marcinmoka

Stuff like this that makes me question jbg. While I respect him, I wonder. Was he bullied as a youth? Is his obsession with Canada stem from a Jungian quest to seek out smaller, innocent targets such as our nation in an attempt to reaffirm his sense of status of self? (I mean this in the most sincere manner, out of genuine concern as a friend, not a foe). I never thought I would see the day that an educated, urbanite would make a case for some archaic, illogical measurement based on some ex-rulers bodily dimensions. Than I heard jbg argue it. If the GOP were to announce their support for banning all music, jbg would argue for him tooth and nail, such is his devotion to projecting the image that the U.S is infallible. I like the U.S and all but imperial HAS GOT TO GO! Perhaps it is also slightly symptomatic cavalier attitude. Sometimes it is for the best. But not always. Sorry, back to the topic at hand. As I said earlier, moral or immoral, the fact is that billboard was in violation of the law. Plain and simple.

On paper, not quite so (a few megawatts), or at least far less than it produces. However, in practicable terms, I won't argue with you. The day any massive scientific infrastructure project is accurately mapped out in advance.....who am I kidding, it will never happen. His idea starts with the fact that CO2 molecules like to team up with loose electrons, to form CO2 ions. A few percent of the CO2 molecules in the air manage to find such electrons. As a result they become negatively charged. The second piece of luck is that all over the Earth there is a constant vertical electrical field. The surface and the atmosphere form a giant battery, as the lightning discharges of thunderstorms demonstrate. This field tends to make negatively charged ions, such as those of CO2, drift upward. At first this happens slowly, because collisions with other molecules keep throwing the drifting ions off course. But after a few days they arrive at an altitude, about 125km up, which is so rarefied that an ion can move freely about. This is when the last stage of their one-way trip into space begins: sailing along the magnetic field of the Earth. High in the polar regions, the lines of magnetic force point almost straight upwards. When a charged particle is in a magnetic field, it tends to travel along that field's lines of force, spiralling as it goes. In the case of a CO2 ion at an altitude of 125km, it spirals round 17 times a second. However, as it travels upwards, it experiences a weakening field. It must then make fewer turns per second, in obedience to a law of physics called the conservation of magnetic moment (this is similar to the law of conservation of angular momentum that slows a spinning ice dancer down as he spreads his arms). And because it cannot just shed its energy of movement, it is forced to travel faster and faster in the direction of the field. The eventual result is that it is ejected into space. That, at least, is the theory. And although CO2 is too rare even in today's atmosphere for the phenomenon to be detected by existing satellites, an equivalent ejection of oxygen, a far more abundant gas, can be detected from space. So it seems more than likely that Dr Wong's analysis of what is going on in nature is right. The question is, can CO2 molecules be given an artificial leg-up into space, so that they leave the atmosphere in sufficient numbers to make a difference to climate change? Dr Wong thinks they can. The leg-up he proposes comes in two stages. First, he has to ionise more CO2. There are many ways this might be done, but for a first experiment Dr Wong proposes zapping dust in the atmosphere with powerful lasers, to release electrons that can then combine with CO2. Having created the ions, he will then nudge those that have drifted upwards to the appropriate height with radio waves of exactly 17 cycles a second, which will give them a nice stock of energy at the beginning of their spiralling phase. Once they are there, Dr Wong expects the incoming stream of charged particles that cause auroras to deliver the bonus that will make the whole thing work, by dumping some of their energy into the spiralling as well. This should happen through a process called stochastic resonance: the spiralling molecules get preferential treatment, so to speak, because they stand out in what is otherwise an environment of random movements. So far, Dr Wong has only rough calculations of the energy needs of his scheme, but these suggest that his lasers and radio transmitters, even if powered by fossil-fuel generated electricity, should cause far less CO2 to be put into the atmosphere than they ship out of it. The key to this efficiency is the free energy arriving by stochastic resonance. If the particles do their bit, he thinks that a few dozen megawatts of additional electrical power is all that will be needed to make a dent in the amount of CO2. May 31st 2007 | From The Economist print edition

You may of been joking, but there is a possibility being thrown around in Alaska of building a virtual "conveyor" to "shoot" excess CO2 into the depth of space, by ionizing it, and based on the magnetic properties of earth, using the poles as a conduit for carbon.

Yes it was. This is just backpedaling. Hydrogen or Thermonuclear are one type of weapon, whereas plain "nuclear" or "atomic" are interchangeable and always have been. It is like saying that the fist motor vehicles were "autocars" and modern ones are "automobiles". And it definitely is nothing to get your panties in a whirl. But than again, for someone incapable of distinguishing between tactical and strategic, and who claims tactical nukes never existed, it is worthless to continue arguing with. And for the record, no nuclear weapons are "fusion" based. Thermo-nukes have a "fusion" component, but that is only as a result of the energy provided by initial "fission" portion. Bye. Hopefully we will meet in more favorable circumstances in other topics. ------------ Eisenhower and many military brass said no. Let us not forget this was a decision undertaken by the political crowd, not the military crowd. And while it was still pre-Gouzenko, many Americans (and their occasional Nazi helpers) already had a strong distrust for Uncle Joe.

