steve -

First off, I LOVE the MGA (esp. the twin-cam) and you do not want to get john cramer going on those cars. He's fanatical, and I'm frankly surprised he doesn't currently own one.

I have no idea what a "real born again [C]hristian" would say about any specific political things; I really don't. So I'm not equipped to judge W pro or con on how well he fits into some definitional box. And, frankly, it's a box whose parameters really don't matter so much to me. But so what.

What I will say is that this country, from its inception, has been guided by men who are guided by God. We, as a country, have not been ashamed to declare our nation as one, "under God" or in God's trust. When we've undertaken great things we've claimed to do so as a result of divine providence and provenance, and for the glory of God and the favors He's bestowed upon us. God permeated this country and its politicians for centuries ... and then it became uncool; unreconstructed; even primitive.

Now I am a cynic. No, no... it's true. I haven't been to "church" in years (though I was in a church twice last year for weddings and escaped un-divinely-scathed). I think a lot of the pro-God rhetoric is self-serving. Is the Rev. Jesse Jackson a Man of God in any sense of a God with whom you want to be associated? What about Rev. Al Sharpton? Etc. But we do have a very strong American history of what we've considered to be most-favored-nation status with the Big G; and our success and wealth point to (to many) the divine blessing on liberty, democracy and freedom.

I can't fault W for taking counsel with God -- not to the exclusion of other counsel, mind you. Would you want your Commander-in-Chief, committing the blood and treasure of the US to an effort such as Iraq without even a thought as to prayer; or the reflection that occurs when you look to a higher power? (Now you can say "I'd rather not have the US get into Iraq in the first place" which dodges, rather than answers, the question).

Not being a Californian, it's "easy" for me to pontificate on its problems... but wouldn't it help raise the $ per student ratio to allow only US citizens into taxpayer-funded schools? I was never very good at algebra, having gone to a public school and all, but I'm pretty sure it would. But that's just me being a cold, heartless Conservative -- thinking that only people that pay for the services (through taxes) should burden the system with their receipt of such services. Obviously I'm no born-again with thatattitude. :D

JP

Is this our legacy of compassion?

http://www.caduceus.info/articles/denver.htm
It also affects US personnel. Wives of Iraqi Gulf War I veterans are three times more likely to suffer miscarriages than the average.

You have no measure of this problem do you Overpaid Slacker?

Warning, this link may contain strong graphics;

http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/anderkel.html


http://www.phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong20.html
http://www.nukewatch.com/du/20030530arbuthnot.html

Yep, pretty obscene. We're certainly making lots of friends under Dubya's leadership. I'm sure they just love us right now over there, and when things settle down and their free society starts to uncover the rest of the story, we'll be thanked in some very special ways, I think.

This is a little scattered ... I'm trying to get the F out of the office, but I'll get back to it if need be.

As far as "measure", no. I don't. However, not having any "measure" of this, allow me a few rhetorical questions that occur to me whenever I read anything of that type:

(1) birth defects increased 2-6 times. OK, what were they before? And over what period? As you know, an "average" doesn't mean that any given year will be "average." If you pick a baseline year of X and that year is very very low, then subsequent years will appear to be much, much higher -- even though they're close to the mean.

(2) having increased 2-6 times, how do they now compare with "normal" rates for other countries? Are they still lower?

(3) 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia. Now, first of all, I'm skeptical about any range such as "3-12 times"; and you should be too. But, use my earlier questions about 2-6 times here as well.

(4) 500 children a day are dying.... let's take that one apart.
(a) The Lancet published this study in 1998, before the Iraq war, so it must have been the results of the (i) Gulf War or (ii) some other post Gulf War, pre-Iraq war agent (more on that under 6 below).
(b) How does 500 children a day match up with other areas? And I'm not even buying that the 500 number is correct.
(c) How many of those 500 children (again, not stipulating that's even true) are dying from depleted uranium. Honestly, this is not meant to be snide, but I don't know if you know how "harmful" depleted uranium is. I've been around it; not a big deal to anyone who's been around it. I wouldn't make my box spring out of it, but I probably could w/o a lot of fear. There was a huge scare a decade or so ago about DU weapons, mostly because people hear "uranium" and freak out. Like Silent Scream and DDT; don't even get me started on that crapola!!!

Simply, I don't buy the DU story -- but I acknowledge that it is very conveeeeenient for people with axes to grind. Believe it if you'd like. However, consider this -- what is the possible geographical density of DU munitions expended in Iraq in the Gulf War? Given that most of the combat in the Gulf War was not in Iraq but Kuwait. C'mon, Kach -- according to your "sources" even among workers at the DU site, where it's presumably the most densely packed in the world, the scare-freaks couldn't muster the numbers they want you to believe resulted from DU in Iraq.

