Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:27 In article <45B292C4.F0FBCAAC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jasen wrote: > >> On 2007-01-15, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> > I'm talking about monitoring without interfering with the performance. >> >> Any additional software you run will reduce performance (by using up >> computer cycles and ram), wether the reduction is significant is upto >> you to decide. if your computer is upto the task monitoring needn't >> reduce your the speed of your internet connection. > >She's got a 486. And, until the disk strictioned, a 386. > >SX25 CPU even maybe ? No. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 08:29 In article <45B29479.D0EF8709(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >On Fri, 19 Jan 07 14:19:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >>The Taliban had their chance. >> > >> >When, exactly? >> >> The Taliban were asked to hand over the Al Queda leaders _before_ >> the bombing of Afghanistan started. They refused. Now, do you >> need a date for that? > >I'd like a cite for it for sure ! Go read any public discussion. The offer was on the air all the time by design. It is not prudent for me to go to the public library to find one news item at the moment. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jan 2007 09:01 In article <h7k2r2tkseb2nj2ve19tmt14k1shq9hoeh(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jan 07 13:39:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <ji5vq2htqol3agkgvq2ein35tognib0fc1(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <up7qq2915be8ep5rv69kfmrjv47e60f599(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:35:41 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <eoinhq$8qk_006(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>In article <eogiqt$9v7$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>><snippage for poor bah's reader> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US >>>>>>law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>uh...No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/BAH >>>>>> >>>>>>Uh, yes. Read what the constitution says about treaties. >>>>> >>>>>Good recommendation. They are the "supreme Law of the Land." They >>>>>take precedence over most everything. The phrase there is, "and the >>>>>Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the >>>>>Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." >>>> >>>>Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >>>>to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is >>>>what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >>>>happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. >>> >>>I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. >> >>Lloyd, among others, are misinterpreting what "supreme law" >>of the land means. They think that the UN has vetoing power >>of anything the US Constitution says. That is how they are >>thinking. > >Like I've said elsewhere, I'm no expert on the application of the >Constitution and law in the US. Neither am I. However, I do know which is the sane heirarchy. I don't have to think twice about it. > I enjoy reading about the early >history of the US and that's about where my abilities begin and end, >outside of having opinions I form from that reading, here and there. > >However, there seems to be no doubt in my mind that treaties _are_ >law, as far as our system goes. It is the law from the state's point of view, not the UN's. > Not only that, they are treated at >the highest level of authority -- if my reading of the phrase, >"supreme law of the land," is correct. This doesn't mean that there >aren't other supreme laws on a par with treaties or that perhaps the >Constitution itself might not still guide. Supreme law means that the states have agreed to let those matters, and only those matters, be dealt with by the Federal government. There is a specified list as you know. This does not subject US law and policies to UN decisions and policies. > >However, I do need to do more research to learn better about this. I >just looked up the wiki page on it: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause > >Check that and see what you think. It pretty much spells out my own >understanding of our situation and the risks. > >I'd like to refresh your memory and mine on the last phrasing, which >is "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in >the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary >notwithstanding." > >Now, when I read this, I see "any Thing in the Constitution ... >notwithstanding." Which sure seems to suggest the idea that a treaty >could potentially ride herd over our Constitution. Not that I like >that idea, at all! But there it is. Then the treaty would be ruled unconstitutional and become invalid. That's how I understand it. > >>>I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the >>>Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making >>>their decisions. If you may remember, there was (and is) some not >>>infrequent complaining from various far right wing news services >>>saying that there is something "deeply wrong with our Supreme Court >>>system because they use 'foreign law' in making their decisions." >> >>Yes. This is another thing that needs public discourse. > >Perhaps. However, I'm no fan of trying to resolve such a problem with >an intelligent and far-thinking solution by way of public discourse, >alone. Of course it can't be resolved by public discourse. However, if there is no public discourse, then we, US citizens, have created a direct pathway to a dictatorship (at best) by ceding all powers to federal government. It doesn't take long for this kind of rulership to change into a viscious dictatorship. > If public discourse is part of the process used to surface >important questions to be resolved, I'm all for it. If public >discourse is to be the means by which we somehow create a solution, I >think we would be in for a disasterous answer to the problem. Why would that be a disaster? All kinds of ideas are proposed. All kinds of counterarguments will point out the weaknesses and effects each one will have. > We need >wise heads, well grounded by comprehensive knowledge of fact, to >carefully and thoroughly consider the situation and suggest some >well-considered and intellegent options. This is not how the Constitution was made. For 10 years, each colony (for want of a better word) tried different kinds of constitutions. The people each colony sent had already collected the public discourse of their areas. After the Constitution was written and published, but not passed, there was even more public discourse. This public discourse coalased into what is now called the Federalist and Unfederalist papers. That was the written record. Do you honestly think that nobody else talked or wrote about it? > >But I agree that this may need some revisiting. Not because I don't >think treaties should guide our actions -- I do believe that once we >agree to do something and have made a contract with another country, >that we should perform on it A treaty is not a contract. A treaty