The Limits of Power

Sometime in the mid-1990s, after it had become quite clear that Bill Clinton's presidency would deliver rather less than had been hoped, and when it was becoming clear that Newt Gingrich's control of the House would deliver rather more than had been feared, I penned a review of a then-recently published collection of former Sen, Eugene McCarthy's poems. In it, I lamented the lack of poetry in the politics of the moment and suggested that America would be far better served by politicians with a literary bent than by the dim-witted technocrats and self-absorbed plotters to whom power had fallen.

A few weeks later, a modest package with a Virginia postmark arrived at my office. In it was a lovely note from McCarthy, along with a thin volume of his poetry, Other Things and the Aardvark, which had been published in a limited edition of 250 almost three decades earlier. The senator had given copies of the book to friends and supporters of his anti-war campaign for the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination. In the book's preface, McCrathy noted that "ancient mapmakers used the term 'terra terribilia' to identify what was beyond their knowledge of the earth" and he then paid tribute "to poets who have gone beyond the 'known' and the 'certain' into the 'terra terribilia' in the search for truth."

What did not need to be noted, of course, was that McCarthy had journeyed, in 1968 and over the decades that followed, across the terra terribilia of American politics, earning the enmity even of his onetime supporters and the affection of some who had once dismissed him as a dangerous radical. As I would learn over the years of our acquaintance that began with the arrival of that package, McCarthy was in most senses a very conservative man. He studied religion and the classics, he saw the value of tradition, he embraced standards of duty and responsibility that are so rarely followed today that they do indeed seem radical.

But, at the most fundamental level, all that Eugene McCarthy tried to do during his political lifetime -- with an unfortunate lack of success -- was drag America back to the best of its values.

We spoke about that struggle when I was preparing my book, Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire, before its publication this year. The premise of the book was that those founders who wanted America to lead by example rather than force -- as "a city upon a hill," to quote John Winthrop -- had imparted a wisdom worthy of recollection in these times. This appealed to McCarthy. Indeed, we found a quotation from a 1967 essay of his that updated the principle rather nicely: "A nation has prestige according to its merits. America's contribution to world civilization must be more than a continous performance demonstration that we can police the planet."

In that essay, which appeared only a few months before he launched his primary challenge to President Lyndon Johnson, with the argument that the United States should cease its policing of souytheast Asia and other far destinations, McCarthy wrote, "Many of our problems today are the result of our unwillingness or inability in the past to anticipate what may be the shape of the world 20 years in the future.... There is never a totally painless way to pull back from either unwise, ill-advised, or outdated ideas or commitments. But throughout history, mighty nations have learned the limit of power. There are lessons to be learned from Athens, from Rome, from 16th-Century Spain."

McCarthy's 1968 presidential campaign is often remembered as a simplistic initiative, an attempt to turn the anti-draft and anti-war enthusiasms of protesting students into a political force. In fact, it was something far deeper, and far more significant.

In that 1968 run, and to an even greater extent in his 1976 independent campaign for the presidency, McCarthy argued for an American role in the world that owed much more to George Washington, James Madison and John Quincy Adams than it did to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or more recent presidents.

Living in the Virginia countryside, not far from the homes of the founders he favored, McCarthy remained steady across the years in his embrace of a Madisonian vision. He raged as only an American prophet could, about how George Bush, Dick Cheney and their neoconservative allies had, with their advocacy for an unprovoked attack on Iraq, "introduced new concepts about preventing war that are wholly unacceptable in our tradition."

"There are things you do in a war which are preventive, but to just announce it as a general proposition that you're justified in starting a whole war is another question," McCarthy explained in a 2003 interview. "I don't think Bush understands what he's doing."

Weeks after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, McCarthy dismissed the endeavor as "a faith-based war" but he warned that its consequences would be agonizingly real for America. Indeed, he suggested, they was already evidence of those consequences to be found in a loss of liberty about which observers of the American experiment had long warned.

Referring to the Patriot Act and related assaults on domestic liberties, the former senator explained that, "de Tocqueville said you'll find you'll lose the freedoms you're supposed to be defending by setting up your defenses against losing them, and that's what's involved in the stuff that Bush is doing. We haven't lost any of our liberties to the Iraqis yet, but we've had our own liberties curtailed."

It remains true that America has suffered from a lack of poetry in our politics, but it is surely also true that we have suffered from a slow disconnection with the best of our values and traditions. With McCarthy's death, that disconnect grows a little more severe, and America's circumstance a tad more perilous.

John Nichols is the author of Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books), a book that historian Howard Zinn says "reminds us that our opposition to empire has a long and noble tradition in this country."

Comments (157)

1. As I mentioned in last colum, America owes Eugene a thank you for awakening the great Silent American into voting the country in the conservative direction and for doing as much as B Goldwater in giving us Ronald Reagan...one of the best presidents in history.

   Thank you Gene and thank you Howard Dean. The country is blessed by you. Keep up the good work.

   Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2005 @ 4:50pm

2. I'm beginning to wonder if you conservative guys are puttting us on. Reagan one of the best presidents in history? McCarthy helped us learn to vote for guys like that? Are you sure you don't have Eugene McCarthy confused with Joseph McCarthy? Gee, and where was I when Reagan's death squad buddies were gutting people all over El Salvador and much of the rest of Central America?

   And what about the deficits Reagan ran up? You all are always screaming about tax dollars. What about the fundamentalist hoodlums he was supporting in Afghanistan, opium dealers all?

   I mean, did you guys just get here from Bizarro world, or what?

   Posted by zumbador at 12/12/2005 @ 5:45pm

3. John, one question for you in the midst of your standing ovation for the great conservative shift since Reagan - what do you have to show for it today? OK, I'll answer:

   Increased trade deficits; increased fiscal deficits; gutted U.S. manufacturing base; increased exportation of American jobs overseas; 9/11 and other terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens (but, oops, no Bin-Laden yet); erosion of the middle-class; wider disparities in wealth; more people below the poverty line; worsening math and science skills for American high school graduates; increased pollution; increased gas prices coupled with decreased fuel efficiencies; fewer personal liberties (except if one wants to by an assault rifle, of course); massive tax subsidies for corporations; tougher standards for personal bankruptcies; Katrina; the $300B war in Iraq resulting in over 2100 American soldiers, and at least 30,000 Iraqis, dead; diminished international respect; overstretched defense; and a more aggressive North Korea and Iran.

   Although I am sure that SOMEHOW these are all Clinton's or liberals' fault.

   Now that conservatives have had a chance to run things, I think we can all agree it's time for another political persuasion to try.

   The citizens WILL take their country back.

   Posted by Hman23 at 12/12/2005 @ 5:49pm

4. OK, I've had it. Thanks so much, Maasch, for being the first person to post on a progressive blog, in which progressives are memorializing a recently deceased progressive icon, and showing absolutely no respect or decency. Take your crap somewhere else, or at least wait until the guy's buried before you start trashing him. Crowing and gloating over an important public figure's corpse is just beyond the pale.

   Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 5:51pm

5. And don't, by the way, give me any crap like, "What? What? I was praising him!" Your comments prove you to be a very small, very petty person, who can't put aside your damned agenda for even one moment. Fucking ghoul.

   Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 5:54pm

6. "W" is doing for Liberals what LBJ did for the illiberal conservative types like our blogger Maasch.

   However, I'm concerned that many Americans have been dumbed down to the point where they do not have the necessary critical-thinking skills to ensure our Republican-form of government is maintained, and I provide two anecdotes that support why I'm concerned and why you should be too.

   First, after seeing the movie "Good Night, Good Luck" and describing it to a friend, who is a few years older than me, my friend thought that the antagonist of the movie was Eugene McCarthy. This person is a major supporter of George W. Bush.

   Secondly, when describing to the same friend as how we humans came from the same tribe in Africa, per a recent PBS Nature Show on the geography of genes, my friend's response was in the form of a question: "Did Adam and Eve come from Africa?". Again, my friend is a staunch supporter of "W".

   The two anecdotes summarized above are not Apocrypal stories. Life is truly good to America; especially for the naive and gullible American.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/12/2005 @ 5:55pm

7. One of the ways that you can tell principled people from party-dogma-spouting hacks is by noting whether or not they can recognize and appreciate the true worth of their opponents. Maasch, by this definition, is clearly nothing but a party-dogma-spouting hack.

   I don't appreciate Christopher Hitchens' support of the Iraq Adventure, but I can nevertheless recognize his skill as a writer, his formidable mind, and his willingness to recognize greatness in an opponent. Consequently, perhaps the commentariat will allow me to quote from his own memorial to McCarthy:

   . . . how many senators can you think of with whom it would have been a pleasure to spend an evening discussing matters other than politics? From the last decade or so, only the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes at once to mind. With McCarthy, hours could be occupied in the finer points of poetry, in the history of Ireland, or in the arcane points of Roman Catholic doctrine. If political matters had to be raised, in the conventional Washington mode that evaluates actual or potential candidates for high office, Gene could play the game retrospectively, nominating the winner of the "worst-ever president" award (which he staunchly insisted, against strong competition, had to go to Jimmy Carter).

   . . . Many of McCarthy's friends never reconciled themselves to his endorsement of Reagan in 1980, but he was governed in this by a firm conviction that Carter had disgraced the office and abdicated all claim on re-election, and I have the impression that there are fewer people now who genuinely wish that the pious Georgian had enjoyed four more years. At any rate, McCarthy then was following both a logic and a principle and pressing both to a conclusion. If he had put his party first in 1968 nobody would ever have remembered him, as some of us do when we reflect so gloomily on the choice of hacks and careerists and mediocrities from whom the professionals will be selecting on our behalf three years from now.

   I don't agree with everything that Hitchens has said, but I appreciate his comments. As for Carter, well, I admire him enormously but still recall that as Vice President of my college's Young Democrats in 1980, I was forced to resign when I supported Jon Anderson instead of Carter. McCarthy's legacy extends far beyond Maasch's tiny little world-view. I'm not a fan of Hitchens, but he's clearly a man who thinks for himself. To repeat myself, Maasch, by contrast, is the aforementioned party-dogma-spouting, dittohead hack.

   Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 6:18pm

8. My favorite quote from Senator Eugene McCarthy:

   "You can't soak the rich. You can't even dampen them."

   I always try to keep that little piece of wisdom in mind whenever the rich line up crying for another tax cut. It merits an honorable place right next to my favorite lines from John Kenneth Galbraith:

   "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around."

   I sure miss the days when we had literate, witty statesmen involved in our government. Nowadays, we get semi-literate teleprompter readers who say they know the difficulty of putting food on our families.

   Rest in peace, Eugene McCarthy.

   Posted by Michael Murry at 12/12/2005 @ 6:49pm

9. So, Rio, I've noticed you've given up even attempting to address the topic on hand, and you're instead aping that infamous law of internet debate. Congratulations. You're a grown man, in the greatest country on earth, and all you have to say to people not of your political persuasion is that we're nazis?

   Look, decry the tenets of National Socialism all you want, at least it's an ethos. We don't wear brown shirts, we don't want to throw people in gas ovens, and we don't burn books. You're being a child here, Rio. Is this all that conservatives, or Republicans, have to say these days? Is this how far you've sunk into the depths of pointless rhetoric and mindless leader adulation?

   Disgusting. More than disgusting, it's the true and utter death of democracy. Your dialogue with the opposition is what steadies the course. If there is no dialogue, there is no course. By spouting hateful, empty little diatribes like this, you cheapen yourself, you cheapen your position, and you cheapen America. I'm almost positive that you are older than me. That is why it's absolutely pitiful that I need to tell you to grow up, and try coming up with an actual reasonable, coherent response to what we're talking about here. Do you need a nanny? Some kind of minder? Have you gone horribly senile? Seriously, man, what is it?

   Posted by Megido at 12/12/2005 @ 6:59pm

10. Rio's just another operative ghoul. He is incapable of recognizing the worth of anyone he disagrees with. All he does is spout the pre-digested rhetoric of someone who is at least capable of forming an opinion.

    I am so sick of these jerks who whine that they "just want to engage in debate!" Rio and Maasch are only here to cause trouble and spew the rhetoric of the people who have programmed them.

    I can't make you guys go away. You will keep on slinging your mindless, thoughtless drivel. But the more you sling, the more thinking people realize that you don't even HAVE minds of your own.

    Keep on regurgitating, boys. You will never change anyone's mind until you start talking like men. Men with minds of their own, not mere partisan parrots.

    Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 8:21pm

11. By the way, has anyone noticed that when you call these "visiting conservatives" on their crap, they slink away, and you don't hear from them again until the next new thread opens up?

    Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 8:29pm

12. LisaJo

    Oh, I don't know. I seem to have a wingnut of my very own who slings epithets like a chimp slinging feces at the zoo.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/12/2005 @ 9:24pm

13. Well, LoC, we're still here, but Maasch and Rio have gone away. Hey, since it's just us, we could talk about anything! Hey, now that we're alone, let's quit pretending to be reasonable people with reasonable opinions, and do what we always do when no one's watching--wage war on Christmas!

    Posted by LisaJo at 12/12/2005 @ 9:36pm

14. Another nail was driven into the coffin of American democracy with the presidential non-election of 2000. It appears men like Eugene McCarthy will never, in future elections even be considered in political circles. This nation seems to admire Presidents who "don`t read" newspapers and don`t mind sending the best this nation has to offer off to die in an immoral, illegal, indefensible war; such as the one in Iraq

    Posted by sabat at 12/12/2005 @ 10:21pm

15. Frank & Lisa

    I think I will make a festival true to the pagan origins of Saturnalia....drunken revelry; wine, women & song; maybe go Druidic with some sheep innards on a tree in the yard and howl naked at the moon (well....better get drunk first...kinda chilly out there!)

