~Di

Re: Rumsfeld's (finally accepted) resignation, good. Too little too late, but good nonetheless.

I agree to an extent, although I believe political parties with their divisive, exclusionary message and their win-at-all-cost mentality creates the politicians whose primary goals are raising more and more money for their party in order to grab more and more power for the party (and by rote, for themselves) rather than doing the actual job they were sent to do... represent the will of their constituents. I'm a centrist and a moderate Independent. My vote is issue-based, not party-based, so I don't have to refer to any party platform to see what I think. If the congress is totally democratic in 2008, I will probably vote for a republican president (unless Jeb Bush is the candidate... dear God, enough Bushes already!). I do not like to see one party in power. When both parties are forced by the voters to compromise and work together, I believe our system is at its finest.

Voters were angry. They were angry at the inept war in Iraq, at the corruption on capital hill, at the biggest do-nothing congress in history, and at the arrogance of a president determined to "stay the course" no matter what the cost in American and Iraqi lives. This was less a victory for democratic ideals than it was a deliberate kick in the ass of George Bush and GOP cronism in congress. A reminder, folks, of exactly who these damned politicians work for. If the democrats forget that lesson, we the voters will be happy to re-teach it to them in a couple of years.

Oh for pity sake, leave the guy alone. One of the things that annoyed me about Morrowind (my computer won't handle Oblivion, so I don't know if it's improved) was the butt-ugly faces of the characters. The game was great fun, but that didn't mean I wasn't constantly irked by how ugly my poor dark elf was. People should be able to post opinions in here without being attacked like a raw steak being tossed into a shark pond.

I believe the court upheld that she either removed the veil for the photo, or no drivers' license. Not 100% positive, but I believe that was the outcome.

It is actually (although, some people consider it more of a request)... and, yes, I've read the Qu'ran in the original form (yes, arabic) and understood it before people want to tell me what they think they know about my religion Regardless of that, I take the side of the school and BA in both these cases... one should respect people's religions... and the terms and conditions of a company/workplace <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I've read and been told otherwise by dozens of Muslims. Representatives of Islam are staples on cable news shows, and according to them, whether to wear a full burka, a veil, a scarf or nothing at all is up to the individual in accordance with the traditions where she lives. In Saudia Arabia, the majority of females wear head scarves (according to a relative who was stationed there). The same in Qatar and Dubai and Kuwait. In the more progressive areas of Afghanistan, there is a mixture of no head covering at all and headscarves. In the villages, there are more veils. I suspect the interpretation of various sects of Islam are as varied as the interpretation of various sects of Christianity. That said, I obviously agree with you that the requirements of the job should be respected. This particular Muslim woman attended the interview for a job teaching the English language without wearing a veil. She then appeared in the classroom wearing it. Can you imagine trying to teach a language while covering one's mouth so the students cannot see the context and structure of the words? She then went public with her outrage at being asked to remove the veil. Can we spell "set up", boys and girls? Reminds me of the woman who sued the state of Florida because they wouldn't let her keep her veil on for her driver's license photo. The only abuse I see in the case of the Muslim teacher's assistant, is a woman abusing the system for publicity and personal gain.

I understand what you are saying, and did not consider your posts to be aggressive or particularly hateful. However, what you are effectively saying in the post above is that adolescents should never be alone with adults who are attracted to their particular gender. Think about that. Instead of raising our children so that by the time they reach puberty they understand those urges, and the right way to deal with them... along with the wrong way to deal with them.. we instead try to lock our girls away from heterosexual men and lesbian women, and lock our boys away from heterosexual women and gay men. Ahem. That sure leaves out a lot of potential life, including the classroom, sleepovers with friends, gender integrated campouts of any type whatsoever, and frankly even walking down a public street. Seriously, most sexual predations (both 'consentual' and non-consentual) do not take place on overnight campouts. They take place in everyday places, like apartments, the kids' room when parents are out, in vehicles and yes, in the classroom. Segregating homosexual men and women for particular concern is, in my opinion, discriminatory. I simply urge you, and others, to delve a little deeper in determining exactly why a homosexual scout leader or sport coach (or a lesbian leader for female scouts and sports) would be so frightening to people who don't bat an eye about a heterosexual male coaching a female team, or a heterosexual female being a scout leader (yes, they most certainly are both boy and girl scout leaders... overnight campouts and all!) Just think about it. That's all I ask.

I agree. The BSA should not be publicly-funded, period. No private group should be funded by taxpayers, but I find it particularly onerous when my money goes to groups that discriminate in membership or push a specific political or religious agenda. This is simple logic, in my opinion. I never cease to be amazed how many people don't agree.

