[Dan Halberstein]

Come on guys, let's get a real fight going here--not change the subject everytime somebody scores a hit.

What did you score a hit of, Dick? My apologies if the question is clever, which you have set over against being right, as if they were polar opposites.

I like the notion of not changing subjects. You believe, then, that it is good professional discipline for American military personnel to take it upon themselves to urinate on the religious symbol not only of the enemy, but of a couple million Americans?

Or are you saying that it good military policy to urinate on that symbol, not something the individual soldiers elected to do?

I do understand the logic, if the object of the military is to continuously replenish the ranks from which these enemies spring. After all, you see the worldwide reaction. We can't very well scratch our heads and wonder where all the anti-Americanism is coming from, if we don't create a few more anti-Americans now and then by blatant acts such as these. Some of those guys just don't have a problem with less provocative (though more substantial) slights. It's like a wake-up call.

If, however, the object of the military is to fight and win the war at hand, these acts - the recent gitmo revelation, and the Abu Ghraib disgraces - are counterproductive. What do you think this does for the legitimacy of the elected Iraqi government (our allies?) How about the insurgents (our enemies - though since we are making recruiting posters for them through actions such as these, you could hardly tell)?

I work daily with career military guys, Dick. They are disgusted by these displays. Not disgusted-for-the-press-but-really-kinda-psyched disgusted, disgusted-in-real-life-conversation-over-a-cigarette disgusted. They wince and stuff when they talk about it.

Have they seen greater obscenities? Of course. So have I. What makes them wince is not that this is the worst our military can do - far from it. It's the whittling away of a code of conduct they had legitimate pride in, a code that says "I don't care what your sick-ass creed tells you to do, Americans don't do that."

I'm sure during the recent Iraq war Qu'rans were spattered with bodily fluids by munitions of all sides. But this is collateral to the actual destruction the munitions were intended to cause. To piss on the holy book of a religion is to say "we fight you because you are Moslem."

Please tell me again why bigotry is good. My fuzzy leftist brain has forgotten already.

Oh, and one for Kevin - you do know Lo is speaking of George Santayana, not Carlos, right?

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited June 07, 2005).]

[Alexander Grace]

Excellent post, Dan. Thanks for it.

[Katy Evans-Bush]

LOL

Kevin, you;ve just confirmed Lo's remark!

KEB

[Lo]

Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Lo,

similarly I'm not going to demand that folk born after it freak out about something that for them is simply old history.

Besides which, even if there was a Kennedy conspiracy, assuming I live to a reasonable age, sometime in my lifetime everyone involved will be dead and so the question will be as relevant theories about John Wilkes Booth.

That's the thing, Kevin...."old" IS "history" and it does tend to repeat itself unless you take steps to prevent it from reoccurring....especially if everyone who knows the truth is dead.

The truth is never irrelevant. It's important to know the truth....not the theory, but the truths behind the theories. What matters is not the death of Lincoln or even the death of Kennedy, what matters is the fact that our government may have conspired to rewrite the how's,and maybe the who's,which would change the why's and thereby, change the histories as well. If a conspiracy theory is true, and I am not saying it is or it isnt because I dont know, think of how that little ripple effects everything that has happened since then......yea, i say unto you - even until your own birth-time.

It's not just obsession with a past incident which drives people to search and to question...it's a desire and a need to know the truth.

Lo



[This message has been edited by Lo (edited June 07, 2005).]

[Dick Morgan]

Thank you again, Lo.

Mr. Todd, I didn't have enough time to do the research your comments about creating an industry of embryonic stem cells for research purpose deserved. I think eventually there will be one. The president's "research into stem cells" is all smoke and mirrors. He originally said there was 60 cell lines--then that has shrunk to 22--now, scientist who work in the field, say the 22 cell lines are so contaminated with mouse DNA they are virtually useless, You seem to operate on the premise that human life at any stage is should be regarded as "sacred". Where on this war ridden, murderous planet do you find it is "sacred" What about the entire DNA we share in common with Chimps--is that sacred too?

What about adult stem cells? The number of cell divisions is already fixed in the telemeres attached to the end of each gene. (Dolly the sheep syndrome)

This country cannot survive if it does not stay ahead of other countries technologically. IBM has sold its PC line to China and all the technology that goes with it. China is not threatened by any of its neighbors but it is arming faster than we are according to money spent relative to GDP. Mac computers has broken off with IBM—perhaps because they don’t want to give away their technology to the biggest tech pirates in the world.

