UConn James

He will not be in the Democratic Caucus for very much longer. Whether that's by his choice, Dem choice or if McCain picks him as VP (the two have been virtually attached at the hip for quite some time now --- this would be a gross error on JMac's part). This certainly doesn't build him any bridges from the many he's burned in the last few years. With everything that's happened, I just don't see how he wins another term in CT when he'll no longer be able to say "Hey, people, I'm still a Democrat at heart!" Four more years is an eternity, for sure, but that's this board's CT Yankee view. I also think he's a little disingenuous on the 'You don't talk to your enemies' tack. Piss on JFK not meeting with Castro and all that. Perhaps someone should remind him of the red phone on the President's desk? The lines b/w us and our biggest enemy were always open in the Cold War. Not saying that we should talk to AQ, for sure, but there's no harm in a president talking/meeting with adversaries to let them know personally exactly where they stand. Talking with someone does not mean you're capitulating or compromising yourself; it just means you're talking. That's the spirit of the Olympics, as well; every 4 years, the nations send their best athletes to compete in good sportsmanship regardless of politics, and hopefully each begins to see the others as people rather than a blob of land on a map whose citizens they're vaguely (or overtly) told by their govt to hate for reasons that may or may not be valid. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. I'm officially registered in the party, but I don't get the Republicanism of saying 'You don't exist in our world' such that there's not even a speck of a chance for improving relations.

Those states disenfranchised themselves. They were told the consequences of pushing up their primary date --- the loss of their delegates at the convention --- and did it anyway (and as AD has pointed out numerous times, this was unanimous and bipartisan). If the DNC now allows the votes to be counted and for the delegates to seat, it's a slap in the face to the system that was created to bring a geographically diverse range of results early in the process. Fla and Mich. flouted that, going against that Midwestern axiom of "don't think you're important because you're not." If they are seated, what's to stop, say, New York or Texas from having their primaries on Oct. 1? You cannot reward someone for cutting in line. It encourages others to do the same. Seriously, the leapfrogging for attention has risen to new heights of stupidity. They couldn't get a re-vote worked out in time, under the proper circumstances fair to everyone or cost. A revote would have been ideal, but responsibility lies with the state leaders, and ultimately in our representative democracy, on the people who elected them. If those states' citizens are displeased with how their state leaders voted, they should watch how they vote in their state elections. Maybe next time all this moving up primary dates won't won't be chaotic and stupid and rife with "We're better than you, so we're going first"... but don't count on it.

Agreed. JMac needs someone who can shore up his weak areas. With the way things are going, even if it's perception and numbers on paper show something else to try to keep people from looking longingly at tall buildings, his weakest policy area --- the economy, as he freely admits --- will be the No. 1 issue of '08. Screw Iraq, screw stem cells... when things aren't going well with the economy, the rest is on the back burner (and, if we don't have a good economy, how do we fund all this spending besides more deficits?). The arching theme is that in such times, more people vote for the nurturing/mother Dems vs. the security/father Repubs. The Huckster might be the one who can garner JMac some votes in the Bible Belt. But in terms of offering help to the campaign in real issues/contribute to the tenor of the campaign, he comes up really short of what is needed right now. Palliative Southern drawl doesn't put food on the table. There's a short list circling among the talking heads of Pawlenty, Crist, Carly Fiorina a former CEO of HP (have to say, that would be interesting). And that Mitt Romney, whose strong suit is the economy and who many 'conservative' voters have said would be a good VP choice b/c he needs to prove his mettle to them first, likely burned the bridge during the primary. In contrast, if Obama is smart, he picks Bill Richardson. That would give instant polish to the campaign from someone who is very experienced in foreign policy, an area where Obama has been painted as inexperienced by the Clinton handbook. I think Richardson was viewed as being too... how do you say... bumble-y personality-wise for a President, but he is generally well-respected. It would also help Obama attract the Latino vote and put some of the southwest states in play.