On to people who did not just seemingly learn "everything there is to know about WW2" from a documentary on the history channel. No offense, but, your false nitpicking at terms kinda discredited you. I'll give you a second chance, WD. The war would of been won anyways, and according to most military accounts, not at a substantially higher cost, as the Japanese were already trying to surrender via diplomatic channels. They knew they could not compete with the dual assault of the Americans, now aided by the Russians. The strategic result was not "winning" the war, but securing "Japan" from the evils of Stalinist Communism, and in a grander strategic scale, having an ally in that corner of the world did wonders on the bigger scale. We agree on the score, just not on the gameplay.

Say what? Seriously, think before you type. Really. "Lasy" I heard, bombs are not the same thing as missiles. Granted, I won't obsess over a genuine type-o. What I will come down on is supidity in dealing with more important matters; - gaining dominance in a part of the world, or winning a war are deemed "strategies". They pertain to the "bigger picture" or the "long term" - the individual act of destroying one or two cities, for a larger purpose such as defeating a hostile empire is called a tactic. This is a component of strategy.

Not quite : when engaged in such an intense war, ALL large centers contribute to the war effort in some way, shape or form. While these two targets were "valid", they were far from essential. False: I've never heard American military doctrine state that one should stoop down to the level of their enemies. Despite the strategic goal of Truman's decision, the Americans still prided themselves (and often rightly so) in having the moral upper hand. Not applicable: Those previous attacks took place when their defensive capabilities were far, far higher than at the time of the bomb dropping(s). A grossly weakened Japan no longer posed a threat, considering the Americans stregnth coupled with the fact that the Soviet Union launched an offensive the day before. False: It would of worked anyways. Keeping Japan however, is a different question.. * THUS * Had it not been dropped, Stalin and/or the Chinese would of been more keen to expand his "sphere of influence" in the area. In the end, we cannot accurately predict what could of happened. Despite the tragedy of innocent civilian deaths, Japan was able to "save face" in the longer run, and if Communist regimes were any indication, prevented even more tragedies from taking place.

*The sounds of silence* But I'll try : A more Machiavellian approach meant to intimidate the Soviets, via brute force. Lord knows it did next to nothing from a tactical point of view. Japan was by and large defeated.

To tell you the truth, I was waiting for the moment you would spring up and try and peg a scarlet letter on myself. Chapeau!. However in English, we have a wonderful little conjunction "a-n-d". And you are right, I did not mean it to be antisemitic, and most others would not perceive it as so. Perhaps a case of oversight, but I will gladly repost the sentence you are referring to: Had "and" been replaced by "resulting in", yes, I would acknowledge your criticism. This "assumption" you refer to was geared towards Sarkozy's distancing himself from anti-semitic belief and policies partly because of his family ties, and had jack to do with Israeli politics, thus why I included the above-stated conjunction. I know and know of many Jews without an iota of care for Israel. Whereas antisemitism is an issue which directly pertains to them, secular or not, for reasons one mustn't mention. No. Is "antisemitism" strictly a political belief? Furthermore, if you were to extrapolated this concept unto the larger picture, are you suggesting that it is impossible that someone adopt political beliefs based on their "blood" or family ties? While it is not "automatic" as your point, I would also like to know your reason for "automatically" discounting this possibility. In fact, is it not the norm to be supportive of a nation, a people, a religion, a political ideology you have a connection with? Automatic...no, but common, yes. As per the Juif ergo pro Israel, that is your imputation, not mine. Which is? Without a doubt. Thus why I am partial to Gascognny. Anyhow, personal preferences aside, my beef with your post was the overall tone of your post. While you did state that this was a minority who was responsible for the hate, it was grossly overshadowed by your examples of antisemitism, and what seemed an effort to paint a vilified portrait of France while ignoring the most positive things France has projected over Jewry. Quoting a French diplomat, and (justifiably) touting a few, but isolated anecdotes about a few political elites, while ignoring the sheer numbers of Jews who live there in peace is deceitful, albeit maybe not for you and I, but for someone not familiar with nation, focusing on the negatives paints a very bad picture. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data!

