Kevin

September 7, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

BC, Bruno

I went to the website as well and it is shut down. While I am on Bruno’s side of the debate, it is wrong to say that there are no transitional creatures. I am a creationist, but I can admit that there is data available to challenge my beliefs. But it is also wrong for scientists to even hint that the transitional creatures found are “proof” of evolution. The gaps in the record are so numerous that the debate is far from settled.

Each of us has preconceived notions about the origin of life. The scientific tools that we have at our disposal today cannot definitively prove or disprove evolution, so therefore each of us are safe in our beliefs.

Scientists are no better than we are. Read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Scientists, just like the rest of us, reject change. Albert Einstein took several years before he would believe the quantum mechanics theories put forth by Bohr and Heisenberg. If he is not insulated from having a closed mind, then it is doubtful that any of us are.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Chilao, I hope you get Santana’s “Caravanserai” one day. Then follow these instructions for a mind blowing experience. (1) Wait until about midnight, when it’s quiet. (2) As always, “first we must relax” ala Eddie Murphy. (3) Put on headphones and listen to “Waves Within”, “Song of the Wind”, and “Every Step of the Way”. You will never be the same afterward. ; > ]

By DOG

September 7, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Saved by Kevin!! Thank you, buddy. You and 2D are the only guys here that I am humble to, because you have the attitude I still aspire to.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Chilao - I hear ya with the “glamour” thing. Good point.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

(curtseying gracefully) Why, thank you Renee! Net and kimberly should be done sharing it by now anyway…

;^)

By DOG

September 7, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Here’s my deepest analysis of our permanent foes, the Muslims. Mock my view if you like:

(1) While the idea of “world peace” is laudable, it is not possible given human nature. There’s a big negative part of all humans that is jealous, fearful, and ultimately hateful.

(2) The best we can do is to protect ourselves from those who wish us harm, it is not possible to make friends with everyone.

(3) Muslims worldwide have made their intentions clear through their enormous funding of terror groups. Anyone who believes they are “peace-loving” people is only deluding themselves.

(4) Invading Iraq is incredibly valuable strategically, despite what the cowardly, idiotic Libs say. Don’t you think that Syria, Iran, and Saudia Arabia are secretly crapping their pants right now thinking “That could be us”

(5) We’ll never get the Muslims to accept our viewpoint, and we can’t defeat them from without. The best we can do is make the price so terrible that the reasonable people in their own societies will say “Enough” and make the changes from within they need to make to stay out of our hair.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Mara, was I right about the long , brown hair?

By Mara

September 7, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Did anyone but me note (and laugh at the implication) of the blurb regarding Bush and Clay Aiken on the AJC homepage? “President may tap Clay Aiken”

okay, never mind. Evidently someone realized what it seemed to imply and changed it…but still, I saw it and I was amused. (heh, heh, heh)

By Jack

September 7, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Now I’ll be humming Santana for the rest of the day.

A tiara wearing contest with the contestants wearing only the tiara…..I’ll buy a ticket!

By TramadoL88671

September 7, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

No, blond. And as you know I’m a self-proclaimed feminist. According to your side, all feminists are ugly hirsute bra-burning man-haters so there’s no way that your description of me could possibly be right…right?

Oh, and I’m sure that all muslims, especially American muslims, are just biding their time, waiting for their chance to strike.

What a melvin…sheesh

By chuck

September 7, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Yep, Mara that readily available alcohol has really been great for society as a whole. I’ve only been to 3 funerals for students that I have taught who were killed by drunk drivers in my 17 years as a teacher. What the heck. Their lives weren’t worth too much in the scheme of things. I suppose there are FEWER dui’s now that it is legal than there were during prohibition. I’m certain that drug use would not increase if we legalized it just as alcohol use did not increase after it was legalized. I’m sure that drug AVAILABILITY to teens would go down as well.

Prohibition was a GOOD thing. Why would it be BAD to control behaviors that affect society in such a negative way. Alcohol contributes to increased domestic violence, lost productivity, thousands of deaths annually on the highways…not just deaths for drunks, but for innocent travellers, increased high school and college dropout rates and on and on. If alcohol was prohibited, these things might not cease, but they would certainly decrease.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Mara, I’m just trying to get ready for our blind date. BTW, in my family, the women were always in charge, so I love strong women. I don’t really care for weak ones, like John.

By chuck

September 7, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Here I go again. Defend these statistics please Mara:

From the CDC:

Measures of Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol–Related Health Effects from Excessive Consumption Current Drinking Current drinkers are those who consume alcohol-containing beverages.

In 2002, 54.9% of U.S adults (18 years and older) reported drinking at least one drink in the past month. The prevalence of past-month alcohol consumption was higher for men (62.4%) than for women (47.9%) (SAMSHA, NSDUH, 2002). Binge Drinking Binge drinking is generally defined as having 5 or more drinks on one occasion, meaning in a row or within a short period of time (Naimi, 2003). However, among women, binge drinking is often defined as having 4 or more drinks on one occasion (NIAAA, 2004) (Wechsler, 1998). This lower cut-point is used for women because women are generally of smaller stature than men, and absorb and metabolize alcohol differently than men.

About 1 in 3 adult drinkers in the United States report past-month binge drinking, and this ratio has changed very little since the mid-1980s (Serdula, 2004).

In 2001, there were approximately 1.5 billion episodes of binge drinking in the U.S. Binge drinking rates were highest among those aged 18 to 25 years; however, 70% of binge drinking episodes occurred among those aged 26 years and older (Naimi, 2003).

Binge drinkers were 14 times more likely to report alcohol-impaired driving than non-binge drinkers (Naimi, 2003).

Binge drinking is associated with a number of adverse health effects, including unintentional injuries (e.g., motor vehicle crashes, falls, burns, drownings, and hypothermia); violence (homicide, suicide, child abuse, domestic violence); sudden infant death syndrome; alcohol poisoning; hypertension; myocardial infarction; gastritis; pancreatitis; sexually transmitted diseases; meningitis; and poor control of diabetes (Naimi, 2003). Heavy Drinking Heavy drinking is consuming alcohol in excess of 1 drink per day on average for women and greater than 2 drinks per day on average for men (NIAAA, 2004).

In 2002, 5.9% of U.S. adults reported heavy drinking in the past 30 days; the prevalence of heavy drinking was greater for men (7.1%) than for women (4.5%) (CDC, BRFSS, 2002).

Heavy drinking is associated with a number of chronic health conditions, including chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, gastrointestinal cancers, heart disease, stroke, pancreatitis, depression, and a variety of social problems (Naimi, 2003). Alcohol Dependence A person is defined as being dependent on alcohol if he or she reports three or more of the following symptoms in the past year (DSM-IV, 1994).

Tolerance (e.g., needing more alcohol to become intoxicated). Withdrawal Alcohol use for longer periods than intended. Desire and/or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use. Considerable time spent obtaining or using alcohol, or recovering from its effects. Important social, work, or recreational activities given up because of use. Continued use of alcohol despite knowledge of problems caused by or aggravated by use. In 2002, 3.7% of past-year drinkers were alcohol-dependent (SAMSHA, NSDUH, 2002).

Underage Drinking As of 1988, all states prohibit the purchase of alcohol by youth under the age of 21 years. Consequently, underage drinking is defined as consuming alcohol prior to the minimum legal drinking age of 21 years.

In 2003, 44.9% of 9th through 12th graders reported drinking alcohol on one or more of the past 30 days; prevalence of current drinking was higher for females (45.8%) than among males (43.8%) (CDC, YRBS, 2003).

In 2003, 28.3% of 9th through 12th graders reported binge drinking (having five or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours) at least once during the past 30 days. The prevalence of binge drinking was higher for males (29%) than among females (27.5%) (CDC, YRBS, 2003).

Alcohol use is a leading risk factor in the three leading causes of death among youth: unintentional injuries (including motor vehicle crashes and drownings); suicides; and homicides. Other adverse consequences of underage drinking include risky sexual behavior and poor school performance (CDC, YRBS, 2001).

Zero tolerance laws, which make it illegal for youth under age 21 years to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their system (i.e., with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥0.02 g/dL), have reduced traffic fatalities among 18 to 20 year olds by 13% and saved an estimated 21,887 lives from 1975 through 2002 (NHTSA, 1997). Alcohol Use and Women’s Health For women of childbearing age, the consequences of excessive alcohol consumption, particularly binge drinking, includes unintentional injuries, domestic violence, risky sexual behavior and sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancy, and alcohol-exposed pregnancies.

In 2001, 11.8% of women aged 18 to 44 years reported consuming alcohol within the past month, and 11% reported binge drinking (5 or more drinks on any one occasion) (Naimi, 2003).

Women with unintended pregnancies were 60% more likely to binge drink during the three months before conception than women with intended pregnancies (Naimi, 2003). Alcohol-Impaired Driving In 2002, 2.2% of U.S. adults reported alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days (CDC, BRFSS, 2003).

In 1993, there were approximately 123 million episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. (Liu, 1997).

In 2001, there were approximately 1.4 million arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 of every 137 licensed drivers in the United States. (NHTSA, 2003). Back to Top

Alcohol-Related Health Effects from Excessive Alcohol Consumption Total Deaths due to Alcohol In 2000, there were approximately 85,000 deaths attributable to either excessive or risky drinking in the U.S., making alcohol the third leading actual cause of death (Mokdad, 2004).

Alcohol-related deaths in the United States vary considerably by state, and are directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed and the pattern of alcohol use. Alcohol Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths In 2002, 17,419 people in the United States died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, accounting for 41% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA, 2003).

In 1995, 36% of all crash fatalities among youth aged 15 to 20 years were alcohol-related (Samber, 1997; NHTSA, 1997).

From 1997 through 2002, 2,355 children died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes; 1,588 (68%) of these children were riding with a drinking driver (CDC, MMWR, 2004). Alcohol and Unintentional Injuries Alcohol-related unintentional injuries and deaths include motor vehicle crashes, drownings, falls, hypothermia, burns, suicides, and homicides.

Approximately 31.1% of those who die from unintentional, non-traffic injuries in the United States have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 g/dL or greater (Smith, 1999).

Patients treated in an emergency department (ED) for an unintentional injury are 13.5 times more likely to have consumed 5 or more alcohol-containing beverages within 6 hours of their injury compared to age and sex matched community controls (Vinson, 2003). Alcohol and Violence In 1997, about 40% of all crimes (violent and non-violent) were committed under the influence of alcohol (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998).

In 1997, 40% of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders said that they were drinking at the time of their crime (Greenfield, 2000).

Approximately 72% of rapes reported on college campuses occur when victims are so intoxicated they are unable to consent or refuse (Wecshler, 2004).

Two-thirds of victims of intimate partner violence reported that alcohol was involved in the incident (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998).

Nearly one-half of the cases of child abuse and neglect are associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse (Grant, 2000).

Approximately 23% of suicide deaths are attributable to alcohol (Smith, 1999). Alcohol and Pregnancy Adverse health effects that are associated with alcohol-exposed pregnancies include miscarriage, premature delivery, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and prenatal alcohol-related conditions (e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorders).

In 1999, 12.8% of women aged 18 to 44 years reported any alcohol use (at least one drink) during pregnancy, and 2.7% reported binge drinking (5 or more drinks on any one occasion) (MMWR, 2002).

Alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder and alcohol-related birth defects are believed to occur approximately three times as often as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) (CDC, NCBDD/FAS, 2004).

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the leading causes of mental retardation, and is directly attributable to drinking during pregnancy. FAS is characterized by growth retardation, facial abnormalities, and central nervous system dysfunction (i.e., learning disabilities and lower IQ), as well as behavioral problems.

The incidence of FAS in the United States ranges from 0.2 to 1.5 per 1,000 live births http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fas (CDC, NCBDD/FAS, 2004).

Any maternal alcohol use in the periconceptional period (i.e., during the three months before pregnancy or during the first trimester) is associated with a six-fold increased risk of SIDS (Iyasu, 2002).

Binge drinking (five or more drinks at a time) during a mother’s first trimester of pregnancy is associated with an eight-fold increase in the odds that the infant will die of SIDS (Iyasu, 2002). Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Disease Alcohol use by young adults is associated with earlier initiation of sexual activity, unprotected sexual intercourse, multiple partners and an increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

Among teens aged 14 to 18, 20% of those who reported drinking before age 14 also reported being sexually active compared to 7% of those who did not report drinking before this age (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 1999).

In 1998, an estimated 400,000 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 had unprotected sex after drinking, and an estimated 100,000 had sex when they were so intoxicated they were unable to consent (Hingson, 2002).

Among adults aged 18 to 30, binge drinkers were twice as likely as those who did not binge drink to have had two or more sex partners (Leigh, 1994).

People who abuse alcohol are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as having unprotected sex, having more sex partners, and using intravenous drugs. In a single act of unprotected sex with an infected partner, a teenage woman has a 1% risk of acquiring HIV, a 30 % risk of getting genital herpes, and a 50% chance of contracting gonorrhea (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994). Hepatitis C and Chronic Liver Disease Alcohol consumption can exacerbate the HCV infection and accelerate disease progression to cirrhosis. Alcohol may also exacerbate the side effects of antiviral treatment for HCV infection, impairing the body’s response to the virus (Larrea, 1998).

In 2003, there were 12,207 deaths from alcohol-related chronic liver disease (CLD). Approximately 75% of those deaths occurred among men (CDC, NCHS, 2003).

Approximately 40% of the deaths from unspecified liver disease in the United States are attributable to heavy alcohol consumption (Parrish, 1993). Alcohol and Cancer Alcohol-related cancers include oral-pharyngeal, esophagus (squamous cell type), prostate, liver, and breast. In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.

Excessive drinkers are 3 times more likely to develop liver cancer than non-drinkers (English & Holman, 1995).

Excessive drinkers are 4 times more likely to develop esophageal cancer than non-drinkers (English & Holman, 1995).

Oral cancers are six times more common in heavy alcohol users than in non-alcohol users (American Cancer Society, 2002).

Compared to non-drinkers, women who consume an average of 1 alcoholic drink per day increase their risk of breast cancer by approximately 7%. Women who consume an average of 2 to 5 drinks per day increase their risk of developing breast cancer by approximately 50% compared to that of non-drinkers (American Cancer Society, 2002).

By Jack

September 7, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Yeah Chuck. We are really going to read all of that.

By Billy

September 7, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Chuck — Regarding binge drinking’s affect on SIDS, all I have to say is that parents who let their babies drink that much should be charged with crimes anyway.

By chuck

September 7, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Conversely Mara, Illegal drug use statistics show that far fewer adults AND teens use drugs WHICH ARE ILLEGAL, than alcohol which is LEGAL and readily available. Imagine that:

An estimated 14.8 million Americans (or 6.7 percent of the population 12 years old and older) were users of illegal drugs at any given time in 1999, according to a recent survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA). Approximately 78 million Americans aged 12 or older (36 percent) reported using illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime, according to a preliminary 1998 SAMSA report. Overall drug use trends were relatively stable in 1999 compared to the year before, but rates of drug use have dropped to roughly half the levels of the late 1970s.

