Taro T

That's been obvious since the Eugenics discussions began, although I've been hoping I was wrong about that which is probably why I've been going back and forth as to whether he's serious or pulling people's legs in many of these threads. (Although I will admit to not understanding how the "regression to the mean" phenomena support a Eugenics program.) I guess I have developed over these past few months some strange fascination with watching as he contradicts himself, and in this particular thread am curious if we'll see it go straight 720, or stop at 270 and veer back 45 degrees a couple of times before making the double loop-de-loop. By his logic, at least that which he's put to keyboard, if everyone in this country bred with someone outside their particular ethnicity, then the nation would be more unified. (Of course, by his apparent beliefs, it appears we'd be much better off if only we'd be able to keep our races segregated and with no immigration. Although, I suppose emigration of undesirables would be acceptable.) Our problems apparently stem from the fact that we've got whites and blacks and reds and yellows and FAR too many browns. It's interesting, in that the African nations, most of whose borders were determined by Europeans, where borders cross historical tribal boundaries, provide examples of racial similarity not leading to unity. Of course we've never seen anything like this in say the Alsace-Lorraine region or western Poland or around the Baltics. Of course, in the U.S., where there is less racial similarity than in any other nation on this planet, there hasn't been a Civil War in over 140 years. (It must be because we were ALL white and God-fearing in 1940. ) I'm guessing someone on this board whose favorite quarterback is now backing up a "Schwartzer", would get a big kick out of a very good friend of mine with a PhD and happening to be descended from slaves marrying and having 2 very bright children with a native German PhD. I KNOW that's what he implied. There's just something compelling about actually reading it right there out in the open, without any veiled references to subsidizing intelligent women to breed 3.5 children.

Now I'm confused. It reads as if you are stating that having Americans of differing ethnic stocks intermarry won't lead to a unified nation but having separate pockets of pure _pick an ethnicity here_ will lead to a unified nation. Is there where you are going with this, or are you heading towards no new outsiders should become Americans because that will prevent the U.S.ofA. from being a united nation? Or is the point something else entirely?

Either you are putting me on, or you are truly this daft. Either way, I'm done with it.

Has it been in their #$@%% newspaper? NO. Not putting it in the newspaper when it is the HOMETOWN politician IS not covering it. Not covering it is the evidence they are not covering it. What part of THAT is so difficult to comprehend? But, but, but, they said they'd think about running a story on it. My bad, I guess they MUST be covering it then. If they run a story 3 weeks from now, they aren't exactly covering it in a timely manner now are they? Shouldn't something thats NEWS actually be NEW (current)?

She resigned, what, 4 days ago? And they are still trying to decide whether it's newsworthy? If they run an article 3 weeks from now, its not exactly NEWS, now is it. They have not covered it to date, SnR is correct they APPARENTLY are refusing to cover it.

By not putting it in their paper, that is how they are "refusing to cover it". Regardless of whether she did anything inappropriate or not, and by Washington standards I doubt she did (by any other standard, maybe), don't you think the editors would at least find it worthy to put SOMEWHERE in the paper that the Senator who hails from their city stepped down off a particular subcommittee? Naaah. It makes much more sense for them to wait to print an article until they understand the full ramifications of what this means and are able to hector in extreme detail to their readership what it means to them, rather than simply write "Feinstein resigned from a subcommittee".

So, you're finally admitting that you really are BF, HA, and in a surprise twist, Ed?

But it's worked so well for Tampa spending a ton of their money on 3 players.

He used to with regularity, but this past season, he seems to have bought into the Sabres system. Of course he does appear to hate Briere, or B-Rod as he likes to call him.

Have you read all the ones at Sabres Space? Mr. Deluca keeps things interesting there as well as here.

Actually, that ain't the song you like. Marvin Gaye's song is pretty cool. The 4 Non-talents song has no connection to the other one, no lyrics, no riffs, no anything, except they are probably both 4/4 time.

So's Mandy out for the weekend?

Cool. Congrats and good luck.

Does anyone know if Hamburger U has graduate level courses in cheesesteak?

Actually, the line item veto wouldn't be of much, if any, use in this particular instance as the individual funding items each have the deadline written in the same sentence as the $'s are mentioned.