Considering his grandfather was a jew, one would assume. And while many knew of his background and his friendliness towards Israel (I heard a few Maghrebiens call him the "Israeli Trojan Horse" or simply, "sale fiuj") yet the French elected him in record numbers. Not to mention more Jews live in France than in any other European nation, as do Arab Muslims, and seeing the animosity between those two large groups, much tension is bound to arise. But not nearly the same amount which your doomsday analysis makes it out to be where you try to paint a nation I know quite well, as being le "Quatrieme Riech". I know your goal was to show off to Buffy or whoever, but there are far more anti semitic regions in this world and your post, whether inadvertently or not, manages to make the French out to be some xenophobic racists who kill at the sight of a yarmulke. I would say the U.S, notably the south and the wider Evangelical movement poses a far greater threat to the Jews than the practically non-existent Catholic Church in France. And while there was plenty of animosity between the French elite and Israel, as France strived to be, in Napoleon's words, "A Muslim superpower", don't forget that a good deal of Israel's might, be it the trusty ol' Kfir's, or the basics of their nuclear program were supplied by zee French. But for someone who complains about "painting everyone with the same brush", you do an awful lot yourself.

You mean such as the majority of the nation. Ergo, the same makeup of those who support M. Arrar. Nice try, but seriously, stop playing the race card. It is weak. Very, very weak. While I am sure this sounds brilliant on the campus rally pulpit, have you ever sat down and thought of the logistics of such an operation. There are over half a million Muslims in Canada, and a few thousand people in the agencies devoted to our security. Furthermore, these agencies are also concerned with many, many other issues, from immigration, economic theft, criminal activity, hostile nations, etc. They have tons of other worries and matters to be concerned about. Considering this is a nation of immigration, focusing alone on trivial matters like "race" or "religion" would require such vast resources and would counter productive. Do I know what methods they use to research? Nope, but rest assured, in such an old and secretive profession, it must surely amount to something more than "His name sounds Russian" or "He looks Arab". In all honesty, the biggest shame here is the mediatization of this issue, and our collective need for what I call "scapegoat-ism". They made a mistake, we chastise them, but when they do their job correctly, we ignore them.

Quite a bold, unfounded assumption. I for one, have dual citizenship as do many others. But it is my E.U passport which is a citizenship of convinience, bypassing the Kafka-esque bureaucracies one has to deal with abroad. When you study aboard, you can either wait either 2 weeks or 7 months (in a 10 month academic year) for residence bursaries. That is what I call convenient. As with most people in my situation, if we were forced to give up our secondary passports to retain our Canadian ones, it would be a non issue. There is a reason we came here and why we stay here, and it wasn't solely for convenience.

Surely, some of the "Immigrant Conspiracy/ Tin Foil" crew will be grinning with joy at this news and use it fan the flames of hatred towards everyone, but I am surprised no one has brought it up, nor inevitably (and sadly) defended the erection of this billboard featuring Nashrallah and split English/Arabic text, which according to most, features a striking discrepancy in tone. Like it or not, I am quite sure this was in clear defiance of the law and should not be tolerated. They seem to agree with me too - http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp I am shocked at how thing one got past the gates, be it at the level of the state, the printers, or even the proprietor of the billboard (CBS). As the parliamentarians love to say, "Shame". Sign splits Lebanese, riles Jews This goes way too far. I am just curious what the Anarchists/Uber-Libertarians have to say?

So Senor! Because associating with someone of a different skin colour in Canada or Australia is a capital offense. I do love my country. I just prefer to show it by not making a fool of myself in the eyes of others. American youths who travel abroad have definitely learned this, since they are much more reserved and respectful than my fellow countrymen, let alone the brits, who are the worst behaved and believe they are entitled to everything. Just a shame that a few from the older generation cannot muster the concept of decorum and diplomacy.

I was gonna say, that was quite the intense Amerigasm. I have quite the intense urge to repeatedly watch truck commercials and eat apple pie. Nope. He may be upper middle class, but he's Jewish and from New York. Of course he is voting Democrat. Or eversince Lieberman ran, abstaining. I am quite sure that in that neck of the woods, they do not even bother taking polls on the matter.

I just looked through my old rental lease(s) from a few years back when I actually lived in Nice, and nada, could not find anything in the fine print stipulating the necessity of my being non-jewish. Though who knows,maybe this poor soul planned on getting a pad on Rue Trachel, which also houses the office of a certain personality by the name of Le Pen, first name, Jean-Marie, and who's private office looks onto an enormous red billboard for "Mecca Cola". Considering he loves to hate everyone, enacting such a law in this day in age amongst one or two hardcore supporters could be plausible. Nice (PACA) is single handedly his biggest stomping ground. P.S. Has anyone access to the actual wording of the law? I find it hard to believe the Vichy Gov' had the skill to predict both the future European currency and real estate values that far in advance.

Best start stockpiling food on the ol' compound.

They are out to get ya!!!!

