New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 02:02am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3706 of 3722)

To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's (MD) behavior. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=rationalize&r=2

kalter.rauch - 02:15am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3707 of 3722)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lchic 8/13/02 11:44am

No, I'm NOT playing tiddly-winks with my <^> <^> <^>......

I stand by my pointing out that 'mental trauma' is being suffered by prisoners incasarated world wide - especially in laxly monitored systems with little recourse to appeal.

Oh no you don't! That ISN'T what you said. You made some kind of comparison between Chinese prisoners shot for their body parts and the terrorists getting their "minds shattered" in "Camp X-Ray". It's pretty clear to me that you think, based on your general anti-US stance, that the Chinese prisoners are getting a better deal.

Don't pretend that you stand up for prisoners incarcerated worldwide. Your condemnations entirely focus (wrongly) on the US.

bbbuck - 02:37am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3708 of 3722)
'you're the nicest girl I've met since I left Nebraska'....'When Runkel says that it means he's stirred to the depths'....

Well you're ahead of me partner. I've been scanning this incredible stuff for about 2 or 3 days now, and other than 2 of looniesposters talked to each other on the phone for 3 hours, I have no idea what the hell they are posting about, or what damn language they're speaking.
rshow55 seems to be bemoaning something about the cia won't let him open up a 'tv' store or something.
well let me know if you figure it out, other than kathiedavis posting over in 'mysteries' over in the book forums, this is some of the funkiest stuff I've ever read in the nytimes.

lchic - 02:42am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3709 of 3722)

The New Economy - Employment-Unemployment

Unemployment figures today have to be supplemented with the 'those sidelined' figures.

The name of the game has moved from who did not work a full week to who works at least one hour a week. To work one hour is now considered to be 'not unemployed'.

People are shunted from the 'unemployed' lists into early retired, invalid-sickness pensions, full jobs become shared or part-time.

To get the true picture of an economy all these have to be looked at. The reality seems to be that there are four people wanting three jobs - only 75% get their job with wage and status.

The question is - what happens to those who are chronically unemployed - the answer is a tendency towards ghettoism ... where non have the means to support the others ... where temperorily out of a job has become permanently out of a job.

There are two other aspects to think about - from a political stance - can busy-make-work-jobs be created ... is that acceptable ... or is society structured to demand a good minimum wage ... (does this leave others 'outside employment?')

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s647878.htm

lchic - 05:46am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3710 of 3722)

The post above shows that political parties want to keep changing the goal posts when measuring unemployment, so that the figures look rosey for electrol purposes.

Governments lie to their people.

Scapegoating is a tactic often used to 'divide' the population - make the unwaged appear 'other' and less worthy.

If there are 3 jobs for every four people - then the figure for unemployment has to be not 6% but 25%.

When unemployment (in most western style economies) is recognised as being 25%, then there should be more gut-feeling-pressure from the public to look at unemployment and employment provision in a more serious light.

Failure to do so will mean that 25% of western populations aren't and never will be in a functional position to make day-to-day or long-term provision for themselves, family, or retirement.

This raises a question re holisticAccounting.

That is - if the 25% of the workforce that is not being used were give a 'fuller VALUE' ... would it still be a good thing to send manufacturing and services off-shore ... or should there be a way of re-integrating them into the culture by provision of jobs that meet national needs.

lchic - 05:58am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3711 of 3722)

In this link i said lchic 8/10/02 6:57am

China had a passion for all to speak English for Beijing Games 2008 ... now they want the games date changed.

If <^> <^> <^> had closely followed this thread and fore-runner you'd see comment on China.

Are you into a comparison of the state of mind of a Chinese Prisoner (who might be shot for body parts) as against a CampXray prisoner who's mind is being shattered for ....... a political body, in parts!

~~~~~~

It followed this lchic 8/10/02 6:57am <^> <^> <^>

and was later commented on by 'K' here kalter.rauch 8/14/02 2:15am

The 'political body in parts' would be a reference to Republican Party detatching itself from GWB president + Admin and re-aligning itself closer to 'the people'.

On the Bush presidents - both have been a disaster for the USA.

The reason?

They want power to protect and promote greed - of themselves including conflict-of-interest commissions, and their ilk - not having the fullest interest of the people to the forefront they fall over. Neither will be remembered in positive terms.

The problem for America is that the president should be a figurehead - and the HOUSE of the PEOPLE should 'work' with and for the people.

Another for example from this board:

Were America functional then Showalter would have 'in writing' a proper letter from the C*I*A enabling him to function. How many 'others' in the USA are left in suspended animation at the whim of a poorly controlled and disfunctional Agency?

lchic - 07:08am Aug 14, 2002 EST (#3712 of 3722)

"" Leaders of six unions representing staff at British Nuclear Fuels' UK plants condemned the "shameful treatment" of workers at a site in America in which the company has a big financial stake.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=324194

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense