Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can count the number of times I've seen my wife in my office naked on the fingers on one foot.

Sigh. I was so, so making the effort to bilmore. If you never leave your office . . . which brings the thought, if we only brought back sex-segregated workhouses, we'd have a lot fewer children. I think. Maybe.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by LessinSF
and this is the only charity I donate to - http://www.projectprevention.org/program/

That's cheaper than your condom bill?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Factories being down for 6 weeks provided no value? And the Germans were bombing cities- they came up with the theory. Do you think the British would have stopped bombing factories because they might be near cities given the Blitz? What world do you live in?

Actually, in the beginning of the battle for Britain, the Luftwaffe was only bombing and attacking RAF bases. And it was working. But then England bombed Berlin and so Hitler, for revenge, directed Goering to bomb London. During the blitz the RAF was able to recover and turn the tide of the war.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Sigh. I was so, so making the effort to bilmore.

It's a verb now?

In other news, Andy Sullivan rejoices at the new pope:

": "How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Pope Benedict XVI, yesterday. And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning."

Ahh, to be young and Catholic and . . . totally screwed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually all developed countries have a low birth rate. The reason for this is that in third world countries children are seen as a form of social security. The more children you have the more likely someone will be around to take care of you when you are older. In developed countries, children are seen as a drain on resources, making ones retirment more frugal.

The reasons tend to be a little more complicated than that, but my point holds regardless -- if Hello was serious about the "ending welfare will end unwanted births" argument, then he's a wackadoo.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is hardly the first time that proponents have said: technological advances mean that this time, bombing really works! Similar claims were made during WWII. Bombing was going to close the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This time around, we have impressive video of a few precision weapons zooming down bunker air shafts, but the Pentagon and FOX were showing us the weapons that missed. I believe that the studies since the war have shown us that precision bombing wasn't. Shock and awe, anyone?

It worked against Serbia

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
It has been my experience, as someone who is actively involved in the Republican party, that the most zealous pro-life advocates are also the most zealous anti- condom advocates. There is also a strong correlation between pro-life politicians and anti-sex education and anti-condom distribution politicians. The Pro-Life pro-condom and pro-sex education politician is a rare thing in the Republican party.

I sadly have to concur. I have raised the argument that the first step to fighting abortion is making birth control easily available for all - if not free. The right wingers always offer some claptrap about how we have to "get back to responsibility." These conservatives are not morons - they realize such an argument is tantamount to saying "we must put the milk back in the bottle," yet they say it with a straight face. I am reasonable on this issue. I think sensible minds can work together and really reduce abortions substantially. But how can I work with these conservatives who espouse illogic? I mean, really, what the hell am I supposed to say to someone who makes a ridiculous argument and refuses to compromise? How can I have a meeting of the minds with a person who'd cut off his nose to spite his face?

Why do these right wing people persist in being impossible?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's distinguish between tactical and strategic bombing. The former has been very, very useful, in WWII and in Iraq. The latter, not so much. Unfortunately, the Air Force does not like bombing tanks in support of the Army -- it would much rather win the war on its own -- and so it seeks to defund planes like the A-10 in favor of bigger, faster, long-range equipment.

The bombing probably has made the insurgency worse, for the reason that civilians who get bombed tend to hold it against the bombers.

Bombing a weapons factory, a power plant, or the house where you think the opposing leader is staying -- is that strategic or tactical? I would define that as strategic, and effective.

As for WWII, I can certainly think of two strategic bombing attacks that were extremely effective, and many, many tactical bombing attacks that were not.

But rather than elaborate, let me propose a new Board Motto: Where bombs are the new tanks.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If your military tells you, incorrectly, that they're doing something effective and good, is there a moral value to that?



He's not a blogger, you dope. He's a famous physicist. Per Wikipedia:

• Freeman John Dyson (born December 15, 1923) is an English-born American physicist and mathematician. He worked as an analyst for the British Bomber Command during World War II; after the war, he moved to Princeton. In 1957, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
  
  In the years following the war, Dyson was responsible for demonstrating the equivalence of the two formulations of quantum electrodynamics which existed at the time - Richard Feynman's path integral formulation and the variational methods developed by Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga (Dyson operator).
  
  From 1957 to 1961 he worked on the Orion Project, which proposed the possibility of space-flight using nuclear propulsion: a prototype was demonstrated using conventional explosives, but a treaty banning the use of nuclear weapons in space caused the project to be abandoned.

Didn't he also theorize about the Dyson sphere? The one Captain Picard came across? Or am I confusing him with someone else? To bad they killed the Orion project.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's a verb now?

In other news, Andy Sullivan rejoices at the new pope:

": "How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Pope Benedict XVI, yesterday. And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning."

Ahh, to be young and Catholic and . . . totally screwed.

This depresses me, and I don't even practice anymore.

OTOH,

An e-mail from a progressive nun to her niece:

• Given the name chosen we believe that this is a short term interim pope. He has often spoken of retiring as cardinal when he reached 80. We think you may retire as pope at 85. In his earlier years he was quite progressive and became the watch dog for the faith at the request of John Paul 2.
  He may be surprising in the long haul.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Didn't he also theorize about the Dyson sphere? The one Captain Picard came across? Or am I confusing him with someone else? To bad they killed the Orion project.

Indeed, Dyson theorized about the Dyson Sphere. Which is one of those awesome coincidences you run across every now and then. It's like Lou Gehrig getting that disease -- what are the chances?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry I'd forgotten him. Only one physicist sticks in my mind these days!


Eva Silverstein with her favorite equations

And PS- WWII era physicists are all extremelly anti-war. they created nuclear weapons then realized that might not have been such a good idea.

Stop posting pictures of people that are younger, smarter and better looking than me. It's depressing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unfortunately, the Air Force does not like bombing tanks in support of the Army -- it would much rather win the war on its own -- and so it seeks to defund planes like the A-10 in favor of bigger, faster, long-range equipment.

Is that true? Really? I knew there was inter-service rivalry but that is just plain stupid. So what they are saying is that lets go bomb strategic and tactical targets that may or may not help us win the war in the long run insteading of destroying tanks that are just about to kill our own soldiers.

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
In other news, Andy Sullivan rejoices at the new pope:

": "How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Pope Benedict XVI, yesterday. And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning."

Ahh, to be young and Catholic and . . . totally screwed.

One gets the feeling that the only acceptable choice for Sully would have been this guy:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I am very serious with this example. As I noted sometime in the last 2 days, abortions are supposedly down 40% in the last 10 years or something like that. What exactly do you think that correlates with anyway?

I'll answer that. When the government instituted welfare reform, it did all kinds of things that reduced all kinds of risky behavior. As a free-market type, you of all people should be not only accepting this argument, but advocating it with me!

I support welfare reform, but correlating a relationship between welfare reform and reduced abortions seems a stretch. I have never heard this argument before. Who did this study?