(5) None of this tells me if these statistics are deliberately or "accidentally" sampled from areas in Iraq where Hussein was poisoning, gassing and otherwise killing his own people. Again, as you know, statistics -- even twisted statistics -- are not a matter of surveying every single possible person, but extrapolating from certain data sets to get to the "bigger picture". So, for example, if the data behind these statistics were heavily sampled in regions where SH gassed and poisoned (Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Shi'a, you name it) then these very effects -- if true, which I'm not stipulating -- could be the direct result of SH's actions himself. Whether it's DU or some other agent "causing" all of this alleged cancer is simply not knowable; that's all there is to it.

(6) Outside the numbers for a moment -- wouldn't these people have been better off if, rather than diverting Oil-for-Food proceeds to weapons and palaces, the money was used to take care of children; including preventative and pre-natal care? Hmmmm... do you have a measure of what $110 billion would do for health care in a nation of 26 million? To help with the measuring, that's $110,000,000,000.00 -- syphoned off, with the complicity of the compassionate UN, that not only could've but was supposed to go to public health in Iraq. Who robbed these Iraqis of their money? Saddam and the perennially compassionate UN. Yeah, sucks, doesn't it?

Kach, this is most likely anti-sanction and anti-US propaganda. You can find a MSF Doctor with an agenda longer than my arm that will make up whatever "statistics" he needs to (whether he reports them directly to a paper or indirectly, through someone such as Lancet). To blame the sanctions ("from these sequels to war and sanctions..."), when Hussein and the UN were stealing as much as One Hundred and Ten Million Dollars -- again One Hundred Thousand Million Dollars -- from Iraqis is high farce and only transpares the bias behind these, what I will call loosely and use the word strictly without prejudice, statistics.

Blah blah blah... anyway. Even IF we stipulate that there is merit to this DU crap, it is a conclusion of vastly cynical and bias-revealing proportions to conclude that it's the Republicans' fault these things happened. My recollection is the Democrats approved weapons systems, approved the use of force, and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republicans (except for maybe Kerry) during the Gulf War. But all the bad things are the Republicans' fault -- because they're not compassionate.

You're expecting zero political credibility from this point forward, right?

JP

EDIT -- one last thing. one of the sites you linked to quotes Brent Scowcroft. Are you kidding me? Do you know who this guy is? I wish I had the time right now to go through it -- but quoting BS at the top of your page is not the way to be taken seriously, IMHO.

"allow only US citizens into taxpayer-funded schools" yes, but in california the taxes for schools come primarily from property ownership and then from income taxes, neither requires US citizenship. So a non US citizen on a visa working for Intel and living in a nice house still pays taxes to support the schools.

"thinking that only people that pay for the services (through taxes) should burden the system with their receipt of such services."

Well I see two paths from that
1) you should need to pay taxes only for the services you need, or 2) I need to support those who can't pay for the betterment of society as a whole.

That's kind of the dilemna we are always having in this country. I tend to open my wallet with the belief it will make life better for my children because society will be better. Others may close the wallet to ensure their children or themselves are better off.

It is the basic question of why should people without children should have to support public schools.

On George W, I have no doubt he prays to God, my doubt is that he listens.

I believe that George Patton prayed fervently, but I am not sure that his successes were God's handiwork either.

I am not sure that God permeated this country and its politicians. I know religion has. And one can find just about any form of religion under the christian banner to promulgate almost any belief. Hey, my mom belonged to a church that banned root beer. My nephew is a minister in church that forbids dancing and alcohol. In college, I was in a church that taught that the Catholic church was part of the anti-christ. Now, I go to Catholic mass every Sunday, done so for the last 28 years.

I almost joined the submarine force out of college, but got my lung collapsed playing football and got a 4F deferment. Now I work on rocket motors that go into subs.

Boy, with this background it's a wonder I can think at all.



Now don't jump on that.

Go get 'em, Steve. You're certainly welcome here from my perspective, but be prepared for some ad hominem attacks.

No doubt, you raise a smorgasbord of interesting issues with the who-pays-for-services versus who-gets-services issue. And a potential incendiary one as well. As I suspect you know, there is a fair amount of greed and "that's my ball and you can't play with it" notions permeating not just politics but it's getting into American Values disguised as a good thing. You know, the "the best thing for those wretched people is to withdraw our financial support so they will learn to stand on their own two feet" crap.

So yeah, schools are generally paid for through property taxes. Lots of property owners don't have kids. Older people don't have kids who need a primary education. so, let's let the young couples of the nation foot the bill for schools. Anybody see a problem with that?

Okay, I'll stop. I could get fairly wound up about this, because it is a caricature of the myopic, short-term, greedy thinking that is all the rage these days. All these justifications for turning our back on stuff that might be inconvenient for our wallets are disgusting to me. In order to keep talking nice on this BBS, I have to assume the Klingons here are honestly bamboozled. That they actually believe that stingyness is a good thing....somehow. Fact is, it seems incredibly obvious to me what someone once said (not sure who).....that a society is judged not on how its wealthiest do, but rather on how it takes care of the poor souls at the other end of the socio-economic scale.

