~Di

~Di, just curious how you know this is a fact. Last time I checked, the democratically-electeed government of Iraq was able to ask/tell the coalition of forces to leave whenever they wanted, and they haven't as yet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every poll of the citizenry shows that the people want us out. Citizens believe that our presence is exascerbating the problem; several military leaders have publicly agreed, much to the chagrin of the whitehouse. Also, there is disagreement inside the "government" of Iraq... I use that term loosely because despite being elected, these officials are working more like individual despots than a cohesive congressional body... and several of those elected officials have stated repeatedly that they wish the US out, and out now. I'm surprised you haven't seen film footage of some of those Iraqi officials on CNN. I certainly have seen several such incidents over the past year or so. That is what I based my statement on... published polls of the Iraqi people, and repeated statements by various Iraqi officials, both on camera and quoted by various news media.

Then I respectfully suggest you do yourself what you are suggesting these individuals do... give up your own life to enforce your belief. Because that is basically what you are saying, that if these individuals do not sacrifice themeselves and their future to decades in prison or worse, then they are unworthy of respect and support. So go ahead. Present yourself to be imprisoned for the next few decades. Otherwise, you should not be so flippant to insist others do what you yourself are unwilling to do.

I agree. Everything I predicted before we invaded Iraq has come to pass. I take no joy in that, because I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together simply MUST have known that innocents and our soldiers would die by the thousands, that chaos and civil war would kill tens of thousands more innocents, and that Iraq as a nation would be destroyed. At first I believed the "we broke it, we own it, we fix it" theory. It soon become obvious that we were incapable of fixing anything. The Iraqis want us out. Only the arrogance and unbridled gall of our leaders prevents us from honoring their wishes. That is certainly not what I mean. Our troops are there because they have been given jobs to do. Many of those jobs (the ones we don't hear about) are basically positive; rebuilding schools and hospitals, etc. Others are more difficult... trying to keep religious enemies from slaughtering each other while trying to keep oneself and ones fellow soldiers alive. So yes, I support those soldiers, I support their courage and their effort even if I do not support the policies or the leaders who have put them there.

If I'm understanding the above quote correctly, then I agree with it. Adult human beings have an inalienable right, in my opinion, to make decisions about themselves, their lives and their bodies whether others agree with those decisions or not... and yes, even if those who love them are emotionally distraught by those decisions. If one chooses to become an addict (and yes, allowing addiction to grasp one's body is definitely a choice, unless someone holds us down, forcibly and repeatedly injecting us with an addictive substance against our will), it may be a stupid choice in the eyes of most of us, but it is nonetheless that person's choice to make for themselves, and they will suffer all the stuff that goes with that choice. It's not the government's job to babysit adults and legislate what they may and may not do to their own bodies. They have the right to legislate what we may and may not do to others while under the influence of our addiction.... drive, commit crimes, harass or harm others... but they have no right to control behaviors that affect only ourselves. The same goes for laws against suicide. How dare someone who has never met me write a law that prevents me from making a decision to end my own life? This is, in my opinion, simply a form of arrogance and control, a king-complex if you will, that forces one's belief system upon everyone else through abuse of power. That's one reason I'm against creating laws against drug use, etc. The other reason is that such laws create crime. Create major crime, and major crime syndicates, crime which affects people without their permission and taints society as a whole. This is documented and indisputable. Yet government, in its ultimate drive for power to enforce its will upon others, continues to create crime by pretending to fight it. That's what I think. Those who disagree are wrong, of course!

Legalize drugs. Make them available at cost, but tax hell out of it. It'll still be cheaper and safer than street stuff. Use tax money to fund free rehab clinics. End of criminal networks selling drugs for profit. You cannot legislate what people choose to put into their own bodies, whether that is alcohol, tobacco or drugs. It doesn't work, and creates vast criminal networks to support these "illegal" personal choices. We as a society need to make rehabilitation clinics for all who wish to use them (even those who cannot afford Betty Ford centers as an escape every time they are caught doing naughty things). So long as societies legislate personal choice and so-called victimless crimes (yes, I know families of addicts are victims.... I'm the child of an alcoholic too) then rampant crime will follow. You'd think we'd know that by now.

