Schell seems to be another cold war relic with a dash of naivety. The bomb is so 20th century. He also seems to be saying that (nuclear) war would end if only everyone trusted one another.

Yes, the technology for building a fission bomb is available for anyone who wants to go down that route. The only part that is hard to come by is weapons grade fissionables. Everything else is pretty much a commodity. So, why don't more countries build the bomb? The answer is that there is so much better stuff.

A good biochem capability is much easier to foster. Fissionables require big enrichment facilities and the material itself can be difficult to hide. Biochem facilities don't need to be large. They just need trained people.

It is true that other cold war relics will pursue the bomb. After all, it has proven to be one hell of a deterrent. Biological weapons are just as good a deterrent. We will always have earth killer technology because someone somewhere absolutely can't be trusted.

Schell was also dead wrong about environmentalism post dating the nuclear age. The National Park Service was founded in 1916. Environmentalism is more of a response to the industrial age when man kind started polluting on a grand scale.

You said: "Remember they could barely contain Saddam's army."

BS

Saddam's army was easily defeated in Gulf 1, contained through the entire Clinton administration, and then contained during the bush administration until easily dispersed by U.S. forces racing to Baghdad.

Perhaps you meant can barely police an angry population over a thousand time larger than the occupying forces.

I often caution young guys against flirting, talking dirty with, or romancing their female counterparts. The reason is that things usually go bad eventually and they are then one angry female from a harassment accusation and possibly losing their job and having a smear on their reputation when they try to get another job.

I've seen a few too many cases. Oftentimes, what was OK yesterday creates an uncomfortable work environment today. The only way to control it is to never go there.

If there is to be romance, I tell 'em that she has to make all the first moves and it is best to date up the food chain.

Oddly, I tend not to caution the women. They generally seem better able to navigate. Plus, I've never seen a case of a man complaining that a woman is talking too dirty or making lewd suggestions. I have handled complaints of excessive perfume though.

As for women who date up the food chain, sure, coworkers are likely to perceive it badly. So what? Coworkers often find a reason to dislike someone who might suddenly get an "undeserved" promotion. They think the same way of the guy that kisses ass and befriends male bosses "just to get ahead".

I personally believe that a younger woman is using her brain when employing youth and desirability to catch management's eye. In too few years, that tool fades. Then they gotta work much harder for every break. On the other hand, they better have something more than looks to keep that attention. It's like going all-in whilst playing poker. You better have something to show or you're out of the game.

Won't be long before someone offers another device that triggers the perve-alert. I'll buy one and take it out of its shielded bag whenever I need to get rid of annoying kids or annoying parents.

We also need protection against dog molesters. Wouldn't want to take the dog someplace where someone might touch it.

The only way I can think of to act with complete green purity is to suicide on a compost pile. Every moment I sit here running this computer by the light of a compact fluorescent, I'm destroying the environment.

So, hey, don't be too down on Larry. Those planes might crash and save us all from the future consumption of all those jet setters.

Steve Thorngate is right. There is no catholic vote. So rudy, the front runner in the republican polls, is also the front runner in republican catholic polls. Duh.

The converse of the Schaller's thesis also works. rudy is favored among non-catholics. But will those non-catholics accept this distasteful little man? Will abortion, immigration, and his messy personal life hurt his chances with non-catholics?

Is someone torturing our poor Heather by making her review a cramer book? If you like finance pulps, then OK. Otherwise, it seems as much fun as trying to find out if your really one of those girls that likes cutting. Or learned to like cutting. What if Joan Walsh mailed you a roll of bounty and a straight razor?

If you want to read/review some good investment "books", read the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports. Not cover to cover, but the parts where Buffet talks the talk.

Otherwise, the only sensible thing is to decide which index fund you prefer. If you can't choose from among them, then don't consider going into individual stocks. Oh - and don't even imagine that cramer came up with the advice on low fee index funds. That's was old when I started investing decades ago.

If he wins the appeal, then he could be tried again. If he loses (again) then his new sentence would need to be commuted or carried out. There is a good chance there would be someone else in the oval office by then. So, Libby could actually go to jail if he pressed the case. Regardless of innocence/guilt, libby is making the smart move.