Ouch. Some of the comments in here are really hateful... and probably unintentionally so. Some of y'all seem to think that homosexual is synonomous to pedophile-predator, that people just wake up one morning and decide to switch sexual orientation for giggles, then head out to the local elementary school to practice on kids. With all due respect I must ask... what the hell is the matter with you? I don't want to get into the whole 'choice versus genetics' thing, although it is clear to me that since I didn't make a choice to be attracted to the opposite sex... I just WAS... I can't imagine that homosexuals make a choice to be attracted to the same sex. What really stuns me is the willingness of some to believe that homosexuals should be treated like sexual predators, and kept from any profession that deals with children in any manner. I mean, good God. Y'all are aware, are you not, that the vast majority of real sexual predators and pedophiles are NOT homosexual? So if statistics count (rather than plain old bigotry), then non-homosexuals are the ones who should be banned from any profession that deals with children. I really some of you believe you are not being cruel or hateful in your beliefs, but I seriously encourage you to examine those beliefs more closely, discard the myth and seek the realty. Homosexuals are not monsters; they are exactly like anyone else on the planet... with the exception that they are apparently the only group that can be legally bashed and discriminated against.

Whoa! Thanks, Crashgirl. I'll try that trick! Have restarted on Expert; still not having much trouble, but it's obviously more challenging. Still confused about the various types of armor and weapons... for example, why doesn't my FN F2000 with the built-in 40mm grenade launcher take my 40mm grenades? (Yes, I money cheated so I could test out the fancy new stuff... I know, I know... I suck. ) Anyway, I'm having great fun. Thanks for the help!

Thing is, the difference between accident and negligent is a matter of fact-finding for a jury. THAT is what feeds the litigious frenzy in the first place, because juries frequently judge with their hearts, not their heads ("that poor little kid is going to need medical care for life, and that big, bad corporation/tax-funded-school can afford it").

*cries* My computer won't run it.

Thanks, guys... my old addled brain is probably mis-remembering. Brining up the portraits of squads using numbers is no problem, and I usually use the drag-grid too... but I thought that when the squad was spread out of interspersed with another squad there was a quickie command that put all of them on the move at once... kind of like the "=" command, only for each squad instead of for all mercs on the map. Anyway, reading the horrors (lol!) of this mod scared me so bad I started out on novice. Took Drassen and the first SAM in one day, and my militia defended its only attack without losing a soul. So I guess I panicked I'd better up the ante and start over on a higher skill level! I love all the new weapons. Can't wait to figure out what they all do... and what ammo they take. I feel like such a JA noob... hehehe. Thanks again for the help, guys!

Ok, got it up and running. Made a lot of changes in the uni file, based on what I'd read in Bear Pit. Am still checking out controls, and for some odd reason I can't find the command to select all mercs of a squad. I know selecting all mercs regardless of squad is still = ... and I thought simply hitting Shift+(squad number, 1-0) would activate all mercs of the squad selected on the tactical screen. Hmm. It's been a while since I've played a JA game, I guess... if anyone can set me right on what I've forgotten, I'd appreciate it.

As long as our judicial system not only allows, but frankly encourages parents (and just about anyone else) to sue for the slightest injury, real or perceived, this kind of thing will continue. People can sue for almost anything without any realistic punishment for abusing the system. It's like playing a million-dollar slot machine without having to put in so much as a quarter... so why not pull the lever as many times as you want? Thanks to the much-beloved legal contingency system and corporate habit of settling nuisance suits (aka anything under a few million dollars), suing the deep pockets of corporations and taxpayers (schools) is a tidy way to increase one's income. Don't believe me? Just Google up "lawsuits against schools" and enjoy. I can't honestly blame schools for trying to protect themselves. Our legal system needs an overhaul.

Thank you, CrashGirl... what I need is the English JA2 v1.13 Release 1.0.0.602... not the Update, right? I think I'll let it download overnight, and see if I can get it installed without frying my motherboard, lol. I appreciate the feedback from both you and Hurlshot. Cross your fingers that I can get it to work!

I really want this expansion. Trouble is that with my crappy dial-up, every patch that comes out ends up adding another instance/city to the list of places my characters cannot go without 5-digit latency and constant disconnects. I have the depressing feeling that the expansion will make things even worse... if possible, since my lvl 60's can't even go into half the dungeons they need to gear up, and can rarely even stay in main cities long enough to check the bank and auction house. I hate everyone with high speed. I just hate you all. *cries*

I tried a search and didn't come up with results, so forgive me if this has been discussed here. I've read what I can on this JA2 mod, and it sounds wonderful. However, it'll take me all night to download, and there are so many versions out that I'm quite confused as to which one(s) to get. So if anyone out there has given this mod a whirl, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it!