    Or we could just go Seinfeld and have "Festivus"...let the feats of strength commence!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/12/2005 @ 11:51pm

16. I guess I woke up the liberal rant machine. Am I the only one here who actualy met Eugene and had a conversation with him? Wow!!!

    You would have thought I killed him!!!

    Look, I liked him and even admired him, may he rest in peace, but I never came close to agreeing on anything with him. He accepted that and was glad I was at least voting. Many of you here are good and I disagree with everything you breathe, but I can go without ranting...obviously many here can't..so emotional, well, wait until after the next election cycle.

    BTW, what are you going to do if Iraq election out does ours? Any credit to Bush policy?...naw..

    Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2005 @ 11:54pm

17. Lisajo,

    I am not here on the blog waiting to answer you and your PMS reactionary posts...I am earning large income dollars so I can fund all the horseshit you need funded in the name of compassion...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/12/2005 @ 11:55pm

18. Hman,

    " John, one question for you in the midst of your standing ovation for the great conservative shift since Reagan - what do you have to show for it today? OK, I'll answer

    No, I can answer, Cheaper cost for almost everything in real dollars, including oil, lower unemployment, higher wages for all, stronger military, ...

    come on Hman, old sport, look around..where were you with Carters cardigan sweater, the oil embargo, the 21% interest rates, the 22% inflation, the malaise...come on , you are smarter than that...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 12:02am

19. Ora,

    "...However, I'm concerned that many Americans have been dumbed down to the point where they do not have the necessary critical-thinking skills to ensure our Republican-form of government is maintained"

    Probably victums of the public school system, eh?

    Actually, you fall into the usual liberal rut, where, when the population rejects your ideas out right, based on experience, and then vote in the opposite direction, your response is they are too stupid to vote your way....ah, if only you were in charge, then they would see....

    We have voted away from liberalism for years, it may swing back, but not with the likes of Kerry, Gore Hillary, Edwards, and my favorite...Dean.

    Repubs will be in power for a long time, although there may be minor switches, but nothing like the house cleaning Newt and Clinton gave the Dems..

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 12:12am

20. LOC,

    Remember: Lisajo is a spitfire, but she is a Christian. Just hand me the wine reserved for her and I'll gladly join in your heathenistic frenzy. Y'all can come down south here where the chill in the air requires nothin' more than a light jacket.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/13/2005 @ 12:21am

21. Making money is not a crime, stealing it is.

    I don't know if the elections will actually work, but I am willing to let them(Iraqis) try. Why won't you?

    What if it works? or do you hope it will fail....I don't believe you are that type, but there are those who do here...I, for one, would like to see them try and make a go of it, many think the long term success would see the insurgants slowly die out. How long did the werewolves assainate American Gis in Germany? How long for our democracy take root and actually work? 3 years?

    2000 dead in any revolution or invasion? Yes, high numbers, as I don't want any Americans to die this way, but how many peoples blood are on the hands of a Tookie WILLIAMS? HOW MANY DIE IN MURDERS HERE FOR nothing?

    PERSPECTIVE IS ALL I AM SAYING. GIVE IRAQ A CHANCE. WE ARE THERE AND RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WE GOT THERE, WE NOT LEAVING UNTIL IT SETTLES DOWN SOMEWHAT...BUT WE WILL LEAVE, AND WITHOUT THE OIL SO MANY HERE THINK WE ARE STEALING.

    GOT TO GO TO BED..NEED MY STRENGTH FOR TOMORROWS BATTLES

    SORRY ABOUTY THRE CAPS. I CAN'T TYPE.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 12:25am

22. Frank

    re: Elaine...yeah, me too. (at least till she starts dancin')

    TJB

    So LJs a feisty one eh? Well, she's welcome to watch us make fools of ourselves and have drink regardless.

    LJ

    I've got my personal chimp slinging dung on the "older" McCarthy thread below if anyone wants a laugh.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 12:44am

23. John

    Everytime I see you use all caps I get this strange feeling that John Maasch is Bushrules in a good mood.

    Then he drinks the secret potion.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 02:45am

24. HMAN23

    You forgot the two burgeoning democracies in IRAQ and AFGHAN, but I am sure you can find a way to minimize those pesky little accomplishments. Because they are far from perfect, but hey to put democratic govts, however new, in places they did not exsist before is something to be proud of. And what about those 10 straight quarters of growth, yeah Krugman said that was all phooey. Deficits, yeah thats a problem, but I am sure when they act to cut spending, which is on the agenda for Congress, there will be the obligatory shock, awe and outrage over cuts in education spending and other programs. And in the very next sentence they will say the deficit is out of control. Truly amazing.

    Is it any wonder the Left has a problem being taken seriously?

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 08:27am

25. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/13/2005 @ 12:12am

    Actually JOHN I think that intellectual snobbery you noted, is the KEY reason the neo-liberals have been on the decline for the last 30 years. They DO (if you continue a discussion or thread long enough) eventually say "The people are stupid"...not in those exact words.

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 08:43am

26. Wiill!!!!

    Good to hear from you...Actually, when I am all caps it is because I have a small sony laptop and my fat fingers keep hitting the cap lock and without my glasses, well, you see the results...however, my potion as of late is a Chilean Cab I found in a, get this, a Tango bar...

    Yep, learning to Tango and consumme Chilean communion(for the saved, of course) wine.

    BTW, what ever happened to Bushrules or Johannes?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 09:42am

27. Maasch,

    Maasch's Quote: Probably victums of the public school system, eh?

    Actually, you fall into the usual liberal rut, where, when the population rejects your ideas out right, based on experience, and then vote in the opposite direction, your response is they are too stupid to vote your way....ah, if only you were in charge, then they would see.... End Quote

    You seem to argue in circles. First, you wish to blame the public school system for failing to educate Americans and second, you wish to criticize Liberals for point out the "dumbing down" of Americans.

    But the "dumbing down" of a super majority of Americans via the bankrupting of public school funding, in order to create a conservative elitist ruling class is the goal of the illiberal conservatives; this conservative elitism reminds me of how Kings, Queens, and Dictators dominated the citizens of their countries, and still do today.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/13/2005 @ 09:56am

28. Ora,

    The puiblic school reference was a tongue in cheek commment that I could not resist...goood god man...

    Bankrupting public schools? Educationaly speaking perhaps, but didn't Bush let the moral Giant of our time, Teddy Kennedy, write the education bill? How much should we spend on failing systems? By any measure, the public school system is a failure... and not from a lack of funds...perhaps a lack of focus on real education as opposed to indoctrination you seem so concerned about..only from the left. How about neutral education, like American and world history, math, science, reading, and God for bid...English? Have you heard of the booklet the Mexican consulates actually got the school districts to teach in OUR schools? You should check it out.(BTW, it says you(Americans) are the problem in the world)

    As far as underfunded schools, it cost more to send a child to public school where the rest of the world eats his educaztional lunch before the high school senior year, than it does for some private schools.

    I have had kids in both for years.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 10:13am

29. CPT:

    I cannot take you seriously if Afghanistan and Iraq, and 10 quarters of jobless growth are the only bullet points you can put on the conservative resume.

    John Maasch:

    Carter was somehow responsible for the 1970's stats you cited . . . cmon YOU are smarter than that. So basically, your only argument is that stuff is cheaper and unemployment went down since in the late 1970's? What about the rest of the items I listed? I forgot to add rising health care costs and increasing numbers of uninsured.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 10:18am

30. Point is John, conservatives have been running things for quite a while, and many are not seeing the dream.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 10:19am

31. CPT

    I am in shock and awe that Iraq is being touted again as a reasonable basis for cutting education.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 10:19am

32. Mask,

    I'm not going to try to refute the claim that some participants on this site have stated that people are stupid, because:

    1) Many are;

    2) Both sides are guilty of the same intellectual snobbery; and

    3) Many are!

    LOL

    Seriously, though, I think that the claim could more likely (and correctly) be made that a large portion of the population are ignorant (not in the bad way) of some very basic tenets of American history, American rights, and American privileges. There is also a very large number of "citizens" who through laziness, disinterest, or outright apathy refuse to take part in any kind of national or local discourse. And there are a lot of people (on both sides!) who only get one side of the story and/or have such a skewed view of the world that they simply subscribe to the accepted opinions of whatever side they're on. It is to the conservatives' credit that they have been able to present their message in such a way as to capture the loyalty of so many, but that does not necessarily make them right. And just because the liberals/progressives haven't been able to present their message in such a way as to capture the loyalty of so many, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/13/2005 @ 10:22am

33. Hman

    "So basically, your only argument is that stuff is cheaper and unemployment went down since in the late 1970's?"

    Just look at ALL economic facts. Everything has grown. The economy has doubled, the real costs have come down. There are more opportunitys than ever..Deficits are here but a lower percentage than in the past. Revenues are up. Sure problems exist and always will. The glass is better than half full...not half empty as it seems to be from your point of view...what are you saying? Carter years were great? Carter would not even admit to that farce.

    Congress is spending more than inflationary pressures require..inflation is down...health care, yes it is higher as more and more use it. We can spend days debating, but I see a more prospous place and if you really look back and see what our nation has had to absorb, Katrina, 9/11, war...and we are still growing...GROWING... 3.8% growth in dollars is greater increase than the entire economy of Russia...this is an incredible feat..

    Smile, you have a good life and it will get better if you work it...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 10:39am

34. Darn! Pesky facts getting in the way again of liberal whining about our supposed terrible economy. Even the Dems in Congress find that argument not feasible any more.

    MSNBC.com

    Nearly quarter of U.S. firms plan to hike hiring Survey finds construction jobs to be in high demand

    The Associated Press Updated: 8:09 a.m. ET Dec. 13, 2005

    MILWAUKEE - Nearly a quarter of U.S. firms intend to increase staffing levels in the first quarter of 2006 from the current quarter, according to a survey of 16,000 employers released Tuesday.

    Some 23 percent of companies surveyed expect to increase total employment in the first quarter, while 10 percent expect to decrease it, said Milwaukee-based global staffing firm Manpower Inc.

    About 61 percent expect no change in employment, while 6 percent were unsure of their plans.

    The results roughly matched plans from a year ago but were slightly less optimistic from the last three quarters of 2005, when on average 30 percent of firms expected to hire more, versus 7 percent that expected to trim staff.

    Manpower said the survey marks a two-year period of steady hiring projections.

    "For eight quarters now, we've seen a level of hiring intentions that has not been repeated in the 40-plus years of the survey," Manpower CEO Jeffrey Joerres said of the survey, which began in 1962.

    "I think we're in a somewhat unique period where companies feel a demand for their products and services. It's not euphoric, but it's there. They are constantly in the market, surgically hiring to increase the payrolls of their companies to keep up with the steady demand."

    Construction firms were the most upbeat about hiring in 27 years, with 25 percent of firms expecting to increase staffing and 12 percent expecting to reduce it, according to the survey.

    The outlook was most upbeat in the western U.S., with 29 percent of firms planning to increase staff and 9 percent planning to decrease it, and least positive in the Midwest, where only 19 percent intended to increase staff, compared with 11 percent planning to cut back.

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10449061/

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 10:56am

35. TURK

    You're exactly right. The conservatives "have been able to present their message in such a way as to capture the loyalty of so many" and the liberals have not.

    But the liberals seem incapable of discovering a way to "present their message". Their excuse for their electoral losses often present that problem ("we didn't get our message out"), while it MAY be they actually DID get their message out and it wasn't that great a message.

    But, more often than not the excuse is "the people were 'tricked' by the GOP" and since obviously the Republicans and conservatives are "not as smart as" the Democrats and liberals, the answer for how "less intelligent" cons were able to fool the people HAS to be "the people are even LESS intelligent than those dumb yet evil conservatives".

    And I think it's also a matter of TRUST. Fairly or unfairly, the people have an image of "liberalism" that involves raising their taxes sky-high and with no concern for their effect on the economy; an appeasement foreign policy; being soft on criminals (especially if they have seemingly "reformed themselves in prison"); spending on wasteful, abused, even destructive social programs; and "group politics" which work against individual achievement and fairness.

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 10:59am

36. How dare MSNBC put out an article saying the economy is unstoppable and doing great when one reads from the liberals here that our economy is terrible. Nothing good is happening except to rich Republicans. Someone at MSNBC just didn't get the left wing memo.

    The economy is proving as unstoppable as the 11-0 Indianapolis Colts. Consumers have kept spending even in the wake of sharply higher energy prices and after their confidence was pummeled by this summer's hurricanes. And despite initial worries over demand generated by the storms and oil hikes, businesses continue to invest in new equipment and add to their payrolls.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10381839/ [url]

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 11:10am

37. Liberty,

    It gets worse..ABC poll in Iraq actually shows Iraqis (71%) feel life is getting better since US was there....it goes on.

    Hear any wailing and nashing of teeth?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 11:13am

38. Mask

    Its ironic....while you state folks fear the left will raise taxes, spend too much, etc. etc. that it is the right that actually DOES it. Maybe it is all about perception and "sales" of the ideas. Plus, I do fear that a combo of the "dumbing down" of Americans and a certain associated paranoia about intellectuals DOES mean that intellectuals are, oddly enough, not taken seriously.

    As to the economy getting better....wonder where they are reporting from...sure ain't happenin round here.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 11:31am

39. JM, LL

    I have been looking and posting onto some Iraqi "blogspot" sort of blogs. Have heard back from a few. None concur with this poll. One who respnded in detail said their country wasn't all that bad before the war. They expected someone was gonna "pop" Sadaam internally before too long (his word not mine) and that things are generally worse since.