Well, I'd consider it more a reflection on whatever team was stupid enough to fire a guy mid-season, not change their packages, and expect everything to be hunky-dory. Did the guy have a certain non-compete clause in his contract? What if he were hired by another team? He couldn't use what he knew about his former team? Also, you'd think that by halftime at least, said team would suspect that the guy spilled the beans. This is a similar situation to RJ shouting out signals to the D during the Jags game. This doesn't even come close to the Paytoilets*. At worst this was ungentlemanly. The NFL, tho, is no place for gentlemen, which is why it happens a lot.

Ramius asks a good question here.... My assumption is it might be some residual magnetic force. IIRC, the hatch and entering the numbers was merely a way of releasing pent-up energy from a strong magnetic field (remember Jack's keys). When Des turned the key, it was kind of understood that the magnet lost its strength. Could it still be enough to throw off a compass reading? Or is it caused by something else on the island? Oooo! That's a good one. Kind of like how Richard visited/checked in on Locke at different points in his life, while appearing as his contemporary age. Walt could be traveling back in time from the future to get people on the island that need to be there. Remember that he and Locke have a weird sort of connection, from the earliest episodes. I'm sure this is not for nothing. How cool of Hurley was it last night that when he saw Sayid had no one to greet him, he introduced him to his parents. It's trite, but he's the glue that holds them together. --- It's amazing to see how much progress the show has made, when you think back to how much we've learned since S1. And no, Sherman, I wouldn't say this is a repeat of the S2 conflict either. We're already deep into their organization. The flashforwards have been a brilliant device that allows the show to progress at such a fast rate in a short time. After we're shown how the Oceanic 6 get off the island, we're going to be where Jack screams out "We have to get back!" People've been so worried about the timeline, and it's like, dude they know what they're doing.

On WBZ in Boston last night, one of their commentators was speaking over the title "PATRIOTS CLEARED" and his diatribe made it sound like a complete vindication. What a !@#$ joke.

No sh--. Walker, Dockery, Peters, Butler, Stroud, McCargo, Johnson, Schoebel, Kelsay are seriously not enough? OK, I'll spot you Kelsay if he doesn't produce this season. But on the whole, our lines aren't nearly as bad as some would have us believe. OL play was one of the few bright spots last season. Fowler ain't the best, but he ain't the worst; you can't have worldbeater$ everywhere. There's new ingredients been added to the pot --- let's see how the stew tastes 'fore throwing it out. Going after mostly skills players this draft wasn't what I consider a serious faux pas. That said, I hope these UDFAs can push the current backups and contribute in the future, and I also expect that we draft at C, G/T next year for replenishing/eventual starter.