According to the 1999 SAMSA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA):

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug. It is used by 75 percent of current illicit drug users. About 10.4 million persons 12 to 20 years of age reported drinking alcohol in the month prior to the survey interview in 1999 (29.4 percent of this age group). Of these, 6.8 million (20.2 percent) were binge drinkers and 2.1 million (6.0 percent) were heavy drinkers. The rates of current illicit drug use for major racial/ethnic groups were 6.6 percent for whites, 6.8 percent for Hispanics, and 7.7 percent for blacks. The rate was highest among the American Indian/Alaska Native population (10.6 percent) and among persons reporting multiple race (11.2 percent). Asians had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). In 1999 an estimated 3.6 million Americans (1.6 percent of the total population age 12 and older) were dependent on illicit drugs. An estimated 8.2 million Americans were dependent on alcohol (3.7 percent). Of these, 1.5 million people were dependent on both alcohol and illicit drugs. Overall, an estimated 10.3 million people were dependent on either alcohol or illicit drugs (4.7 percent). An estimated 2.8 million people (1.3 percent of the population age 12 and older) received some kind of drug or alcohol treatment in the 12 months prior to being interviewed in 1999. Of this group, 1.6 million (0.7 percent) received treatment for illicit drugs, and 2.3 million (1.0 percent) received treatment for alcohol. Despite generally declining rates of drug use over the past two decades, drug arrests have been up significantly over the same time period. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, roughly 1,532,200 drug violation arrests were made in 1999, up from 580,900 in 1980.

These arrests have resulted in a dramatic increase in prison and jail populations. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 109,200 people were held in jails due to drug-related offenses in 1996, compared to 20,400 in 1983. About 236,800 people were held in state prisons for drug-related offenses in 1998, compared to 148,600 in 1990.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I don’t know what all of those statistics are supposed to mean (I know what you want them to mean) but these are grown people who make decisions. EVERYTHING you partake in your body has a risk of making you sick etc… But does that mean it should be prohibited. If you drink and drive, there are consequences from our government, as there should be. If you drink too much, you could get alcohol poisoning, you could get psorosis of the liver, you could become an alcoholic, it can make you want to have sex, it can make you have sex with an ugly person, it can make you have sex with 5 or more people…..okay we have established alcohol can have these and ~gasp~ even more consequences. So, since these things can happen, we shoudl then prohibit it?????

It never occurs to anyone that just because it’s legal doesn’t mean YOU have to participate in it.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

People who live in urban areas live 10 years less than country-folk, so let’s all move to the country. just not on my road, okay? LMAO

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Yeah Chuck. We are really going to read all of that.*

I ran out of browser scroll space on that bar, it just maxed out. too many letters.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Drugs should absolutely be legal! A consenting adult shoudl be allowed to purchase what they want to consume in their body. If it causes them cancer, or addiction, then so be it. If they drive, and they are high, arrest them. If they neglect their children, due to drug use, take their children. Oh wait, we already do that. Hell, make it only legal to 21 year olds.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

chuck - you know that nobody is going to read your 6000 word cut-n-paste post…right? Though I did note that you had no data for the dates before and after Prohibition so your sarcastic comments are worth the paper they’re typed on. And by the bye…there certainly were fewer DUI’s before AND after the repeal of prohibition. But that was probably because it wasn’t illegal in most parts of the country and “legally intoxicated” wasn’t codified until the late 1930’s….

Frankly, I’ve always loved the saying “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics”. I find statistics interesting and occasionally informative but I’m not going to base my choices off them. Especially when they’re cited by right-wing ideologues.

You ask “Why would it be BAD to control behaviors that affect society in such a negative way.”

Because we’re a FREE PEOPLE, chuck. That means we’re legally ALLOWED to do stupid crap if that’s what we want to do. Unless the government outlaws something, it’s fair game. Theoretically, “society” would be better off if all potentially harmfully behavior were strictly prohibited and infractions harshly punished. But if you really want to live in Communist China…be my guest. I hear they don’t let folks get away with “damaging” their society in any way.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

And as much bad that alcohol can cause, some people just enjoy a simple glass of wine from time, or socially drink. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it a staple in everyone’s life.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Renee - it can make you want to have sex, it can make you have sex with an ugly person, it can make you have sex with 5 or more people…

ROTFLMAO!!!

Right on, Chilao!

Movin’ to the country, gonna eat me a lot of peaches

Movin’ to the country, gonna eat me a lot of peaches

Peaches come in a can, they were put there by a man

In a factory downtown

-PotUSA

By lozen

September 7, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Why would it be BAD to control behaviors that affect society in such a negative way? What Mara said is it has been impossible to control those behaviors. It’s simple; as soon as people in any culture find a way to ferment something, they ferment it and then use it to feel good. Or they find other things to use to feel good. Alcohol used in excess ruins lives for sure, but many people don’t use it in excess and it’s a pleasure in their lives. A glass of wine sitting on the porch swing and looking at the stars sounded so nice last week Mara. I followed your excellent example!

By Zack

September 7, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—Why don’t you quit making bigoted statements concerning the Bible? Do you just want to sound like John does?

Why don’t you read the Bible instead of trying desperately to support what you hope is true?

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Did we just hear good arguments for dropping the speed limit down to 20miles an hour, and requiring all vehicle manufacturers to have smaller engines, with governors?

Speed Kills, you know. LOL

think of all the people who die yearly from those high-powered 5.7L Hemi type engines….(okay I am specifically thinking of the Chevy 350 CID but…LOL)

By Zack

September 7, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Renee—I HAVE studied Islam. The extremists are the ones who AREN’T violent!

Norman/Candide—You really need to quit living in denial of the truth. You really do. I’d say that explains your tenacity and bigotry against those who speak it.

By Renee

September 7, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

LOL, Chilao!!!

Of course you have Zack, how could I have been so silly. Muslims are bad, bad, violent people!!! Do away with them all!! The Christians on the other hand are full of peace and good.

By Brian Curtis

September 7, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Quotes from Zack: “Brian Curtis—Why don’t you quit making bigoted statements concerning the Bible? Do you just want to sound like John does?”

Exactly what bigoted statements have I made about the Bible here? All I’ve noted is that Chuck likes to rant and rave about it all the time.

“Why don’t you read the Bible instead of trying desperately to support what you hope is true?”

What makes you think I haven’t read it? And what makes you so certain that YOU’RE not the one desperately trying to support what you only hope is true?

By Mara

September 7, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

lozen - it really was a nice night to do the swingin’ n’ sippin’ thing wasn’t it! :^)

By Jack

September 7, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Let’s move to Montana and grow some dental floss.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Renee and Mara, I’m with you on the consenting adult idea! Actually, that’s what real conservatives support. Chuck is a fascist, not a conservative.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

And chuck, it’s still amazing to me that you have time to type posts so long that War and Peace seems short by comparison, but you can’t summarize your views toward homosexuality.

By Mara

September 7, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Jack - I recommend the south-west part Montana. Beartooth Wilderness, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the snow-capped Absaroka and Cascade ranges…beautiful country.
Though come to think of it, it might be easier to raise dental floss in the flatter eastern side….

hail, Zappa!!

By NetBanker

September 7, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

I know this is WAY off topic, but I think it’s important so I’m going to elicit your help. There is currently a plan open for public comment that would add a paved road and tour buses or mini vans to Cumberland Island in order to allow more people to reach the remote wilderness area on the North end of the island. Adding a road and buses completely negates the entire concept of a wilderness, IMO. Over 20 years ago 4, 000 or so Georgians wrote to the National Park Service in support of plans to limit the amount of development that could occur on the island. This is where you can help. You can post your comments at the following link: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?projectID=16447&documentId=16171. Please take a moment to comment to the National Park Service about this plan.

Chuck…where are your conservative roots? You know the ones that want to keep government out of the lives of private citizens as much as possible? The ones that support the concept of “Personal Responsibility?” Almost every one of the stats cited by the CDC posting is a health issue over which every individual has a choice to make. It is possible to drink responsibly.

I object with the part of the definition of binge drinking being “on one occasion, meaning in a row”’ when there is no timeframe associated with how long the occasion has lasted. I think this skews the results. For example, the definition makes me a regular binge drinker because every couple of weeks I gather with friends on a Friday at 7pm for drinks and then dinner which is usually around 9:30pm. On average our evening goes on until 12:30am or so. During that 5-5 ½ hour period we all generally consume 5 drinks ‘on one occasion, meaning in a row’ which is at a rate that ensures we don’t get drunk. According to the law, my body, and sobriety tests I’m not drunk or even buzzed, but I’m a binge drinker? The part of the definition ‘within a short period of time’ does make sense.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

and here after the Peaches song from Mara, I got side-tracked by Jonathan Edwards Sit around the shanty and get a good buzz on

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Jack, loved the Zappa reference—It ranks up with the best all-time advice ever given to humans by the Master Zappa: “Watch out where the huskies go, and don’t you eat that yellow snow”

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Two more questions Mara—How old are you? Would you be opposed to marrying a sugar daddy who will die young and leave you everything?

