If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[jeffrey smith]

You are most likely correct that the theory of evolution is not taught in very great detail in spite of the fact it is central to all biological theory. But quantum theory (or a simplification thereof) is barely taught at all in high school physics courses. Most of what is taught in high school is classical physics with some Maxwell electrodynamics. Physics which requires calculus is barely taught in high school except to advanced placement students.

Most of our high-school students enter college ignorant of the essentials of scientific theory and hypothesis test to say nothing of the technical details. This is not do the influence of creationist to be best of my knowledge. We miss the boat in teaching both biology and the more physical sciences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I disagree in regards to evolution. I think Christian fundamentalists -- I did not introduce "Creationist" here; you did -- have done their best to keep evolution out of the classroom. (Putting Creationism in is another story and one I didn't raise here.) Granted, had they not done so, it's likely government schools across America would still be teaching watered down, decades old theories about evolution -- the equivalent of how physics is taught at that level.

I would suggest this is not a new problem. I was in elementary school in the middle and late sixties, and middle/high school in the early to mid seventies. I picked up a generalized knowledge of evolution from reading and PBS shows, but as best as I can remember, I was never formally taught evolution by any science teacher. My only formal exposure to evolution came English class, when we read some of Huxley's essays, history, in dealing with the 19th century, and a philosophy class in twelfth grade that included Spencer as one of its topics. It's important to note that I was in AP classes in high school, and Huxley and Spencer were not taught to the regular classes.

So evolution was not being taught by science teachers in public school thirty and forty years ago, when the influence of the evangelicals was at a relative ebbtide.

Jeffrey S.

[Aaron]

[bush's] defense policies kept us from another terrorist attack like 9/11

There were other small terrorist attacks - e.g. arguably DC sniper, definitely anthrax letters. No terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 happened before Bush either - but it doesn't make any more or less sense to attribute that to the policies of Clinton, Bush I, etc. 9/11 was a singular, horrific event, that was executed with remarkable planning and took advantage of relative public complacency about hijackings. There's little to infer from that single day's attacks about presidential policies before or since. The mindset change from 'assume hijacking is a joyride to Cuba' to 'assume every hijacking is deadly' made the circumstances required for 9/11 break down even with United 93 and ever after.

Aaron

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aaron,

That's way too oversimplified for me, while leaving out what should be simple.

Bad guys who attack you want to attack you again. And they will if they can.

What's so hard about that? Yet I see it ignored constantly.

I don't know how to discuss this issue like this. I'm certainly not convinced of anything other than the bad guys didn't do another 9/11 under Bush's watch. I think it's extremely ingenious to pretend Bush had nothing to do with that. Let's hope nothing like 9/11 happens under Obama. Even with all his shortcomings, if nothing happens, I will be more than glad to give him credit.

In terms of security, those dudes have a job I would not want.

Michael

[algernonsidney]

The mindset change from 'assume hijacking is a joyride to Cuba' to 'assume every hijacking is deadly' made the circumstances required for 9/11 break down even with United 93 and ever after.

Aaron, you have just pointed out why I don't think anyone will try another hijacking for a while. Nobody is going to assume that it is just a "joyride to Cuba."

There is one culprit that is still forgotten, however. That culprit is government disarmament of innocent people.

Wherever it happens, whenever some nutjob starts killing a bunch of people, you can bet that he is doing it in someplace where "the law" has disamred the victims. It could be Columbine or Virginia Tech. It could be an airplane hijacking.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Chris Baker

[Peter]

Martin Radwin wrote:

The U.S. has more than its share of end-of-times Christian fundies. And I'm quite sure that no shortage of these are in the U.S. military, which has been shown to have strong ties to Christian fundamentalism.

End qotue

sbeaulieu responded:

I'd like to see stats on the so called Christian fundamentalists within the military. In my experience, day-to-day dialogues are not rife with religious subjects. I've never had a pep talk about God being on our side or the enemy being Satan.