can only be honored until the point in time when it no longer serves the country who signed it. This is true for all signatories. > -- but perhaps there is a context to be >provided as a guide for future decisions that better serves us all. How about that guide being common sense and discussions? That is the only way that official documents can respond to the current conditions. Rules of conduct and discourse in 1800 may not work today. Think about the difference and speeds of news coverage. > >As it stands now, though, I'm not entirely unhappy with the Supreme >Court looking to our treaty agreements when arriving at decisions. >Yet, Scalia may have some points worth listening to, as well -- >despite the fact that I probably cannot remember a decision he wrote >that I much agreed with. I used to exchange posts with a lawyer who was also an economist. His concerns (about two years ago) was that the states were ceding too much power to feds. So I started to research that. I have a stack of books about three feet high that I need to read first before I can even think about this. > >>>It's considered newsworthy by many services to talk about this: >>> >>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42889 >>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm >>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50370 >>> >>>Just a few examples, including one about Scalia's comments. It's >>>controversial, to say the least about it. >>> >>>However, the constitution is fairly clear about treaties being the >>>supreme law of the land. >>> >>>The reason isn't hard to fathom. If a treaty were not granted this >>>status, then what good would it be? How could our country's wish to >>>negotiate a treaty be granted any seriousness, at all, if such a >>>treaty would then be subject to state law and perhaps US law and the >>>Supreme Court and any number of laws that Congress may later make? A >>>foreign power would have no way to know if a treaty engaged in for >>>good, serious purposes couldn't just be tossed into the garbage can in >>>a year or two. And think about this in terms of our country's very >>>feeble status in the world around the time the Constitution was >>>signed. No foreign power would even bother with us, if a treaty were >>>not given a supreme status in our own system. It would be a source of >>>mochery towards the US and no foreign power would care to waste their >>>time. >> >>And supreme law of the land implies that a treaty overrides the >>States local laws; it does not imply that treaties can overrule >>the Constitution. > >But it may. Will you think about this? You are implying that a UN resolution can strike down the US Constitution; that is what would happen if the UN decisions had precedence over the Constitution. No, sir! You cannot get your hidden agenda passed in this manner :-). > Referring back to the wiki page: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause > >You will see that there was a proposed Bricker Amendment: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment > >designed to deal with a problem that you say does not exist. > >Refreshing your memory, the language is "and the Judges in every State >shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any >State to the Contrary notwithstanding." > >Read that closely. None of that implies that judges have to override the Constitution in favor the UN Charter nor any other treaty. Treaties can be ruled unconstitutional, can they not? > >>>In regards to the United Nations, its charter was set up as a treaty. >>>The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter that was >>>originally signed on June 26th, 1945 in San Francisco, as a __treaty__ >>>by a vote of 89 to 2, about a month later on July 28th, 1945. This >>>treaty (charter) is now the supreme law of our land. >>> >>>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html >>> >>>That's my understanding of it, right now. >> >>You are right. I'm trying to undo some really bad assumptions >>in certain people. Remember that people who are not US citizens >>are also reading these posts. I've heard a number of hints >>that the UN should be the supreme law of the globe. > >Well, the US is the supreme power No, it's not. I wish people would stop politiking this arrogance around because people are beginning to believe this. >in the globe right now and the UN >treaty we signed is our supreme law of the land, so ... ;) Just get that one right out of your head. This is not the way to get around whatever law you are trying get around. (I have my guesses what those are but I'm already too roasted with disagreements about national security matters.) /BAH /BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Jan 2007 10:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>France didn't act until the field tests of urban riots happened. > >> >> > > >> >> >I vaguely recollect something here, but again need details. > >> >> > >> >> This was last summer. France had urban riots and seemed to > >> >> be out of their Muslim workers. But the only people who seemed > >> >> to be making messes were the kids. > >> > > >> >They're the ones most pissed off because they can't get jobs or maybe only > >> >menial ones. > >> > >> Instead of voting or using other legal means, > > > >There's no-one to vote for that has much interest in their concerns - least > >of all having any chance of being elected. > > Exactly. That's why Europe has a boiling cauldron in their > midst. In this instance. I don't think it's yet a 'cauldron' actually. > >Do you recall something about 'taxation without representation' and how that > >ended up ? There was some rioting involved IIRC ! > > Only because your king was particularly woodenheaded about dealing > with his colonies. Yes. The French need to be less woodenheaded about talking to their Muslims. Hey, I thought you were of the opinion that negotiating with 'the enemy' was weak ? Is this a change of tack ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 21 Jan 2007 11:32
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Use eeyore's knowledge as a metric. If you learn that and then > >> listen to the BBC, which is proably his primary indirect source > >> of news, you can figure out a lot. > > > >I'd rather use the BBC as a news source which is under worldwide scrutiny > >than wherever you get your barking mad ideas from. > > > >I use multiple news sources in fact, including some right wing ones and a > >number of overseas sources. > > A few years ago, probably more, I did a trace of news sources. A > lot of them originated from BBC-paid reporters because it's > expensive to have a reporter in every country and capital and > surrounding areas. So quite a bit of this news has a BBC origination > and, therefore, cannot be used as a bias check for what the BBC > broadcasts. More absurd obfuscation. Have you never heard of AP and Reuters for example ? Much as it an truly first class news organisation, the BBC doesdn't supply the bulk of the world's news. Even here in the UK we have Sky News ( part of Murdoch's right leaning News Corporation ) and ITN as serious news broadcasting companies too. Graham |