---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.

Seeing as they were "released" by British and American soldiers with guns who would have happily unleashed death upon their captors, shouldn't they have remained consistent with their ideals and turned down their rescuers?

"No, thanks, you have guns. We'll just stay right here and pray to Jeebus."

At least then they would have been consistent and stood behind their beliefs.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Do the Bush Bash!

---

Account frozen...

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.

Seeing as they were "released" by British and American soldiers with guns who would have happily unleashed death upon their captors, shouldn't they have remained consistent with their ideals and turned down their rescuers?

"No, thanks, you have guns. We'll just stay right here and pray to Jeebus."

At least then they would have been consistent and stood behind their beliefs.

Rush,

Let me see if I understand, you are expecting people who believe in myths and superstition, to be rational. Man you crack me up.

---

Rush,

Let me see if I understand, you are expecting people who believe in myths and superstition, to be rational. Man you crack me up.

"Rational" behavior is debatable depending on one's experience with the subject in question, pre-existing biases, etc., etc., and it is hard to expect one person to be always "rational" by someone else's standard without force. However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a fervent believer in something to be consistent about that something.

"Violence is always wrong" seems to be the jist of the group's core message. If they believe this, Rush opines, then they should have insisted that the armed and violent rescuers leave them alone. (The practical result would have been snipers picking off captors as they returned to the house, but that's beside the point.) If the group wants to "innocently benefit from someone else's wrongdoing" then they should at least acknowledge it. The statement from the activists gave the impression that the terrorists (who are not blamed for anything in the entire statement) set the captives free. Even the activist who was brutally murdered is describes as having been found dead on March 9... as if he'd died of heart attack while on his way to work that morning.

The statement demonstrates two things. One, this group is bereft of integrity or gratitude. Two, they really should be hired as Democractic Party spin doctors.
(edit for spelling)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Rush,

Let me see if I understand, you are expecting people who believe in myths and superstition, to be rational. Man you crack me up.

"Rational" behavior is debatable depending on one's experience with the subject in question, pre-existing biases, etc., etc., and it is hard to expect one person to be always "rational" by someone else's standard without force. However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a fervent believer in something to be consistent about that something.

"Violence is always wrong" seems to be the jist of the group's core message. If they believe this, Rush opines, then they should have insisted that the armed and violent rescuers leave them alone. (The practical result would have been snipers picking off captors as they returned to the house, but that's beside the point.) If the group wants to "innocently benefit from someone else's wrongdoing" then they should at least acknowledge it. The statement from the activists gave the impression that the terrorists (who are not blamed for anything in the entire statement) set the captives free. Even the activist who was brutally murdered is describes as having been found dead on March 9... as if he'd died of heart attack while on his way to work that morning.

The statement demonstrates two things. One, this group is bereft of integrity or gratitude. Two, they really should be hired as Democractic Party spin doctors.
(edit for spelling)

Octagon,

Of course you are correct, but I was just being funny, sometimes humor is hard to get across in written form.

---

Octagon,

Of course you are correct, but I was just being funny, sometimes humor is hard to get across in written form.

Looking back over my post it does look kinda harsh, but it wasn't directed at you... it's just that the incredible level of hypocrisy which comes standard issue on the Far Left gets to me sometimes.

I wouldn't expect the activists to actually reject their rescue, and I could even live with a press release saying something to the effect that "the soldiers bravely rescued our team members, but the whole thing wouldn't have been necessary if Bush hadn't invaded...", but the carefully-crafted misrepresentations in their statement should irrevocably destroy any credibility that group ever had.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Stay tuned for the latest in the Bush administrations use of a company for nuclear cargo screening which has relations to the Red Chinese government. Will wonders never cease.

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

It's also eerie how life sometimes imitates art, if anyone saw The Unit last week...

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld need to read this paper for some advice on counterinsurgency operations.

---

To visit the BOINC Synergy Team site, click my stat image!

---

Account frozen...

That about sums it up!

---

Not to necessarily refer to the above cartoons and commentatires...

It's interesting and hopeful how people of different persuasions and backgrounds can agree and disagree on topics so widely accepted as different. However many of them I consider to be linked epistemologically...