End quote

Michael Stuart Kelly also responded with:

I don't like fundies, whether Islamist or Christian militia type (or Objectivist, for that matter). I think they are dangerous when they get access to mass destruction capabilities.

End quote

I agree with Sbeaulieu and Michael. I saw no Christian fundies in the military, though they may exist. A whole bunch are fans of Rand.

When I read the earlier post about American military personnel being as prone to Christian crusades as the Muslims were prone to Jihad and that the US military is permeated by evangelicals seeking heaven (with statistics to prove it), I wondered what universe does this creature inhabit, to be so historically illiterate?

I spent the first part of my life as a military kid. We lived in military housing. I was surrounded by military families. What struck me as true then, still strikes me as true today: What a sense of rationality I saw all around me. Nothing has more exemplified the sense of life found on board the fictional Star Trek Enterprise, as life on or near a military base. We had our own “prime directives,” rules of engagement, and sense of orderly rightness in the universe. Even in the nineteen fifties we were not allowed to speak disparagingly about other ethnicities or races. I remember my Dad warning a guy, “Knock it off! Those “slants” and “gooks” are our allies now.”

Thought oddly enough my Dad did not like Truman’s decision to completely integrate the Navy. His reason wasn’t racial but ethnic. He maintained that “the coloreds” were too loud to be mixed with whites in close quarters. Each racial group tended to still “band together” by trading bunks and moving to be near friends, and then they were annoying to others. Blacks talked and played music too loudly, he said. Not too many Hispanics were in the military at the time, and those that were tended to speak perfect English or with a slight accent and they Americanized their names. Reyes was pronounced Rays and Diaz was Dize. Well, I guess it all worked itself out, so my Dad was wrong.

A sense of honor, country, family, and rational duty abounded on military bases. We all referred to “priests” as “padre” with its quaint old world sound. No kid that I knew was very religious, not even the Catholics who never missed a Sunday service.

The following article about Spielberg’s and Tom Hanks HBO show, “Pacific” rings true also. It is a bit long, but could you just read enough to get a sense of what the author intends for us to understand?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Tom Hanks, Fine Actor, Historical Illiterate

April 10, 2010 04:25 PM EDT by Warren Adler

The actor Tom Hanks has been going around the country flacking his mini-series about the Pacific War and telling all that the war with Japan was from the American perspective all about racism and terror.

I can only conclude by his ridiculous assumptions that he is, like many Hollywood personalities, historically illiterate. His very clear and largely unchallenged assertion that we fought the war in the Pacific because we were motivated by racial hatred of these folks in the land of the rising sun, the implication being that we had to beat them down because America wanted to maintain the superiority of the white man in every nook and cranny of the world. Hogwash.

If he actually read the memoirs on which his series is based, he might have had a better understanding of the war from the perspective of the Marines who actually did the hard and brutal first wave island fighting. Indeed, it is quite true that the men of our Armed Forces and most Americans hated the Japanese, but racism had nothing to do with it. We hated the Germans as well, our so-called white skinned brothers.

In simple terms both the Japanese and the Germans were, indeed, the hated enemy. The Japanese had carried out a sneak attack on our Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor and invaded many of the islands and countries surrounding their homeland to declare themselves ruler of that part of the world. If one were to take Hanks at his word, one would have to reverse his accusation.

The fact is that in 1939 the Japanese thought of themselves as masters of their Pacific enclaves and that we Americans, allegedly a group of dumb and lazy self-indulgent slackers made up largely of bigoted white men and lowly blacks would not and could not summon the will and industry to defeat them. They felt arrogantly superior and looked upon us as inferior in will and arms.

Sure we hated them for what they had done to us and for the swaggering bullying of their warlords who believed that they were invulnerable and superior.

In military terms they had every right to feel superior. They had a fierce, fanatic and dedicated Navy, Air Force and Army with what they believed and as our Armed forces quickly learned, had superior equipment and weaponry that proved lethal to our men in the early stages of the war. Indeed, if the Japanese were host to a band of Hollywood elite types within their own borders at the time, one can imagine their castigating their leaders for fomenting a war on the grounds of racial bigotry. Of course, they would be quickly silenced by their then repressive government.