Well, I think yall and ieatcrayonz (is it sad to be upstaged by him? Honestly... I think I'd shoot myself) did my light work yesterday. 'Here's a guy that didn't do anything but deliver an unmarked package! Ask him! He'll tell you! It's all trumped up! ... Oh, that part about providing passports and attending a terrorist training camp? What, I left that out? No biggie!' What a f--kin' joke. Yeah, I don't know that. I also don't know that aforementioned bleeding heart ACLU/AI-types will use these redactions as a way to claim that any conviction was not fair and that 'the blacked out sections would prove it all... if they weren't blacked out. So it needs to be reversed.' "Heavily (intimation=unnecessarily) redacted/What do they have to hide?" are regular cries from the apologists. At least you admitted to it. Amazing how a little Google searching can lead to startling revelations that your previous ignorant slanders were off base. Maybe you should try doing research before you make more baseless assertions of what the big, bad, faceless admin is and is not doing. So, the admin wanted to limit or block access to those lawyers who broke rules of communication and encouraged uprisings that put guards' lives more at risk? I'm shocked! That article has a little dust on it, tho. As for Stimson, what of it? He's surprised that NY lawyers have taken the detainees as clients? Perhaps we could get The Law Offices of Cletus Soreass Esq. in Branson, Mo. He had Robert Vaughan do some commercials for him, yaknow! Who should represent the detainees? It's not really any different than lawyers who defend murderers, rapists and the like --- that lawyer serves as the defendant's legal counsel, not as his best buddy. I'd say there is some truth to his statements and some lies. I do think however this does show that prisoners subjected to torture will say anything to get out of the torture and information gleaned from them is mostly useless despite what the pathologically lying Bush administration claims. After all they can't say we've gotten no decent information after submitting these guys to torture can they? As I wrote before, this thread wasn't about torture, it's about detention. I don't support torture b/c I don't think it works; much more effective info is gleaned in other ways. I think the admin mostly accepts this too, just wanted to keep their options open for some relatively milder forms (i.e. not causing lasting physical harm), and Congress iirc passed an anti-torture bill incl. waterboarding. But like I said, I don't support torture. Well.... maybe in the extremest of cases --- like if we caught OBL/Zahari and had evidence that he was financing an attack to be carried out in the next week and only he knew the details. And even then, that would have to be in one of my weaker moments. I know there's not much to go on there, and I'm not saying for sure this guy above is lying, but if you were tortured, wouldn't you say, when questioned, specifically what torture was inflicted on you? Wouldn't it be burned into your soul? 'One way and then another way' reeks of lawyer-inspired talk. Maybe we have a hard time b/c... oh I dunno... the people in Gitmo are the scum of the earth and would invite terrorist attack. Like I wrote, you aren't going to find any neutral countries. "You're either with us or with the terrorists." Lynch was hesitant for Bragg to write for all the world to see that she had been raped by her (initial Iraqi army) captors, as was verifiable from her medical records. She had final editorial control of her own book. That she now has regrets about including it is understandable for that type of victim.... and also from a standpoint of whatever it may mean for future GI Janes. I don't get what you're trying to argue. --- Tom, it just don't seem to be sinking in to him no matter how many times it's been explained. You'd probably have more success talking to a brick wall. And then there's the old phrase, "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." (One obstinate person I said that to once said, "What is that supposed to mean?" Checkmate.)

My brother has diagnosed PTSD after 3 tours in Afghanistan. I'm not on board with giving a Purple Heart. God knows that it's a serious issue, but the PH was created for soldiers who have been physically wounded in action. There are some who argue that mental conditions that develop as a result are an injury nonetheless.... I can see the fundamental point, but there's a distinction b/w physical pain/injury that is enemy-inflicted with bullets, knives, etc. and mental pain/injury. One could rightly argue that any soldier who's seen combat is mentally affected to some degree --- it comes with the job. I also see the point of codifying that serious mental disorders as a result of combat stress above and beyond the norm need to be given more respect through the corps. There're a lot of soldiers who still denigrate it, look down on soldiers who suffer this, say they're faking, harass them, don't factor it in regarding assignments. And regardless of all the training, it still happens. Perhaps a middle ground would be to create a different medal confined to this area to work to reduce the stigma corps-wide over time, and help alleviate the problem that those who suffer don't come forward for fear of such reprisal. But there's others who might say it'll never go away and such would just better mark targets for harassment.... I don't know.

It says that based on medical records he had access to, and (now-hesitant-to-admit, which is not uncommon) confirmation from JL, the ghostwriter wrote in her book that she had been raped.

Maybe he assumed that since Indy got "eternal life" in the last movie....

I don't think this unseats Fowler, but one can only hope this and the other UDFA from Arkansas leads to the welcome departure of Duke Preston as a backup anything.

Or that the Paytoilets* use multiple frequencies --- I think it's usually 4 or more --- when other teams use 2.

From all I've read, she has no recollection of her capture or what transpired. She had multiple broken bones and bruising. She was taken to the hospital by Iraqi army along with the bodies of the rest of her unit, and the Iraqis and more govt agents were waiting around, probably not w/o a purpose. What they planned on doing with her before they likely got wind the Americans would be coming is anybody's guess. From her Wikipedia entry (I know, I know....): She may have been hesitant to include it, as many victims of sexual assault understandably don't want all and sundry to know such details or be known solely as such, but the evidence of it was certainly there.