    Wonder what kind of skew they are getting on the poll data....after all if one were to poll those going to "the polls" let's say, and only 50% actually got TO the polls, and 71% says "life is grand" then you are really only getting 7/10ths of 1/2 or 35% of folks who obviously are involved. Not exactly a majority. You know what they say...there's lies, damned lies, and statistics!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 11:37am

40. Mask,

    If you can't agree with the argument that the conservatives are masters at framing a debate (regardless of whether their message makes sense or not), then we probably will not be able to agree on much. From my perspective, an administration that can call an initiative that makes pollution control voluntary (and dependent on those whose self interest makes it unlikely that there will be much control) the Clean Air Act; an administration that calls itself conservative (and then spends money like a drunken sailor - no offense to either sailors or drunks); a president who claims to be the Education President who then pushes a program that is underfunded and actually creates less teaching and more high-pressure testing across all levels - and then has the nerve to call it No Child Left Behind; a president who calls himself a compassionate conservative and Christian who has caused the deaths of thousands (if not tens of thousands) through his appalling willingness to apply the death penalty with abandon and his desire to create and fight a war against a sovereign nation (albeit one with a pretty ruthless dictator) with virtually no provocation; etc. etc.

    Yeah, I think the conservatives have done a number on people's perception and have done a great job distorting some of the facts. Do the Democrats do it? Absolutely! Do they do it as well or with as much abandon? Absolutely not!

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/13/2005 @ 11:50am

41. I would never say the Carter years were great, but blaming Carter for all of that is a bit simplistic, isn't it. Bush did have 2001-2002 to deal with as well. Is he just as much to blame for that recession?

    Moreover, it is easy to pick and choose certain economic indicators (especially those at the macro level) and make it seem as if everything is rosy for the average American. The MSNBC article was devoid of a few things - Which firms are hiring? What kind of work? At what wages? As for other indicators like GDP and unemployment figures - What about wages? Why is it that more families need two incomes to get by? What about health insurance costs rising by nearly 10% a year, for those that can afford it? What about the exportation of manufacturing jobs and other middle income jobs? It seems like under the conservative plan, people have to work more hours for less pay, take multiple jobs in some cases, families need dual incomes. Conservative tax reform favors investment income as opposed to earned income from work. So sure, a family that has both spouses working might figure nicely into some indicators, but ask them if they think the American dream is alive and well with rising health care costs, real estate prices, secondary education, energy prices and so forth. Republicans also passed drastic changes to bankruptcy laws for individuals. And now, Republicans want to repeal the tax deduction for mortgage interest? Any other great ideas for working Americans?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 11:58am

42. The Iraqi polls don't mean shit. Right here in this country, the United States, we have a population of black Americans that over half the white electorate neither knows or understands. White U.S.'ers know so little about us, I doubt they understand anything about Iraq. I mean, for all too many of you, your idea of who we are is whatever Oprah or Ken Hamblyn tell you. Given that concrete matter, I'm quite sure the Iraqi population has grown quite adept at telling their gun slinging invader whatever they want to hear. Hell, black folks have been doing it in this country for close to four centuries, so your poll results don't mean shit to many of us. It's a cinch Iraqis have learned to deal with your poll takers in the same manner, whatever a poll means when it is conducted under gunfire.

    Polls don't mean shit. I never cite them. They are controlled measuring devices that manipulate language. Having been polled a couple of times, I long ago realized no poll was genuinely reflective of my political choices. The questions, which pose as variables, are variables within a given construct. They mean nothing.

    Besides, there was a genuine national vote taken in the November of 2000 as to the political wishes of the electorate as regards the national leadership, and that poll didn't matter. The system instead fell back on an archaic electoral measure designed back when this country was made up of isolated settlements over two centuries ago. What possible relevence could a poll have in a country that, in the words of Thomas Paine, holds its population captive to the mandates of the dead, "the most ridiculous and insolent of tyrannies"?

    Posted by Legba at 12/13/2005 @ 12:03pm

43. More Republican sunshine being blown up our collective asses. The economy is booming? The only part of the economy that seems to be booming is the backdrop-with-pithy-statement sector. The GOP seems to churn those out faster than Bush can change the subject at a press conference. I find it fascinatingly frightening that the GOP champions an economic system that inevitably will destroy the livelihoods of their core supporters: blue-collar poor white trash. Guess that's why Diebold keeps building rigged voting machines (Hey, there's another booming section of the economy! Bravo, GOP!) The GOP regularly villifies the economic models of Europe and Japan, where the standard of living is the highest in the world. Why would the American people want to live like Mexicans, Pakistanis, or some other god-forsaken garbage dump nation that does nothing to help their less-fortunate citizens? Free trade, low taxes, no social welfare... what a fantastic idea! Shantytowns and chronic underemployment is so much more satisfying than middle-class suburbs and economic security. The GOP must employ the cream-of-the-crop public relations firms, since they've convinced almost half of America that poverty, outsourcing, and kicking those poorer than you on your way down the economic ladder is preferable to having a future. I wonder if they could sell refrigerators to Eskimos?

    Oh, and as for you, Mask:

    "I guess Asimov was right....Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

    Nobody proves that line more than your Moron-In-Chief.

    Posted by Robespierre at 12/13/2005 @ 12:04pm

44. Excuse me while I get back on topic. McCarthy, a basically conservative personality (not in today's political sense), knew that we had made a huge mistake in entering combat in Vietnam. He also knew that entering a stupid conflict is not a proper excuse for staying there.

    "There is never a totally painless way to pull back from either unwise, ill-advised, or outdated ideas or commitments."

    We have paralleled that action today in Iraq and are faced with "stay the course" as the only justification for more and more dying.

    I caution my Bush-supporting (not real conservatives) friends that a good outcome (however unlikely) is not a justification. The ends NEVER justify the means. That is, not unless you are Hitler or Stalin.

    No matter what the outcome, we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. The large loss of life (and gold) was foreseeable by anyone who wasn't blinded by the possible eventual outcome. The lost of over 2,000 American soldiers' lives was predictable, but not predicted by anyone who wasn't immediately shouted down by the administration propaganda machine.

    I weep over our lost opportunities and lost future because a few idiots decided that imperial ambition and power trumped all reason.

    Posted by adr at 12/13/2005 @ 12:28pm

45. Ye gods, apparently! In any case, I've become very familiar with the methodology of corporate America and our current "CEO" style president thanks to working in very close proximity to a leader in the very same style. Absolutely brilliant fluff of a man, if by brilliant, one means "Exploits all others under them, in exchange for a heady salary, benefits, and power of control".

    Have a problem with that? You're fired! Fellow employees have a problem with that? Rat them out, and get promoted to sub-manager, where you can arrange the schedule so that you do a pittance of work in exchange for lion's shares of the profits. Instead of running things in a human, traditional fashion, McDonaldize the structure, implement cost-benefit analysis ratios on everything, and raise the prices 25-33%. Gouge the only stable and recurring customers.

    Great stuff, really. I saw a beautiful, loving staff get its guts ripped out, to the point where employee turnover went up some 300%. Where people were hired based on "the appearance they present", instead of any semblance of competence.

    Hey, appearances are great and all. It's a wonderful thing to appear like a professional. It is another plane of existence entirely to act, and work like one. CEOs to me represent people that can appear like a professional. They have fancy suits, and nice degrees from places like Harvard, and Yale. You know, where anyone rich enough to get in will end up getting an A.

    But they can't do shit, themselves. Ask them to do the actual work in a company, and they'll flounder about until they find a competent employee to do it for them. I got to be that competent employee, and learned everything vital to running that business in the course of a year and a half. Can I do anything with it, though? No, because I don't have a fancy suit, and a degree from Yale, and a bunch of prep school buddies to make sure I get "set up".

    Which is good, because I think that system is tanking anyway. Our trade deficits are burgeoning, our national deficit is appalling, and Good Ol' Mr. Oil Crisis isn't that far around the bend. What if all those factories in China, you know, the ones that make ALL OF OUR GOODS, get nationalized? Wanna take on China, eh? It'll be glorious. We can nuke eachother into the stone age, and then spend the next millenia picking up the rubble.

    But mostly, I see the education system getting fucked over as our biggest problem. We allow too many distractions for our children. That's the parents fault. But we also underfund, and underexpect. I came out of that "public education system". I went to public schools all my life, and then went to a state university, because it was cheap. And, startlingly, I'm not an incompetent cripple, forced to completely view the world through one lens forevermore. I see through a kaleidoscope on every issue, and have to very carefully balance what is pragmatic with my ideals.

    But that doesn't mean I'm going to let conservatism crow its endless refrain of "Free Enterprise and War Forever!". That's ridiculous, to me. I want to be a citizen of the world, because I am American in being that distinct being, the American Mutt. I've got roots from everywhere, and it pains me to see America failing to educate its citizens, believing in preposterous rubbish like Intelligent Design, acting like it's moral and just to invade countries on the biggest lie of all.. that it was pre-emptive.

    Sorry, jack, I know the difference between a pre-emptive, and a preventive war. One of them is dubiously allowed. The other is internationally proscribed. Guess which one we went with? That's right, the one that's internationally proscribed! Except we called it the other one, and acted like it was totally legit.

    *cough*bullshit*cough cough*. And then we came up with all these reasons afterwards, to justify it. That's the one that creeps me out. That's what makes me feel slimy, and greasy, just thinking about our leadership. They couldn't find WMD's, but they had a nice broad 25-50 year plan for "transforming the Middle East". Where the fuck was that when we were running up to the war? Why did they have that plan ready, when it turned out no WMD's were around?

    That's the conspiracy, for me. I feel that, as a nation, we have been duped into a war that will endlessly try to justify itself, and the beneficiaries are the people who build the apparatus of war. I certainly don't benefit from a "democratic Middle East", because it will still be an Islamic democratic Middle East. Anyone familiar with international politics knows that that's prettymuch the same thing as any other form of Islamic government. If you rule everything by the Sharia, then whether you elect a prime minister, or a prime ayatollah, the results are very similar.

    So, why do it? It seems like a cynical afterthought, added to give "legitimacy" if only by not being as brutally machiavellian a goal as "raping and plundering the resources of the Middle East, and the American Taxpayer". If you have fault with the latter, kindly search out the latest information showing that military contractors are doubling as lobbyists, and sending the results of their government contracts right back to the Republican party. It's happened before, yes, but it's still corrupt, and it's still my tax dollars being spent to fund an entire system I wholly disapprove of.

    Now, for the final kicker in this diatribe... Neoconservatism. This is what the Republican party is today, and it's proven to be a ridiculously pathetic system of ideological practice. It squandered the moral capital we got from a horrific tragedy on a pointless, and now seemingly endless war. If Americans do not stand up and oppose this war, before it settles in and becomes the Next Cold War, we're fucked. Proper fucked. We don't have the money, or the material resources, to carry an all-out war on terrorism. If you want proof of this, please check out the war on Drugs. We are in a simultaneous front against black market profiteers, people with a strong ideological axe to grind (and building more every day), and the insurgency in Iraq. Looks like we might be going after another country soon, too. Probably Iran.

    Now, how the hell are we going to do that all at once? I'm proud to be an American, but I'm not stupid. I don't think we can win all that, and if we do, we're going to be spent, tired, and weakened just as Europe, China, and India all start to come into their primacy.

    So, keep your "democratic Middle East". Maybe you'd like to live there. I'd rather live in America, and keep America great, by focusing on the needs of Americans. Not the needs of Iraqis, not the needs of Christian evangelicals, but the needs of our people, all of them, in this country. Thank you, and good day.

    Posted by Megido at 12/13/2005 @ 12:58pm

46. Robes

    Hell....with 3 PT jobs I represent 300% job growth comapred to my old single "FT" job. Plus the extra money that I have to spend on health care for my children now increases the GDP. Oh joy...it s wonderful day in Republispeak land!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 1:06pm

47. LOC - great example of what I was trying to say to Maasch and CPT.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 1:30pm

48. Man, you guys are out in full force today. Where are all the neocon lackeys to rebuttal the facts and figures with their black math and fiction? I'm glad to see people are still paying attention in the US, though way too few actully do, which is why the US is where it is right now, its populace taking heap after heap of shit with a smile on its face, still talking of booms and victories when nothing could be further from the truth. And I too wonder about Iran being in the cross hairs. I think we may leave that to our client Israel. Anyone ever notice that every time Iran threatens to cross over to the Euro, Israel chimes in with a threat to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/13/2005 @ 2:03pm

49. ROBES

    I believe we were discussing YOUR penchant for violence, no?

    But, if you want to say you and the Moron-in-Chief are equals, fine with me, since I have no love of Bush.

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 2:10pm

50. FRANK

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 12/13/2005 @ 12:07am---No, I think I will. Sorry to burst your little stereotype bubble, but Mr Hannity's show comes on opposite several other bits of fine TV programming that I enjoy MUCH more than another "Cross-fire" knock-off.

    As to the "Republican attack machine" and Dr Dean...it seems quite a few LIBERALS here on the "Nation" blog don't care for him either, and more often than not the good doctor's OWN QUOTES seem to be his worst enemy, not Karl Rove.

    And isn't amazing how the Republicans have an "attack machine", but Democrats and liberals don't?...just "advocacy groups who warn us about the extreme views of those nasty Republicans"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 2:13pm

51. GDP based economic analysis is ridiculous in this day and age. There are much better measures of national wealth / health, but we focus on GDP because it gives our country a collective erection to have higher GDP growth rates than Europe or Japan. USA GDP is usually higher than Japan and Europe simply because the USA still has a growing population. We have a positive birth rate coupled with a high immigration and low emmigration rate. Japan and Europe have negative birth rates and low immigration rates.

    In the end due to the focus on GDP, the USA as a nation is rich, but it's citizens on the whole are poor.