If Hanks had read these memoirs carefully he would have noted that the Japanese were also superior in commitment. Their men were propagandized into believing that their Emperor was infallible and his line immortal and they fought to the death rather than surrender. Their tactics were ruthless and far, far beyond the assumptions that there is a law of war that puts restraints on the tactics of any war machine.

Hatred of one’s foe, however contrived or manufactured and for whatever reason is the single biggest motivator for a warrior in combat no matter what the cause of the institution he is fighting for. As a soldier I was taught from the get go that my mission was to kill the bad guys.

One might call such a concept the ultimate ugly truth, but as the memoirs on which the Pacific series is based stresses over and over again, the young men who fought the bloody Pacific war under the worst possible horrors and hardships hated their foe, viscerally and consistently, and they repeated this thought ad infinitum in their text. Most of this hatred was upfront and personal and largely motivated by the fact that the enemy was ruthlessly killing those with whom they had bonded. Armies are made up of bonded brothers and now sisters. The Japanese soldier must have felt exactly the same way. So much for accusations of racism. It is far easier to hate someone who has just killed your best friend than hate him because he looks different.

Our Army and Marines, made up of men who had grown up in the far less disciplined environment of the United States, who were never exposed to Asians and had no idea of the fierce loyalty of Japanese troops to their Emperor, were blindsided by the sheer horror of Japanese tactics which probably resulted in far more United States casualties than was ever imagined by our Admirals and Generals at the start of the war.

In one of the greatest combat memoirs of the Pacific War, one of the two on which the series is based, E.B. Sledge’s “The Old Breed” the writer recalled that the hatred on both sides was fierce nor was there any mention at all of a racial component to that hatred. Sledge was appalled by the Japanese willingness to kill stretcher bearers and torture wounded men and was equally appalled by what some Americans did to the Japanese, acts vividly portrayed in the series so far with ample screen time.

To further put the race argument to rest, one might cite that on the European continent two majority white race armies faced each other with equal dedication and ruthlessness. In fact, without the contrived motivation of a hated intractable enemy, it is unlikely that either side would have fought with the same fury and dedication. Or fight at all.

It is clear from Hanks’ remarks that he is placing the greatest burden of blame for the war on Americans, we unfeeling, racially motivated, know nothing, escapist soaked, quick to hate unwashed couch potatoes who get up every morning to decide which racial or religious group we should revile and persecute. It is this same stupidity that creates huge swaths of victimization wannabes who mistake criticism of monsters like our Jihad enemies as covering the whole 1.2 billion Muslims on earth.

Granted that parts of our country have had an abysmal record on matters of discrimination on the basis of skin color, religion and factionalism of every variety, not every one in America, then and now, tolerates discrimination of any kind. Blanket accusations and indictments are absurd. America has had an amazing record of course correction on the side of fairness, justice and decency. Interning Americans of Japanese descent in camps was, in retrospect, an overreaction even in the context of the times, but it did not prevent brave Japanese American young men for distinguishing themselves as part of our armed forces. Nothing is ever all black or all white.

Contrary to Mr. Hanks’ ignorant remarks, I will give odds that most Americans don’t really give a rat’s ass about who looks like what or who prays to whatever God or who talks funny or who comes from here or there. Within every race, religion, political party, or any association, institution or group there are some really terrible people. Even in Hollywood.

[jriggenbach]

When I read the earlier post about American military personnel being as prone to Christian crusades as the Muslims were prone to Jihad and that the US military is permeated by evangelicals seeking heaven (with statistics to prove it), I wondered what universe does this creature inhabit, to be so historically illiterate?

One should, I think, be grateful for humor whenever it comes to one, irrespective of its source. And I think we can all agree that there is hardly anything so richly comical as a buffoon like Peter Taylor accusing anyone - anyone - else of historical illiteracy.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

When I read the earlier post about American military personnel being as prone to Christian crusades as the Muslims were prone to Jihad and that the US military is permeated by evangelicals seeking heaven (with statistics to prove it), I wondered what universe does this creature inhabit, to be so historically illiterate?

