kgambit

You rarely find an equal apportionment of custody between two parties. Once divorced the two parties frequently live far enough part that "sharing" custody is far too disruptive to the child - think along the lines of school districts, daycare, friends etc. I agree that it often means that the most suitable parent does not get primary custody, and no it isn't fair. I like the idea of anonymous determinations but judges like to see the people they award custody to.

Too funny .........

Especially when it contradicts you right? That didn't stop you from using it to support your argument when convenient. LOL And I was not talking about a US food embargo but a food embargo by the US and it's allies. A quick note on food. Again. We aren't going to agree on the food situation. You can nitpick about which specific agricultural products are in short supply all you want but the problems extend into most facets of the Chinese diet. I would dispute that China is self-sufficient in wheat. Nearly self sufficient but not totally. I believe China imports about 7 to 8% of their total Wheat and projections differ on whether or by how much that shortfall will increase. Let's just drop it - we aren't going to agree no matter what. http://www.dawn.com/news/1036769/chinas-wheat-deficit http://www.newsmax.com/us/china-american-wheat-sales/2013/08/18/id/520943 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2013/04/25/feeding-chinas-population/ I read the article by Collins and Murray at the USNWC. It's a good read but it's short on hard numbers and hard analysis, so I am not convinced that their conclusions are valid. They handwave (as do you) repeatedly over the claim that the Chinese can adequately utilize rail, truck and existing pipeline to replace most of the 3.3 million bbls of tanker oil per day. Yet they supply no hard numbers on rolling stock or rail transport capacity (which I did) which showed the magnitude of the problem. And their analysis is based on the premise that the Russians will help make up the shortfall which isn't a given. Their ignore the impact that Increased use of rail and truck transport will have on siphoning off energy resources from other sectors. And they seem to gloss over the increased drain on oil/gasoline reserves to maintain the Chinese armed forces in a heightened state of readiness. Further their analysis is based on extremely dated figures for Chinese oil imports which are now at over 6.3 million a day as opposed to their 3.3 million a day and the improvements in pipeline capacity have not kept pace. The CIS and Myannamar pieplines you reference won't be large enough to have a huge impact. The authors argue that Chinese diplomatic efforts may provide alternate supply sources they neglect to mention that opposing diplomacy may also cut off some existing supplies. Finally their blockade analysis is based on a single blockading state (country) when that isn't necessarily a given either. So while it's an interesting read, the article itself is short on analysis and very long on conjecture. So is much of this discussion, but then, this is the internetz. lol. I agree that "China's goal ought to be linear growth, not exponential growth, contingent on reducing inefficiency rather than maximizing output" but that's not what we have seen so far. While it's fair game to argue that exponential growth won't continue long term, even you won't argue that at least short term Chinese oil demand is going to continue to grow. We can argue about the future rate of increase until we're both blue in the face but Chinese demand is going to increase. Since China is not oil sufficient - that is not a problem that is going away any time soon. I will concede however the fact that Chinese industry is more heavily dependent on coal use than I thought. So all we are really arguing over is how much of an effect the embargo will have? Okay, fair enough. Let's leave it at that. Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of arguing about this. Edited for typos. Edit 2. Just found this interesting article on Chinese oil demands forecast thru 2030. http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/4648.pdf

http://www.grain.org/media/BAhbB1sHOgZmSSIqMjAxMi8wNy8zMS8xMV8wNV80N18zMF9QaWN0dXJlXzIzLnBuZwY6BkVUWwg6BnA6CnRodW1iSSIJNjAweAY7BlQ https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDMV_Lsg52Cn9PYV5mAtip7KjgE9bQP1MWfO_mbRJ9aQOiBQsd So China is NOT self sufficient and to make matters worse it's agricultural sector is notoriously inefficient. And in terms of arable land per capita, China for all it's size is far worse off that you might believe. Believe anything you want, but the numbers don't lie. None of this means that the Chinese are starving but it does mean that China is simply not a self sufficient country with respect to either energy use or food supplies. Citing China's propensity for luxury foods - ie pork - to support their lack of food independence is patently absurd. Do you actually think the Chinese today must eat pork to survive when their diet has consisted primarily of grain for thousands of years? Your entire argument in this post is built on the fallacy that the Chinese must import maize and soy because it's used in livestock feed. Sorry, when did voracious meat consumption become a necessity for life? This is a classic American blunder in projecting first world luxuries to basic human needs and needs no further rebuttal. I'm going to chip away at these one at a time starting with the self sufficiency in food. The livestock feed was just one example, Azarkon. Whether or not the rising use of meat in the Chinese diet is a luxury is open to debate, but the fact is that Chinese is not self sufficient with respect to food. Check out all of the graphs again. Better still, just listen to what the Chinese themselves have to say. http://www.agprofessional.com/news/China-no-longer-to-be-self-sufficient-in-food-188895761.html The Chinese themselves had admitted that they aren't self sufficient now nor are they likely to achieve self sufficiency. That begs the question of whether the Chinese people be persuaded to cut back in the case of an embargo? Maybe, but it's not a given. and two more just for grins. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/us-china-pollution-rice-idUSBRE94L17J20130522 http://ethanolbiofuels.agra-net.com/?p=710 Oil is up next.