    Posted by colmes at 12/13/2005 @ 2:23pm

52. Mask: If you want to consider yelling in someone's face as a violent act, then our prisons would be filled with the Sean Hannity's, Michael Savage's, and Limbaugh's of the world. Comparing my innate desire to pummel some dittohead who thinks they can get away with harassing me because I'm a liberal to your Usurper President and his international murder squads... you're more delusional than I imagined. I'm done talking to you. Like all Republicans, you're a waste of my time. Have a lovely CHRISTmas, poseur.

    Grits: Does the slave labor performed by our prison population count for our GDP too? That sector is definitely bullish.

    I would love to be a fly on the wall when these conservative operatives figure out how to put tinsel on the pile of elephant crap that is the American economy. Skewing the perception of our own reality is a fascist specialty.

    Posted by Robespierre at 12/13/2005 @ 3:04pm

53. Robe,

    "tinsel on the pile of elephant crap that is the American economy."

    Am I correct in reading your posts that the American economy is crap? Can you site me a better one or one in which you would gladly exchange with ours? Would you believe most of your fellow Americans would go along with you on this assement? Say even 5% agree?

    My guess is you are unable to partake in the economy on a productive scale or are not in demand enough to warrant a reasonable pay check. We have programs for you to help. I know, as I pay for them.

    How can we help you? Am I to blame? What can we do to make it better for you?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 3:17pm

54. Rio

    Actually, my situation was a bit better under Clinton...of course I am in education which isn't Dubya's forte let us say (not tech.) [and please...no more "No Child Left Behind"] You gotta admit at least under Bill's reign (in between BJs) we managed a balanced budget. Besides, this is the first time in how many years when all 3 sectors are controlled by the same party. When the thought of checks or balances is raised suddenly its "the nuclear option".

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 3:22pm

55. LOC,

    " You gotta admit at least under Bill's reign (in between BJs) we managed a balanced budget. "

    Treue en ough, b ut thanks to Bill of $400 billion a year deficits forever,

    or ther Republican controlled Congress that balanced it?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 3:27pm

56. Maasch,

    Spoken like the unimaginative pedant you are. What exactly do you do for a living, anyway? I mean, God knows your important vocation helps buoy so many worthless souls who you'd just assume push off a cliff if you weren't such a good Christian, but you couldn't be more revealing of your lack of sympathy for and misunderstanding of those who have seen the American Dream evade them year after year despite their hardest efforts. You, like the rest of your pack of wolves, couldn't be more out of touch with those who toil beneath you. Yeah, so long as you have yours, fuck everyone else. You ever seen a sweatshop, asshole? You call that productive? Why don't you come down here and see where your duds are made, and tell me that misery and poverty are fine so long as they lead to American prosperity and efficiency. Women and children are literally slaving down here so you and your moronic friends can put presents under the tree this year. Millions of living nightmares and dreamless lives are the backdrop to your rosy economic picture and American Dream. Go watch Fox news, nitwit.

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/13/2005 @ 3:30pm

57. Maasch: "Am I correct in reading your posts that the American economy is crap? Can you site me a better one or one in which you would gladly exchange with ours?"

    List of top ten countries by ratings for standard of living" 1) Norway 2) Sweden 3) Canada 4) Belgium 5) Australia 6) United States 7) Iceland 8) Netherlands 9) Japan 10) Finland

    Anything else Maasch?

    Posted by doumer at 12/13/2005 @ 3:31pm

58. Maasch,

    1. There are several economies that create superior conditions for their citizenry than ours does. Such as Sweden, Norway, Australia, New Zealand etc.

    2. Are you contending that the fiscal discipline that we had in the late 1990's is attributable to the congress and not the president? Do you realize it's the same party in control of congress now as then.....the only difference is the Presidency has changed?

    Posted by colmes at 12/13/2005 @ 3:34pm

59. .

    LEFTOFCENTER 12/13 @ 12:36am

    NaCl...re: "what scientist"....most that I know...does that count?

    No. You may know many scientists. But do any of them know you?

    By now you should know, I don't think you count, not as a scientist, not as an educated individual, not as a truthful person. And I am beginning to think you're cracked.

    That you suggest the numbers and size of a campus in any way lends substance to your statements, reinforces me. That is the same craziness whereby you back up ridiculous bloopers with preposterous boasts.

    Here is a link detailing the aerobic fermentation of B anthracis: BA [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] you'll have to search for article 106355 [URL becomes too long if I try and post the searched page]

    Don't pretend to be providing a link when you are not. Paste the full URL for that discrete page on aerobic fermentation of B.anthracis into your post, or link it after shrinking it here.

    As to what I do...perhaps you missed my link I posted to AZT and/or JM go here: BFR [cstl.nist.gov] scroll through the poster list (just names / titles actually) and you'll find mine rather easily.

    I did not ask what you did. But if you want to identify yourself, state your name, cite your project, and link to it. Don't make believe that that's achieved by referencing a workshop.

    mechanical milling refers to contact / crushing processes of a substance with a moving "bit" (wheel, crusher, spline, etc) a jet mill forces one stream of a substance into another stream of the same. Hence non-mechanical on the "business end".

    Reiterating how a jet mill dices does not change the fact that the process is mechanical. A non-mechanical process would be chemical, electronic, radiological... Thus, catalysis, X-raying, photovoltic conversion of light, photolytic water splitting of water, a hydrogen fuel cell, reverse osmosis, infrared laser cutting, those would be non-mechanical processes. (Eh? Even semantic objections tie your shoelaces.)

    If you can't discern the difference I guess I'll go back to teaching monkeys to type....at least they eventually learn.

    Ah, now you are coming clean. That is your racket. And by your straight A standards monkeys learned to type, eh?

    Again...what you call gibberish is plain English, technical English perhaps, but the sort of language I deal with daily. Nothing "hi-falutin"....it is simply "where I live" in academe.

    Most schools, sometimes very good ones, are trailed by eccentrics, crackpots, eternal students, campus oddities, nuisances and freaks. A few are diamonds in the rough, some occasionally are brilliant. For example, MIT has Joe Davis. He has no degree of any kind, no academic pretensions, no teaching schedule; but he knows lots of math, and has daring and ingenuous ideas, including on recumbinant DNA (and he has a wooden leg). He was made a research associate and allowed the run of fancy equipment. He is an artist and a pleasure. You are a con artist and an embarrassment.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 12/13/2005 @ 3:36pm

60. No thank you, I get by with my two jobs. And as indignant as you are about paying your taxes to support aid programs for the poor, I am equally indignant about serving up 40 cents of every tax dollar I pay to fund our war machine, and however much is spent to offset corporate welfare and tax breaks. If you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to live in Antarctica. Or you could just keep your money in the Cayman Islands, like your CEO poster boys. I laugh when I think of conservatives scream about flag-burning, and then curse everything that flag stands for. Taxes + flag = nation. You can't have one without the other. And if you want to debate the economy, one of us would have to actually admit we are wrong, which I will never do. If looking at the millions of decent jobs in this country replaced by WalMart-wage level jobs (or not replaced at all) as a good thing is your mindset, then we aren't even speaking the same language. Why don't you bring your lily-white backside to downtown Detroit sometime and find out how wonderful the economy is doing. Go tell the 60,000 people sacked by GM and Ford recently and sing the praises of free trade and outsourcing. "Growth" is the catchphrase that every Republican repeats ad nauseum in any discussion of economics... in the United States, growth means that the rich get richer, while the rest of us get poorer. My state's median income has fallen over $10,000 per capita in the last decade. I suppose that's a good thing too.

    Posted by Robespierre at 12/13/2005 @ 3:47pm

61. HMAN23

    "If Iraq and Afghan are the ONLY accomplishments" you cant take me serious?

    Now that was funny, is that like saying: your dog is not that smart because he only beat you 2 games out of 5 when you played chess. Or is it more like he didnt run the marathon very fast because his time was only 2 hours and 35 minutes, despite the fact he had only 1 leg?

    Geez you are hard to impress, I hope you are kind with your family when you open their presents; "You only got me a Dodge Viper.....what no corvette. You SERIOUSLY expect me to thank you?"

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 3:49pm

62. CPT,

    Shouldn't you be out prowling the streets looking for misguided kids to go torture and kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan so chickenhawks like Maasch and LL can stay home and rant on this blog and beat their chest to the patriotic drivel they spurt after filling up at the corporate sponsored trough?

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/13/2005 @ 4:12pm

63. Chimi: Rock on!

    Posted by Robespierre at 12/13/2005 @ 4:17pm

64. CPT - you don't even get 2 games with your Iraq and Afghanistan "success stories" - that was my point.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 4:32pm

65. Hey CPT,

    Do you guys use the fotos from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo for recruiting purposes? Just wondering, because the same shit seems to keep happening, and the secret detention center business seems to be doing quite well, as more and more 'black sites' are turning up around the globe. Why is it that those sworn to defend the flag, Constitution and international law are always the most egregious violators of everything they stand for? Also, were you too trained in the art of shoving glow sticks into a prisoner's rectum?

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/13/2005 @ 4:39pm

66. It seems to me somebody's already asked them that, Chimi. Shock batons up the rectum aren't a problem. Execution of Brazilian exchange students in London? No problem. Shooting of mentally ill airline passengers and lies about alleged bomb threats? No problem. And why should any of it be a problem? One has to fight fire with fire. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. What matter if the world ends up gumming its food in the dark? Deficit spending through the roof? No problem. Economic recovery through red ink? No problem. We're Americans. No one south of the border is. We are. And we don't have any problems. It's the rest of the world that's insane.

    Posted by zumbador at 12/13/2005 @ 5:17pm

67. A late reply. TJ wrote:

    Lisajo is a spitfire, but she is a Christian. Just hand me the wine reserved for her and I'll gladly join in your heathenistic frenzy.

    Whoa, there, Big Guy. Who says no Christians drink? Get your own wine, thanks, I'll be drinking my share at that shindig. No grape juice at my Communion, buddy.

    Maasch: I'm having PMS, am I? Real mature, asshole.

    Posted by LisaJo at 12/13/2005 @ 5:20pm

68. Wow! must be a carryover from the "save Tookie" idiots last night. We sure have the idiot savant level of liberal commentary going today. Genuises in their own minds. Masters in their own minds of the "truth" concerning economics, politics, terrorism, yada, yada, yada.

    Damn the statistics, ignore the facts the liberal charges; what I believe in my mind and emotions form the constructs of truth declares the leftwinded fomenters of discontent. Up is down, right is left, red is blue, and the cow jumped over the moon.

    Thanks for injecting a little holiday cheer with all the left wing sanctimonious defeatism. No wonder so many who post here are teachers; most teachers are people who can't make it in the real world or business.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 5:28pm

69. To Love LIB:

    Knocking teachers is easy. Teaching is hard work. I'm not a teacher, although was once a professor at a large university for a few years. As in any profession, some teachers are great, some are lousy, and many are in between. Knocking the entire group for a few lousy apples is trivial and requires the intellectual capacity of an ant.

    BTW, many teachers are people who already HAVE made it in the real world.

    BBTW, how many "real world makers" could make it in teaching? Not many.

    Posted by adr at 12/13/2005 @ 5:41pm

70. To Rio B:

    Why is Bush to blame? Bush is to blame for lots of things like killing the economy for the little guy and boosting it for the rich. Like starting a totally stupid invasion that's hastening the end the American empire (hey, that might be a good thing). He has pushed the envelope far past what any previous president has tried.

    Did he create the atmosphere that put him in power? He just (with lots of help from numerous neocons) exploited it.

    Did he kill our surpluses and balanced budget? With some help from the end of the dot-com boom, he did, and he keeps on doing it.

    Does he ignore ordinary people in this country and the leaders of other countries who could be useful to us? You bet, and he's the only modern president who does that.

    We people (of many political persuasions) who blame Bush do so because he's simply an extreme. He's way out beyond most people on his policies. He has had a great propaganda machine behind him that has left many people believing he's the second coming of Christ (slight exaggeration;-)), while he's closer to the anti-Christ. I could devolve into a rant on that topic, but will stay on the "blame Bush" topic for now.

    There's been lots of wrong and right things going on in government in the last 35 years. How come it's all wrong now? Yes, I do blame Bush & Co. for that.

    Posted by adr at 12/13/2005 @ 5:51pm

71. Knocking the entire group for a few lousy apples is trivial and requires the intellectual capacity of an ant.

    BTW, many teachers are people who already HAVE made it in the real world.

    BBTW, how many "real world makers" could make it in teaching? Not many.

    Posted by ADR 12/13/2005 @ 5:41pm

    Only when discussing issues on a liberal blog does most become all. I have plenty of teachers in my family including a liberal brother (gee what a shock another teacher who is a liberal), know a great many teachers well; I stand by my statement.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 6:04pm

72. More bullshit from LL. I have seven career teachers in my extended family - all of them chose the path. Oh sure, LL, you meant "most" not "all." But, instead of just standing by your stupid claim, why don't you try SUPPORTING it with something oh Mr. Lover of All Things Factual and Not Emotional?

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 6:24pm

73. Sure Rio, Republicans are great to blacks, unless you are poor one and get caught up in a hurricane.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/13/2005 @ 6:29pm

74. Chime,

    Your post of CHIMICHENGA 12/13/2005 @ 3:30pm shows you have never read anything I have posted before. All I can say is you have generalized me into one of your liberal sterotype corners. I won't bore others here with my "story", but you might be surprised from whence I came and how mamny times I have had to fight back.

    You have a good talent for ranting emotionally without knowledge. There is a difference between knowlege and belief old boy, and yes I have seen a sweat shop and I don't shop or will not do business with Walmart...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 7:15pm

75. Lisajo,

    "Maasch: I'm having PMS, am I? Real mature, asshole."

    I can accept asshole....still doesn't change my opinion of your posts.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 7:17pm

76. DOUMER ,

    Good list and great places to live unless you make any money with the tax rates approaching 70% in some cases.Good post tho. Still, would you expect many to change and prefer these economies to the US?

