Gorgon

Some species have made a comeback though. The numbers are contested on others. In any case qotas should be handled carefully. I support the Sea Shepard's right to carry out this kind of activism given that the Japanese Whalers have a very flimsy legal foundation themselves, but I think killing dolphins for no other reason than to eliminate a predator going after the same species of fish as the commerical fishing fleets is much much worse.

Hi

I've been watching this documentary series on the Sea Shepard organisation, run by ex Greenpeace member Paul Watson, he was one of the original founders who got the boot when Greenpeace got too media savey and organic for its own good. They track down the Japanese whaling fleet off the south pole and throw stink bombs onto the decks to foul the whale meat and make life miserable for the crews. Now, it seems obvious that the Japanese are exploiting a hole in an international treaty which allows for whaling for 'scientific' purposes. If this were really the main concern their quota would be a handful, not between 1000 and 2000 whales. They are supporting a domestic market. The adventures of the Sea Shepard (media links) is shot reality TV style even with faux drama among the crew and a dramatic high point, sometimes snatched out of thin air, to fit in with the long commercial break. No attempt is made to present the opposing view, I'm sure there must be one. A recurring phrase is how the crew are 'prepared to die' to stop the whalers. It seems to me that it would be entirely possible to carry out this kind of activism without anyone having to worry about dying. I basically think they are people who are in love with whales, and I'm sure they won't disagree with that assessment themselves, but there is a problem here: where are the cow activists, where is the movement for the liberation of pigs. Not every animal is as cute as a dolphin, or as majestic as a whale. This whole movement is carried on the notion of certain 'star quality' animals that capture the public's imagination. Your thoughts...

They quizzed Von Braun and the nuclear scientists they were able to get their hands on, as well as secretly taping them while in the US. It turns out they were quite a bit off on the basic theory. How much Uranium one would need, how it could achieve critical mass, etc. They would have gotten it eventually, but they didn't have the resources to do much of anything in the last stages of the war.

That's because Benny Hill was CIA sent to undermine British humor.

In reality the Africa corps retreated that way, they didn't surrender until you could count their tanks with one hand. I guess it's the same problem that plagues every potential invader of Russia, lines of supply. Once you are in there you are more or less trapped. Taking Stalingrad would only have been symbolic as it was reduced to a pile of rubble and could offer Germany no resources.

Meh, Lucas killed starwars.

Tripple post. You don't see those often.

Work test

Work test

Work test

And Diamond dust can be manufactured, for not a huge ammount of money. You don't need to file bits off diamonds.

I'm not smart and I think they're hilarious.

Why is the bear being obnoxious social comedy.

what the, don't you live in the city, and didn't Al Gore personally dig down cables for the information super highway internets.

I didn't know my up was so crappy. Still, 10 mps is plenty.

Are you joking here? The "dem injun's got whats they deserved" line of thinking went obsolete quite awhile ago. Indian reservations have been making huge strides in the US, and they are using old fashioned capitalism to do it. Seriously, that is how the textbooks are written right now, that is how the state education standards read, and that is how young folks are learning. So I'm not sure where your myth is persisting. Well what else would they 'use'. Capitalism is not an ideology, it's the way the world works. Play along or get left behind. PS : LoF doesn't really believe his own position, he's arguing it for laughs, in case you missed the news.

Maybe we care more about the president and cabinet because they set the agenda on foreign policy, and we aren't as interested in the day to day business of legislation in the house. One small party getting disproportionate influence because they are needed to form a majority is one possible result of a broad spectrum of parties, but ultimately what it teaches all parties is the need for cooperation, for seeking new alliances to break the stalemate. A government will typically contain ministers from several different parties. This is healthier, I think, than cleaving political division down the middle and in effect saying 'stand on this side of the line or the other'.

Another thing which is unfortunate is the creation of two political powerhouses rather than a full compliment of parties across the political spectrum, resulting in polarization. The Democrats and the Republicans are like the Jedi and the Sith (I'll let you each decide which is which), there is little gray side when it comes to the debate.

The party chooses whomever comes out the stronger after the primaries, I thought you meant running as a third party candidate. They are mostly remarkable for being able to siphon off votes from the 'real' candidates and affect the outcome.

I firmly believe in proportional representation, I don't think the federal system is better or more suited to the US, but fundamental political organization doesn't change overnight, or maybe at all, without a revolution or some such, so it doesn't really matter.

'There are other places where a candidate has virtually no chance if he's not selected by the party to run on the ballot' When was the last time an independent won the presidency in the US.

I didn't compare the electoral college with Chavez, we were discussing democracy and non democratic practices. Chavez's power grab is an entirely unrelated topic within the same realm.

Is the CMOS chip replaceable, as in it pops out and can be refitted ?. Just a general question.

I know you just spent a post explaining how America isn't exactly a democracy, but the way you chose your president is decidedly undemocratic. Not only do you discard the mandates (electoral votes) of the losing side ,which are supposed to represent voter influence, you give those mandates to the enemy. So if a state has been 60% democratic for the last decade, it is a defacto democratic stronghold where republican influence, on the presidential level, is nonexistent. It's not so much one man one vote, but one man 2 votes one place, and 0 in another. Does it really matter that much where you live, and are the differences between the states in cultural and political tradition so great as to make this necessary. I know everything to do with the constitution and its organization of the political system is a holy cow in the US and will continue in its antiquated state indefinitely, but still.