I believe that most child support awards in the US are based on both parents ability to provide for the child and adjusted accordingly. One parent is almost always going to assume a larger financial burden, but that does not mean that both parents do not each have some responsibility. Since the average monthly cost of raising a child is about 1100$ a month, a 430$ average child support payment puts a greater burden on the parent with custody (usually the woman) because they are responsible for housing costs which is a large portion of child care costs. Frankly I don't see that type of financial distribution as being biased toward the woman at all. Or how child support shifts responsibility solely to one party. http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/much-money-raise-child-until-18-6528.html No birth control method is 100% foolproof so if a prospective father really doesn't want kids, then he can keep his fly zipped (or buttoned).

I sooooo misread that at first.

I too am not a fan of the particular brand of patriotism demonstrated by America. You might drop a line to your own pols to tell them about it while you are at it.

The situation with RGIII has been a total train-wreck. The cherry on top is that they don't have a first round pick in next year's draft. And we have a winner ..... lol

The situation with RGIII has been a total train-wreck. Second place goes to the Texans who went from playoff team to a stinking pile of excrement. I'm half expecting the Texans to screw up the end of the season and blow a chance at the #1 overall pick just to make this years ****-up complete.

Just curious - why do you think child support payments should be eliminated? Although ~95 percent of alimony recipients are female, only 15% of US divorces involve alimony. Monthly child support payments in the United States averaged $430 per month in 2010, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics. I believe that the UK, New Zealand, Australia and several other countries use a very rigid 20% of income calculation while it varies considerably in the US from state to state. (I'm not going to spend tons of time digging down on this one so if anyone wants to chime in, feel free) 79.6 percent of custodial mothers receive child support award, while only 29.6 percent of custodial fathers receive a support award. 46.9 percent of non-custodial mothers totally default on support, while only 26.9 percent of non-custodial fathers totally default on support. The high rate of divorce initiation is not limited to the US. Approximately 2/3 (give or take a handful of % pts) of all divorces in Canada, UK, France and Japan are also initiated by women. I didn't check all of Western Europe but I wouldn't be surprised if divorce initiation favored females in the rest of the countries as well.

They are eliminated. You're right. It must have been on the tie-breakers.

True. The Seahawks have won 14 straight at home. Last loss at home was December 24, 2011 to San Francisco 19-17. In other news, the next Giants loss (or Eagles victory) eliminates the Giants from the playoffs. Want to guess to who the Giants play next? LOL

Glow in the dark soy sauce! What a huge marketing opportunity!

Yes, but why not do that in the first place was my point. Look, let's not beat this to death. A NK mini-sub sinking a 25 year old non state of the art ASW corvette is still impressive but let's not get carried away about overstating the significance of how that plays out against a blue water navy with state of the art ASW capability. Ok? I did some more digging and it's equally likely that the NK sub could have been a late 1990's early 2000's coastal submarine design called the Sang-O II / K-300 class, which is slightly larger (275 ton diesel electric with extended range). That's not WW2 tech. So again, lets not overstate the significance, ok?

Using the 'image' button in the editor? Have a specific URL where that's failing? Just tried a few images in IE 11 and it was working for me: Sent you a pm with the URLs.

Saints 31, Carolina 13 ....