    What did Perot say...just because you can run a corner grocery dooen't mean you can run a Walmart?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 7:24pm

77. Chime,

    "Shouldn't you be out prowling the streets looking for misguided kids to go torture and kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan so chickenhawks like Maasch and LL can stay home and rant on this blog and beat their chest to the patriotic drivel they spurt after filling up at the corporate sponsored trough?"

    ???????????????????????????????and the point is...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/13/2005 @ 7:26pm

78. HMAN23

    I got your point, was just having a moment of levity. Point taken but still disagree

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 7:41pm

79. ROBES

    I think if you re-read your original post it was MORE than just "yelling at somebody" that you WANTED to do.

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 7:46pm

80. HMAN

    Posted by HMAN23 12/13/2005 @ 6:29pm? So the Democrats are good to poor blacks?

    Got proof of that?

    Posted by Mask at 12/13/2005 @ 7:58pm

81. (gee what a shock another teacher who is a liberal)

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/13/2005 @ 6:04pm

    It comes with the mind.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 7:59pm

82. CHIMEN

    Lets see, the oath says:

    I, name, do SOLEMNLY swear, that I will support and defend the Consitution of the United States against all enemies FORIEGN and DOMESTIC, that I will bear true faith and alliegence to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. SO HELP ME GOD!!!"

    Thats it, no where does it say or even mention international law. So sorry, never stuck anything in any AQ rectum, have you seen or more to the point smelled one of those jihadists up close? Bathing is not a priority to them, thats why we wore Nomex gloves with those guys.

    Hey bud anal training is not a priority in the Army, sorry you think so. I know we treat those jihadists so poorly, orange jump suit, prayer mat, copy of the Koran, shower and toliet, cot to sleep, and protection from the elements.

    I know you think we torture and abuse them, by what means again:

    Sleep depriavtion, Standing for hours, denying food and water, excessive excercise? Hey bud that is US Army Ranger School!

    hung upside down from a tree for 35 minutes because I forgot the doctrinal definition of an ambush. Called Koola-fying...qualifying. Is this cruel, well it sucked no doubt, but oh well, so you understand now that some of the torture techinques that are "suppossedly" used do not illicit a huge outrage from me.

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 8:07pm

83. Since we are talking about US economic strength, this web site has a few relevant charts.

    http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=40&Itemid=110

    It's a long URL so make sure to get it all.

    Chart one speaks to what Maasch was talking about earlier in the thread. You can draw your own conclusions.

    Chart two speaks volumes about how the republican model for economic growth which began in 1980 is simply putting it all on the credit card. Of course even credit cards have their limits. Sooner or later the bill for our riotous spending spree will come due.

    Hmm, I wonder what's going to happen then?

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 8:16pm

84. I guess we'll cut education some more

    That'll work

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 8:16pm

85. Lets see, the oath says:

    I, name, do SOLEMNLY swear, that I will support and defend the Consitution of the United States against all enemies FORIEGN and DOMESTIC, that I will bear true faith and alliegence to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. SO HELP ME GOD!!!"

    Thats it, no where does it say or even mention international law.

    Posted by CPT 12/13/2005 @ 8:07pm

    Well, you're right. The oath doesn't say anything about international law. But the oath does mention something about the US Constitution and of course that esteemed document contains this:

    Article VI, Paragraph 2

    "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    You are aware that treaties are the primary instrument of international law, NO?

    So CPT perhaps you were crossing your fingers when you SOLEMNLY swore, maybe you routinely lie when you say SO HELP ME GOD and perhaps you can't tell the difference between a FOREIGN enemy or a DOMESTIC enemy unless we stick red glow sticks up the ass of one and green glow sticks up the ass of the other, (just to create a little holiday cheer, it's Christmas you know).

    The first rational I heard for Abu gharib was that the treatment those prisoners got was nothing worse than a fraternity prank.

    Now you are telling us that prisoner abuse is no worse than Ranger school.

    Of course, you could walk away from Ranger school

    And frat boys can walk away from the fraternity.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 9:07pm

86. and prisoners can't

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 9:07pm

87. perhaps a little egg nog wth your glow stick?

    Ho Ho Ho

    Posted by Will C. at 12/13/2005 @ 9:10pm

88. OOOOH! there are some verrrrry touchy libs here today. Must be the sense of liberal defeat. Bush is on the rise, Democracy is on the rise in Iraq, the economy in the US is booming and in Iraq (great series on Fox recently showing the development especially in Northern Iraq with new resorts, malls, a bustling stock exchange, etc.).

    It has to be tough to be a liberal these days in the USA. When your nearest thing to a "progressive hope" is Howard Dean, I'd probably go crazy too!

    I turn on the tube and what do I see
    A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
    
    They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
    
    Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
    
    Victim of this, victim of that
    
    Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat
    
    Get over it
    
    Get over it
    
    All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
    
    Get over it, get over it
    
    You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
    
    But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
    
    The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
    
    Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
    
    You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
    
    But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing
    
    Get over it
    
    Get over it
    
    If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
    
    Get over it, Get over it
    
    It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
    
    You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
    
    Some call it sick, but I call it weak
    
    You drag it around like a ball and chain
    
    You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
    
    You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
    
    Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
    
    Complain about the present and blame it on the past
    
    I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass
    
    Get over it
    
    Get over it
    
    All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
    
    Get over it, get over it
    
    Get over it
    
    Get over it
    
    It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
    
    Get over it, get over it
    

    The Eagles

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 9:38pm

89. LL

    most teachers are people who can't make it in the real world or business.

    Rude, offensive and ignorant. I teach at a 2 yr college while working on my PhD...have taught before - 2 and 4 yr. I like teaching, not because I don't enjoy other things, but teaching gives me creative freedom, timewise freedom, and a hi level of satisfaction that I am actually making a difference. I could work in industry, have done that before too...I like teaching better. Plain and simple. Besides...how else are those 10-bezillion MBA's gonna pass science requirememnts so they can manage a McD?

    I already knew that malivolent hatred is the driving force of Nation blogs in this century.

    Yeah LL, but we let you in anyway. Most WingNuts do their hatin' at Redstate.org or FreeRepublic....but we believe in the freedom to go hate anyone you want to! So you c'mon back now...hear?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/13/2005 @ 10:14pm

90. You know, you try to respond with some semblance of respect because, hey, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. But the right wing lock step brigade with their stereotypical myopic view of the world is really pissing me off. Teachers are liberals like CEO's are conservatives. You know why? Because teachers actually give a crap about the next generation, not the next quarter. You jack-offs are so free with your denigration of people who attempt to teach your children; if it's so easy and we're doing such a terrible job, get off your hyprocritical douchebag asses and give it a try! You arrogant pricks think you have the answer to everything. There is a quote about ignorant people don't know much, smart people know some, and intelligent people know that they actually know very little. It's time to go to bed - I need my rest so I can try to impart some knowledge to students. Let the "Oh, must have touched a nerve" bullshit begin. You wackjobs may be in power, but there have been plenty of wackjobs throughout history who have managed to convince enough people they were right, when in fact they were, just like you, wack jobs.

    Fuck you! (and the rest of you have a very Merry Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or whatever).

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/13/2005 @ 10:36pm

91. WILL C.

    You belittling the oath? not suprised.

    Support and defend the Consitution......There is alot more to it than just article 4. And if you want to be anal about it, pun intended, then you can construe the words "support" and "defend" all kinds of ways.

    And then there is one of the the strongest parts of the oath, where it enumerates on EXACTLY WHO is the person where ultimate authority lies. "The President of the United States and the officers appointed over me," AND, this is where you should pay particular attention, "according to REGULATIONS and the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE"

    You see WILL C. we support the Constitution and will defend it, but the Constitution does NOT apply as a matter of LAW to the military services, we live by the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, or UCMJ. Hence, you are bound and liberated by the Constituion not servicemembers. And the UCMJ does NOT RECOGNIZE Article FOUR applying to service members.

    And by the way, many have also walked away from GITMO and Abu GRAIB, literally hundreds have been released. The exact number is between 3 and 5 thousand. But never mind those pesky facts.

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 10:42pm

92. most teachers are people who can't make it in the real world or business.

    Rude, offensive and ignorant. I teach at a 2 yr college while working on my PhD...have taught before - 2 and 4 yr. I like teaching, not because I don't enjoy other things, but teaching gives me creative freedom, timewise freedom, and a hi level of satisfaction that I am actually making a difference. I could work in industry, have done that before too...I like teaching better. Plain and simple. Besides...how else are those 10-bezillion MBA's gonna pass science requirememnts so they can manage a McD?

    I already knew that malivolent hatred is the driving force of Nation blogs in this century.

    Yeah LL, but we let you in anyway. Most WingNuts do their hatin' at Redstate.org or FreeRepublic....but we believe in the freedom to go hate anyone you want to! So you c'mon back now...hear?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/13/2005 @ 10:14pm

    LOC,

    Since I didn't say all teachers, you seem a mite touchy on the subject.

    I already knew that malivolent hatred is the driving force of Nation blogs in this century.

    That last one gets you a D on your post. I did not make that comment, yet you attack me for it. To compound the matter, Rio misspelled malevolent which you did not catch. You may have to stay after school and write on the board 500 times;

    I will proof before I post

    After you get through, smile and laugh at yourself, it's good medicine.

    Posted by love liberty at 12/13/2005 @ 10:45pm

93. WILL C

    And oh by the way, feel free to goto the Ranger school website...via FT Benning webpage. The keep great stats on the number of "med drops" from Ranger School....See how many are actually able to walk without aid.....now of course they almost always recover from their injuries, but again, so do most people

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 10:47pm

94. LOVE LIBERTY

    You should have said that about Service members, you would not have gotten so many attacks....hell many, though not all, would have joined in.

    And for the record, I love most teachers, good people

    Posted by CPT at 12/13/2005 @ 10:50pm

95. Well....Hello to Maasch, Rio "punko",I "hope" I Will "see" the rapture, and Capitano. Oh, lest we forget, the precious "Loveth" Liberty.

    You little pissants can't even defer to the well-informed generosity of Eugene McCarthy? What a bunch of nasty, useless, sewer rats you are. Consider your useless selves lucky, that Eugene McCarthy even bothered to care about your welfare.

    Fuck you wingers.

    I still love you buttheads. (one might ask why)

    Fondest,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 12/13/2005 @ 11:33pm

96. LL--

    Are you not a TEACHER of the Bible? I thought I remembered that as beibgone the 1 million occupations and/or causes that you've been a part of.

    Posted by rain man at 12/13/2005 @ 11:48pm

97. I mean "1 of the 1 million occupations/causes"--etc --sorry tired fingers..

    Posted by rain man at 12/13/2005 @ 11:50pm

98. If you winger clowns don't offer me even a cursory reply...Well, that just demonstrates how punkish you are. Show me how tough you are.. and I just might stay up all night rebutting your pussy talking points.

    Just as I thought; these wingers are far too busy doing the: Oh honey, I am weary, please suck my toenails because the god guy sayeth it.

    Welleth, you buttheadeth, numbnuttedeth, fuckwadeth, stupiderteth, thaneth, the alledgedtheth,grandereth, mastereth,Kingeth, Y lord and mastereth, holy helleth ruler of all tha liveth on this earth.

    Fuckith youith,

    with love,

    Bloppy

    Posted by bloppy at 12/13/2005 @ 11:59pm

99. A belated response to a belated response to Lisajo:

    I was just trying to save you from whatever debauchery was in store; didn't mean to imply that wine was an issue. :-)

    As to everything else on this blog: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Clearly many of us have become addicts and The Nation is not supplying our fixes as quickly as our highs are fizzling. Give us something, guys! We need it bad! Particularly our irreverent but darling li'l Bloppy.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/14/2005 @ 12:14am

100. Life begins in Antspunk, Texas.

     Piss on wingers. (oh goodness, what is wrong with me?)

     NOT A WHOLE BUNCH

     Off topic and with affection

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/14/2005 @ 12:33am

101. Cowardice smells ugly. Candy-ass winger losers smell even worse.

     If you fools are the best that we can offer, Jesus, please help us now!! I am ready and willing to embrace the supernatural.

     What have I done????

     loveth,

     Bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 12/14/2005 @ 12:47am

102. Posted by CPT 12/13/2005 @ 10:42pm |

     You belittling the oath? not suprised.

     CPT, once again you demonstrate that not only does your reading comprehension suck with your military oath but also with the posts we write in response to yours. I wasn't belittling the oath. I was belittling you.

     Support and defend the Consitution......There is alot more to it than just article 4. And if you want to be anal about it, pun intended, then you can construe the words "support" and "defend" all kinds of ways.

     Yes, there is a lot more than article four. Thank you for pounding away at the obvious. But then my comment about article four, paragraph two was part of a specific rebuttal to a blanket statement you made about international law in relation to your oath. As far as construing the words "support" and "defend" I recommend starting with a copy of Webster's Dictionary, the original American dictionary.

     And then there is one of the the strongest parts of the oath, where it enumerates on EXACTLY WHO is the person where ultimate authority lies. "The President of the United States and the officers appointed over me," AND, this is where you should pay particular attention, "according to REGULATIONS and the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE"

     I'm guessing that the congress, in authorizing the words to the oath, agreed to include these specifics because they knew guys like you would never read Article 2 of the US Constitution and would remain perpetually clueless about who your boss was. The UCMJ however was authorized by congress and not the president. While you may answer directly to the president as laid out in article two, the ultimate authority over the military lies with the congress. Read article one section eight sometime. It's part of that thing you swore to support and defend.