Hmm. Apparently the American university system has a few things going for it, since Europeans are beginning to immitate it... much to their own chagrin. Winds of change rattle European universities "German universities are trying to charge tuition. Paris schools are considering selection instead of open admission. Dutch colleges are pushing students to finish faster. Greece wants to lift a ban on private universities. Change is rattling Europe's temples of learning. Resistance remains fierce, driven by fears of the "Americanization" -- or commercialization -- of higher education... But economic realities are overpowering those who maintain that universities should impart universal knowledge, not pave the way to a job. Too many European graduates are getting welfare checks instead of paychecks.

Could you please explain what you are talking about here? I certainly don't know anything about "fake" attacks to deliberately create retaliation. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

My heart aches for our soldiers. They are doing a job they believe a worthy one. When it comes to Afghanistan, they've already had the rug pulled out from under them. It was a rug called "Iraq", and they have now seen their governments fail them twice... first when not enough boots were on the ground to complete their primary mission thereby allowing bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda to escape, and then when a huge number of those "boots" were reassigned to invade another country. Now they see all that their blood and sweat accomplished years back evaporating. The Taliban is regaining control; bin Laden continues to direct his terror operations; and Iraq has become a bloody graveyard of chaos and never-ending conflict. My heart truly aches for our soldiers, for their lost youth, their sacrifice, their pain. I support them. I support the brave Brits, the brave Americans, the brave coalition troops who give everything they have for a cause they hope is just, even if much of the world.... including myself when it comes to Iraq... disagrees. Then again, I'm old enough to remember VietNam, where youths went to war and old men returned, spit upon and reviled by those they had thought they were fighting for. I would die in their place if it would bring them all home safe. But this is a world where life is not sacred any more. Maybe it never was, but I miss the comforting cocoon of my long-lost naivete.

Caelis, congrats on the degree! You've really moved forward in your life. I'm proud!

There's certainly no video evidence of that and the UCLA Daily Bruin reported that student witnesses denied Tabatabainejad was inciting anyone. http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There may not be video evidence, but according to some reports, including the UCLA Daily Bruin the press release states "...Tabatabainejad went limp and refused to exit as the officers attempted to escort him out. The release also stated Tabatabainejad "encouraged library patrons to join his resistance." At this point, the officers "deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a "drive stun' capacity." Also, apparently the campus police are specifically empowered to use the Taser when students resist or refuse to follow orders. (BTW, UCLA campus "police" are not real police officers, from what I've been told. They are basically security guards). If that's the case, I think UCLA should rethink its policy. The Daily Bruin is not an unbiased news source, lol. It's very obviously coming from one position on this, and that position is not to wait until the investigation is finished to cast blame. That said, I'd be surprised if the investigation shows any legitimate justification for multiple tasings, or tasing after the student was handcuffed. As I've already mentioned, I think both sides of this incident behaved absolutely abominably. California taxpayers will no doubt line the pockets of this student, who has already screamed "racial discrimination" and filed a lawsuit.

Only one side of the story is out. I do know that officers are not going to try to drag a kicking, resisting suspect down a staircase because doing so is a recipe for getting everyone injured. The kid was deliberately provoking everyone involved, and apparently was screeching at the gathering crowd trying to incite a riot. I realize we are all judgmental know-it-alls (myself included!), but perhaps we should wait for the inclusive investigation of both sides before we throw these security guards into the pit of starving hounds, m'kay? And Lady Crimson, I wouldn't have to be so creative with my descriptions if y'all weren't so picky about the vernacular around here.

I did!! I loved those old boards... Lanfear, Gaider, Gromnir, a host of other old-times. *sigh* Those were the days. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can't recall, but it was at least 2 years before Baldur's Gate II came out. You can thank the ladies of that particular board for having paper dolls on BGII that weren't half nude. ... Or not.