Great movie. Franco is superb. Watched 2 movies today: 2 Guns (Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg). Decent movie but nothing great. Denzel and Wahlberg work pretty well together. Classic good cops, crooked cops, and robbers movie with the mandatory end of movie gun fight over a huge cache of money. World's End (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead) - Worth a view. Pegg and Frost are great again.

This started as a simple discussion about whether an embargo could be effective and somehow morphed into a professor falkon scenario of "Want to play a game? How about global thermonuclear war?" Just remember I didn't posit the nuclear exchange idea - I simply pointed out how damaging it would be for both sides and particularly for the Chinese. But for what it's worth, yes I think a oil / food embargo would certainly end in hostilities and likely on a global scale. Then why mention the Aegis capability? I sense some convenient crawfishing going on. And while the Cheonan is an ASW warship, it hardly classifies as state of the art. No matter. An NK mini-sub still doesn't pose a threat to a blue water fleet. So the sinking of the Cheonan is an unfortunate sidelight but meaningless in terms of blue water fleet vulnerability. Fair enough. I'm not disputing the likelihood that it was NK that did it either - just that I haven't seen definitive proof. No. No one assumed that the fighting would be restricted to just China and the US. Only that a nuclear exchange would be between them. If things go so bad that an embargo was required I can easily see Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the US all aligned and it could easily expand beyond that. As I said above, an embargo is unlikely so speculating on retaliation scenarios is nothing more than a thought exercise (at least for us).

San Francisco 19, Seattle 17 Tomorrow night is still big. Saints - Panthers Texas almost has a lock on the first overall pick .... damn, they suck.

I know. But those mini-subs are specifically designed for littoral combat (brown water - coastal). So they represent little threat to a blue water navy. Now, move that blue water navy into the Persian Gulf for example, and those Iranian purchased Yono class subs are a real threat. For clarification, it should have read that the Cheonan is not an Aegis class cruiser or destroyer. The US Navy Ticonderoga class cruisers are not the only US ships that are Aegis equipped. Arleigh Burke class destroyers are as well.

Sheesh, did you completely miss the point that such a nuclear exchange would not only be highly unlikely but also devastating to both sides? Running around trying to drum up fear about a unlikely occurrence smacks of chicken little-ism. Ooooo, don't look now but you're in range of Chinese nukes! I was simply pointing out that the Chinese nuclear threat is too small to be considered likely let alone a first strike option unless the Chinese are willing to accept a massive retaliatory strike. In short, I am not losing sleep over it; nor am I worried that the US is planning an embargo of China. C'mon Zo. But just for fun, don't forget to add the Japanese navy into the mix in any embargo discussion. While they can't project air power, they represent a very formidable ASW platform. The Japanese navy practices hard at ASW warfare and they are good at it. For clarification, the ROKS PCC-772 Cheonan [aka Cheonanham] was a 25 year old Pohang-class patrol combat corvette. It's not an Aegis class cruiser or destroyer nor is it even close to being so. The Aegis system is designed for protection against ballistic missiles, so even if the Cheonan had been Aegis capable it would not have made a difference. Sejong the Great-class destroyers and Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers are the only ROK ships with Aegis or Aegis-comparable capability. The attack is alleged to have originated from a North Korean miniature submarine of the Yono class submarine (also known as Yugo Class) which fired one or more North Korean-manufactured CHT-02D torpedos. The exact nature of the attack is still subject to debate. The Yono class (130 tons submerged) is significantly smaller than the Romeo class subs (1800 tons submerged) (although both are electric diesels) and is a littoral class vessel specifically designed to work in coastal waters. As such it represents very little threat to a blue water navy. You're really jumping the shark by drawing conclusions from a single incident with partial and erroneous information - if I can borrow a phrase, clearly not your best work. If you have sources which fully establish the source of the attack please share them. As an aside, would someone shut the door to this thread to keep the flies out? This high pitched buzzing whining about the return of pearl harbor and Taiwan is getting annoying.