     You see WILL C. we support the Constitution and will defend it, but the Constitution does NOT apply as a matter of LAW to the military services, we live by the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, or UCMJ. Hence, you are bound and liberated by the Constituion not servicemembers. And the UCMJ does NOT RECOGNIZE Article FOUR applying to service members.

     The constitution is the supreme law of the land. While the supreme court has curtailed some of the bill of rights because as they argued, the military is a "better" (paraphrasing) society, your oath to uphold the US Constitution pretty much states in plain English that you will do just that and would, I hope, understand that it is the supreme law of the land, supreme meaning in plain English, it stands above the UCMJ, not along side it, not under it. This takes me back to my rebuttal of your blanket international law comment, which you have yet to offer any counter too. If you truly believe that soldiers are free to break international law derived from treaties that the US has signed on to and that the Senate has ratified, which I might add makes those treaties US law(see article four, paragraph two of the US Constitution), go for it, see what happens to you. It won't be nothing.

     And by the way, many have also walked away from GITMO and Abu GRAIB, literally hundreds have been released. The exact number is between 3 and 5 thousand. But never mind those pesky facts.

     Released is not the same as walked away. You should know that. If you don't,

     that's very, very bad.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 01:42am

103. And oh by the way, feel free to goto the Ranger school website

     Posted by CPT 12/13/2005 @ 10:50pm

     I take it this is and extention of your "released" equals "walked away" argument. The only way you can make this argument is if you can somehow equate voluntary and involuntary.

     Take your time.

     There's no rush.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 01:51am

104. I'll be right here.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 01:51am

105. There is that strange sound again..time to go to bed.

     Posted by john maasch at 12/14/2005 @ 01:58am

106. The bottom line is that if the military can't observe the constitution, CPT, we will do whatever we have to do to rid ourselves of the military. That's a promise.

     Posted by Legba at 12/14/2005 @ 02:19am

107. Don't wipe that vet stuff on me. I'm among a growing number of people in this country who have come to realize we can defend ourselves very well from what you represent. No fooling.

     Posted by Legba at 12/14/2005 @ 02:21am

108. (see article four, paragraph two of the US Constitution)

     Posted by WILL C. 12/14/2005 @ 01:42am

     Correction: Article 6, paragraph 2

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 02:24am

109. Since I didn't say all teachers, you seem a mite touchy on the subject.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/13/2005 @ 10:45pm

     Liberty!

     LoC didn't say "all" teachers either. But your point doesn't create much of a distinction considering "most" can range from 50.1% all the way to 99.9%

     If you turn down the volume and quit playing air guitar while jamming to those old eagles records, you'll be able to focus.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 02:47am

110. I already knew that malivolent hatred is the driving force of Nation blogs in this century.

     That last one gets you a D on your post. I did not make that comment, yet you attack me for it. To compound the matter, Rio misspelled malevolent which you did not catch. You may have to stay after school and write on the board 500

     I will proof before I post

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/13/2005 @ 10:45pm

     You sure about that Liberty? A D implies that LoC is at least 60 percent correct in attributing Rio's statement to you.

     If it weren't true at all, you would have given him an F

     So I'm thinking that LoC only needs to write 200 times.

     (That's 40% of 500)

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 03:10am

111. Nah, let's just say 151 times

     I'm guessing the statement is closer to 69% true

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 03:10am

112. CPT And by the way, many have also walked away from GITMO and Abu GRAIB, literally hundreds have been released. The exact number is between 3 and 5 thousand. But never mind those pesky facts.

     3000 to 5000 released???? darn you guys did stop saying they were terrorists!!!! USA is releasing so many terrorists???.. maybe the world isn't safer anymore then.

     PS: Sorry for the off topic

     Posted by Fabrice at 12/14/2005 @ 06:38am

113. Wamt a clear and present example of why the Democrats still poll 20-30% behind Republicans on the "who's tougher on national defense" issue?

     The bottom line is that if the military can't observe the constitution, CPT, we will do whatever we have to do to rid ourselves of the military. That's a promise.

     Posted by LEGBA 12/14/2005 @ 02:19am

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 07:05am

114. WILL C

     How can I put this, I thought I was pretty clear earlier. The UCMJ is the LAW that applies to members of the Armed Services, PERIOD.

     In the Armed Services, we do NOT have the right to free speech, I.E. a Soldier cannot tell his commanding officer to F**k off a court martial or punishment would surely follow; nor is there any right to free assembly, the Bill of Rights DO NOT APPLY!!! The UCMJ applies to the Armed Services, it is a simple FACT.

     There is a well known phrase in the Constitution that allows the UCMJ to govern the Armed Services. Where the Consitution and the UCMJ conflict, the UCMJ wins, as it applies to the governance of the military.

     The UCMJ has its own provision regrading Geneva and Hague, the guards at Abu Graib werer not prosecuted BASED on provisions from "international law" the were prosecuted UNDER the provisions of the UCMJ. FACT

     If a Soldier breaks a law under the Hague and Geneva conventions he/she will be tried by a US military court martial, under the provisions of the UCMJ, not the international provisions. The Abu Graib guards were tried at US military bases, not a civil or federal or international court.

     You are free to try and haul a US servicemember before an international court but see what happens.

     Posted by CPT at 12/14/2005 @ 08:02am

115. FABRICE

     By the same token, I thought, according to liberals, we were locking the poor terrorists up and throwing away the key? I thought the end of our society was occurring? According to liberals, "How can we hold detainees in a perpetual legal blackhole?"

     Gee, I guess Liberals were overstating the situation, suprise, suprise.

     Posted by CPT at 12/14/2005 @ 08:06am

116. LL

     Am a mite touchy from the ever-spiteful NaCl on another thread. However, your comments are a class-wise insult.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 08:10am

117. BLOPPY

     What are you still doing here? Didnt I tell you to shhhhhs! Adults are talking. No go to bed young man!

     LEGBA

     You are free to try and rid the USA of the Armed Forces, may I suggest you go to Ft Lewis, WA and speed toward the front gate.

     Posted by CPT at 12/14/2005 @ 08:16am

118. LL

     OOps..the other attrib goes to Rio, not you. My bad. Its this new multi-page thing...back and forth...so here it is corrected.

     RIO

     I already knew that malivolent hatred is the driving force of Nation blogs in this century.

     Yeah Rio, but we let you in anyway. Most WingNuts do their hatin' at Redstate.org or FreeRepublic....but we believe in the freedom to go hate anyone you want to! So you c'mon back now...hear?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 08:17am

119. NaCl

     My response is on the older "McCarthy" thread including the "compressed" URL for aerobic fermentation as you are too lazy to type a doc number into a search box.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 08:20am

120. Today seems like a good day to declare victory (again) in Iraq and pull the troops out of harms way.

     Today is a wonderful day to finally take the grease of all persuasions (corporate, union and all the rest) out of an elected democracy.

     Today is a good day to provide universal healthcare for all American citizens no matter whether they be under or over 18 and no matter whether they be poor or temporarily unemployed.

     Today is a good day to lower our incarceration rate.

     What else is today good for?

     Posted by colmes at 12/14/2005 @ 09:25am

121. Posted by CPT 12/14/2005 @ 08:02am

     How can I put this, I thought I was pretty clear earlier. The UCMJ is the LAW that applies to members of the Armed Services, PERIOD.

     Military Regulations also constitute the law that applies to members of the armed forces and all of them are not part of the UCMJ; though the UCMJ is the instrument of their enforcement.

     Two specific cases where the UCMJ supports international law

     802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

     (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

     (12) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

     Two specific cases where federal and state law applies to persons subject to this chapter.

     814. ART. 14. DELIVERY OF OFFENDERS TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES

     (a) Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a member of the armed forces accused of an offense against civil authority may be delivered, upon request, to the civil authority for trial.

     (b) When delivery under this article is made to any civil authority of a person undergoing sentence of a court-martial, the delivery, if followed by conviction in a civil tribunal, interrupts the execution of the sentence of the court-martial, and the offender after having answered to the civil authorities for his offense shall, upon the request of competent military authority, be returned to military custody for the completion of his sentence.

     So much for "Period"

     In the Armed Services, we do NOT have the right to free speech, I.E. a Soldier cannot tell his commanding officer to F**k off a court martial or punishment would surely follow; nor is there any right to free assembly, the Bill of Rights DO NOT APPLY!!! The UCMJ applies to the Armed Services, it is a simple FACT.

     As I stated in my previous post, the Supreme Court has curtailed some of the bill of rights but they have only done so as those rules apply to military discipline. And of course the bill of rights is not the entire US Constitution. However, you are still free to speak, still free to worship, still free to peaceably assemble, still free to petition your government, you can own a gun, you get trial by jury, and have Fifth Amendment protections, protections from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Yes many of these things are written in to the UCMJ and many aren't, but the Supreme Court didn't rescind these rights, they allowed a higher level of limitation on them and only as these limitations relate to military discipline.

     There is a well known phrase in the Constitution that allows the UCMJ to govern the Armed Services. Where the Consitution and the UCMJ conflict, the UCMJ wins, as it applies to the governance of the military.

     Well known, eh. Then perhaps you could point it out for us.

     The UCMJ has its own provision regrading Geneva and Hague, the guards at Abu Graib werer not prosecuted BASED on provisions from "international law" the were prosecuted UNDER the provisions of the UCMJ. FACT

     They were tried under this provision

     893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT

     Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

     Which of course brings the military into compliance with international law. It's also the Christian thing to do.

     If a Soldier breaks a law under the Hague and Geneva conventions he/she will be tried by a US military court martial, under the provisions of the UCMJ, not the international provisions. The Abu Graib guards were tried at US military bases, not a civil or federal or international court.

     I never said otherwise. Your statement is also true because we didn't ratify the treaty for the international criminal court. But it seems to contradict your earlier assertion that your oath had nothing to do with international law. You now seem to agree that Army regs supports the two conventions and as such the UCMJ does recognise international law.

     Sound the trumpets, a break through!

     Aah, maybe not.

     You are free to try and haul a US servicemember before an international court but see what happens.

     I wouldn't because the senate hasn't ratified the treaty. At this moment that particular treaty isn't US law. If you remember this particular exchange began with point and counter point concerning international law becomes US law through the ratification of treaties. And of course your oath to support and defend the supreme law of the land which makes all these things possible.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 09:46am

122. "In the Armed Services, we do NOT have the right to free speech, I.E. a Soldier cannot tell his commanding officer to F**k off a court martial or punishment would surely follow; nor is there any right to free assembly, the Bill of Rights DO NOT APPLY!!! The UCMJ applies to the Armed Services, it is a simple FACT."

     The Bill of Rights applies to ALL citizens. And the Uniform Code of Military Justice is most certainly not superior to the Constitution since it is the Constitution that provides for the Code. That being said, the same restrictions to rights such as free speech apply, probably more strictly (like not using speech to create an unsafe situation), but you can't say the Bill of Rights doesn't apply.

     Posted by Turk33 at 12/14/2005 @ 09:54am

123. Mask -

     To your earlier point re: Democrats and poor blacks. No, I am not delusional enough to believe that Democrats, as a whole, are any better for poor blacks (or poor anyone for that matter). However, I think you will find many more Dems than Reps that do anything for poor people. You disagree? My point was more of a comeback to Rio Bravo's point that the appointment of Thomas, Powell, and Condi make Republicans out to be heroes for black people in general.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/14/2005 @ 10:04am

124. Wonder if Mr Nichols would agree with Gene McCarthy on this?

     Inside Politics-Greg Pierce

     A perverse law

     "Eugene McCarthy's death Saturday at age 89 has offered anti-war liberals an opportunity to relive the glory days of 1968, when then-Senator McCarthy embarrassed President Lyndon B. Johnson out of the race with an insurgent run on an anti-Vietnam line," the Wall Street Journal says.

     "We hate to interrupt the self-reverie, but it's worth noting that Gene McCarthy's achievement in driving his own party's sitting president out of the primary campaign is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. And the reason is campaign-finance reform," the newspaper said in an editorial.

     "McCarthy took pleasure in being a maverick politician; he endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980 because, he said, 'anyone would be better' than Jimmy Carter. And party mavericks are just the sort of people that party machines love to keep down, or out. McCarthy himself could never have mounted his last-ditch campaign against Johnson without the backing of industrialist Stewart Mott and banker Jack Dreyfus. But it was not self-interest that motivated McCarthy's long opposition to campaign-finance reform. It was, rather, the conviction that restricting the supply of money would do more to entrench party establishments than it would to 'take the money out of politics.'

     "The money will always be there, because politics will always cost money. Restricting the channels through which money can flow into politics does not 'keep it clean.' It merely empowers the gatekeepers.

     "The irony of campaign-finance reform is that in the name of reducing financial contributions from the rich and powerful, it has made candidates far more likely to be either rich or powerful. A genuine believer in free speech, Gene McCarthy understood what too many of his fellow liberals have forgotten."

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 10:09am

125. HMAN

     Well, then....if NEITHER party is doing anything for poor blacks, wouldn't you say that ATLEAST the Republicans are giving blacks "role models" to aspire to, while the Democrats are not?

     TWO Secretaries of State, Secretary of Education, National Security Advisor, Supreme Court Justice....versus....a couple of preachers and ONE Commerce Secretary?

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 10:11am

126. I agree with Mask on his point that you can't get money out of politics, BUT I think that using the airwaves owned by the public to provide free airtime for commercials would significantly decrease the need for the huge warchests that lead to the need for huge fundraisers, which lead to huge contributors, which lead to elected officials owing the groups with the biggest pockets the biggest favors, which lead to government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich. I think that going back to a convention system to pick candidates would also reduce the need for a warchest since candidates wouldn't have to run, in essence, two national campaigns. Are these perfect solutions? Not even close, but they might help reduce the astronomical amounts of money donated/spent on elections.