By Zappa

September 7, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Great googly-mooglies!

By lozen

September 7, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Sighhhhhhhh! Zack gave the attendants the slip again.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Any Robert Fripp/Brian Eno/King Crimson fans here? In case you didn’t know, Mara, true conservatives can also be balls-to-the-wall rockers. Ever listened to Pink Floyd’s “One of These Days” at 100 decibels?

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Interesting that I am putting a copy of Live:Roxy and Elsewhere in the mail TOMORROW…LMAO

anybody hear that piece this morning on NPR about Laurel Canyon, everyone gathered at Zappa’s cabin to do, what else? at the place of a guy who did not do drugs or even drink. I read his autobiography way back.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

But of course, my all-time fav is Jerry. The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, you got it all when Jerry played his “Tiger”. I saw GOD at many Dead concerts.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

You guys have probably seen me around town—I’m the guy with the fifteen year old Toyota with Dead stickers on it and some cool looking tattoos to boot. The Science Nerd/Arch Conservative thing is a secret I only share with my closest friends here on W2W. I keep praying that none of you were my clients, however. Gotta keep up that professional image!

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Nevada Barr wrote a novel that took place on Cumberland Island NP. I researched going there/stopping by when doing a coastal jaunt(Wilmington NC to St. Augustine FL), and then learned I would have to rent/bring a bicycle. LOL

By Mara

September 7, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

lozen - the butterfly nets will take care of that, eventually.

Dog - my husband wouldn’t appreciate me getting a sugardaddy. And didn’t your momma ever tell you that a gentleman never questions a woman about her weight or age? And if he is rude enough to do so, a lady never answers?

Chilao - where’s that shanty again? LOL!!

C-y’all tomorrow…

By NetBanker

September 7, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

The rates of current illicit drug use for major racial/ethnic groups were 6.6 percent for whites, 6.8 percent for Hispanics, and 7.7 percent for blacks. The rate was highest among the American Indian/Alaska Native population (10.6 percent) and among persons reporting multiple race (11.2 percent). Asians had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). Geez kids, I think these rates are low because I know all kinds of people who use illicit drugs. (grin) Even if they are, the point would be that Chuck wants to control more than 90% of the population that doesn’t have a problem. It seems that as a conservative that doesn’t make sense nor does the massive amounts of money spent on the ‘War on Drugs’ given the outcomes. Even if drug use doubled in percentage of the population my guess is that it would be cheaper to provide education and treatment than it is to fight a war we are continuing to lose. I’m imagine just thinking of the Netherlands makes many social conservatives just want to scream, but their rates of social ills don’t seem to be near ours as percentages of the population despite their allowing legal prostitution, small amounts of illicit drugs, and gay marriage.

By Chilao

September 7, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

A tattooed car? Now that is dedication.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

So, my medical prescription for you, chuck and BC, is to drop a hit one of these days. I guarantee you’ll see right through that Science/Religioun BS. But of course, wasn’t it Timothy Leary who eventually decided that for some people it’s not good to put rocket fuel in a VW engine? What a visual, chuck on a few hundred micrograms of the good stuff.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Oh well, I blew it again, Mara. I never did ask you your weight, however. Hopefully your husband will feel complimented by all the attention you receive. ; > ]

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Renee, Very serious business question for you. I’m in the early stages of forming a poker table production company for home tournaments. My business partner and I have come up with a pedestal style holdem table that can be taken apart in 15 seconds and stored in a back room. The padding and felt are the same as the $5000 tables which you can’t take apart. So, would any of your friends be interested in a high quality “portable” pedestal table for around $1200 that looks and plays like a $5000 table? We expect to have models available at Recreational Factory Warehouse in about 2 months.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

NB, I completely agree with your answer to chuck. I hope all you guys here know that he is not actually a conservative, in spite of how he thinks of himself. He’s a fascist who’s hung up on trying to force his views on others via coercion. It just kills him to realize that there are many well-adjusted people in the world like Renee who don’t buy his twisted way of thinking.

By Jack

September 7, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Dog. How hard is it to get stains off of those tables?

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Jack, The trick is to design the table so the felt can be replaced. The cheap tables don’t allow for that, but you don’t think of that until it’s too late.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Also, NEVER get the “race track” design tables with the permanent cup holders. That type of design looks cool, but is completely non-functional in practice. Besides “fixing” the possible positions where you can sit, the cup holders are generally 1” deep and don’t stop the beer from getting spilled. The best type is a “plain” table with plastic cup holders that slide under the rail. Do you play, or just trying to make a funny?

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

So for any serious holdem players here, we’ve got the table for you. Other “portable” tables fold in half, which leaves a crease in the felt which can flip the cards. You’ll never see anyone madder than the guy with pocket aces who finds out his hand was declared “dead” because of exposed cards. So, throw out those cheap table tops you got and get a real table. Plus, it makes you feel like you’re in a serious game, even if you’re only playing 50c/$1 limits.

By DOG

September 7, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

We will be selling the first 20 tables at near cost, so seriously, if anyone is interested, speak up.

By NetBanker

September 7, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Chilao…I was thinking the same thing about the car. I’ve seen custom paint jobs, decals, signs, but never a tatoo on a car.

Mara…are you sure about your husband and the sugar daddy? My husband thinks I should have one, but only so long as he’s rich enough to take care of me AND my husband.

Dog…I realized a long time ago that while Chuck claims to be a conservative he’s not for the very reasons you stated. I just like to poke at him about it every now again. Can I get a prescription for one of those hits? Last time I dropped a hit was for my 28th Birthday in NYC. We spent danced at The Roxy until the sun came up.

By Helga

September 7, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

cool site

By TramadoL4292

September 7, 2006 07:32 PM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.

By pregnant girls

September 7, 2006 08:11 PM | Link to this

pregnant sex picture http://www.pregnantbelly.krify.com pregnant belly
sex while pregnant http://www.pregnantnude.krify.com pregnant nude
pregnant sex photo http://www.pregnantwoman.krify.com pregnant woman
groups.msn.com pregnant sex site http://www.pregnantporn.krify.com pregnant porn
pregnant woman having sex http://www.pregnantteen.krify.com pregnant teen
pregnant sex photo http://www.howtogetpregnant.krify.com how to get pregnant
sex while pregnant http://www.pregnantpicture.krify.com pregnant picture
groups.msn.com pregnant sex site http://www.pregnantfuck.krify.com pregnant f***
pregnant woman sex http://www.pregnantgirl.krify.com pregnant girl

By TramadoL17630

September 8, 2006 02:21 AM | Link to this

My life’s been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven’t gotten anything done lately. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By Renee

September 8, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Dog - no thanks. I don’t particularly want my own table, for several reasons. I don’t really want to be the host of games, I prefer to go elsewhere to play. And, even if I was interested, I am tooooo far away to come pick up a table…

Where is everyone this morning??? Jokes anyone??

By Lyrazel

September 8, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Mara I think I disagree with you: Because we’re a FREE PEOPLE, chuck. That means we’re legally ALLOWED to do stupid crap if that’s what we want to do. Unless the government outlaws something, it’s fair game. Um, we are not a FREE people. We have a series of complex laws that keep our behavior from intruding upon the lives and safety of others (save those of other countries where we meddle).