There is the third and most likely option: Everyone loses. A war with China will likely end up at a draw where the US is unable to occupy the ground and China cannot control their airspace and sea. Which may lead to the diplomatic table soon, although if past World Wars are to be believed human stupidity will take over and try to honor the dead by piling more dead upon them. But if we had better politicians we wouldn't be at war in the first place, so I expect a cluster**** of epic proportion and they will likely bring back drafting if they want to occupy ground. Likely to turn into the rape of Naking part 2. If the US were able to control Chinese sea and air, ground forces would not be needed. Chicken little warnings about a nuclear exchange are ridiculous, unless you are on the sideline gleefully hoping the two sides destroy each other. If China decides to launch a first strike, they have insufficient warheads to reach the US and destroy US counterstrike capability. Despite some claims to the contrary (the 3000 Chinese warhead claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny based on available Chinese fissile material), China has about 90 ICBMs capable of hitting the US with a total yield of 150 megatons via DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) road-mobile ICBM and DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) ICBM plus JL1 and JL2 Submarine launched missiles. With so few warheads China has zero chance of taking out US counterstrike capability. Further, a polar trajectory would be required which would overfly Russian territory and that is likely not going to sit well. Missile trajectories to the US which do not overfly Russia would require ranges exceeding 17000 km - well beyond Chinese capability. Even with a first strike by China, the US could counter strike with over 2000 warheads with a minimum yield of 750 megatons. It would not be pretty for either side. If the Chinese are able to deliver airburst strikes, a single 4 megaton DF-5A would completely destroy New York or LA. Here's one take on the outcome: http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

Images are still problematic. Getting a lot of "this image extension is not allowed" messages for jpgs, gifs and pngs - not sure why.

I didn't notice it when I posted it. Sorry

I feel like I'm talking to a sodding wall here. Azarkon, since you are going to conveniently ignore any numbers which might disprove your preconceived notions about Chinese food supply and demand I'll provide the following information for the more open minded readers. The increased demand for soy (Brazil thanks you) and corn is based on a increasing demand for meat (particularly) pork in the Chinese diet. Soy and corn are used heavily as livestock feed. I haven't shown the charts but google Chinese meat consumption and you will find a prolonged and steady increase in Chinese meat demand; so much so that China now consumes twice as much meat as the US. In 1978, China’s annual meat consumption of 8 million tons was only one third of U.S. levels. However, by 1992 they had overtaken the U.S. as the world’s leading meat consumer. http://www.grain.org/media/BAhbB1sHOgZmSSIqMjAxMi8wNy8zMS8xMV8wNV80N18zMF9QaWN0dXJlXzIzLnBuZwY6BkVUWwg6BnA6CnRodW1iSSIJNjAweAY7BlQ https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDMV_Lsg52Cn9PYV5mAtip7KjgE9bQP1MWfO_mbRJ9aQOiBQsd So China is NOT self sufficient and to make matters worse it's agricultural sector is notoriously inefficient. And in terms of arable land per capita, China for all it's size is far worse off that you might believe. Believe anything you want, but the numbers don't lie. None of this means that the Chinese are starving but it does mean that China is simply not a self sufficient country with respect to either energy use or food supplies. You should google China car usage. It's not at US levels per capita but ownership is rapidly increasing in China - exponentially too. lol http://www.usfunds.com/media/images/investor-alert/-2011-ia/2011-10-28/COMM-NumberChinaVehiclesGrowingRapidly-10282011.gif The issue of whether China can withstand a short term oil embargo was answered a couple of posts ago. China has recently completed the second stage of their SPR (Strategic petroleum reserve with an estimated capacity 207 million barrels) that will provide a potential replacement for 30 days of imports. Longer term? Domestic Chinese oil production is flat, and has been for a number of years, at around 3.2 million barrels a day. Thinking that Chinese austerity measures can reduce domestic demand so that the 6.3 million barrels of imports are not needed is the only inane comment in this argument. That would require that Chinese production be brought to a nearly complete standstill since 77% of Chinese energy is consumed by the industrial sector. And if they shut down undustries how will they generate capital to pay for imported oil and food? As for chinese oil demand increasing exponentially, I suggest you simply look at the following graph. Ignore the extrapolation and look at the data thru 2013. That's not a linear trend bubba ..... A sustained 7% yoy increase is exponential growth. Is that trend likely to continue? Maybe, maybe not - but Chinese demand has been growing exponentially since around 1990 so I would bet that continued exponential growth in the short term is not unreasonable . I'm not advocating an embargo, but simply pointing out that China will NOT be able to survive a long term one. Edit: Sorry some of the images would not link using the image tag. Use the links to open them..