HomePersonalI got nothin’ I got nothin’ Jay Tea November 29, 2006 Personal 26 Comments I’ve been called in to the Day Job unexpectedly on my day off, and nothing really has me in high dudgeon this morning. I might find something to say later, but there’s a distinct chance I’ll be taking the day off. J. He Might as well Have Said that All Things Good are Dead Waking Up in the Twilight Zone Related Posts A Moment Of Silence… Another reason I’m not an auto mechanic Adelphia Sucks, Part 1598… About The Author Jay Tea 26 Comments bobdog November 29, 2006 It’s all Bush’s fault! Mac Lorry November 29, 2006 Thanks Jay. I think we’ll take this as an invitation for an open forum. Let me see, what would be an interesting topic? How about significantly slower than normal drivers. Who are these people and why do they drive this way? There I am in rush hour traffic coming up to a traffic light connecting the side street I’m on to a 4 lane street. The green light for the side street is really short, but the car ahead of me is doing 17 in a 30 MPH zone as it approaches the light. Of course, the light turned red just before we got to the intersection, but we would have made it easily had the driver added a little speed as we approached. Why do people drive like that? Are they incompetent drivers, distracted by a cell phone, or just going slow on purpose to have some sense of control in their lives? TX Hill Country Girl November 29, 2006 How about the NY Times printing another leaked classified document? There has to be a law being broken somewhere here…like maybe treason! Mac Lorry November 29, 2006 A Study Finds that a Single Impact Killed the Dinosaurs. Not that I care about what clobbered the dinosaurs that much, but about future impacts and what I see as intellectual pride that may kill us all. I’ve seen many cable TV programs on the subject and there’s always a bunch if scientist saying the obvious solution of using a nuclear weapon won’t work for one of two reasons. One, the effect wouldn’t be enough to divert the object or two, the object would shatter and we would be hit by zillions of pieces. Sometimes I want to yell at the TV that “use more then one warhead stupid”. The Earth is a moving target, so any change in the speed or direction of an object that’s currently on course to impact the Earth will result in a miss. My plan would be to hit the object with the largest thermonuclear warhead we could cobble together in the given time. Detonating it on the leading side of the object would either shatter the object or slow the object down a bit by violently expelling material from the detonation site. Because the Earth is moving, it unlikely much of the expelled material would be on course to impact the Earth. If the object shattered, a second warhead would be detonated in the debris cloud, which would cause the debris to disperse. We would launch a bunch of warheads at nearly the same time and make course corrections so that a third or forth treatment could be applied as needed. It’s not like we have a shortage of thermonuclear weapons. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 “How about the NY Times printing another leaked classified document? “ Nice of you to bring it up. I direct you to the post on NRO: “If the leak was an “intentional” act of the administration, which is entirely possible, it means that the administration is preparing to bail on Maliki…. If the leak was not “intentional”–which I suspect is what happened–it is evidence that the administration is falling apart,..” So what is the point of Bush’s Arab summit? He has already stated that he wont pull US troops, that the problem in Iraq is due to al Quada, there is no civil war, and he wont negotiate with Iran or Syria. Do you really think that leaking that memo will make the government, in Iraq, more stable? Bush has already distributed the meeting note before the meeting began. Logan November 29, 2006 I’m not worried about an asteroid destroying the Earth. Al Gore says we’ll do that instead. Hey, wait a minute. . . did anyone tell Al about this? He’ll be PISSED. Do you know what kind of damage an asteroid would do to the environment??? We need a research study to find out how to preserve the ecosystem after impact! Mac Lorry November 29, 2006 So here’s a question to think about. Lets say we find a killer asteroid on a collision course with Earth and that with the proper application of multiple thermonuclear weapons NASA is able to divert the killer. Can we then claim that without the U.S. invention of thermonuclear weapons and our space program that the Earth as we know it would be destroyed, and thus, most life on earth owes it’s survival to the U.S? Can we then say to the environmentalists that without the polluting military industrial complex there would be no environment to protect? Can we then say to the PETA folks that without the historical exploitation animals there would be no animals to protect? Can we then