The Iraqi government and the website Iraq Body Count both estimate the number of dead civilians from the start of the war to be between 45,000 and 55,000. Right now everyone agrees the average death rate is higher than it has ever been at 2000/dead per month. Yet for the 600,000 figure to be correct, over 15,000 people would have had to die each and every month for the past 3 years. What's more the sheer number of these deaths would have to have been basically hidden from the entire global media, which has been blanketing the country since 2003. That figure simply does not make sense, mathematically.

Two reasons: Weight limitations of the crew, because airplanes can only carry so much weight... but also because she (or he, for that matter) wouldn't fit comfortably in the aisle or the tiny galley areas of the plane, and the restricted movement caused by her obesity could pose a danger to passengers in an emergency.

If the school has a dress code, and the hajib (or burka, whichever she wears) violates it, then it has to go or she can find work where her style of dress is permitted. If I insist upon wearing a bikini, then my choice of work options are certainly limited. I honestly do not see the difference here. For example, would a police department be violating a Muslim woman's rights if they prevented her from wearing a hajib or burka on duty? Most would say of course not, that it's ridiculous for a female officer to hike up her burka and chase suspects. Well, there are frankly a lot of jobs where having a pair of eyeballs peering out of a mask would be a detriment. I actually think teaching school is one of those, because children learn communication from non-verbal signals that are hidden beneath a face veil. A headscarf? That's different. But I think a legitimate argument can be made that covering one's face is a hinderance to one's ability to communicate effectively with children. It's okay to wear religious items; but one must accept that wearing those items will mean that some jobs will be restricted if those items violate the rules of that particular employer. That in itself is not illegal. A 300 pound female is not going to get a job as a flight attendent and an 85-year-old with saggy breasts is not going to get a job at Hooters... thankfully. Obviously I'm bigoted against old fat people.

Actually most businesses do have dress codes. Some are more stringent than others, of course, but I've never worked in a place where people could wear, for example, a pair of speedos or torn pants. Places where employers meet and greet the public usually have pretty strict dress codes. Except for casual Fridays, of course! As for students being allowed to wear hajib's or burkas, perhaps in that school they are not. There are many schools where religious apparel is simply not allowed. If students insist upon wearing their religious apparel, then they can presumably find private accommodations. *shrug* At any rate, I'm sure the Muslim teacher will argue in court that she is being discriminated against on religious grounds, and if she can prove that Jewish male teachers are allowed to wear yamaca's or Hindu teachers can wear turbans, then she most certaily will have a case... I would think. The lawyers amongst us can detail the law better than I can, certainly.

There are laws in place to prohibit discrimination based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, etc., etc., etc. In fact, a private employer (and public employer too, like governmental agencies) have to report to the feds annually about how many of each race, etc., they employ... and woe be to those employers whose percentage of employees by race don't match the percentages by race living in the surrounding areas. Talk about affirmative action run amuck... But I digress. Point being, employers are free to have at least some control over the work environment they provide. If they don't want people wearing jewelry or being masked, they have the right to make that decision. I can think of lots of jobs that an employer wouldn't want to fill with a female wearing a burka... car salesperson comes to mind, lol, but there are tons of others. Employers are already beaten about who they can hire and who they can't hire to conform with anti-discrimination (which, oddly enough, when brought to extremes eventually becomes discriminatory in itself) legislation. I do not look forward to the day when the government will legislate how people must dress, what kind of office furniture must be provided, and what color the office break room must be painted. I'm sick to death of people whining and slapping on lawsuits because they can't have everything they want 100% of the time. I'm also sick to death of people accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racists or bigots.

Dress codes are legal. Period. No jewelry means no jewelry. If a school doesn't want its teachers veiled, then they have a right to say so. If said teacher doesn't want to remove her veil (which, btw, is NOT a requirement of Islam) then she can find herself a position which allows her to wear it. Sorry, but I'm not feeling particularly charitable toward peeps who confuse "rights" with "wants".

Hey, I've been against the Iraq war since before there WAS an Iraq war, and for all the reasons that we are now seeing play themselves out today... because I believe that our primary target should be Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, which is sliding back to where it was before we haven't put enough troops there to finish the job; because a pre-emptive attack on a country that was no threat to us was, IMHO, something I did not believe my country should, or ever would, do; because I knew we'd destroy the damned country, opening it up to a flood of terrorists and a civil war; and because I knew our global reputation would plummet to that of a big, mean, scary bully. So tell me how wrong I was. That said, I love my country even if I hate the current administration, and I'm frequently frustrated by the need media and others have to show only the bad stuff without even giving a mention to those heroic soldiers who do not rape and pillage, but instead build schools and try to help the Iraqi people. Soldiers are not to blame for foreign policy; they only enforce it. I get pretty obnoxious with those who try to portray all American soldiers as torturing rapists, and attempt to shut down as "propaganda" any attempt to show that most soldiers are brave and courageous people who really do try to help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.