One should, I think, be grateful for humor whenever it comes to one, irrespective of its source. And I think we can all agree that there is hardly anything so richly comical as a buffoon like Peter Taylor accusing anyone - anyone - else of historical illiteracy.

The US Army, particularly, is populated by the most conservative Christian oriented people in American society except for the out and out fundamentalist evangelicals. I'm talking about the officers. Most of the enlisted men aren't so screwed up that way.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

The US Army, particularly, is populated by the most conservative Christian oriented people in American society

The film Constantine's Sword had a lot of material on this, if you have Netflix you can watch it on demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine%27s_Sword_(film)

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, I find it hard to believe anyone is reading many of your extremely too many too long articles. My own posts may be too many, but they aren't too long.

--Brant

can't evaluate what I don't have time to read

[Martin Radwin]

I agree with Sbeaulieu and Michael. I saw no Christian fundies in the military, though they may exist. A whole bunch are fans of Rand.

When I read the earlier post about American military personnel being as prone to Christian crusades as the Muslims were prone to Jihad and that the US military is permeated by evangelicals seeking heaven (with statistics to prove it), I wondered what universe does this creature inhabit, to be so historically illiterate?

I spent the first part of my life as a military kid. We lived in military housing. I was surrounded by military families. What struck me as true then, still strikes me as true today: What a sense of rationality I saw all around me. Nothing has more exemplified the sense of life found on board the fictional Star Trek Enterprise, as life on or near a military base. We had our own “prime directives,” rules of engagement, and sense of orderly rightness in the universe. Even in the nineteen fifties we were not allowed to speak disparagingly about other ethnicities or races. I remember my Dad warning a guy, “Knock it off! Those “slants” and “gooks” are our allies now.”

Thought oddly enough my Dad did not like Truman’s decision to completely integrate the Navy. His reason wasn’t racial but ethnic. He maintained that “the coloreds” were too loud to be mixed with whites in close quarters. Each racial group tended to still “band together” by trading bunks and moving to be near friends, and then they were annoying to others. Blacks talked and played music too loudly, he said. Not too many Hispanics were in the military at the time, and those that were tended to speak perfect English or with a slight accent and they Americanized their names. Reyes was pronounced Rays and Diaz was Dize. Well, I guess it all worked itself out, so my Dad was wrong.

A sense of honor, country, family, and rational duty abounded on military bases. We all referred to “priests” as “padre” with its quaint old world sound. No kid that I knew was very religious, not even the Catholics who never missed a Sunday service.

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/23913.php

"First published on Sunday, November 7, 2004 in Agence France Press from Near Fallujah [13] “Holy War: Evangelical Marines Prepare to Battle Barbarians” this article illustrates the entrenchment this version of the Christian Faith has become in the U.S. Marine Corp.

“Men with buzzcuts and clad in their camouflage waved their hands in the air, M-16 assault rifles beside them and chanted heavy metal-flavored lyrics in praise of Christ. ‘You are the sovereign. Your name is holy. You are the pure spotless lamb,’ a female voice cried out on the loudspeakers as the Marines clapped their hands and closed their eyes, reflecting what lay ahead for them. ‘Victory belongs to the Lord’ another young Marine read.

They proceeded onto one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war which leveled an entire city of 300,000 people to the ground, spraying people with deadly white phosphorus and genocidal radioactive uranium, with no signs of the intervention of humanitarian behavior whatsoever.

The American soldiers were witnessed getting anointed with oil before battle in Iraq just as Christ was supposedly anointed with oil-- this kind of fanaticism--this kind of disjointedness, is how violent crusades are justified and perpetuated."

Would you like me to post some more examples for you of the pernicious influence of Christianity on the US military, in case the above example of these sons of bitches destroying an entire city, poisoning the survivors with substances whose use constitutes a war crime, and convincing themselves all along that they are doing Christ's work, is not enough to convince you? If so, I'd be happy to oblige.