First, there are tens of millions of police officers in America. The number of incidents of actual brutality by officers is a small fraction of the literally billions of interactions between police and citizens on an annual basis. When abuse or perceived abuse does happen, the officer in question is investigated, and if the evidence supports an indictment, he/she stands trial just like every other citizen. Second, I resent the hell out of people using this as an excuse to dog America as a whole. Again. There are plenty of instances of police brutality in Europe and around the globe to point fingers at if y'all want to be that shallow and petty. Including a certain dead Arab in the UK with uncountable bullets in his head because, oops, the UK cops thought he might be a terrorist. So please, spare me your bigotry. Third, university "police" officers are normally not official sworn police officers. They are usually security forces not governmentally trained. Some universities may have rotating officers from the local police forces as security, especially large campuses like UCLA, but certainly they are the exception rather than the rule. Forth, I'd have more sympathy if the kid wasn't deliberately provoking and acting the fool. I've seen the same type of behavior from folks chaining themselves to trees on other people's property, or blockading a business because they want to exercise their newly-discovered power of protest at the expense of other people's rights and property. This wasn't the case here, but it provides a lesson that when acting like an arrogant bodily orifice in public, one might run across yet another arrogant bodily orifice with more power than you. A conflict between arrogant bodily orifices does not make me shed crocodile tears for either side. The security officers in question will no doubt suffer for their lapse in judgement. The poor, aggrieved fool will no doubt sue the university for millions. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

I did!! I loved those old boards... Lanfear, Gaider, Gromnir, a host of other old-times. *sigh* Those were the days.

I agree with you. I resent terribly laws which are made for the sole purpose of codifying religious belief and forcing it upon everyone else. Abortion laws are an example, as were laws against birth control years ago, laws against drinking or having businesses open on "the Sabbath"... any law which is created to enforce religious tenants. People in this country are free to follow nearly any religion they wish. They are not free to force others to follow their religious beliefs by codifying them into law.

I agree with Sand. Religious dogma has no place in a public school unless specifically part of a class to study world religions. I certainly do not want my children taught the "alternative" theory of creationism. Creationism is, in my view, a myth put forth by various religions to support their belief in an all-powerful being. To those who say that if we want to maintain separation of church and state that we must eliminate laws against murder or any other laws that supposedly emulate the ten commandments, I say poppy****. There were laws against murder in most cultures long before Moses was a gleam in his daddy's eye. What behavior is and is not acceptable in various societies is codified into law. Some societies base their laws on their religions. Our society, thankfully and constitutionally, does not. Deal with it.

How can you "teach" 20/21 year-olds? They already know everything. Just ask them!!

Nobody has to sign a contract to register as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any other party. In a sense, however, when one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, one is voting for the tenants of the party platform since the politicians involved are basically committed to enforcing those tenants while in office. A Republican who votes pro-choice is going against the platform of his/her party, and risks being voted out of office by those same Republicans he/she who put him/her in office in the first place. It's called "alienating the base", and it's a pretty risky move for any politician EXCEPT in years like this one where the 1/3 of the voting public who are independent/moderate/centrists get up on their hind legs and show their real power by doing what they do best... voting ISSUES instead of party lines. I will vote for any politician who agrees with me on the issues I find most important. I don't care whether he rides a donkey or an elephant or a spotted owl into office.

Then what would you call that holiest of holies, passed down from National Convention to National Convention, the vaunted Republican Party Platform? As far as I'm concerned it is the official "policy" of the Republican party, just as the Democratic Party Platform is the official "policy" of the Democrats. Both platforms together form the basis for my personal theory, "a pox on 'em both, amen." (No, this conversation isn't really beating a dead horse. I just happen to love that smilie!)

This thread makes me want to play NWN2 so bad. *cries* My computer can't handle it, and it's not looking like I'll ever get that computer upgrade. I'd feel ever so much better about my pitiful lot in life if NWN2 was a dud, but obviously it's not. *cries more*

Nothing has gotten done the past six years. The worst "do nothing congress" in history. The only thing they agreed upon was giving themselves a raise and cutting their workweek down to three lousy days. Now you tell me how it could possibly get worse?

I have decided my pet peeve is people who actually understand the origin of belly button fluff. That kind of expertise is... unnatural. Also, annoying. I don't even want to think about my belly button fluff, let alone be educated about its origin. Besides, just reading all that stuff made me actually look. Yes, it's blue. I hate you all.

I am glad, very glad, that the democrats have taken over congress. Now both parties will have to work together and *gasp!* actually compromise to get anything done. That is a good thing. I will probably vote for the republican candidate in 2008 to keep that compromise going, because I for one never like to see either party 100% in control.

I was pleased that Santorum was ousted. But not so pleased that I would ridicule and laugh at a crying child. Get a grip, people.

My prediction: If the democrats do win the senate, I predict that the GOP will offer Lieberman big incentives, like a plum committee chairmanship, to switch to Republican. And Lieberman, who has already shown he has no party loyalty or respect for the primary process, will accept. Instant reversion to republican control.