     Posted by Turk33 at 12/14/2005 @ 10:25am

127. NaCl

     Went and brought it ahead...

     You are as big a loon as I have ever seen on a blog. The size of my campus (SIUC) merely points to the number of faculty. Hence the number of potential faculty I could know. This in no way decrys your right to be an imbecile nor to boast of the same.

     BTW: your tiny URL link didn't work yesterday - gives a timeout (ironic n'est pas?) My link did work...the fact you are too lazy to type a 6 digit number into a search box is beyond pathetic. Just proves you have no desire to see a possible refutation or dissenting opinion. Here is the link compressed by tinyurl UK edition which was working SCIENCE [tinyurl.co.uk] A quote from the first paragraph if I may: "Fermentation in a high-tryptone, high-yeast-extract medium under nonlimiting aeration"

     I know you did not ask who I was, but the fact you feel so free to cast aspersion on who I am and what I do made me feel (albeit briefly) that you might have an interest in enlightening your sad little closet of a reality. I see it was a mistake to knock on the door of a closed mind. Please feel free to gibber in the corner whilst you play with your toes in the dark.

     Reverse osmosis requires pumping water against a membrane - as mechanical a process as jet milling. Watch out when you step...them shoelaces look a bit knotted from here.

     Sounds like you know Mr. Davis (or maybe you ARE Mr Davis?) At any rate, I see you still provide no references, or info which might add to your rather tenuous veracity. You are bullshit embodied...and again....a veritable poster child for what is wrong with our country. How you manage to get your head in the sand and up your ass at the same time requires a genuine gymnastic talent though...to this alone I applaud. [ambrosiasw.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 11:13am

128. NaCl

     Here....I'll save you from reading more of the technical paper. A further quote "The currently licensed human vaccine is produced by growing the pXO1+ pXO2− V770-NP1-R strain of B. anthracis in minimal medium in the presence of bicarbonate under microaerophilic conditions"

     Continue down in the paper under fermentation conditions and you will see O2 saturation maintained at 75%. Of course, I realize to you this might be gibberish. But, c'est la vie.

     Now why would anyone desiring a productive process use a lower energy condition (anaerobic) to culture when the "big boys" use aerobic conditions, and the sporulation process requires oxygen?

     Provide some verification (a reference) or shut up and get back in your closet.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 12:00pm

129. TURK

     It's funny but it was the 60s Generation who pushed for the end of the "smoky room" and "guys with big cigars" type of nominee selection...yet, this was the way that Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were chosen.

     Now, with the "more democratic" primary system, you have the problem you mentioned (essentially having to run TWO national campaigns back-to-back) and the fact that primary voters are typically the "base" of a political party which is more ideological and usually more extreme than the mainstay of the American electorate.

     So...after a candidate secures the nomination (typically by Super Tuesday) they have needed a FORTUNE to do just that, and then they also have to "run back to the center" to make sure they don't get tarred with the extremist brush that their supporters had.

     I also wonder if Mr Nichols agrees with Mr McCarthy's endorsement of Ronald Reagan and judgement of Jimmy Carter from 1980?

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 12:24pm

130. Mask -

     Your tally sheet of cabinet and Sup. Ct. appointments doesn't really adress what I was talking about does it? (AND you get to count Condi twice - nice!) Your point seems to be that elevating a few blacks to some posts outweighs conservative legislative measures seeking to reduce social programs that assist poor blacks. Fine, you go on believing that. At least I was honest enough to admit that many Democrats pay lip service to the poor. Why don't you show me something on the legislative front demonstrating that Republicans care more. Do I really have to point out social intitiatives pushed by Democrats like welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medacaid, the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, and the like? Democrats may not be uniformly perfect, but it was Republicans who fought against all of these initiatives.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/14/2005 @ 12:39pm

131. WILL C.

     "Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone."

     The operative words here are "persons serving with....the armed forces." There are many civilian agencies that are often attached to armed forces. This is not applicable to service members, they are again subject to the UCMJ solely.

     Now as for the transefer of Soldiers to civil authorites, this applies in practice to civilian authorites here in the US. As it applies to a host nation where US forces are based, there is a Status of Forces Agreement(SOFA), always in place, these perscribe which conidtions a US servicemen may or may not be subject to civilian authorites. In the last 20 yrs only two servicemen have ever been transfered to a host nation for prosecution, and then only AFTER a fully hearing from a US court-martial.

     US Soldiers are not transferred to any host nation for prosecution of any kind, unless unusual and extreme circumstacnes exist.

     Now the Article 93 you cite, yes you are right, but that article has existed in some form for many years BEFORE Geneva and Hague decided to convene. These are BASED on long standing American law and values, the fact that it coincides with some international law should not be taken to mean that the UCMJ articles are concieved to accomadate them.

     Again, international law does not apply to the members of the Armed Forces, merely because the Senate ratifies a treaty, careful now easy to misinterpet, it must come in the form of directives from the Department of Defense, so to that extent you are right, but to another extent, you are wrong.

     In 1998 there was a Soldier who refused to wear the Blue beret of the UN peackeeping force in Bosnia. He was court-martialed for "failure to obey an order." He was NOT court-martialed for failure to obey a UN mandate, which prescribed the uniform of a peacekeeper.

     His defense was that he swore an oath to the US Constitution not the UN Charter, he was right on that part but was held guilty of disobeying an order from his SGT. Forget what the order was, it was his failure to obey his SGT that got him in trouble.

     So again, you are right to a extent but wrong on another. My goodness dont you love legalese, make you wonder who thinks this stuff up.

     TURK

     Never said the UCMJ was better than the Consitution, simply that it does NOT apply to the governance of a the Aremd Forces.

     The Bill of Rights does NOT apply its privileges and protections to members of the Armed Forces. Most if not all of the Bill of Rights as applied to unifromed servicemembers is restricted in some way. That is the truth.

     Some examples: Servicemembers can NOT belong to the Chruch of Satan; or claim a right to privacy, or claim against searchs and seizures, or claim freedom of association, as in being a gang member or in an extemists group. Or to assemble for a protest.

     The oath is to support and defend the Consitution, not practice it, in the Armed Forces.

     Posted by CPT at 12/14/2005 @ 12:44pm

132. Mask & Turk,

     It's really not hard to take money out of democracy if you really want to.

     Limit all candidates to the same amount of spending.

     Once a limit is placed on how much you can spend you can bet that the ridiculous attack ads and other nebulous activities would end. So the poor electorate would be faced with simply a substantive message from each candidate instead of a blaring cacophany of irritable crap.

     The amount spent by each candidate would be provided via that little box on your IRS tax form that says "$3 for presidential campaign?"

     Who would get the funds? Serious candidates as determined either by a party nomination or a set of signatures with X number of signatures from Y number of states.

     A limit would be placed on how much could be spent on that party nomination or the process of gathering the signatures.

     All other races for national office would have similar limits placed on the amount spendable.

     The problem is not so much where the money comes from as it is the ever increasing staggering sums that it costs.

     Unfortunately simple ideas like this will never get traction in this country because it will be terribly bad for the special interests.....in this case also very bad for the special interest of media which would stand to lose billions on stupid 30 second attack fluff ad's every four years.

     Posted by colmes at 12/14/2005 @ 12:46pm

133. Well put, CPT. And that's exactly why the armed forces are not the mainline of defense for what little democracy exists in the United States, contrary to the current party line on the issue. Armed force is just the rearguard of democracy, the means resorted to when every form of dialogue has been exhausted. What a pity so many of our countrymen no longer understand that.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 12/14/2005 @ 1:52pm

134. It is rather ironic to consider the title of Mr. Nichol's post and the liberal additions. While they seek to limit certain types of government power, they enthusiastically promote the large scale enlargement of government power into their own favored programs.

     Judging by liberals it is only our "militaristic" and "imperialistic" adventures that supposedly denote a misuse of power. There is no corresponding reluctance on their part however to take a similar approach domestically.

     This convoluted logic stipulates that is not over expanding the power of government when you take over the individual's and family's decisions about retirement, education, health care, housing, jobs, and how election dollars are spent, who spends them, and how much they may spend.

     Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

     P. J. O'Rourke

     Start the Revolution without me!

     Posted by love liberty at 12/14/2005 @ 2:11pm

135. LL,

     With all deferrence to O'Rourke, giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys might make them drunk, but they will hardly do too much damage with a set of keys (there is no mention of a car in his quote).

     On the other hand a government elected to serve the constituents could very well do a whole heck of a lot of damage if his/her election and subsequent renewals are based on "donations" from the over represented few (including but not limited to unions and corporations).

     Posted by colmes at 12/14/2005 @ 2:28pm

136. LL.

     oops there is a mention of car in his quote.....but only of car keys not an actual car

     Posted by colmes at 12/14/2005 @ 2:29pm

137. HMAN

     "welfare"?...check out how THAT helped the inner-city black family (Democrat the late Patrick Moynihan's discussion of it would assist you)

     "the Civil Rights Act"....please tell me the vote by party in the Congress in 1964 for that bill?

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 2:54pm

138. COLMES

     Ok...initiate your plan.

     Then tell me how you stop Exxon from campaigning (via "issue ads") for their candidates...or the Sierra Club from doing the same?

     Then when you come up with a "solution" to that...I'll figure out a way around it using the INDIVIDUAL CEOs of those organizations.

     Then when you figure out a way around THAT...we'll let the Supreme Court decide if the First Amendment still "applies" or not.

     Posted by Mask at 12/14/2005 @ 2:57pm

139. LL;

     "This convoluted logic stipulates that is not over expanding the power of government when you take over the individual's and family's decisions about retirement, education, health care,"

     I guess you missed the Terri Schiavo case when all your ignorant, Right -wing Christian friends thought they knew what was best for her and her family!

     Again we can be certain that even when you try to cherry pick evidense to support you argument you'll pull down some rotten Bullshit!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 12/14/2005 @ 3:41pm

140. Mask,

     I know you don't like change....I know you think everything new is somehow worse than the existing.

     My plan does not limit free speech. The "interests" can lobby the people directly for their causes via their "issue ads". They will not, however, be able to mention a candidate by name or by party.

     Hmmmmm, lets see elected officials that owe only the electorate for their position of power. Special interests forced to appeal to that same electorate directly rather than through a cash strapped and power hungry "politician". Yes, Mask, those are awful ideas / ideals!

     Posted by colmes at 12/14/2005 @ 4:12pm

141. .

     LEFT/CENTER 12/13 @ 10:14pm; 12/14 @ 11:13 & 12am

     You are as big a loon as I have ever seen on a blog. . . you have no desire to see a possible refutation or dissenting opinion.

     Here is the link ... Ferment [tinyurl.co.uk] A quote from the first paragraph if I may: "Fermentation in a high-tryptone, high-yeast-extract medium under nonlimiting aeration"

     That is your example of the culturing of B.anthracis via "aerobic fermentation" ?

     Let's get this straight. You first denied that the bacillus is cultured via fermentation. Then you said, ok, it's cultured via fermentation, but aerobic fermentation. But even that is wrong since aerobic fermentation is a misnomer, largely the jargon of wine makers. Fermentation is a chemical process that does no need or want oxygen. You think you are denying that with the above?

     Consider what that abstract describe? How an antigen protein was cultured via fermentation, for an anthrax vaccine, from benign, richly fed anthracis germ in the vegetative state. And the aeration was nonlimiting!

     That is how you make your point?

     Then, to really cinch your case, you cite this quote from the abstract:

     The currently licensed human vaccine is produced by growing the pXO1+ pXO2- V770-NP1-R strain of B. anthracis in minimal medium in the presence of bicarbonate under microaerophilic conditions.

     Then you add:

     is there reason to presume someone wanting high-production would choose an anaerobic (lower energy state) condition?

     What do you think conversion under, "microaerophilic conditions" means? Reactions are "microaerophilic" when they DON'T use oxygen. We are here talking fermentation.

     You conclude with,

     Provide some verification (a reference) or shut up and get back in your closet.

     I rely on your references. They make my case.

     Incidentally, I am not MIT's Joe Davis. You however, should know a Joe M. Davis. He is an analytical chemist and a full professor at SIUC. (davis@chem.siu.edu Phone:618-453-6464) He is up to his eyebrows in gas and electrokinetic chromatography. Would you want me to ask him about you?

     BTW, Reverse osmosis, as in desalinization, can use the water pressure produced by the tide. But if you agree that a process requiring machinery is not non-mechanical, why do you insist that the jet mill is non-mechanical? .

     Posted by nacl at 12/14/2005 @ 4:42pm

142. Hman,

     "honest enough to admit that many Democrats pay lip service to the poor. Why don't you show me something on the legislative front demonstrating that Republicans care more. Do I really have to point out social intitiatives pushed by Democrats like welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medacaid, the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, and the like? Democrats may not be uniformly perfect, but it was Republicans who fought against all of these initiatives. "

     Hman old buddy, It was to the Republicans that LBJ went to get votes(and got them) in order to pass all these programs(along with Nixon, who passed more of these programs) and it was the Democrats, especially in the south, who refused.

     Check it out, you may be surprised that the repubs have a history of voting for "right" programs that actually are more liberal than the dems...

     I agree about repubs against the minimum wage as it is a useless program of artificial demand, which traps people in entry level wage and trying to make a living wage out of it...

     Posted by john maasch at 12/14/2005 @ 4:53pm

143. Maasch,

     So if you don't shop at WalMart because you are against sweatshops, where exactly do you buy your gadgets and costumes?

     Posted by chimichenga at 12/14/2005 @ 4:57pm

144. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/13 @ 10:14pm

     I just found this exchange:

     LoveLiberty: most teachers are people who can't make it in the real world or business. (LL)

     Left/Center: Rude, offensive and ignorant. I teach at a 2 yr college while working on my PhD...have taught before - 2 and 4 yr. I like teaching, not because I don't enjoy other things, but teaching gives me creative freedom

     I think LL was refering to GB Shaw's quip: Those who can do, those who can't, teach.