I actually wouldn't be surprised by that. Either directly, or more likely, indirectly thru the threat that whatever the admin does, will be reversed by said bleeding hearts who don't think anyone should ever be in jail for very long no matter what they've done. Bush, and I'd wager most Americans, believes that the detainees should never breathe free air again, for what those who have the information on details of capture know they did... information which is still militarily/national security sensitive so it's reasonable to me that they do not want to disseminate it. So, the admin is forced to make everything doing with adjudicating absolutely watertight and vetted to be so, and to try one at the beginning as they started last fall. I guess this needs to be explained to you for the 34th time in this thread (who knows... maybe it might sink in if enough people say it) that this takes a crapload of time, to make sure that whatever convictions they get will stick and not be thrown out on stupid technicalities, or they just don't do anything at all and hold the detainees in stasis... which isn't the worst thing in the world, when you see what's happened to captives thru the ages of man the fact that the detainees weren't summarily executed and quietly buried in the sand shows pretty high restraint and a nod to the GC, in place of its application due to legal/definitive qualifiers. Your reasoning for all of this is so American soldiers aren't treated the same way.... As Wacka wrote (and I don't agree with him often, nor on this point to the extent he takes it that it entitles us to do anything we want) the enemy that we are discussing has killed every American soldier they have managed to capture. Hell, they have killed every American, soldier or civilian, that they've captured (On edit: we rescued Jessica Lynch after she was beaten and raped; who knows what special plans they had for her). And these have not even been quick, painless deaths --- they involve grotesque torture, disembowelment and dismemberment. I honestly don't get why you'd want to raise this point. It's really not good for your case. I'm not sure whether the detainees have been allowed to contact their families in letters. Nonetheless, the GC's wording is such that it allows one letter to inform they've been captured and whatever else they want to write to their family. If the argument is that they can't write back and forth, that is not what the GC stipulates. The Red Cross's 'level of contact' access to some detainees. Why the admin would want to do that isn't hard to understand, even for mouth-breathers. IIRC, people working/posing as humanitarian workers and lawyers have been caught trying to pass information and deliver coded messages from the detainees. There's a reason why Gitmo is a special degree even among maximum-security facilities. It's also for the safety of those individuals. I'll make this a little easier for your level... remember that scene in "Silence of the Lambs"? Finally, you'd have to wonder at the conduct of such hearings and trials. I'm not arguing their eventual necessity once the details of how exactly to proceed are established, the point that we can say we did the best as humanly possible in the delivering of justice, or that what I'm thinking will happen will indeed happen. But if this is anything like the Moussaoui trial circus, it will involve 700 cases where the detainee/defendant incessantly shouts that he does not recognize the authority of the court/tribunal/what-have-you, that he wasn't where the military captured him, calls upon Allah to help him dismember all involved in said proceeding, that his name isn't Mustafah Al-Sayid el Basheer and that despite all physical evidence, witness testimony, detainee's own statements, they've got the wrong man, sitting and loudly chant verses from the Koran, et cetera, et cetera. Again, I'm not going to dispute the necessity, but will such a circus make us feel any better or make any other country predisposed to disliking the US think that we gave someone a fair trial rather than a farce (tho it's of the defendant's own making)? And where? A statement you've made several times in this thread... "in a neutral country." I call bullsh--. What country is neutral? What country where all of the citizens can truly say "I have no opinion on either the US or AQ/affiliated groups." What country where the process could be absolutely secure from its high-value target?