Martin

[jeffrey smith]

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/23913.php

"First published on Sunday, November 7, 2004 in Agence France Press from Near Fallujah [13] “Holy War: Evangelical Marines Prepare to Battle Barbarians” this article illustrates the entrenchment this version of the Christian Faith has become in the U.S. Marine Corp.

“Men with buzzcuts and clad in their camouflage waved their hands in the air, M-16 assault rifles beside them and chanted heavy metal-flavored lyrics in praise of Christ. ‘You are the sovereign. Your name is holy. You are the pure spotless lamb,’ a female voice cried out on the loudspeakers as the Marines clapped their hands and closed their eyes, reflecting what lay ahead for them. ‘Victory belongs to the Lord’ another young Marine read.

They proceeded onto one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war which leveled an entire city of 300,000 people to the ground, spraying people with deadly white phosphorus and genocidal radioactive uranium, with no signs of the intervention of humanitarian behavior whatsoever.

The American soldiers were witnessed getting anointed with oil before battle in Iraq just as Christ was supposedly anointed with oil-- this kind of fanaticism--this kind of disjointedness, is how violent crusades are justified and perpetuated."

Would you like me to post some more examples for you of the pernicious influence of Christianity on the US military, in case the above example of these sons of bitches destroying an entire city, poisoning the survivors with substances whose use constitutes a war crime, and convincing themselves all along that they are doing Christ's work, is not enough to convince you? If so, I'd be happy to oblige.

Martin

I hope the author of that article has received the treatment he needs for his obvious paranoid schizophrenia. It departs so severely from reality in places that it seems to describe an alternate universe.

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

The mindset change from 'assume hijacking is a joyride to Cuba' to 'assume every hijacking is deadly' made the circumstances required for 9/11 break down even with United 93 and ever after.

Aaron, you have just pointed out why I don't think anyone will try another hijacking for a while. Nobody is going to assume that it is just a "joyride to Cuba."

There is one culprit that is still forgotten, however. That culprit is government disarmament of innocent people.

Wherever it happens, whenever some nutjob starts killing a bunch of people, you can bet that he is doing it in someplace where "the law" has disarmed the victims. It could be Columbine or Virginia Tech. It could be an airplane hijacking.

Whenever I read similar comments, I start to wonder why people don't realize that's actually more fantasy than realistic.

To have an effective response to a person on a killing spree requires a good deal more than just one person or more in the immediate area with a gun. It requires a person who is not just armed with a weapon but also mentally prepared and mentally agile enough to 1)respond quickly (IOW, get his gun out, loaded and cocked immediately) 2)respond accurately (IOW, make sure he can hit his target, which means he has to be in a proper position--no obstructions between him and the killer, whether objects or people) and 3)have the mindset to respond lethally: anyone can fire a gun accurately with enough training, but not everyone can summon up the mental attitude needed to actually shoot to kill. In short, you need a soldier or the equivalent, and need him to be sited effectively. That can never be counted on.

Jeffrey S.

[DavidMcK]

Reading the wikipedia entry for Battle Cry and Ron Luce are scary. It wouldn't surprise me to see O'ists become a special enemy of these people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Cry_Campaign

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

It took me a while following links to trace the allegations back to sources. I ultimately landed at the Jeff Rense site, which ALWAYS must be taken with a grain of salt (or maybe a ton, depending on the article). If you want to see what it's like, go here.

The 2006 article Martin linked to is Fundamentalist Christianity Weds the Military by Debra Schaffer Hubert and Bob Nichols, published by the online site, Pittsburgh Independent Media Center, which is part of the Indymedia network, a setup that "allows anyone to instantaneously self-publish their work on globally-accessible web sites" (see here). In other words, something very similar to a discussion forum like OL, except the self-published articles that open threads are formatted like news articles.

The spraying of "genocidal radioactive uranium" is sourced by this article: Death Made In America by Mohammed Daud Miraki as an exclusive for Rense. There is a difference, though. The terms used by Miraki are "uranium munitions" and "uranium weapons" instead of "spraying people with deadly white phosphorus and genocidal radioactive uranium." Be careful if you look at that article because there are a lot of photos of very deformed and very sick infants. Also, it's not a good article in terms of facts. There are plenty of allegations and opinions and persoal anecdotes and, of course, the photos, but little else.

I almost moved on, but I wanted to know about this uranium thing. So I did some other searches. Here is a pertinent Wikipedia article (with FAR, FAR, FAR better sources at the bottom than that Indymedia article): Depleted uranium.

Apparently the USA military has been using depleted uranium munitions in combat. This substance is regularly used in civilian life as shielding and ballast for things going from sailboat keels to industrial radiography cameras. It has even been used in dental porcelain for false teeth and as a regular coloring agent for enamel, although this is now discontinued. According to the article, "DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury." In order to be negatively affected by the uranium (other than being wounded from it as a flying projectile like a bullet or shrapnel), you have to "eat, drink, or breathe it, or get it on your skin."

The problem is that when a depleted uranium projectile shatters on impact, the fine particles that go into the air as dust can be inhaled or contaminate wounds. This is what Schaffer and Nichols called "spraying" which (of course seeing that they are hugely biased) gives the impression of radioactive flame-thrower-like dusters wielded by goons in protective outfits.

There are conflicting reports on the effects of depleted uranium on humans and the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of balancing them. The Gulf War Syndrome our troops suffered with on returning from combat have been attributed to them handling this substance. So the damage has cut both ways.

I can't call using this stuff anything but a colossal screw-up. It's a far cry from the raw Nazi-like evil by our troops that Martin proposes, but that doesn't make it good or right. There's nothing good or right about using depleted uranium munitions.

What on earth were the people who authorized this crap thinking?

Incidentally, I couldn't find any correlation between the religion of the more devout soldiers and their use of depleted uranium munitions. I seriously doubt they would have used this weaponry had they known about the unintended consequences.

Michael

[algernonsidney]

Whenever I read similar comments, I start to wonder why people don't realize that's actually more fantasy than realistic.

To have an effective response to a person on a killing spree requires a good deal more than just one person or more in the immediate area with a gun.

Most airline pilots have military experience.

[Brant Gaede]

Proper use of firearms in various situations is a complicated and difficult subject. Starting around Labor Day if not sooner--new law--I'll be able to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit. I'll be looking for a small revolver. People tend to sort of freak out a little if I strap on my .357 Magnum Colt Python and walk my dog. You don't see too many open carries in Tucson even though perfectly legal in most places, I suspect for that reason. I think there is a fair amount of concealed carries except people don't really expect to need a gun until they get into a too late too bad situation.

If I had a wife I'd expect her to carry a .38 Special with hollow point bullets in her purse after getting effective training.

--Brant

armed and dangerous; parts of Tucson are dangerous too and almost everyone has a car to get to you regardless if they are of a mind to

[Brant Gaede]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

That is correct. The A-10 (or "warthog") was the plane that delivered most of the DU shells to their targets (mostly tanks and other vehicles). Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

That is correct. The A-10 (or "warthog") was the plane that delivered most of the DU shells to their targets (mostly tanks and other vehicles). Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

FYI, the density of Lead is approximately 60% that of DU. Lead is around 13,350 kg/m³ and DU is about the same as Uranium around 19,000 kg/m³

[Aaron]

To have an effective response to a person on a killing spree requires a good deal more than just one person or more in the immediate area with a gun. It requires a person who is not just armed with a weapon but also mentally prepared and mentally agile enough to 1)respond quickly (IOW, get his gun out, loaded and cocked immediately) 2)respond accurately (IOW, make sure he can hit his target, which means he has to be in a proper position--no obstructions between him and the killer, whether objects or people) and 3)have the mindset to respond lethally: anyone can fire a gun accurately with enough training, but not everyone can summon up the mental attitude needed to actually shoot to kill. In short, you need a soldier or the equivalent, and need him to be sited effectively. That can never be counted on.

