The science of genetics now allows us to select for a variety of traits. In the future these capabilities will advance to the point where we can and will build a better human. This human will not get sick, they will be smarter, they will be stronger, and yes, they will be better looking.

Will they be "better"? I would say yes, others will disagree.

Better or not -- I would be very surprised if they allow us "normals" to breed. If we are lucky they will decide to keep a few of us around as pets.

"What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame."

Frederich Nietzsche -- Thus Spake Zarathustra

Will Khan do a better job than man? Probably, it would be hard to do a worse one.

In order to take down any criminal organization it is first necessary to get someone on the inside to start talking.

Joe Valachi was the first member of the Cosa Nostra (this thing of ours) to talk. Prior to that, people like J. Edgar Hoover were able to deny that it even existed.

If Yoo is indicted, it may be possible to make a deal with him for his sworn testimony before Congress. He could become the thread that unravels the tapestry of lies and crimes of the buhs administration.

We need a good rat, and if nothing else the excreable Yoo is vermin indeed.

Probably, but no need, as he has people for that.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

From a debate between Yoo, and Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

audio is here: http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3

This person, and it shames me to admit that we are of the same species, is clearly the most degraded form of sociopathic scum. Everyone who meets this man should spit in his face. There should be no need to fire him, as no student who has any moral sense should attend his classes.

Sorry Glenn, but your argument is too cute by half. I don't believe that journalists base their coverage on whether on not they "like" someone. This analysis ignores the fact the the major media are now owned by corporations -- who themselves are part of the military industrial complex.

Are you saying that if McCain was a Democrat Chris Matthews would still support him, because he "likes" him? Unlikely, impossible in fact. Would FOX become a supporter of Democrats if only they were more "manly"? No, they would not, this is impossible.

The media, as recently as 1983, was owned by "just" 50 corporations, today, the media is essentially owned by 5 corporations, Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

The bias in the media is easily explained without resort to mental gymnastics, it's simple, the media is owned by corporations, which in turn are controlled by the oligarchy. The oligarchy in America is the engine that drives the wars of rapacious empire, and is the cause of the many inequalities in American society. Naturally the oligarchy don't like anyone who even remotely threatens their position on the top of the heap. The many reporters and talking heads who support them, do so because they are employees, they are bought, paid for, and told exactly, precisely, what position to take on any given issue.

I don't like Hilary. I see here as yet another corporatist candidate who will not only not end the war, but start new ones on behalf of the oligarchy for whom she toils. Obama is probably the same, don't expect much (like a quick end to the occupation of Iraq) and you will be happy with him.

I say that I don't like Hilary because I want to defend her. She was not lying when she "misspoke" about landing under fire in Bosnia. Hilary knows, very very well, that everything she says gets fact checked, so when she told that story it seems probable that she did not realize that that the "incident" never happened.

More likely she confabulated the memory. No doubt she was told repeatedly that the trip was dangerous and received lots of warnings about how she might come under sniper fire, etc. Over time these warnings, and her memories, melded into a false narrative -- this phenomenon is called confabulation. Confabulation is common, we all do it, most of us don't get caught.

Hilary subconsciously wanted to make herself the hero, and over time, in her own mind at least, she was. She confabulated. She did not lie.

John Dean got caught too. See the link...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/john_deans_memory_and_scooter.html