Aggrad02

I really wish that someone like HBO could have gotten a hold of the rights and made a series out of it. It could have kept to the original better with 13 hour long episodes. The characters could have been developed better as well. And 127 pages seems very short. That is only a 2hr movie. They could have at least given it 3 hrs. --Dustan

thanks Barbara.

I think you answered it in your post. Military Decorations are part of military spending, just like military uniforms are, or m16's.

He wrote four pages about his relationship to her and how it had a profound effect on his mental process, and had a couple of quotes throughout regarding her, but not too much.

Does this mean that when foreign governments take over local operations of American oil companies we let 'em have it? --Brant It is not our responsibility to control what happens in another country. If an American company decided to do business in another country they have to be ready to play by the rules of that country and accept any consequences that follow. --Dustan

I am currently reading Alexis de Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the French Revolution. In it I found this quote about freedom and found it very appropriate. "The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave" -- Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution Chapter 4.

This biggest problem that I have with this, is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government should be spending money to give awards. --Dustan

If that is what you meant, its cool. Just remember that the Fed is private, just highly regulated. --Dustan

And what do you think is going to happen to the value of the dollar, if those countries are no longer buying T-Bills? The Federal Government will have to borrow more from the Federal Reserve. Currently the cycle is not completed. There are trillions of dollars that float around used just for oil (hence the name petrodollar). Right now other countries take dollars because they know they can turn around and buy oil with it. If they couldn't buy oil with it, they would stop accepting dollars. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollars A petrodollar is a U.S. dollar earned by a country through the sale of petroleum. The term was coined by Ibrahim Oweiss, a professor of economics at Georgetown University, in 1973. Oweiss felt there was a need for a word to describe the situation which was occurring in the OPEC countries, balance of trade is largely offset by its role as a reserve currency. Given the general tendency for crude oil prices to rise and become more volatile in recent years, it may even be argued that crude oil trading may, in the long term, be a significant liability for the stability of the currency in which the trade is conducted. Very Very False. The US Government does not create new dollars. The Federal Reserve (which is a private corporation owned by the banks depositing at the Fed, own the Reserve) creates credit. The Fed creates money and then lends it to the Government and other Banks. Every time you take out a loan, you are not being loaned money, but credit created out of thin air. Why do you think banks are so aggressive at trying to get new depositors? Because they can loan out ten times their deposits. For example if you deposit 10,000, they can turn around and make a loan for a 100,000 house. Money has no value, it is just a credit receipt from the Federal Reserve. 1. It has not been proven that they are trying to build weapons 2. Even if they did they have no way to deliver those weapons. 3. Israel would not let them do it. 4. Their leader is not as insane as Fox News makes him out to be 5. Where are they funding terrorism against the US? I think you a thinking about Saudi Arabia, our oil buddy. 6. When you say allies, you mean Israel. Israel can take care of itself. So are supporting Imperialism? The idea that we should kick around who ever we want because we can. Try telling that to the 5,000 families that have lost their sons, daughter, wives and husbands for oil and because it was doable. This is false. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Do some research. Saddam had no WMD's, no viable army and was not working with terrorist. You can stay in denial and keep drinking the blood red Bush kool aid if you want. Wow - this is radically different from reality as I perceive it. Once again please explain how a primitive third world country who is not working with al-qeada is a threat to us. They cannot invade our county and they have no desire to attack us (Israel is a different story). They just want us to leave the middle east alone. --Dustan

You make it sound like oil is the only commodity in the world. The person buying my dollar may have no interest in oil whatsoever. It is the main commodity in the world. You are acting like our dollars are worth something. They are not. Previously OPEC had a rule that all oil it sold would be sold in dollars (hence the name petrodollars), not any currency that was brought, but dollars. This means that anyone wanting to buy oil and didn't already have dollars had to get them. Supply and demand is pretty simple. If you have to have dollars to buy oil and oil is in high demand, then that raises the demand and the value of dollars. This also forced all of the OPEC countries to hold their reserves in dollars (more dollars coming in than were going out, btw same thing happens with China when we buy all of their cheap junk). Now if Iraq, Iran, Lybia and Venezuela all decide to no longer accept the dollar for oil but euros instead, demand for the dollar goes down, and the value of dollars goes down. Also since these countries are going to be spending their dollars and replacing their reserves with euros, more dollars will become active in the market place, increasing the supply (and with the demand going down due to less oil being sold in dollars) further decreasing the value of the dollar. How you cannot understand this I do no understand. How you cannot understand that wars in the Middle East are about oil, I also cannot understand. What do you think the whole fight with Iran is about. We overthrew their country in '53 because of oil. We supported Hussein because of oil, we support the Saudi Royal family because of oil. We supported the attempted coup against Chavez because of oil. Do you really think we attacked Iraq because they were a threat? They had no weapons and no army, and were not working with terrorist. Iran is also not a threat to us, they also don't have weapons, and have no way of attacking us, and are not working with al-qeada. This administration does not care one bit about safety, if they did they would have secured our borders, and would do something about Saudi Arabia. The home to the majority of the terrorist, the terrorist money and the extremist Islamic madrahsas. But we don't do anything about the Saudi's because the oil keeps flowing and they keep buying debt. Same with China. China has a horrible trade record, environmental record, and human rights record. They are no better than Cuba, but China provides cheap goods and buys our debt, so we do nothing about it. -Dustan