And you can turn your back on them all you like, and you can probably justify that to yourself, but I am not the slightest bit fooled. And neither is God.

Spontaneous pneumothorax. You too, eh? I can definitely put "tube thoroscopy" under the Not Fun category in the file cabinet of my life...

actually happened twice, the second time I got the tube, it was on my 21st birthday and I got to sign for the medical release myself. I didn't drink that day, but the doctor said I could smoke and watch the smoke come out the tube if I wanted. I said not today, doc.

I don't have the time to get into this properly today - people want drawings from me for some strange reason.

1. Every couple of years 60-Minutes (the TV program) gives this topic some good coverage......................I recommend everyone watches it next time. The last time they gave both sides of the story, nobody wanted even one micro particle of DU lodged in their lungs- go figure.

2. DU dust airborn by battle fires is swept into the wind (to Iraq - Gulf war), dust storms also throw this stuff up into the Trade Winds and it travels all over the planet (your backyard).

3. There is propaganda out there, and a great deal of ignorance to - not an easy chore seperating out the two. Give it time the truth shall be known - it may fall in the middle of where we argue today.......or one of us could be right.

Here is just another info link:
http://www.miltoxproj.org/depleted_uranium.htm

NOTE: One of the training grounds in the US has contaimated wildlife (deer) nearby from DU - good hunting boys. :eek:



Here is more info links:

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/nuclear/3_2.htm

http://www.grecoreport.com/washington's_depleted_uranium_'dirty_bombs'.htm

OK, Kach... I'll stipulate that you're making your argument in good faith; and if it's true, I regret that innocents (and I'm not putting that word in quotes) get hurt. I just don't buy the magnitude of it.

At the end of the day, I don't get how this point makes Republicans -- and ONLY Republicans -- evil or uncompassionate. Rather than try to pretend to be an expert on this matter, I'm just going to continue to be skeptical about it, and let the first sentence of this paragraph say what I believe is the heart of the matter, rather than being drawn off into the capillaries.

Steve -
Good point, and I was oversimplifying about taxes. Whether it's "only US citizens" or "only US taxpayers" does make a difference and I conflated the two. Go with the latter at this point.

As for the constant keening and self-righteous chest-beating about how awfully we treat the poor in the US; let me ask you -- where would you rather be poor?* Here or just about anywhere else? I'll bet a dollar that every immigrant (legal or otherwise) would likely answer "Here". But they haven't yet been brainwashed by some Liberal Guilt or tried yet to pick up some patchouli-soaked bimbo by blaming America First, Last Always, and Ever.

* Hey, we might not be the "best" country in which to be poor, but I'd hardly consider that a distinction. Yeah -- here, we'll sap the will to succeed right out of you and expect nothing from you!! Woo-HOO! How uplifting to the human spirit!!!

Now, Homelessness as a discreet topic requires a lot different analysis, for another time. Though nobody's asking me to draw pictures for them today (wtf?) I gotta earn my salt.

JP

1. I did a little math on the 500 kids a day............isn't that like 1.8 million over ten years? There is a problem, the size of which can not be verified without study................saying there is a not a problem will never solve the problem - it will only be a denial of it's existance.

2. The simple fact that Bush-1's Gulf war does not make the republican party accountible for DU's- true. However, blocking findings so they are not made public, and going against internationl banning of DU's has been an active republican pursuit in the republican controlled House and Senate for sometime now. Don't get me started on the Whitehouse............nobody's home.

OK, fine, kach... you're a single-issue sort of guy. If DU alone is enough to make you believe that Republicans are evil, I won't even attempt to talk you out of it. I will, however, humbly suggest that there must be even one issue that the Democrats are on the wrong side of. Other than History, I mean.

For me, the constant appeasement of murderers and their regimes (the Soviets, Cuba/Castro, Palestine/Arafat, etc.), and enablers (the UN) by Democrats (and especially Clinton) would disqualify them for any moral high ground or "compassion" awards.

But -- compassion is the marketing package -- the Trade Dress -- they use to sell their arguments to you. And, well if THEY'VE got the monopoly on compassion -- which they tell you they do -- then the Republicans must be heartless. That's all that's left, right? There's only "compassionate" and "heartless." And if you're not one, you're the other. And since Only Democrats Can Be Compassionate, and Democrats and Republicans are Polar Opposites ... well, you've done the math.

If you stop taking the moral superiority/compassion of the Democrats for granted and look more at empirical merits of their arguments, you'll see similar agendas to the Republicans'. They just sweeten their crap so it's easier to swallow; and you can "feel" better about swallowing it.

Crap, I feel (no quotes, note) bad about people being hurt by DU, even if it's just a couple of them.

JP