Actually, I think the threat of us leaving before the institutions that will/should protect the citizenry are capable of handling the task on their own is a bigger threat towards stability today. (Ask me again in 12 months and my opinion may have changed.) While being far from an expert, I'd wager that the reason the country is having problems with developing an army and police force have to do with punting ALL officers from the old Iraqi army and not finishing the job when we have gone after the Mahdi army and other militias. Throw in the history of what happened after Desert Storm and the constant media barrage that makes it sound like it's inevitable that we will cut and run within the next 2 years and I think you have some legitimate reasons for these institutions to have difficulty staffing. Also, could you please show me some sources for the information that "anyone who works with us is killed"?

Me thinks he was going for choice B. As for the rest of your post, all I can say is "wow".

Dean, that's baaa,aaaaa,aaaad.

It is possible. (I also wouldn't be shocked to find out that behind the scenes we HAVE been telling them what conditions wll cause us to say it's hopeless.) But considering the way the U.S. basically turned it's back on the Shia after Desert Storm, I don't see how saying we're out of there on 9/30/08 doesn't prevent Iraqis from supporting a government that currently doesn't appear to be able to keep order without outside assistance. I do believe that given time, things can get better over there. (Not saying they will, saying they can.) I don't see where a radically different leadership / government would or could be a good thing (for us or the majority of Iraqis). Will the current government fail regardless of what we do? Again, it's possible. (Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it's probable, but I think it is currently far from a given.) From my position, far outside the loop, I don't see how it can succeed without our help in getting it going. I don't see any particularily "good" options currently, but if we hold our ground (or ramp up security around Bagdad) I believe people far smarter than I will come up with some better options. Right now, I'm not certain what the best scenario that could be hoped for is. But I do see some worst scenarios, most of which begin with the U.S. turning tail and telling the world, once again, that we don't care about Muslims / Arabs / however else you want to state it.

I can't speak for others, but setting an arbitrary date to be out of Iraq because it sounds good or is nice "round" date, such as September 30, 2008, is what I would consider arbitrary. Especially when that date is not tied to ANY on site results or situations. We're out of there ~5 weeks before the 2008 election whether we're winning, losing, or somewhere inbetween. If the deadline isn't "arbitrary", I'd be interested in hearing (reading, actually) what it is.

I do appreciate the serious reply. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this one though. I don't know how much longer U.S. troops will be required there, but I don't see where setting an artificial deadline for withdrawl has any realistic possibility of resulting in an outcome we'd consider successful. Perhaps it will scare the moderates into getting their acts together, but I just don't see it happening. I don't think the whole region will descend into chaos when the U.S. declares victory and walks away, but I see it creating a lot more problems than we currently have.

The thing that unites us is, as Bill Murray so eloquently put it, and this is a paraphrase "our forefathers were kicked out of every self respecting country there is". We ARE mutts. That is where the cohesion comes from. The people that are here want to be here. I don't dispute that there is the potential that our country could break down, I just believe the people that are here are smart enough not to let that happen. Immigration isn't the issue. Illegal immigration is an issue and the paltry # of green cards and visas issued is also an issue. Personally, I think we should increase the # of legal immigrants allowed into the country AND make more efforts to limit the illegal immigration. But I don't have a problem with our country becoming a little "browner" than it was when I was growing up. In many ways, I see that as a positive.

But, it's a well known east German fact that it takes 3.5 times the volume of peanuts to make a volume of peanut butter. And we ALL know that peanut storage is merely a precursor to manufacturing peanut butter and/or fulfilling an elephant's wildest fantasies. While the latter, in a VERY sick way, could be considered a service (but not for human consumption) I see no way to consider the former anything but a stage in manufacturing. So, except for a very small percentage, of which I am certain a political appointee could choose which of those peanut farmers/speculators qualify for subsidies, peanut storers do not DESERVE to receive a subsidy for their wanton efforts.

Some interesting straw men you've set up. If the "GOP enablers" truly wanted to convert Iraq into a very large glass museum or 20MM hole golf course, shouldn't they have done it by now? I, for one, will admit that I supported the war initially, but now wish we never made the effort. Not because I think our troops will fail or that it was a wrong headed effort, but because I think politicians have (and will continue to) mess(ed) things up. And, we don't seem to have the political will to see things through to a victory. Unitl someone in power figures out how to get the U.S. out without giving the Al Queda supporters free reign, I don't see how the U.S. can leave. I would be very interested in hearing (reading) how you would get us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future. (Seriously.)

Is this strictly corporate welfare for Peter Pan, or does this protect all domestic peanut butter suppliers? Isn't peanut butter a tangible good, shouldn't molson goldfish be upset about this subsidy to a non-service provider? (Of course, if they provided peanut butter education, perhaps this subsidy wouldn't be egregrious.)