A) I never said word one about torture/waterboarding. That was not the point of discussion in this thread as it has been covered in many others. The discussion has been about detention. Admittedly, the depth of my knowledge on this part is what I hear in the background on the TeeVee or radio as I'm doing the dishes. I don't know if it's been confirmed that they used it at Gitmo; I've only definitively heard Afghanistan with KSM and Iraq. I am pretty certain that by congressional law, the practice has been stopped for a while now. Journos are let in sporadically, but then again, I wouldn't blame the admin from blocking access to an uber-maximum-security prison on the grounds of the nature of the people incarcerated there and what such a disturbance causes. Also, letting in people (yes, journos are regular people, no special qualification) to poke and prod the detainees like they're zoo animals would be against the GC's humiliation standard, as you so want the admin to follow. Per Tom's thread above, you have have a real misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Geneva Convention actually entails beyond the surface level that's discussed on the news by talking heads as if it's the breadth and depth of the terms of the agreement. And the fact that you persist in saying 'They could get it all done, but don't want to' despite people in the know having to explain to you over and over that it just isn't so... it begs the question if you come here for educational discussion or your and molson's cacophony of BushBad. "Prove they aren't being mistreated" is like proving that California won't de-continentilize and drift into the ocean after a massive earthquake. It's pretty hard to prove a negative assertion. If the admin does show what proof they can, people like yourself will no doubt say it's not enough, or 'They probably beat him right after they took that photo' or upwards of thousand other theories. B) It wasn't my intent to say Spector's treatment = Gitmo. Of course it wasn't; it was baby steps thru the process; however, his world was in limbo during those 4 years from soup to nuts, and that was in the best of circumstances, not where fundamental definitions are still being worked out b/c trans-national, non-state-supported terrorism is relatively uncharted legal territory. Probably shouldn't have used the comparison to make the very broad point that justice takes time... people here have a tough time with anything other than apples-to-apples (and even then, they'll pinprick it to McIntosh, Cortland or Washington Red! ).

B/c the Geneva Convention does not apply to non-state-sanctioned insurgents. Also, if they are to be treated as POWs under the GC, then there's no need for trials. They'd be held until someone signs a treaty and the end of fighting.... Only, that doesn't seem bloody likely to happen, now does it? This is a wholly different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. How many times has that been explained by Tom, BiB, et al in the last 7 years? You just don't get it, do you? In WWII, you may not have realized it, but tens of thousands of German POWs were held in-country and kept in camps for the duration of the war --- no trials, no habeus corpus, just, as the GC required, meals, housing, etc. in a climate similar to where they were captured (that's right, if a POW was captured in Siberia, the GC says you must hold him in approximately such conditions). There was a camp in central CT, actually. And after the war, many of them stayed or immigrated back to the US b/c, they said, 'We were treated better as prisoners over here than our own people treated us as soldiers.' But those were different times and a different enemy. Why not treat them as American citizens? Gee... maybe b/c they are not American citizens. Seriously, WTF?!! Doubt they would want to be treated like a citizen of the Great Satan. So, a scared kitty to you is defined as we who want to protect ourselves from people who've taken vows to inflict jihad by suicide if necessary, on America? I especially love the 'You want to suspend everyone's civil liberties' charge. Great, that. No leap over a wide chasm there.... . I don't mind suspending the liberty of people who've taken up arms against our military in the course of battle, same as I don't mind restricting gun rights to those convicted of felonies, or to ban child rapists from living within x-distance from schools. I don't think the slope is nearly as slippery as you love to suggest. There are many salient reasons why holding them here poses a threat. It could encourage attacks on the homeland, possibility of prison break, which would put them right where they want to be w/o even needing a passport. It's a much smaller world even than it was in WW2. You're entitled to your 'everyone failed' theory; I'd say it's right... and I'd also say why are you so sure things like it won't happen again? My point about Specter was that the administration of justice can sometimes take quite a while, even under the best of circumstances. Your righteous indignation that 'nothing's happened yet! Why is it taking so long! Are we there yet?!' is classic Americanism. It's pretty easy to be a critic about something you understand very little of the minutia of and shoot spitballs from the lib apologist peanut gallery.