say to native Americans that without the rise of the U.S. that resulted in their demise that they would all be dead? Can we then say to the rest of the world that they owe us their very lives? jhow66 November 29, 2006 In case anyone forgot B’G’2000 belongs to the “club” also. Falze November 29, 2006 Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on launching Algore at any incoming asteroids? Sure, it might be tough getting him airborne and hot air ballooning may be unfeasible outside our atmosphere, but I’m sure some pretty pictures of rutting caribou and selectively chosen facts would convince the terrorist meteor that the earth is simply too precious to destroy, or, if it did need to be destroyed, neocons would take care of it handsomely without the help of rogue planetoids. How about Hillary Clinton? Supposedly she’s an unstoppable force. The press would loudly trumpet the immediate launch of Hillary Clinton on a collision course with any asteroids. Solar power? Wind power? Can we harness these mighty forces of nature to do what nuclear power cannot? Giant wind turbines mounted in the Senate chambers blow the screaming projectile off into space. We could send Jimmy Carter up to negotiate. He’d rocket back, claiming successful negotiations to the trumpeting cries of victory from the Democrats. They could keep on partying right up until impact when, for the briefest of seconds, each of them finally realized the truth that some things cannot be solved through negotiations or higher taxes. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 What “club” ? BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 It looks like I was on to something when earlier this week when I recommended a full US pull-out of Iraq. My hunch was that if e pulled-out, the Syrians or Saudis rush in to finance the Sunnis, and Iran would finance the Shiites. Here is what was in the WaPo today: “Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support.” See you righties have to trust my judgment. mesablue November 29, 2006 See you righties have to trust my judgment. No thanks, I love my country too much to see it turn into this: 751 No-Go Zones of France “They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.” “What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.” Heralder November 29, 2006 Barney: It looks like I was on to something when earlier this week when I recommended a full US pull-out of Iraq. My hunch was that if e pulled-out, the Syrians or Saudis rush in to finance the Sunnis, and Iran would finance the Shiites. Here is what was in the WaPo today: Your hunch may have been correct, but that is completely aside from your lack of morality. How exactly would a full scale civil war, financed by other middleastern states, and the possible overthrow of the Iraqi government benefit the Iraqi people? It does, however, reinforce my belief that many who espouse this withdrawal do so for entirely selfish and misguided reasons. Mac Lorry November 29, 2006 Heralder, You make a good point. To avoid genocide as the U.S. cuts and runs, we should first restore Saddam to power. To make up for destroying his army we could just leave our military equipment behind. It’s not like our gutless nation has a use for it. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 Heralder, personally I could give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people, and the ME in general. If after 5,000 years you can’t find a way to live with your neighbors, than go F-yourself. Now back to my point. If we bug-out to Kurdistan, we can build all the bases we want (right next to Iran) and have a direct reliable supply of oil from people that actually like us. If Iran is busy fighting a proxy war in Iraq, they may be too busy to cause problems for the US such as building nukes. The same would go with Syria. A prolong civil war that goes badly could lead to regime change in Iran and Syria and Saudi Arbia. finally, the US could broker a peace accord from strength that would include peace with Israel. mesablue November 29, 2006 Barney, Are you four years old? What kind of pie in the sky world do you live in that would make you come up with that kind of crap? Amazing. We can’t help out the Iraqi’s, but we can sit back and watch them destroy each other and then when it’s all over we dance around with little flowers in our hair and everyone in the world loves us and we’re all happy ever after? It’s hard to keep up with all of the cazy tangents that the “club” condones. Heralder November 29, 2006 Barney: Heralder, personally I could give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people, and the ME in general. If after 5,000 years you can’t find a way to live with your neighbors, than go F-yourself. It’s not that simple. Speaking of Iraq specifically. If we can’t stand up for the people in Iraq who have counted on us (and they are there, even if the media is very careful to not let you hear it), if we can’t follow through when things are difficult, if we can’t give an honest effort to help others (especially those that have been thrown into turmoil by our efforts to do so), then we do not deserve to have the power and influence we have. We should not become what people have accused us of being. There isn’t a way to be an isolationist world power. Certainly we could do with less involvement in some parts of the world and more in others, but just letting innocent people die because you can’t be bothered is pretty vile. