Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Sean P.
Published Letters: 90 Editor's Choice: 12
Your headline is rather inflammatory and misleading. Who decided that white phosphorus and napalm were chemical weapons? Per Wikipedia, chemical weapons are defined as follows:
Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.
The fact that WP and napalm are chemicals does not mean that their use constitutes chemical warfare. Bullets are made of lead, and are propelled by a burning mixture of compounds. Does that mean that if US forces shoot someone, they're guilty of "chemical warfare"? White phosphorus and napalm damage human bodies by burning them, not by toxicity.
While use of these substances may have been unwarranted, to conflate them with weapons such as nerve agents trivializes the horror of true chemical warfare, and diminishes your credibility in reporting on this issue.
Sean Peters
While I'm all in favor of moving from closed, proprietary systems to open, free ones, I'm not really sure how Free Software would have solved Venezuela's problem here. Both Windows and Linux/Unix use passwords - if the contractor involved was withholding passwords, presumably they could have done so equally well if Linux was in use.
Added BYU freshman Jaren Olsen: "He's strong, and he doesn't waver. I like that he is for the family, that marriage should only be between a man and woman. And the war, we need to finish what we started."
Note to Jaren: what's with the "we"? Has the Army started a new boot camp at BYU? Oh, right. I always forget that "we" actually means "anyone but me" in the context of Yellow Elephants and the Iraq war. Speaking as a veteran, I can say that we are not amused by your hypocracy.
Sean
Biden's response: "I, I don’t think so. I think misunderstanding this administration is the worst miscalculation I’ve ever made in my career."
It was a Kerry-like equivocation...
Tim -
Kerry-like equivocation? I can't help but be mystified. He comes right out and said he made a very bad mistake when he voted for the resolution. How much more straightforward can he be? If he had said something like "even knowing what I know now, I'd still have voted for the resolution", now that would be Kerry-like.
Sure, it would be better if he hadn't voted for it, and no, I'm no particular fan of Biden. But what's past is past - he has to say something to explain his vote, and of all the possible things he could say, this is probably the best... at least has has the advantage of being honest. Given all the misinformation coming out of the White House during the time of the vote, it's at least understandable.
The bottom line for me is that voting incorrectly on the Iraq resolution is not a deal-breaker for me (and I doubt I'm alone). As long as the candidate in question has come to his/her senses since then, then I'm good to go with him/her on that issue.
Sean
Imported G.M. soybeans are reportedly cheaper, have a higher oil content and lower transportation costs.
I find the lower transportation costs part of this statement very difficult to believe. Cheaper, OK. Higher oil content, no problem. But lower transportation costs? For one thing, I can't believe that GM soybeans are cheaper to transport on a per-mile basis - the weight of a truckload of GM beans can't be very much different than a truckload of non-GM beans. And the US-grown GM beans have to be shipped from, say, Iowa, to a seaport, then transferred to merchant shipping, sailed to Shanghai (or wherever in China), and then trucked to the processing plants. The Chinese beans only have to do the truck trip from their fields to the processing plants. How can that possibly be more expensive?
Given that yields can be dramatically higher per acre for GM beans, I'm not surprised that the OVERALL price for GM beans can still beat domestic Chinese non-GM bean prices. But I have trouble swallowing the claim that it's cheaper to TRANSPORT GM beans than non-GM.
Sean
I have a problem with "rankism" as a term, in that it sort of implies that there's no justification for increased privileges as one ascends the ladder. Although we've surely gone way past the limits in the US regarding executive compensation, etc, I don't think it's unreasonable that the CEO gets a nicer office than the intern. I realize that this isn't what the Mr. Fuller is talking about, but I think the term is badly chosen because this is what it implies.
But more importantly, why do we need to coin a new expression for this? Treating subordinates (or anyone else, for that matter) badly is rude, plain and simple. There are tons of other synonyms that might apply: "abusive" comes to mind. So why do we need to apply a new word for a behavior that already has a name? Adding a new "ism" to the lexicon is going to cause the business community to roll its collective eyes and dismiss the problem. I don't think accusing people of "rankism" is going to get them to do what they should do - be polite.
Sean
My wife was a big Nads fan for a while (for her legs, as opposed to her nether regions). While I was never particularly interested in ripping any of my hair out by the roots, even if I was, I doubt I could have got past the name. Geez, don't those people have market researchers?
And he is painting a dire picture of what will happen if American forces are withdrawn too quickly: civil war in Iraq, skyrocketing oil prices, an emboldened Iran and expanding Islamic terrorism.
The mind reels. All that stuff HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. I can't believe the bozo has the guts to actually even think anything like that.
Sean
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