That doesn't follow. The party buying my Dollar and selling me a Euro obviously values my Dollar. That person will use the Dollar for another trade. You still don't understand. If the dollar couldn't buy oil, then the person valuing your dollar would not value it as much. And right now there are trillions of dollars in saving around the world by governments because it can buy oil. If it no longer could they would dump their dollars for Euro's and the dollar would decline. Remember our dollar is backed by absolutely nothing, nothing what so ever. --Dustan

I'm very dubious of this link. In one of the first paragraphs it states "Now that The United States of America has taken both Iraq and Afghanistan and owns those country's natural resources". This is ludicrous. The US doesn't own any of those country's resources. The idea that the US would go to war because a country wants to trade in Euros vs the Dollar seems far-fetched to me. I'd need to seem some compelling proof before I accepted this. In my view, as a layman, I can't conceive of the need for this. Who cares if a commodity is traded in Euros, Dollars or Lira? If I sell something for $10 or 15 Pounds I'm asking for the same amount in the abstract. I don't see how it will affect the market value of the currency. The only thing that affects the value of a currency is the interest rates offered for that currency. The Dollar's decline is directly related to the drop in US interest rates. I know most people would be dubious of the first link. That is why I posted the others. The energy bulletin article explains it pretty well, so does Congressman Ron Paul if you read his speech. Think about it. If Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia or any other country that has mass exports that are bought with dollars were to no longer accept dollars for their exports, what do you think would happen to the value of the dollar? If you had to buy euros before you bought oil, the value of the dollar in terms of the euro would sink. Also when these countries stop taking the dollar, they will also stop saving in the dollar and instead would save in the euro, which would increase the dollars in circulation and further sink the value of the dollar. Also once those countries stop taking the dollar for oil, what currency do you think countries like China will start to save in? Think about it and follow the money. The dollar declined when interest rates were low because of the increase of the circulating money supply. Any way that you increase the money supply decreases the value of the currency. If foreign nations stopped saving in the dollar and flooded the market, then the dollar would collapse. Also if the dollar had fewer places to be spent, it would also decline in value. --Dustan BTW: Here is the full paragraph and the preciding one from the Greenspan book (I have it here in front of me): What do governments whose economies and citizens have become heavily dependent on imports of oil do when the flow becomes unreliable? The intense attention of the developed world to Middle Eastern political affairs has always been critically tied to oil security. The reaction to, and reversal of, Mossedeq's nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1951 and the aborted effort of Britain and France to reverse Nasser's takeover of the key Suez Canal link for oil flows to Europe in 1956 are but two prominent historical examples. And whatever their publicized anger over Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction", American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq War is largely about oil. Thus, projections of world oil supply and demand that do not note the highly precarious environment of the Middle East are avoiding the eight-hundred-pound gorilla that could bring world economic growth to a halt. I do not pretend to know how or whether the turmoil in the Middle East will be resolved. I do know that the future of the Middle East is a most important consideration in any long-term energy forecast. Even though oil-use intensity has been significantly reduced, the role of oil is still such that an oil crisis can wreak heavy damage on the world economy. Until industrial economies disengage themselves from, as President George W. Bush put it, "our addiction to oil", the stability of the industrial economies and hence global economy will remain at risk. Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence, pg. 463

To better understand why the war was for oil, read articles that talk about Iraq and Iran switching to accepting Euros for oil instead of Dollars. http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,998512,00.html And from Ron Paul on the House Floor: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged – as it already has been. In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill. It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein. There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned. In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA. After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance. It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported. Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars. Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

This is Ron Paul being critical of the War on Drugs in NH 8 days ago at the Stratford County GOP Straw Poll (which he won with 71% of the vote) --Dustan

Ron Paul is anti-War on Drugs 13 articles he has written on the subject: Ron Paul on the War on Drugs --Dustan Edit: Also if you google RON PAUL WAR ON DRUGS you will find many more articles and speeches on his stance.