Did you read the first part of my post #204 in this thread? Been waiting for someone to comment. I think the recruitment side of things might have gotten messed up b/w the two. Plenty of similarities in their birth stories that Ben might have been the classic 'wrong man.' I don't know if Ben is depressed, as such. After having unsuccessfully tried to kill off his competition for leadership (which he said he should have known would happen b/c the island wouldn't let Locke die --- that is to say, in Desmond-flashback-ese "the universe was course correcting"/preventing --- b/c his role isn't done) we saw the transition of power this week. I don't know. Ben, despite his selfishness and desire to save his own ass and get done what he wants done thru whatever means necessary (usually by getting other people to do your dirty work and killing for you)... wants what's best for the island.

I could see something like that for Widmore given what we've seen of him and a connection to the Black Rock and his conversation with Ben. He may be in the same boat as Michael --- he left the island somehow, and now he can't die and is trying to find it again. Whether it's to try to take advantage of it commercially ('Eternal Life! Yours for $50M!!') or if it's a solo thing like Michael that he's tired of life and wants to die (in his chat with Desmond, you just get the sense that he's been to the top, made a fortune that hasn't made him happy, knows so much, but it's all old hat to him now and he just wants it over... who knows. Like I wrote the other week, the game b/w he and Ben is kind of a Reverse Highlander? There's no reason to make such a connection for Richard; we know of no tie b/w him and the Black Rock, which is a little late in the game for his character, but that may be purposeful. Last week Kate simply said the phone conversation was something that Sawyer wouldn't want her to share. I got the read that she is doing something for Sawyer's daughter (I forget her name but it was in the ep where he's in prison and puts all the reward money in her name) with the woman he conned. Remember that Kate also met her before 815. Vouchsafe that Sawyer is still on the island. Jack got jealous b/c... well... he's Jack, and he doesn't have a big project to fix. If he doesn't have a problem, he makes one for himself.

Well, she did leave Aaron with Charlie for stretches --- either willingly or the times Charlie had those dreams. And there was the time Rousseau took him. That's just off the top of my head, but I think that's it. And still... she was set to give Aaron up for adoption to "a couple in Los Angeles" about 4 months ago in island-time, then was ready to give him to the Others (admittedly, she was in a hazy state) when Ethan took her. I don't think they'll leave the Christian explanation dangling over to next season. But it could just be something they don't have to explain --- CS was on the plane in a coffin, it crashed on the island and was empty when Jack opened it (did the island's curative powers bring him back?), he's been seen walking around before --- and now it just is.

Recycling... Is Garbage. Bit of a long read, but this article makes a good case that there are plenty of people more interested in a boondoggle with land deals or 'action groups' that take donations and moneylaunder it around or those who get off on making people apologize for living and feel bad about themselves than doing things that are good for the environment. Recycling some items is a net-loss enterprise at this point, such as for gloss paper, plastics, etc. But for other items, it's pretty easy and worthwhile, such as plain newsprint; metals that can be melted and reformed (scrap metal is bigtime right now eg brass, copper, aluminum); wood that can be chopped up for OSB, etc.

HFB!

He said 57. Puerto Rico and Guam (they actually have party delegates), American Samoa, Wake Island, US Virgin Islands are territories or possessions of the United States.... and then there's Afghanistan, and Iraq, whose lands we could have bought 4 times over with all the $ we've pumped in there. Tell Betsy Ross to get busy! I do concede in judgment tho, that with the candidates' schedules, the sleep deprivation has got to be mind-numbing if not carefully monitored. I've been on 2-3 hours of sleep per night for ~ 2 weeks before due to really loud tinnitus from an ear infection and by the end, my mind was ing frazzled.

I doubt they could seat a jury in NYC that would convict unanimously. And then, I wouldn't be surprised if he leaked this story to the papers so he can inspire his poverty-strapped minion lemmings to each send in their $5 contributions along with any corporate lucre he can gorge. The !@#$ greed of these bottom-feeders is disgusting. At least I now know to boycott Pepsi-Co and Anheuser-Busch. Then again, I don't drink either of their swill anyway.