Chuck, in your rage against alcohol you omitted the truth about a majority of individuals in the US…addiction to prescription medicine or the frequency of the medical establishment to over-prescribe medications to patients. What this unchecked over-medication has done to our society we are just discovering and as the current trend is to start medication at 3-6 years in age for hyperactivity and attention deficit. We are raising a generation of pill poppers who will have almost no knowledge of life without being medicated. Research is being done that proves many people are being put on medications without adequate testing by medical companies for side-effects. Mood behavioral drugs that were scripted to millions of children were safe and no one in the manufacturing/medical end mentioned the increase in suicide although they knew the risks by research. We are guinea pigs with the medical industry pushing products as safe and hiding data that proves different for the sake of profit. Frankly as I see it the American population is addicted to drugs be they legal ones. We have culture declaring all our problems can be solved if we take the perfect pill.

What is the MOST ABUSED drugs in America? Its Prescription Drugs!

By Lyrazel

September 8, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

A young lady, goes to her local pet store in search of an exotic  pet. As she   looks about the store, she notices a box full of live FROGS.    

 The sign says:   ”SEX FROGS! Only $20 each! 

Money Back Guarantee!  Comes with complete instructions.”    

 The girl excitedly looks around to see if anybody’s watching her.   She whispers softly to the man behind the counter, “I’ll take one.”     The man packages the FROG and says, “Just follow the instructions.”   The girl nods, grabs the box, and is quickly on her way home.   As soon as she closes the door to her apartment, she reads the instructions   and reads them very carefully.    

She does exactly what is specified:       1. Take a shower.       2. Splash on some nice perfume.       3. Slip into a very sexy nightie.       4. Crawl into bed and place the frog down beside you and allow the frog to                follow its training.    

She then quickly gets into bed with the FROG and, to her surprise, nothing happens!    

The girl is very disappointed and quite upset at this point.  She rereads the instructions and notices at the bottom of the paper it  says, “If you have any problems or questions, please call the pet store.”    

So, the lady calls the pet store.    

The man says, “I’ll be right over.”  Within minutes, the man is ringing her doorbell.    

The lady welcomes him in and says, “See, I’ve done everything according  to the instructions. The darn thing just sits there.”    

The man, looking very concerned, picks up the FROG, stares directly into   its eyes and sternly says:    

“Listen to me!  I’m only going to show you how to do this one more time.”

By Lyrazel

September 8, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don’t have a good partner, you’d better have a good hand.” Woody Allen 

“There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz SL600” Lynn Lavner 

“Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope.” Camille Paglia 

“Sex is one of the nine reasons for incarnation. The other eight are unimportant.” George Burns 

“Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake a whole relationship.” Sharon Stone 

“Hockey is a sport for white men. Basketball is a sport for black men. Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps.” Tiger Woods 

“My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-b***.” Jack Nicholson  “Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is.”Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady, and you didn’t think Barbara had a sense of humor) 

“Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.” Robin Williams 

“Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.” Billy Crystal 

“According to a new survey, women say they feel more comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful.” Robert De Niro 

“There’s a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe swelling. So what’s the problem?” Dustin Hoffman 

“There’s very little advice in men’s magazines, because men think, ‘I know what I’m doing. Just show me somebody naked’.”Jerry Seinfeld 

“See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time.” Robin Williams 

“It’s been so long since I’ve had sex, I’ve forgotten who ties up whom.” Joan Rivers 

“Sex is one of the most wholesome, beautiful and natural experiences money can buy.” Steve Martin 

“You don’t appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle-aged woman. Stuff you pay good money for in later life.” Elmo Phillips

“Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.” Oscar Wilde 

“It isn’t premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married.” George Burns 

Happy Friday….

By Donovan Coley

September 8, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

What an absolute stupid waste of time debating the subject of profiling. Of course profiling should be used as a tool in catching killers. Are we supposed to ask each individual if he or she intends to do anyone harm before stepping on a plane? Get a grip on reality or die debating the subject.

By themecca

September 8, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Between 18 and 22, a woman is like Africa: half discovered, half wild, naturally beautiful with fertile soil. Between 23 and 33, a woman is like Canada: Well developed and open to trade, especially for someone with cash. Between 33 and 43, a woman is like India: very hot, relaxed, and convinced of her own beauty. Between 43 and 50, a woman is like France: gently aging but still warm and a desirable place to visit. Between 51 and 59, a woman is like Great Britain: with a glorious and all conquering past. Between 60 and 65, a woman is like Yugoslavia: lost the war and is haunted by past mistakes. Between 66 and 70, a woman is like Russia: very wide and borders are now unpatrolled. After 70, she becomes Tibet: A mysterious past and the wisdom of the ages…. only those with an adventurous spirit! and a thirst for spiritual knowledg visit there.

GEOGRAPHY OF MEN Between 1 and 80, a man is like America: ruled by a dick.

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

A new supermarket opened near my house and has an automatic water mister to keep the produce fresh. Just before it goes on, you hear the sound of distant thunder and the smell of fresh rain.

When you approach the milk cases, you hear cows mooing and witness the scent of fresh hay.

When you approach the egg case, you hear hens cluck and cackle and the air is filled with the pleasing aroma of bacon and eggs frying.

The veggie department features the smell of fresh buttered corn.

I don’t buy toilet paper there any more.

By Jack

September 8, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

themecca. Hahahaha! Good one!

By Jack

September 8, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

A professor at Mississippi State University was giving a lecture on the supernatural. To get a feel for his audience, he asks “How many people here believe in ghosts?”

About 90 students raise their hands.

“Well, that’s a good start. Out of those of you who believe in ghosts, do any of you think you’ve seen a ghost?” About 40 students raise their hands.

“That’s really good. I’m really glad you take this seriously. Has anyone here ever talked to a ghost?”

About 15 students raise their hands.

“Has anyone here ever touched a ghost?”

Three students raise their hands.

“That’s fantastic. Now let me ask you one question further Have any of you ever made love to a ghost?”

Way in the back, Bubba raises his hand.

The professor takes off his glasses, and says, “Son, all the years I’ve been giving this lecture; no one has ever claimed to have made love to a ghost. You’ve got to come up here and tell us about your experience.”

The big redneck student replied with a nod and a grin, and began to make his way up to the podium. When he reached the front of the room, the professor asks, “So, Bubba, tell us what it’s like to have sex with a ghost?”

Bubba replied, “Shiiiiit! From way back there I thought you said, “Goats!

By Jack

September 8, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

First Time Sex.

>

A girl asks her boyfriend to come over Friday night and have dinner with her parents. Since this is such a big event, the girl announces

to her boyfriend that after dinner, she would like to go out and make love for the first time.

Well, the boy is ecstatic, but he has never had sex before, so he takes a trip to the pharmacist to get some condoms. He tells the pharmacist it’s his first time and the pharmacist helps the boy for about an hour. He tells the boy everything there is to know about condoms and sex. At the register, the pharmacist asks the boy how many condoms he’d like

to buy, a 3-pack, 10-pack, or family pack. The boy insists on the family pack because he thinks he will be rather busy, it being his

first time and all.

That night, the boy shows up at the girl’s parents house and meets

his girlfriend at the door. “Oh, I’m so excited for you to meet my

parents,come on in!” The boy goes inside and is taken to the dinner table where the girl’s parents are seated. The boy quickly offers to

say grace and bows his head. A minute passes, and the boy is still

deep in prayer, with his head down. Ten minutes pass, and still no

movement from the boy.

Finally, after 20 minutes with his head down, the girlfriend leans

over and whispers to the boyfriend, “I had no idea you were this religious.” The boy turns and whispers back, “I had no idea your father was a pharmacist.”

By lozen

September 8, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, loved the one about the frog! Here’s a song for ya..