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 mesablue, what “club” do you belong to? If it wasn’t for oil, do you think that America would care if a regional civil war erupted in the Middle East? Look at Africa. That hell-hole of a Continent can’t go one week without a new civil war breaking out somewhere, and I don’t see any grand neo-con plan to bring democracy to Africa. And don’t even bring up Israel, because we would sell their asses out in a second if all the oil dried up. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 Heralder, is this kind of support you are talking about: AMMAN, Jordan – President Bush’s high-stakes summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was put off Wednesday after public disclosure of U.S. doubts about his capacity to control sectarian warfare. Another brilliant diplomatic move by the white house. Bush might as well get back on Air force-1 and come home (quack quack). Heralder November 29, 2006 Barney, Heralder, is this kind of support you are talking about: Doubts about Maliki’s ability to control the violence we’ve been seeing are not only well founded, but a good sign. We want the place to not implode whenever we leave, and the fact that we’re willing to express this criticism to Maliki is good because it shows we care about the ongoing state of the country, not just getting the job done as quickly and as possible so we can run away…consequences be damned. Incidentally, in my post I mentioned supporting the people, and if the Iraqi government is doing a poor job of it we have every right to want better…it’s not just Iraqi blood being shed there. woody November 29, 2006 I think slow drivers suck, too. I mean, why did Allah give us a gas pedal if we’re not supposed to use it? Or is this now off-topic? Henry November 29, 2006 Barney.. For one, if it were entirely about oil, we would have sold Israel’s ass in a heartbeat when the Jews first wanted a homeland post WWII. Your answer is quite misguided. By the way Barney2000, ever heard of Djibouti? A tiny ex-French colony between Somalia and Ethiopia, and the US has a Navy base there (It’s right at the horn of Africa, situated right next to the Gulf of Aden, I’ve been there…to the base, too). Operation Enduring Freedom continues in areas like Djibouti, where the US Military is helping to build schools, hospitals and building the infrastructure (and keeping a presence there in hopes of keeping the Ethiopa-Somalia conflict out of Djibouti, as well as assisting in supplying the Armed forces in the near region). You apparently DON’T KNOW ANYTHING. And of course if it weren’t for oil we wouldn’t be there. That’s self-evident. However because such a large portion of the world’s petroleum is supplied from there, we have to be (considering the vast amount of energy we consume, AND YOU CONSUME ON YOUR BLOOD-SUCKING COMPUTER THERE). Please get a clue, and it’s NOT Ms. White with the candlestick in the library. Heralder November 29, 2006 lol! That was great woody. Officially, there is no topic 🙂 Falze November 29, 2006 Why did Allah give (some of us) gas pedals? Why so we have something to stomp when we approach a barrier and armed, uniformed men indicating that we should stop, of course, even after they begin firing into our engine. BarneyG2000 November 29, 2006 Henry, Operation Enduring Freedom’s goal is to fight terrorism, and not stop or prevent civil wars in Africa. We are protecting our assets, not Africa’s. As far as the UN partitioned homeland for the Jews, it has no relationship with when Standard Oil began developing oil fields in Arabia. The difference between Africa and the Middle East is Oil. When civil war breaks out in Africa, the UN passes a resolution and nothing happens. When the flow of oil is interrupted in the Middle East, we go to war. Mac Lorry November 29, 2006 When the flow of oil is interrupted in the Middle East, we go to war. Well you are right about oil usually being the trigger for U.S. interest in other nations. Next to social security, nothing gets people out to vote in greater numbers than a threat to the availability or price of gas. I think this had something to do with the GOP taking a beating on 11/7/06. Now that democrats are in control of congress they can’t hide behind the GOP on energy issues. Lets see what they do to increase energy supplies. What’s the chance they’ll propose something that actually might work like more drilling or nuclear power?