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

It implies something fundamental about our bases of knowledge....and the difference is ethical and/or some element of which is operative in different postive/negative metaphysical directions here. And by 'metaphysical' I mean solely that which is in basic understanding of reality not supernatural attributes that some people practice...

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

---

Account frozen...

Making promises society can't keep

ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
NEWSWEEK

March 28, 2006

To anyone who cares about Europe's future, the French demonstrations and street riots protesting the government's new labor law must be profoundly disturbing. It's the French against France – a familiar ritual that mirrors Europe's larger predicament.

Hardly anyone wants to surrender the benefits and protections of today's generous welfare state, but the fierce attachment to these costly and self-defeating programs prevents Europe from preparing for a future that, though it may be deplored, is inevitable. Actually, it's not the future; it's the present.

The dilemma of advanced democracies, including the United States, is that they've made more promises than they can realistically keep. Their political commitments outstrip the economy's capacity to deliver. Sometimes the commitments were made dishonestly. Sometimes they were made sincerely based on foolish assumptions. Sometimes they've been overtaken by new circumstances. No matter. The dilemma is the same. To disavow past promises incites public furor; not to disavow them worsens the country's future problems.

Look at France. Its needs are plain: to assimilate a large and restless Muslim population of immigrants and their children, to pay for the rising health and pension costs of an aging society and to compete in the world economy. But its economy is lackluster. From 2001 to 2005, annual growth averaged only 1.6 percent. By accident and design, the French have discouraged work. In a recent study, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris reported the following:

- From 1994 to 2003, unemployment among prime-age adults, from 25 to 54, averaged 9.9 percent; for those 15 to 25, the average was 24 percent.

- In 2003, French workers spent an average of 1,431 hours on the job, the third lowest among 26 advanced countries. Italy (1,591 hours) was 11 percent higher, the United States (1,822 hours) 27 percent and South Korea (2,390 hours, the highest) 67 percent.

- Among those 60 to 64, only about one in six have jobs. In the United States, the comparable figure is about one in two.

This cannot continue indefinitely. In 2005, France's labor force was 2.7 times as large as its 65-and-over population; by 2020, it's projected to be only twice as large. A shrinking share of France's population – already working short hours – would pay an increasing share of the country's rising pension and health costs. In 2004, the average retirement age was 59. Average taxes are already about 50 percent of national income; effective marginal rates (the rates on additional income) can hit 60 percent. How much higher could these go without crushing work incentives? Sooner or later, France will have to adopt policies that lower unemployment, lengthen work hours, raise retirement ages and cut promised benefits.

Probably later. Efforts to face these issues provoke protests. The present flash point is a new law that allows employers to fire young workers (those hired under age 26) for the first two years. Of course, U.S. firms can fire workers of all ages within the bounds of union contracts and the anti-discrimination laws. But in France, the Labor Code gives most full-time workers an employment contract that makes layoffs costly. Legal standards must be met. Workers can appeal to labor courts. By one study, companies lost 74 percent of those cases. All these protections perversely – but predictably – stifle job creation. Companies don't hire because it's hard to fire. They don't want to be saddled with unwanted workers. That's one cause of high unemployment.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's new law tries to disarm that logic. The two-year probationary period gives employers flexibility. They don't have to keep workers they don't want. The change stemmed from last fall's rioting among young Muslims and complaints about their high jobless rate. Whether the law might work as intended – or inspires temporary two-year jobs – is unclear.

Protesters said it would make them “the Kleenex generation,” to be discarded at will. Either way, the change is minor. The outsized political reaction is telling and has happened before. In the 1990s, prime ministers Edouard Balladur and Alain Juppe withdrew controversial proposals in the face of mass protests.

All this bodes ill for Europe, because other countries share France's situation. Governments seem incapable of reconciling political commitments and economic realities. The street protesters are given to much make-believe – the illusion that if they march long enough and burn enough cars, they can prevent unwanted change. The concessions that governments make to the future are usually small and slow.

France is raising full eligibility for retirement benefits from 40 to 42 years of contributions; the change occurs between now and 2020. This suggests a messy process of grudging accommodations that neither placate public opinion nor improve economic vitality. Europe, which is insecure and unconfident now, will probably become more so.