“Lots of Caucasians” Lyrics by Dan Smith; Copyright 2005 Verse 1 If there are lots of Caucasians What will it be like When we worship in the sky If there are lots of Caucasians On the golden streets Will they cause the rest of us to clap offbeat If there are lots of Caucasians Chorus Surrounded by white people I just have to ask, When they dance for you, Jesus Will we be allowed to laugh? Will you bless us all with rhythm Or will that gift be withheld? Will they dance real smooth like Usher Or like Elaine from Seinfeld If there are lots of Caucasians If there are lots of Caucasians Verse 2 If there are lots of Caucasians, will we be allowed To shout “Amen!” or agree outloud If there are lots of Caucasians and suburbanites Will they pass-out cold when they see that You’re not White If there are lots of Caucasians If there are lots of Caucasians Chorus 2 Surrounded by White people I just have to say That I’d take Kirk Franklin’s music Over Stryper any day I’d take afros over mullets When we gather ‘round Your throne Cuz if we let White people lead us It’ll sound like a country song If there’s lots of Caucasians (Yeah) If there are lots of Caucasians Chorus 1 Repeated …Will they dance like Michael Jackson… If there are lots of Caucasians On the golden streets Will they cause the rest of us to clap off-beat?

By DOG

September 8, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

NB—I’ll try to get you an invite to the North Georgia Boogie next year. Ever heard of it? You’ll find all the “prescriptions” you need. ; > ]

By Mara

September 8, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - “Unless the government outlaws something, it’s fair game” Um, we are not a FREE people. We have a series of complex laws that keep our behavior from intruding upon the lives and safety of others

I thought the caveat of “unless the government outlaws…” was enough to indicate that “free” was not meant as “without limits”…

themecca - HAHAHAHAHA!! good ‘un

anybody want to bet which items hang in Donovan Coley’s closet? -

a) brown shirt, black combat boots

b) long white robe with white mask

c) conservative silk business suit

d) overalls and a straw hat

By The Pope

September 8, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Four nuns are struck by a bus as they cross the road. Moments later, they are at the Pearly Gates, where Peter asked them if they had any last minute confessions. The first nun said “Pete, I hate to admit it, but one time I touched the priest’s private parts with my finger.” Pete said, “Well, I guess that will be ok, just wash your finger in the Holy Water.” The second nun then says “Pete, it’s embarrassing to admit, but I once touched the priest’s private parts with my whole hand.” Pete shakes his head and says “Ok, just wash your hand here in the Holy Water.” Right then the fourth nun pushed her way to the front and, while pointing to the third nun, said “Pete, would you mind if I washed my mouth out with the Holy Water before she sits in it?

By lozen

September 8, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

To be sung to the tune of “Onward Christian Soldiers”

Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can’t be found. Every sperm is wanted. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood! Every sperm is useful. Every sperm is fine. God needs everybody’s. Mine! And mine! And mine! Let the Pagan spill theirs O’er mountain, hill, and plain. God shall strike them down for Each sperm that’s spilt in vain. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaate!”

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Q: How do you get a Mississippi State grad off of your porch?

A: Pay him for the pizza.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Renee, We will be shipping our poker tables to anywhere in the Continental US. I know what you mean about it being easier to go to other people’s house to play, but eventually I wanted a say-so as to when the games started, the stakes, etc., so I decided to buy a nice table for my house. I didn’t have room for a permanent table, but didn’t want a folding table either. So, I approached a local table manufactureer and we designed the “Porta-Ped” table which looks and plays like a $5000 table for around $1200.

By lozen

September 8, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

A young couple go to see the pastor at the church they want to join. He tells them one of the requirements for membership is that they must not have sex for a month. They agree although they know it’ll be quite difficult for them. The first week goes by and they’re doing good. The second week it becomes more difficult. The third week it’s all they can do to be in the same room without ripping their clothes off. They go for their appt with the minister when the month is up and he asks how they did. They tell him they did okay until the fourth week. “She dropped a can of paint and when she bent over to pick it up I couldn’t control myself. I grabbed her and ripped her clothes off and we had sex,” the man says. The pastor shakes his head. “Well, you know you won’t be welcome in this church,” he tells them. The man says “Well, we’re not welcome in Home Depot any more either.”

By DOG

September 8, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

lozen, I know you’re just trying to mock the nutty “Christians” out there with your “sperm song”, but hopefully one day you will realize that many people have respect for LIFE (i.e. GOD)who aren’t religious nuts. Like the poster from the 1970s said “Love Your Mother”.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Your error, lozen, is the same one that BC keeps making—Your way of dealing with ideas you don’t really understand is to simply dismiss the speaker of the ideas with no real thought. For example, BC has accused me several times of parroting ideas from Intelligent Design websites. That’s funny, because I’ve never seen one. The only ID book I ever read was “Case For A Creator” by Lee Strobel, who formerly was a closed-minded liberal reporter for the NY Times. When he finally got past his mockery of “creationists”, his well-researched efforts into the areas of Science and Mathematics led him, like me thirty years earlier, to realize that any “mechanistic” explanations of Life fall short. I.E. Physics cannot explain Life. Anyone who ever worked in health care can tell you the same thing. Healing and recovery have more to do with a person’s will to live than the treatment we render. Why do you think placebo pills work 30-60 % of the time in all the drug trials?

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Think hard people, why doesn’t the medical community talk more about the placebo effect? It’s a real effect, hundreds of thousands of “scientific” clinical drug trials have proven it over and over again. The reason, of course, is that Science can’t really explain healing and the placebo effect. You see, Healing violates all the Laws of Physics, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, BC. Thank GOD that that man-made observation isn’t really true, or else there would be no Life to begin with. These are hard “Science” questions, BC, not metaphysical musings. Again, I don’t know what kind of job you do, but I can tell it’s in some “fantasy world” like academia.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

After many years of training in Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc, I can definitely state that “miracles” exist. Not the cheap parlor trick type of “miracles” mentioned in the Bible. Not the selfish “miracles” which occur when people “pray” for specific events to occur in their lives (One of the worst books ever written was the evil “Prayer of Jabez” which promoted ego-centrism and selfish prayers). I’m talking about the miracle which occurs everyday when we wake up and find that we’re still alive.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

So let me read from Matthew a moment, so we can understand prayer and how to be a Christian a little better. “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them…..So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets as the hypocrites do in Church and on the street, to be honoured by men….And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the Churches (and over microphones at football games)and on the street corners to be seen by men….But when you pray, go into your room and close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen”

By lozen

September 8, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

“People are still talking about President Bush’s use of a four-letter word at the G-8 Summit. It’s not a big deal, President Bush using a four-letter word. Now if President Bush used a four-syllable word, that would be unbelievable.” -Jay Leno

By lozen

September 8, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

“A new poll shows that 66% of Americans think President Bush is doing a poor job on the War in Iraq. And the remaining 34% think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.” —Tina Fey

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

So, chuck, that’s why you’re an abomination in God’s eyes. Homosexuality is only mentioned a few times in the Bible, and never by Christ. But, somehow, you have made this into one of the cornerstones of your hateful philosophy of life. At the same time, I’ll bet all my rental properties that you’re only too ready to grab a microphone to pray at a moment’s notice in DIRECT VIOLATION OF MATTHEW.

I’m trying to be compassionate toward you, but I find it hard because you have allowed Satan to completely rule your life. You see, it is Satan who wants us to grab that microphone and force our views on captive audiences. It is Satan who makes us believe that we are morally superior to others. It is Satan who tells us how “smart” we are.

By Jack

September 8, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

not a word was spoken…..the church bells all were broken..

By Billy

September 8, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Bruno — I can’t stand Chuck. I love seeing him put in his place. But that’s not the point of the blog. Especially on joke Friday. So, I repeat: The seventh level of happiness is you leaving.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

So you know, chuck, Satan gets me dancing his jig every day. I have no illusions about that. Do you? Or did you fall for the false Biblical teaching that once you’re saved, you’re saved, that you are somehow immune to Satan’s powers. Quoting a character from the movie “The Usual Suspects”—”“The Devil’s greatest trick was to convince the world he didn’t exist”. I don’t know you in person, but that seems to be the case to me. To read more about being “saved”, I would like to direct you to reread Hebrews, and especially James. The idea that we can just parrot a few magic words and -boom—you’re saved—is another abomination to GOD.

