You probably just got it in one there. Plus he would have been a man of his time for the time and so comfortably blended in with the rest of furniture of American public life.

Look up, look down, look at my thumb, gee your dumb.

Yellow cake uranium is a kind of uranium concentrate obtained from leach solutions, in an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ores. Yellowcake concentrates are prepared by various extraction and refining methods, depending on the types of ores. Typically yellowcakes are obtained through the milling and chemical processing of uranium ore forming a coarse powder which is insoluble in water and contains about 80% uranium oxide.

[snip]

"Low grade uranium," or, low-enriched uranium contains between 3 and 4% Uranium 235. This grade of Uranium, when properly fabricated into fuel pellets, provides the heat source for nuclear reactors in the United States.

[snip]

Low-grade uranium ore mined in 2006 typically contains 0.01 to 0.25% uranium oxides.

You were saying. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Whatever was "secretly" shipped out of Iraq, assuming it was, was not "yellow-cake uranium".

before we get back to the true national hero: Wacko Jacko.

from America back in the days when you didn't always have to suspect the motives and ethics when you looked at some talking the news at you was William L Shirer.

I'll concede that I may be slightly confused as to the exact definition of "yellow" cake and/or what constitutes it.

By your own CNN article the quantities that were transported from Iraq to Canada in 08 were "known quantities" that the international regulatory agencies were well aware of and had monitored and secured quite safely.

So the point is what?

If Iraq had 550 pounds/tons(?) of "yellow-cake" why did they "allegedly" need to try and obtain more from Nigeria.

You could actually try going to the Congressional assessments on these issues instead of selectively poaching CNN infotainment bits to engage in your sophistry.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

..people stuck to the subject.

Yellow cake, a mountain in Washington, a bunch of other shite!WTF???

Are you all on some kind of stream of consciousness drug thing?

Sorry. It's just that a post claiming that NH Fish and Game's charges to a kid who goofed up his hiking trip and cost $25,000 in search and rescue expenses doesn't seem like a good claim of 'big gummint'. Especially since N.H. is one of the anti-big-gummint capitals of the world.

They were very short posts, you could have scrolled past them. Betzee and I were just exchanging a little on Mt. Washington (not a mountain in Washington). Sorry to offend you so gravely.

We drifted into general conversation because every aspect of Cronkite's death we can think of has already now been covered.

The on thread discussion will however be resumed when Glenn updates with his comments on, and links to, Walter Cronkite's own report on the death of Walter Cronkite.

So far we haven't any news when this report will be released so until it is we don't have much else to chew on.

Thanks, LondonLad...so now we have:

ProjectCensored.Org

OpenSecrets.Org

Congressional Record (www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord)

It seems to me that we are going to have to rise up to the challenges of our technology. We seem to be whining about how much things suck, and waiting for someone or some thing to deliver us out of this media-news swamp of bullshit, lies, and propaganda.

Well, turn it around. Deliver yourself.

See, as we age and mature, we become more discerning in life. We find our favorite beers, or favourite wines, our choice of cheeses and meats. We become discerning, because we know ourselves better, we know what we want out of life, and we have sampled and tasted, and made choices. In friends, in entertainment, in literature, in food, in drink. So why not in "news?"

What is "news" anyway? Superficially, we can say it is a snapshot of the most important events and trends in the world and in our nation/society on any given day. But who decides what is important? And what are their criteria? Do you even know? And if you did know, would you agree?

We are all told of the experiment in "shutting off the news." Many self-help gurus and even psychologists suggest turning off the news for a week or two to reduce stress and clear the mind. I have done it, and many others have too, and guess what? Our lives changed not one iota. Oh, sure, we lost stress and cleared our minds a bit, but did we "miss" anything? Did our lives drastically change because we were lacking a particular piece of information or analysis? No, of course not. So how relevant is the "news" to your life?

Perhaps it is. If you own an import/export business in SanFran, and trade in Shanghai, then you would be interested in knowing the current political and economic climates of Shanghai and California. If you are a social-justice activist, you would be interested in the social trends and the legal climate. In other words, your discernment of “news” relates to what is relevant to your life.

People expect to get a good “snapshot” of their world in a few minutes scanning of a newspaper, or seeing the first five minutes of a CNN new hour. I submit that this is an illusion. What you are instead getting is a manufactured summary that is designed specifically for you. It is as if an astronomer were to see the entire night sky, in the entire electromagnetic spectrum, in one frame – it cannot be done. The world is too broad, too large, too deep, too complex to be given a five-minute summary, unless you have a very specific, narrow, particular world-view in which to operate. It is this world-view that you are being given in that five minute summary.

We do not base our diet on what is available on the Wal-Mart food shelves. We shop around. We travel. We order online. In other words, we choose our diet. We choose our kitchen. So why do we not choose our world-view? Why do we not choose our “news?” To say that “Yes, I choose my news, I watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and read the NYT and Washington Post,” is absurd. That is like saying “I shop at Wal-Mart uptown, downtown, and in the suburbs.” It is all the same. Same headlines, same top stories, same analysis, same world-view.

Analysis costs money. Traders and investors pay thousands of dollars for research and analysis as it pertains to their field. Even mainstream news workers pay for Nexis-Lexis. But information, data, is often free, as the list at the top of this post suggests. It is time to take responsibility for your own world-view. It is time to take responsibility for your own analysis.

Our fathers and grandfathers knew how to maintain their automobiles. They changed and rotated their tires, they changed their own oil, the cleaned the spark plugs. They had to learn, in order to survive. Indeed, there is even a good argument that the soldiers in WWII in Europe did as well as they did because so many of them knew how to maintain their equipment before they even joined up. We have to adopt the same attitude towards “news.”

Stop being given a world-view. Stop blindly accepting what you are told is important and relevant to your life. Stop blindly accepting a worldview you are given. Begin to discern. Begin to do your own analysis. Question, contemplate, and design your own world-view: one that is tune with your own values, and your own life.

To conclude, let me just summarize it with this: If you ever vote for a Congressional candidate based on their position on issues, and you have never done your own research and analysis of their voting record (which is public information, and free), then you are a fool.