We can all sit around and navel gaze over this stem cell research for the “highest moral principals”—but the rest of the world won’t. You want a cure for cancer--don't go to Sloan Kettering--go to Korea--they'll be happy to take your money.

Dan, why do you oppose the notion that we should all play by the same rules and measure things using the same yardsticks? Add up the number of times you’ve hammered the U.S. about our treatment of terrorists in our prisons and compare it with the number of times you hammered the terrorists about beheading Alan Berg on TV. Same number? I doubt it.

By the way, it was Clinton's administration that came up with the idea of flying prisoners to foreign countries for "More Thorough Interrogation." I don’t know where you get your authority to speak for our armed forces. I can speak only for myself. Three times in my life I was faced with a “shoot-don’t shoot” situation where I was an undesignated back-up for a partner. Fortunately I didn’t have to but I can tell you it will concentrate your thinking—or in your case, maybe not.

Dick

[Lo]

Yikes...double post...dont ask me how....all I was doing was "editing" and somehow a whole new space waa created...this was it...now it isnt.

It's a conspiracy, isnt it?

Lo

[This message has been edited by Lo (edited June 07, 2005).]

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Lo:
It's not just obsession with a past incident which drives people to search and to question...it's a desire and a need to know the truth.

Have you ever considered that people are sometimes in search of OTHER truths and there are only so many hours in a day?

There's a cartoon I once saw about twenty years ago with two college students sitting in front of the tv with one saying to the other "Do you remember where you were when you saw your first Kennedy assassination documentary?"

There are a lot of things which are the defining moment of a generation, but I think very often the quest for truth gets overshadowed by narcisism. Your bag and hobby horse do not have to be my bag and hobby horse.

Besides which, those who remember history may still be doomed to repeat it too, cf. the recent "Freedom Fries" nonsense. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like "Liberty Cabbage"?

[Fred Longworth]

Dick,

The usual explanation I've heard is that his head snapped forward while it was behind the sign and then backward immediately after that -- at the same time that it reappeared in view.

One reason why the head would do the forward then backward thing is that the head is mounted on a shaft (neck) and hinge (where spine dips between shoulders.) There is a mechanical tendency of things so mounted to swivel violently to their forward extreme of motion and then snap back.

Fred

[Dan Halberstein]

Come on guys, let's get a real fight going here--not change the subject everytime somebody scores a hit

Dick, you really must mind what you say, when it is so likely to directly implicate you.

You have not answered the question, although, as I understand it, you have gotten quite exercised over the notion that I personally speak for the armed forces (something I never claimed, although I did explain the attitude of acquaintances in the armed forces over these disgraces.)

You've also confused my disgust at my military's behaviour - and make no mistake, the military is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, in a democracy - with the attitude of some phantom opponent who believes that the excesses of others must be weighed in order to determine one's own adherence to his own code of conduct.

This is also an error on your part. If you encounter the opponent you are seeking, have that argument with him.

I want to stick the the subject you changed over from, on your flight from the question: Are you or are you not in support of urinating on holy books which serve as the predominant religious symbol of an enemy, notwithstanding that the book in question is also holy to many of your fellow citizens?

If so, is it best undertaken as an individual soldier's perogative, or should it be top-down, United States policy to urinate on holy books?

I will await your answer. In the meantime, let me clear up some more of your misconceptions. You got responses earlier to your specious argument against those who feel the urination issue had been weighed and judged to be worse than the actions of a suicide bomber. Others challenged you on it - since nobody seems to know anyone who makes the argument you claim to refute. Your response: "don't you watch the news?" - presumably, you have missed the point. They are not challenging that either the urination or the bombing happened; they are challenging that anybody makes the argument you purport to refute. Coincidentally, your refutation of the wrong argument sealed your fate regarding the right one. Since both events have garnered recent media attention, it is difficult to argue that the suicide bombing has been ignored in favor of the desecration. Rather, as is fitting, both have been treated as newsworthy.

Now don't forget that answer to the real question, Dick. For or against? As policy or individual soldier's perogative?

Let's skip the ad-homs and the lib-baiting. I don't care about who is president for this answer. I don't care about the parties. I don't care about whether you like Fox or CNN. I don't care about what you think I believe. I care about taking this one point at a time, to guard against the subject-changing you so recently lamented.

So, just answer the question.

Regards,

Dan


[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited June 07, 2005).]

[Dick Morgan]

Dan, please forgive me for being so lame brained--but what was the original question you are refering to?

Dick