By Mara

September 8, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

I assume you realize that by adding the (i.e. GOD) to after “LIFE”, you’re saying that those who “have respect for Life” must therefore “have respect for God”, right?

and for the record, I don’t accept that to “respect life” one necessarily must even believe in a god…

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

This is the most important thing I can ever say to you, chuck, or anyone interested in knowing the truth. Almost all English Bibles contain a mistranslation of Galations 2:16 “know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith IN Jesus Christ” The original Greek states “..but by the faith OF Christ.” This one word makes all the difference, chuck. The first mistranslation implies that we can do somehting to earn, or buy, GOD’s love. The correct translation is consistent with the all-important idea of Grace—ther’s really nothing we can do to save our own souls, chuck.

By lozen

September 8, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Animal House in the West Wing

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we’re learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he’s still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can’t get enough of fart jokes. He’s also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that. There’s also the story that once, when asked what he and his father talk about when they’re fishing, he said, “p*ssy”.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Mara, GOD = Life, the totality. They are the same thing. Kooky “Christians” have pushed the false idea that GOD is a separate entity in some way. Thinking GOD is a man in space is childish, of course. What is GOD (LIFE)?—We humans aren’t smart enough to really understand. That’s where humility and respect for Life comes in. It’s not a BS church, man-made thing like you may have been led to believe.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Billy, I repeat, I have no obligation to meet your levels of happiness any more than you have to meet mine. Do you get that simple point?

By lozen

September 8, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

What is Bush’s single most embarrassing moment to date? You be the decider:

• Groping Germany’s Chancellor — VOTE • Cursing to Tony Blair With Mouth Full of Food — VOTE • Being Thwarted By Locked Doors — VOTE • Dropping His Dog — VOTE • His “Fool Me Once” Gaffe — VOTE • Declaring Himself “The Decider” — VOTE • Fiddling With A Guitar While New Orleans Drowned — VOTE • Reading “My Pet Goat” During the 9/11 Attacks — VOTE • Asking For a Potty Break at a UN Meeting- VOTE • Choking on a Pretzel — VOTE

Because it was hard to whittle down the list to a mere 10, we’ve also included some of the runners-up for your reading and viewing pleasure:

Picking His Nose at a Rangers Game Telling Brownie He Was Doing ‘A Heck of a Job’ Thinking of New Ways to Harm Our Country Being Violated By A Turkey Wiping His Glasses on Letterman’s Assistant His Smirking and Scowling 2004 Debate Performance The Yawning Boy Episode Joking About His Failure to Find WMDs Falling Off A Segway Scooter Taunting Iraq Insurgents to “Bring ‘Em On” The Major League A**hole Gaffe The One-Fingered Victory Salute

By DOG

September 8, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Billy, I repeat, I have no obligation to fulfill your requirements of happiness, nor do you have any to fulfill mine. Got it? You have a good idea here and there, but the bottom line is that your a half-wit like BC and chuck. You guys have strong opinions about things, but don’t really know why you hold those opinions. Without a true understanding of Sciense and Religion, it is impossible to hold an intelligent opinion.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

So, chuck, once again I am not surprised you are unwilling to debate religion with me. You can dazzle the others here with your “extensive” Bible knowledge, but it’s only because they’ve been too lazy to read the Bible for themselves with an open mind devoid of all the preconceived, false notions which are preached at vritually every church around the globe. It does take work to understand the Bible, because you have to learn a lot of Greek and Hebrew words. The English translations, unfortunately, just don’t cut it. As I pointed out, no English translation that I know of uses the many names for GOD found in the original texts, e.g El, Elohim, etc.

The bottom line is that you can’t snow me and I think you know it. That’s why you run like a scared little girl every time you see me, you piece of crap. I think even John has more courage than you. He’s probably smarter, too.

By DOG

September 8, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

So my parting jokes for Friday:

John thinks he’s courageous.

BC thinks he understands Science.

Chuck thinks he understands the Bible.

Billy thinks me going away would make everyone happy here. (Well, maybe that one’s true ; > ] )

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

People have been dazzled by Chuck’s extensive Bible knowledge? Who knew?……..LMAO

I must have missed that somewhere.

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

All I knew was he could not even follow the very simple Fourth Commandment, but then liked to quote Scripture while chowing down on pork BBQ and fried shrimp. LOL

By GOD

September 8, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I love you as I love all my creatures (think jackals and cockroaches). But, you’re giving me a bad name. I sure hope you learn to speak for yourself one day.

By Jennifer

September 8, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Chey, baby. How can you treat me so bad?

By chuck

September 8, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Net B, I couldn’t care less what people do at home with alcohol. While I do speak a lot about personal responsibility and limited government the truth is people don’t drink “at home”. They drink in public. I was at the Ted a few weeks ago and there was a guy sitting in front of us who was stinking drunk. Every other word that came out of his mouth was profanity. He was surrounded by families with little kids trying to enjoy a ball game. Security finally came and made him leave.

The same thing happened at the Auburn Washington State game Saturday. A guy was stumbling around drunk and picked fights with 2 guys who were just there to watch the game. He had to be removed by security as well.

The societal costs of alcohol are astronomical. All of us pay higher insurance rates because of it. If as you and Mara claim, drinking alcohol was a private decision made by adults, I wouldn’t be up in arms, but it isn’t. When folks like Mara use the “prohibition” argument to try to legalize drugs it makes things even worse. The statistics show that fewer people ADULTS AND TEENS, use drugs because they are illegal. It is an absolute certainty that legalization will lead to exponentially increased usage by both adults and teens Just as occurred when alcohol was re-legalized. I know that we are not going back to prohibition. That horse is out of the barn, but I am not going to sit back and watch the same thing happen with drugs.

By Mara

September 8, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

there is no life if there is no god? Once again, opinion masquerading as “fact”…

Funny, I really didn’t know that one couldn’t be “pro-life” and an atheist at the same time. Hmmmm.

By Taliban

September 8, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

I agree with chuck. Go chuck!

By Heisenberg, Godel, and Buddha

September 8, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Because we have proven Scientifically, Mathematically, and Spiritually that the only thing we can be CERTAIN about is our own UNCERTAINTY, we all agree with Brother Paul: “For now, we see through the glass, darkly.” Knowing this, we believe that humility and respect for GOD are the only way to go, and thank the Christ for that reminder every day. We thank him also for giving us a path to salvation, and thank GOD for Grace. “Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one”

By GOD

September 8, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Remember, Mara, simply “I am”. You get it? You can’t separate me from my creations. You can’t say “I am feminine, or masculie”, “Democrat or Republican, etc” Simply, “I am”.

Also, check my Lord’s Prayer closely. It reveals that I, GOD, am the tempter, not the evil one. The evil one is actually one of my creations also. “Christians” teach that “if only Adam and Eve hadn’t eaten that forbidden fruit, everything would be perfect.” They keep missing the fact that the perfect plan was to eat that fruit. How else could you humans, created in my IMAGE, understand “Good and Evil”?

By GOD

September 8, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

But, I’ll save my discussions of the meaning of “taboos” for another time. In the meantime, check out anything by Joseph Campbell. He knows a lot about myth and taboo.

By Mara

September 8, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

And which is worse, chuck? Legalized drugs, with the accompanying restrictions and monitoring or having our prisons bursting at the seams and our courts overwhelmed by people who just want to alter their perceptions? Better to encourage the criminal culture of drug smugglers, street gangs, money laundering, and violence or provide a regulated (and highly taxed) outlet where people can legally obtain a substance that they would otherwise procure on the street? Ask almost any kid in America about the availability of marijuana, meth, or extasy. The reality is that illegal drugs are easy to get already. If you think that maintaining their illegal status is in any way keeping them off the street or away from your children, you’re living in a fantasy world.

Oh, I forgot. I am talking to chuck, so I suppose the fantasy land thing is a given anyway…

By Billy

September 8, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Billy, I repeat, I have no obligation to meet your levels of happiness any more than you have to meet mine. Do you get that simple point?

No, I don’t. Much like you don’t get the simple point that you have not stayed on the appropriate topic of discussion since you came to this blog.

