Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
Dagblog may change these Terms of Use from time to time so be sure to check back periodically. Your use of the Dagblog Comments and Reader Post section after any changes have been posted will constitute your agreement to the modified Terms of Use. Dagblog can destroy or modify the Comments and Reader Posts however it wants, without notice. Dagblog can discontinue or restrict your use of the Comments and Reader Post section for any reason or no reason. You agree to all this stuff by posting in the Comments or Reader Post section.
Dagblog does not claim ownership of the Content you submit or make available for inclusion on Dagblog. The Content is the property of the author of such Content. You agree to grant Dagblog a perpetual, royalty-free and irrevocable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, and sell such Content in any format now know or hereafter created, and to use your name and other identifying information you provide in connection with that Content. You also permit any visitor or member of Dagblog to use such Content for personal use as described above.
Dagblog will not be liable to you or anyone else for any loss or injury caused in whole or part by its negligence or contingencies beyond its control relating in any way to this section. In no event will Dagblog be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken by you in reliance on the Content. Dagblog shall not be liable to you or anyone else for any damages (including, without limitation, consequential, special, incidental, indirect, or similar damages), other than direct damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Because some states or jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for damages or the exclusion of certain types of warranties, parts or all of the above limitation may not apply to you.
These Terms of Use shall be interpreted under the law of the state of Arizona, without reference to its conflicts of laws provisions. These Terms of Use are the entire and final agreement between you and Dagblog concerning your use of the Comments and Reader Post section, and supersede any prior or contemporaneous communications between Dagblog and you regarding that subject.
In consideration of your use of the Dagblog Comments and Reader Post section, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You agree to provide true, accurate, current and complete information about yourself upon registration and thereafter. You agree to comply with all applicable laws regarding the transmission of technical data exported from the United States or the country in which you reside.
You agree not to use the Dagblog Comments and Reader Post Section to do any Bad Stuff. Bad Stuff shall mean to:
You agree to be fully responsible for your own Content. Dagblog is giving you a chance to post Content. While Dagblog has the right to refuse to post or remove, edit or abridge any Content for any reason, it is otherwise not involved in the writing or decisions as to the Content of its users. As a result, Dagblog has no control over the quality, accuracy or legality of the Content in the Comments and Reader Post section. All such Content is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. In the event that you have a dispute with a user of Dagblog, you release Dagblog and its writers from all claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected, disclosed and undisclosed, arising out of or in any way connected with such disputes. One more thing. By the way, you agree to indemnify and hold Dagblog and its writers harmless from any claims, damages, losses or costs (including reasonable attorney's fees) that arise out of any of your Content, including, without limitation, any Content posted or otherwise provided by you that infringes any copyright, trademark, intellectual property right of any person or defames any person or violates any person's rights of publicity or privacy, or otherwise violates these Terms of Use.
Finally...
Dagblog wants to be an adult place where adults can have discussions that are fun, rewarding, wide-ranging, interesting, anything good you want, about political or any other subjects of concern to its users. At the same time, Dagblog is committed to being respectful. So please consider the following. Purely personal attacks are not respectful of others. The blogs and threads are here for the discussions they start about issues of concern, not about each other personally. Participating in Dagblog for purposes of disruption is not respectful. Using the e-mail feature of our software to bother other people is not respectful of others. Outing people who are not blogging here by their names or other identifying information is not respectful of others. Using Dagblog to obtain, utilize, or publicize private information about users is not respectful. The user community here is of a very high level of intelligence and sophistication, and we are proud of the group of folks here as a general matter. Please continue to adhere to this guidance, which you almost certainly already do anyway, because our users are generally great. Additionally, moderation is an art and not a science. While dagblog wants to moderate as little and lightly as possible, it will moderate in its sole discretion to maintain an atmosphere of respect and focus on adult discussions where necessary, and by any administrative means that in its sole discretion it determines are necessary. We thank folks in advance for understanding that, and in any event by agreeing to it by agreeing to these terms of use. Thanks.
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.