     That LeftofCenter is into "creative freeedom" is the first believable statement I have heard from him.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/14/2005 @ 5:04pm

145. Maasch and Mask - Fine I erred slightly in my terminology, by using the term "Democrat" as if it meant the same thing during the past 50+ years. Yesterday's Southern Democrat or Dixiecrat is today's Repubican. Substitute "liberal" and "conservative" for the party names, and my point is still valid - you cannot refute that.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/14/2005 @ 5:27pm

146. NACL,

     Anyone who thinks teachers are generally incapable of anything should try their hand in a classroom for a year. The "real world" wouldn't function without teachers, and neither would an intellectual giant like Love Liberty. Quite possibly, he did have incompetent teachers who didn't teach him to think creatively and independently. For that, I'm sorry.

     Posted by AZTeacher at 12/14/2005 @ 5:39pm

147. NaCl

     I see up thread a mite something of a nod....hmmmm. Better check the weather report in Hades!

     Pardons to all other as to the off-topic use of space

     OK, so a scientific paper on how to culture B anthracis via aerobic fermetation doesn't convince you that aerobic fermentation exists. There really is no hope for you I fear.

     re: early bits of this over-lengthy discussion you twist words fairly adroitly. I understand your need to justify yourself. This does not make you correct though. (Just like the lies you stated about my political beliefs and Sadaam Hussein) If you go back and review, what I said first was that an oxygenic environment was likely due to sporulation. I also said that fermentation can occur under aerobic OR anaerobic conditions. (not aerobic respiration mind you, never said that, just an oxygenic environment) You said this was not so, and I provide a scientific paper stating that you are incorrect. You provide nothing in support nor retort...even though you find a clever mis-definition in microaerophilic.

     Read the paper - what part is not clear?

     Granted, I should have picked a better passage to underline the aerobic condition. Microaerophilic is NOT oxygen free, it is under low partial pressure of oxygen.

     From U of Maryland "Microaerophile (microaerophilic): an organism requiring oxygen for growth at a level below that found in air (normal air has an oxygen concentration of ~21%)"

     quote from CDC paper, further along: "DO2 values were maintained at 75% of saturation during the fermentations ... Once the rpm maximum was achieved, the two-gas mixer supplemented the process air with pure oxygen while holding the sparging rate constant at 1 vol/vol/min." meaning it was flushed with pure oxygen during the process to maintain a saturated gas pressure.

     Then you twist around again and tell me a derogatory tale of someone at MIT....Joe Davis (lots of Joe Davis' in the world - per an on-line phone directory there are ~100 in my state.) So sure, we have one at my campus. Do I know him personally...no. That is in Chemistry which is not my Dept. (Studies in Organic Geochem are in another Dept. - you figure it out...apparently you have lots of time.)

     Judging from your description of Dr. Davis, I doubt you are on a first name basis though. But from Chem you are welcome to ask Prof Tolley (on my PhD committee) or Dr. Dyer, or even Dr Koropchak. You can also ask the Chair of the Physics Dept whom I know quite well, or anyone in my own Dept. I do also know several faculty in Plant & Soil Science, and in Biology - including a Microbiologist who assures me that that types of fermentation can occur in aerobic conditions (like that listed). Is it more common....no. I will point out though that most bacterial and fungal culturing is done on plated agars, which while covered, are not sealed. They are not anoxic...(you know...this might be where we diverge. You hear aerobic and assume I am speaking of aerobic respiration - obviously a different metabolic pathway than fermentation, when I mean aerobic as in oxygen present or oxic. Hence aerobic fermentation does not per se "require" oxygen, but it is present and affects the base chemistry, and it would seem in the case of this organism that it is required at some level.)

     And again....no refs of your own. Nothing to support the pretension that this certain macroscale production is done via anaerobic fermentation. Tell your "advisors" to get busy (is one a six-foot tall invisible rabbit?)

     I would also note...back across this diatribe that when I am wrong I admit it and move on. You just stop talking about it when your point is overtaken like it never happened...except when you twist it into something else later...kinda like Dubya!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 5:44pm

148. .

     The Limits of Power

     Eugene McCarthy was an elegant but limited gent. He took the point of the antiwar movement for a few months. But when the nomination did not fall into his lap, he turned away from the battle. He lacked the fire in the belly. He was a lover, not a fighter. His legislative career was also rather limp. He never put his shoulders to any important legislative initiative.

     Nichols admires his poetry. That's a little like admiring Churchill's paintings. But, only a little; McCarthy was no Churchill.

     Nichols regrets "the lack of poetry in the politics of the moment." He thinks, "America would be far better served by politicians with a literary bent."

     I've been mulling that over. What is the record of poets with a political bent, or of politicians given to poetry?

     Benito Mussolini had a great love of poetry. He played the violin, was learned, had a doctorate. Gabriele D'Annunzio was a brilliant poet, and swashbuckler, also a proto-fascist. Speaking of which there were: Yeats, Lawrence, Pound, Eliot. They were among the greatest poets of the 20th century. WH Auden was in their league, but not of their mind.

     In September 1, 1939 he sat, "uncertain and afraid/ As the clever hopes expire/ Of a low dishonest decade." He saw blind skyscrapers reaching into the air/ to proclaim the strength of Collective Man. The architects of that time were right and left wing lyricists whose ringing tones brought the world to disaster.

     Why did Plato banish poets from his Republic? Because he distrusted those who presented their ideas emotionally, who convinced through the might of their rhetoric rather than the logic of their words.

     Everyday folks in particular have an appetite for elegant and dramatic speechifying. It impresses them. They are suckers for a William Jennings Bryan and almost made him president. His voice could be heard by 20,000 in the open, and without amplification.

     It is by the voice that people judge the mettle of their leadership. A king who stutters is apt to lose his crown.

     That is Bush's problem. He is inarticulate. He can't speak off the cuff. Even when his speech is well made, his delivery is awkward and harsh. That has induced contempt from so many. An orator sings. Bush can't carry a tune. People want to be lifted up by the melody, they don't want to have to study the libretto.

     Steven Hawkins is not a poet. He is a physicist. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has turned his speech into barely decipherable grunts. Luckily he has the kind of audience that values the contents and not the package. Plato was wise, Nichols is a wise guy.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/14/2005 @ 5:45pm

149. Posted by CPT 12/14/2005 @ 12:44am

     It's an incredible stretch to say in one post that service persons only answer to the UCMJ period and then talk about transfer to a civil authority where they would then answer to civil law.

     One contradicts the other.

     The authority for the UCMJ comes from the Fifth Amendment, its specifics are defined by the congress and its execution is carried out by the executive with congressional and judicial oversight.

     Going back to our international law discussion, given the constitution provisions that make the UCMJ possible, you really have to point out something in the constituion or the UCMJ itself which expressly excludes service persons from the supreme law of the land. All the examples you gave in this post suggest that the UCMJ supports the laws of the United States and when applicable will give over a servicemen to a US or foreign court to answer to civil justice.

     This takes me back to my original point that you are bound by international law when that law becomes US law after a treaty is ratified by the Senate. Frost it with what ever rational you want but the practical reality that I have stated, is accurate.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 6:05pm

150. .

     LEFTOFCENTER 12/14 @ 5:44pm

     OK, so a scientific paper on how to culture B anthracis via aerobic fermetation doesn't convince you that aerobic fermentation exists. There really is no hope for you I fear. . . . Read the paper - what part is not clear?

     It is clear. The problem is, you do not want to understand that that abstract, in talking of growing material under "microaerophilic conditions" is describing anaerobic fermentation! I haven't had time to read the other sections, but I don't have to. You are reaching down merely to throw up dust.

     You held up "microaerophilic conditions" to contradict me, yet the context in which the abstract uses the phrase is precisely a culturing with scant oxygen, i.e., anaerobic fermentation.

     Koropchak is a name I recognize. If you wish, if you'll give me your name, and with your permission, I'll show him your posts and ask him about you.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 12/14/2005 @ 6:19pm

151. WILL C

     I can cite far many more examples when the US told a host nation, NO! As I said, in extreme and rare cases are servicemembers given over to host a nation to be subject ot their laws. It is not a normal or common occurance by any means.

     I also acknowledged that you were right on the international law question in one certain aspect and that you were incorrect in another.

     The practical reality you speak of is true, in one sense, and false in another, why? Because as is often the case; once the treaty goes thru the "staffing process" meaning the treaty or whatever law is tailored specifically to the military function, it often loses alot of its bite.

     I admit its a difficult concept, here is an example:

     According to treaties/convetions, i forget which, that we did sign; certain grades of ammo are not to be used against human targets. Example a 25mm AP (armor piercing) round, from a Bradley (minature tank with a smaller gun, shoots a "bullet" about the 1 pound and the length from your wrist to your elbow) is not to be used against troops in the open. It is supposed to be used against light armored vehicles and trucks. Thats what international law says, now the obvious problem is that enemy fighters carrying an RPG launcher can destroy the vehicle and they can pop up from anywhere.

     So even though Bradley has a 7.62 machine gun that can fire on troops, the 1 1/2 seconds it takes to switch to the machine gun would be too late. So the UCMJ allows us to suppress with whatever is necessary when confronted with this situation. EVEN though international law and the ratified treaty dont allow it. No one is charged with a war crime, because according to army regulations under the UCMJ that is allowed. You see what I mean.

     So again you are right in one sense, but wrong in another

     Posted by CPT at 12/14/2005 @ 6:51pm

152. My plan does not limit free speech...They will not, however, be able to mention a candidate by name or by party.

     HMMMM

     Posted by usc1 at 12/14/2005 @ 6:55pm

153. I guess you missed the Terri Schiavo case when all your ignorant, Right -wing Christian friends thought they knew what was best for her and her family!

     Again we can be certain that even when you try to cherry pick evidense to support you argument you'll pull down some rotten Bullshit!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE 12/14/2005 @ 3:41pm

     NN,

     Somehow I don't find your example of parents asking the government to push the courts to conduct another review of the evidence in the hope of preserving their daughter's life to be as intrusive as my examples. How stupid of me to not condemn Republicans for not telling her parents "too bad, just go away".

     Of course maybe it's because I (and those Republicans) value human life, and your contempt for their efforts speaks to just the opposite. Perhaps I am mistaking your intent?

     So, if my response in your words is BS, I will gladly bear that label.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/14/2005 @ 6:58pm

154. I know you don't like change....I know you think everything new is somehow worse than the existing.

     My plan does not limit free speech. The "interests" can lobby the people directly for their causes via their "issue ads". They will not, however, be able to mention a candidate by name or by party.

     Hmmmmm, lets see elected officials that owe only the electorate for their position of power. Special interests forced to appeal to that same electorate directly rather than through a cash strapped and power hungry "politician". Yes, Mask, those are awful ideas / ideals!

     Posted by COLMES 12/14/2005 @ 4:12pm

     Colmes,

     Please help my confusion! Why would a professed liberal desire to limit free speech? Why would your plan in effect, place all electoral speech under government constraints?

     You accuse Mask of not liking anything new. Simply being new does not necessarily translate into better.

     Frankly, as was briefly noted by Mask, I think it would be a substantial improvement to get rid of the primary process and return to open conventions. I would think that liberals would heartily endorse the concept. It provides a far better opportunity for movements within a political party to mount enough pressure to move their party at a decisive moment.

     I further believe that a good deal of campaiign money would be eliminated and that further defunding could be obtained by pushing the campaign season into a shorter window. You could allow all the speech by corporations, unions, organizations, and individuals that they can pack into the shortened campaign season.

     I just hate to see any attempt to limit speech.

     Posted by love liberty at 12/14/2005 @ 7:18pm

155. NaCl

     Once again only reading the stuff you want to see. I read the entire paper...did you? No. 75% constant saturation with oxygen is far from scant in the culture. The "microaerophilic" refers to the "scant" amount required by this process. Hence not entirely anaerobic. However, again, if you read my post I specifically made a distinction between the metabolic process and the environment it is occurring in. Perhaps you did not see that either?

     As to who I am...I have given enough info about myself - you could find it if you tried. How about some about YOU first?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/14/2005 @ 7:53pm

156. Actually, I brought up the return of the convention system. And I agree with the concept of limiting campaign contributions, but not with the application. The problem is not with the limitation, but with deciding who gets limited. Again, if we can somehow reduce the need for contributions (use the public airwaves that the networks have licenses to use but do not own, for example) then that would decrease the need for huge campaign contributions. And if the campaigns were cheaper, then smaller contributions would be larger in a relative sense. And yet, I doubt that any majority of Senators or Congressmen (of either party) would be willing to give up the purse strings. Frankly, if either party took a stand and put their money where their mouth was and campaigned on serious campaign reform (not the lip service that it gets now and again), that party might actually get a large number of people's attention.

     I can dream, can't I?

     Posted by Turk33 at 12/14/2005 @ 8:06pm

157. CPT

     Yeah that either still does or did apply to the 50 cal. The joke was aim for their web gear.

     Hey I thought it was funny.

     The UCMJ provides an alternative judicial process to the grand jury system that civilians enjoy. That's the only mandate the Fifth Amendment offers. Your argument about the watering down of laws is consistent with any laws which, for political reasons, we don't actually want to enforce. We can argue about that one all day and end up right were we are.

     So once again, I must say that unless you can offer me any passage of the US constitution, any line of the UCMJ or any supreme court president that States or implies that Soldiers are exempt from or that the UCMJ can selectively apply the supreme law of the land as defined in article six, paragraph two then any further debate will take us headfirst into the twilight Zone.

     Posted by Will C. at 12/14/2005 @ 8:22pm