The seventh level of happiness is you leaving.

By Billy

September 8, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Billy, I repeat, I have no obligation to fulfill your requirements of happiness, nor do you have any to fulfill mine. Got it? You have a good idea here and there, but the bottom line is that your a half-wit like BC and chuck. You guys have strong opinions about things, but don’t really know why you hold those opinions. Without a true understanding of Sciense and Religion, it is impossible to hold an intelligent opinion.

I’m a half-wit? This half-wit can use “your” and “you’re” correctly. What does that make you?

The seventh level of happiness is you leaving.

By chuck

September 8, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Available yes, Mara, LEGAL no. That is why the use of drugs is so much lower than the use of alcohol. Most people are LAW ABIDING. They don’t use illegal drugs because they don’t want to go to jail.

Surely you can understand the premise that fewer people used alcohol when it was ILLEGAL, because they didn’t want to go to jail.

That is why drugs have to remain ILLEGAL. You asked which is better. Obviously, fewer people USING drugs is better. The way to accomplish that is to keep them ILLEGAL. When we finally close our border with Mexico, the availability will go down. That will drive prices up and it will be less accessible to teens. Simple huh?

By Billy

September 8, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

The statistics show that fewer people ADULTS AND TEENS, use drugs because they are illegal.

You’re right, Chuck. In fact, were pot legal I’d smoke it from time to time. But guess what — Not in excess! And pot is just about the only illegal drug that would be used any more often were it legal. Legalize coke? I’m not trying it. Heroin? Not for me, thanks. Meth? Forget it! Nope, pot’s pretty much it. Maybe people would try shrooms or LSD, but pot’s the only thing that would be consumed in any larger quatities than it is now. And why not? It’s less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco.

Hell, if pot and only pot were legalized, it would have a beneficial effect on society. Did you ever come across a line in your avalanche of meaningless statistics that indicated just how many people are incarcerated for marijuana-related offenses? People go in for a couple of years for possession of a couple of ounces, and then when they come out they’re educated in the ways of crime. Good thing, too, since they can’t get jobs with those convictions on their records.

Drugs’ negative effects on society are largely support crime related. The guy using drugs isn’t hurting me until he tries to rob me to support his habit, the price of which is kept high since it is all black market crap.

By Billy

September 8, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

That will drive prices up and it will be less accessible to teens.

And far more profitable for dealers…

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

did you read about back when Lisbon hosted some Soccer Series /WorldCup playoff type thing and the police there flat out stated they were going to ignore cannabis(pot and hashish) usage since it made the fans all mellow and the last thing they were interested in were a whole bunch of ALCOHOL-fueled drunk fans.

they thought it might cut down on the potential for street riots so popular, it seems, when soccer games occur.

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

That will drive prices up and it will be less accessible to teens. And far more profitable for dealers…

so very basic economics would mean that there would be more SUPPLIERS eventually and more SUPPLY.

way to go.

By Scalia

September 8, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

I agree with pot being made legal, and so should shrooms. Both come from nature, and once upon a time were believed to be spiritual.

But some people, the ones that believe in slippery slopes, think that people that smoke pot are going to need to move on to stronger drugs. Pot is considered a gateway drug.

By Mara

September 8, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

chuck - so should I take it as given that you prefer having one of the largest prison populations in the developed world? You don’t really mind the violence from gangs and drug dealers shooting it out on the street to protect their “investments”? You’d rather have children shooting at children than give anyone access to legal recreational drugs?! (head shaking in befuddlement)

By lozen

September 8, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

*People have been dazzled by Chuck’s extensive Bible knowledge? Who knew?……..LMAO

I must have missed that somewhere.*

Exactamenta, Chilao. Yeah, if I had to choose between being around a bunch drinking and a bunch smoking I’d choose the smoking bunch anytime. Mellow, mellow, no problem! It’s a crazy world.

By Mara

September 8, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

lozen, chilao -

it made the fans all mellow and the last thing they were interested in were a whole bunch of ALCOHOL-fueled drunk fans

choose between being around a bunch drinking and a bunch smoking I’d choose the smoking bunch anytime

less violence and mellower people? And that’s not to mention giggling til your tummy hurt and your cheeks ached…not that I know, of course - ;^P

By Chilao

September 8, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

not that I know, of course

how it is best put: “That’s something I saw in a movie once, ya ya, that’s it” LOL

By Billy

September 8, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Scalia — I know that’s the argument, but I disagree with it. Sure, most people who are addicted to a hard illegal drug did smoke pot at some point. They might still smoke pot. But I think that’s more representative of who they are as people. Before pot, most probablt were tobacco smokers. Before cigarettes, most probably drank coffee. You can trace that back to the sugary snacks we all ate when we were kids.

Might people who smoke pot be more likely to try harder narcotics? Sure, they might. But is that because they smoke pot? No, it’s because they have the type of personality that is going to be tempted to try narcotics.

Analogies: Sky diving is more dangerous than bungee jumping. Most people who do the former probably tried the latter first. Is bungee a gateway to skydiving? No. Sure, people might do it before they skydive, but that doesn’t mean there’s a causal relationship between the two. Most people who view harcore porn probably started out with Playboy. Is Playboy a gateway to hardcore? No, it’s just all that’s available to a 16 year-old without internet access in 1995. Were that access available at the time, you can be sure that I…umm, I mean he…would’ve eschewed Playboy for something more titillating.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…

By chuck

September 8, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

No Mara, I’m in favor of jailing forever and a day the DEALERS. Those are the violent ones who cause most of the problems. I think huge fines and community service is fine for users. We could actually clear out space for the illegal aliens who are committing so many crimes if we did that.

By lozen

September 8, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Hey, Mara and Chilao, I saw the same movie! Awesome.

By lozen

September 8, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

The illegal aliens who are committing so many crimes? What crimes are they committing? I need to know more since I have a very good friend who is illegal but as far as I know he’s just working hard trying to make a living for himself.

By NetBanker

September 8, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Well Chuck based on your experiences it seems that people have problems with consuming alcohol at sporting events moreso that simply ‘in public.’

less violence and mellower people? And that’s not to mention giggling til your tummy hurt and your cheeks ached…not that I know, of course - ;^P I can’t believe you’ve all forgotten the benefit to the food industry as a result of the munchies! If it ever goes legal I’ll be investing in companies that produce foods in the major stoner food groups (salty, sweet, crunchy, and moist/wet). Unlike Mara, I do know.

I approach the legalization of non-narcotic drugs and prostitution from a realist’s point of view. We KNOW people ARE going to do both so rather than make it illegal we might as well regulate and tax the activities. When prohibition ended the mob got out of the alcohol business because it wasn’t profitable and the associated violence ended. There is no reason to believe the same wouldn’t occur with legalizing some recreational drugs and prostitution.

When we finally close our border with Mexico, the availability will go down. That will drive prices up and it will be less accessible to teens. If you believe this then I suggest that YOU’RE smoking something. The illegal drug trade is far too profitable to believe that closing the border with Mexico will stop it. Besides there is plenty of domestic pot production. Recall that recent story about a field recently found in the Chattahoochee National Forest? As I understand it, pot is also the largest cash crop in Kentucky. There is a multi-billion dollar underground economy in illegal drugs. Why not make it ‘above ground’ and use the taxes gained from it to help replace the income tax?

By lozen

September 8, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Have a great weekend all your immoral pot smokers and alcohol drinkers and fornicators! It’s NOT premarital sex if you never get married!

By Renee

September 8, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Mara - you officially have the Tiara now! I have argued and will continue to argue for the legalization of drugs.

I think I have seen that movie too, but not as often as some have LOL

By TramadoL31176

September 8, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.

By TramadoL52911

September 8, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By TramadoL73620

September 8, 2006 10:35 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By discountpharmacyshop

September 10, 2006 08:03 PM | Link to this

Online discount pharmacy shop http://discountpharmacyshop.info

discount pharmacy shop [url=http://discountpharmacyshop.info]discount pharmacy shop[/url]