How can they legally take (steal) your property just for having it. I don't understand. --Dustan

This made me extremely angry. I am not sure how I would react in such a situation. DEA Seizes Man's Money ACLU sues DEA on behalf of truck whose money was seized © 2007 The Associated Press TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments Recommend ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A trucker has sued the Drug Enforcement Administration, seeking to get back nearly $24,000 seized by DEA agents earlier this month at a weigh station on U.S. 54 in New Mexico north of El Paso, Texas. Anastasio Prieto of El Paso gave a state police officer at the weigh station permission to search the truck to see if it contained "needles or cash in excess of $10,000," according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the federal lawsuit Thursday. Prieto told the officer he didn't have any needles but did have $23,700. Officers took the money and turned it over to the DEA. DEA agents photographed and fingerprinted Prieto over his objections, then released him without charging him with anything. Border Patrol agents searched his truck with drug-sniffing dogs, but found no evidence of illegal substances, the ACLU said. The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Prieto's right to be free of unlawful search and seizure by taking his money without probable cause and by fingerprinting and photographing him. "Mere possession of approximately $23,700 does not establish probable cause for a search or seizure," the lawsuit said. It said Prieto pulled into the weigh station about 10:30 a.m. Aug. 8 and was let go about 4 p.m. DEA agents told Prieto he would receive a notice of federal proceedings to permanently forfeit the money within 30 days and that to get it back, he'd have to prove it was his and did not come from illegal drug sales. They told him the process probably would take a year, the ACLU said. The ACLU's New Mexico executive director, Peter Simonson, said Prieto needs his money now to pay bills and maintain his truck. The lawsuit said Prieto does not like banks and customarily carries his savings as cash. "The government took Mr. Prieto's money as surely as if he had been robbed on a street corner at night," Simonson said. "In fact, being robbed might have been better. At least then the police would have treated him as the victim of a crime instead of as a perpetrator." The DEA did not immediately respond Friday to a request for comment from The Associated Press. Peter Olson, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, which oversees state police, said he could not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit names DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy, DEA task force officer Gary T. Apodaca, DEA agent Joseph Montoya and three state police officers identified only as John or Jane Doe. --Dustan

I'm not sure if any of y'all watched it, but Schermer was also on The Colbert Report on 8/22. --Dustan

Sam Harris's Letter to the Editor of Nature magazine Great article!! Scientists should unite against threat from religion Sam Harris1 Address withheld by request http://www.samharris.org Sir It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism. In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal. Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion. An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442, 110; doi:10.1038/442110a 2006) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs". But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ." What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands." At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason. There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.

I am very curious as to why he didn't say something. I know in a NPR interview he said the two most influential authors he read when he was younger where Mises and Rand. He also named one of his sons Rand. Rand Paul. --Dustan

Here are some other interesting quotes: From the Mises Institute: There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves. This book makes Ron Paul's place in history. There has never been anything so forthright, truth telling, and ultimately devastating from a US politician. Not since Taft has there been a book like this, and this one makes Taft's own classic seems vague and abstract by comparison. Mises Institute description of Ron Paul's Book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" Milton Friedman "We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general ...l wish you every success." --Dr. Milton Friedman, Nobel prize recipient, economics Walter Williams (Who Dr. Paul has mentioned as a running mate should he win the primary): "If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams (Washington Times) --Dustan

This is interesting. I am not endorsing it, but it is interesting to consider in this debate. Ahmadinejad's Letter to the American Citizens

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=53

At a minimum, we need to make damn sure there's a 2008 general election. No excuses of national emergency, regardless of chaos. W. How the Election Can be Rigged --Dustan

Ethics and morality are for dealing with "nice", "decent" people. We do not do ethics with our Destroyers. We Destroy our Destroyers. If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first. I simply do not comprehend why you have difficulty with something so basic, so elemental and so straightforward. Self-defense comes first, before any fancy notions of how to live with other people. With reasonable folk we can be reasonable. With people out to get us, we have to get them first. Any means to the end of our defense is o.k.. Whatever it takes ..... I am truly at my wits end in trying to convince you that we are in the midst of a War and we are NOT winning it. Muslims have been blowing up our planes and abusing our people since the sixties of the last century. UBL has decided to bring the war right to our doorstep. The barbarians at not AT the gates. They are already INSIDE the gates. There is only one way of dealing with the Amalekites. Blot their name out. If you cannot perceive the danger, then wait until it becomes obvious. The next big Muslim attack on the Homeland should wake you up. Or perhaps even then you will convince yourself that all we have to do is win hearts and minds by being reasonable. My grandmother used to tell me, if someone is pissing on your head, don't fool yourself into thinking that it is raining. That was good advice from the Old Lady. Ba'al Chatzaf All of this would be fine and dandy except for the fact that it totally ignores the history of the conflict. You say they have been attacking us since the sixties, but it was in the 50's that we started attacking them. --Dustan