'Counted on' is a mighty strong requirement - not realistic or necessary. Police or military can't be counted on to stop mass murders when they occur either. We're talking about a sudden deadly situation well outside the norms, almost inevitable that some people will die before others can even identify the danger, and the best thing to be hoped for is to cut short the killing and keep the death count from rising. Your diminishing of private gun owners in such a capacity is simply not fair or accurate. They can and have helped cut short mass murders before - e.g. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml, http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm.

Aaron

[Peter]

Junior’s Jibberish.

JR wrote:

One should, I think, be grateful for humor whenever it comes to one, irrespective of its source.

End quote

I know I don’t treasure your nonsense Junior, though it is laughable – from a distance. I keep it in Pandora’s box.

I went to the site hawking your awful book. Jeepers you are looking sickly and old, and you are still sending out evil, foul pollution from your silly pipe. What are you, 75 now, and sporting a tobacco spewing bubble pipe? Whoever told you that you looked good with that was playing a trick on you.

What a dilemma. Should I reprint the drivel he wrote about his dog with super powers or the one where he butters up a young man? The “Young Nick” one? Disgusting. Save them. Not on the Lord’s Day 8-) I have a trunk load of Junior’s Jibberish.

Riggenbotch wrote earlier:

. . . By making certain choices, we make ourselves blind to many details in everyday reality, and we can only learn to see these things again by retraining ourselves. Aldous Huxley makes a number of extremely interesting comments on this issue in *The Doors of Perception*. (Huxley believed, as do I, that psychedelic drugs -- mescalin, psilocybin, and LSD -- have the effect of temporarily suspending our sensory filters, so that we perceive the world with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and touch of a small child, and the philosophically educated mind of an adult.)

end quote

Junior, where do you get this jibberish? Do you just think it up from a drugged up brain? Retrain yourself with hallucinogens? And you say this immoral crap on an Objectivist site which may have children present?

Beware to all adults. Don’t let this creep near your morning coffee. Lest he poison you!

Beware children! I don’t know if this monster is wearing his home detention ankle bracelet. What if he has left his home and is on the prowl? Perhaps the Sheriff will organize a posse with blood hounds to track down this villain.

The headline will read: “Body of runaway Monster discovered in swamp, covered in mosquito bites and 80,000 ticks, but killed by his internal evil. ”

Bark at me again, Junior, so I can throw another stick at you. Bad Dog!

When Jeff Riggenbach leaves the USA it will be to go to hell. Nobody wants him here.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

I think DU was used mostly to penetrate armor.

--Brant

That is correct. The A-10 (or "warthog") was the plane that delivered most of the DU shells to their targets (mostly tanks and other vehicles). Since DU is thirteen times denser than lead the DU shells were a deadly kinetic-energy-kill weapon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

FYI, the density of Lead is approximately 60% that of DU. Lead is around 13,350 kg/m³ and DU is about the same as Uranium around 19,000 kg/m³

Okay, but what is the weight difference and how important is weight to an aircraft? Also, how would weight affect the velocity of the projectile? Velocity is extremely important at the point of impact.

Of course there is the obvious reason for using DU instead of simple U?

--Brant

Edited April 18, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, get a grip. Stop using JR as your own imagined picture of Dorian Gray.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Um...back to the subject at hand:

I'm still quite enamored (despite the socialized medicine and relatively high real estate costs) with Vancouver, BC. Sight unseen, I would also consider Chile and (maybe) New Zealand. But ~not~ anyplace really warm, where there are bugs and/or thugs.

Which reminds me of a joke (which--full disclosure--I just made up):

What's the difference between Vancouver and Bogota?

Vancouver is in British Columbia, and Bogota is in brutish Colombia.

Hyuck, hyuck.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Easter Island, Roger, go to Easter Island. Or Pitcairn.

--Brant