Did anyone actually try to enforce the law? Granted, I am sure there are still archaic, forgotten laws in existence in our own country pertaining to were Irish folk can live or what not. We just can't be bothered to research them.

Could you give us specifics? I do not think that evoking a simple title does much in supporting your argument, nor does alluding to the fact that you previously read similar comments, therefore it must be true. Sure, both sides at some points must of exagerated the threats in order to mobilize their populations, who were more preoccupied with the here and now than they were with strategic, long term thinking. But that is true of any war, and there is a clear reason for that : hindsight is not a luxury we can afford ourselves in times of great duress, I am sure you would agree, and it always is better to err on the side of caution. Having said that, how would you of preferred to see the cold war handled? Should the prospects of France, and especially Italy, being run over by the communists been ignored, thereby putting in peril the very alliance, NATO, which affords us security? Not to make it personal, but it does upset me quite a bit to hear some sheltered kid brush away the threat posed by the most murderous regimes in the history of humanity as no big deal. Granted, some people are foolish enough to look at a few figures of immediate economic data and believe this gives them a glimpse onto the bigger strategic picture and even moreso, the psyche of those in power. Useful idiots was the proper expression, one attributed to those who gave the enemy the benefit of the doubt.

I would not say as much money, but pretty close, because even Russia refuses to sell them their juiciest kit. With Russia's resource wealth and China's resource thirst, that would be akin to tying your own noose.

An excellent post. And while it is true that staggering amounts of people do make blatantly antisemitic remarks under the guise of critiquing Israel or Zionist policy, I would none the less urge a word of caution in using this term. While you have brilliantly articulated the distinction between genuine criticism of Israel and that deeper rooted perversion which only tries to mask itself behind a legitimate facade, many others are much more liberal in their application of the term, and and not nearly as clear and discriminating. In the post holocaust years, Jews finally started to speak up, en masse, as a means to isolate the creeping, often stealthy and institutionalized antisemitism which clearly threatened their survival. Yet while I do see the understandably existentialist frame of mind which causes many Jews to be very nervous at the first sign of any harsh words pertaining to their community even in the broadest sense, the overuse of the term "antisemitic" could eventually yield to be counter productive. It is a powerful term pertaining to a real threat. But those who, unlike yourself, use the term indiscriminately risk de-sensitizing the population from its sense gravitas. Furthermore, as the Holocaust drifts into the annals of history as their generation ceases to be a living reminder, the over application of the term risks watering it down in such a way that its connection to the tangible tragic consequences of antisemitism become ever less visible. And than when it rears its ugly head once again, which it no doubt will, there is the risk that people will not be as willing to act so quickly to stomp it out again. I guess it all lays in finding the proper balance between the preservation of its meaning and its use as a legitimate means of identifying threats.

They have. It just happens to be in a way which is systematically in contravention of all concievable ethical and moral war time conventions. This was particularly true upon the second round, once they managed to remove all those pesky reporters. An homage to its Stalinist past? I sadly have to agree. I don't think NATO is too worried about this. It should be highlighted that this is less likely a genuine war game than it is a demo centered "trade-show" meant to entice the relatively free spending Chinese forces into buying quasi-modern kit, plus an effective means of "educating" the neighbors about the consequences of forming alliances with Islamist subversives, all rolled into one.

And it helps many students and other lower income groups get by on very tight budgets. Have they no shame?

No offense, but when it comes to money being spent wisely, the LAST place I would ever look to is the wider M.E. While nations such as Norway or our very own use their resource wealth to invest in a more long term, sustainable economic projects not reliant on the energy sector, the M.E has a knack in investing said revenues in yachts and luxury automobiles rather than infrastructure and science textbooks. -------------------- So I fail to define the issue, BUT, It has already been defined well enough for you to claim that you have already answered "time after time". Interesting. Or maybe this is just a cheap rhetorical ploy which ignores notions I have also explained ad nauseum, notably the concept of uncertainty. Hell, I just wanted to know your opinion concerning the logistics and intent of the "GW" crowd. You seem to be fearful that everyone else is forming a conspiracy against you, so pardon me for imputing. Well one group is far more visible and prominent, something you admitted to. If I am unable to hear the voice of the GW skeptics, how am I supposed to size up their numbers. So yes, in the media and in academic circles (I am a student, one who spends plenty of time on campus), the vast majority does indeed claim this issue should be at the very least, not ignored as it does present an unknown and a potential threat. ( I have always argued though that the doomsday sayers be best ignored, as should the extremists on the other end who believe the environment is a closed system and that longer growing seasons will be the only thing to take place without any consequences). But seeing as you have access to some critical data I lack, what are the numbers of those who have brought up the issue of "global warming" and their thoughts on the subject, be it for, against, the pros, the cons, etc. I know you have a tendency to ignore questions asking for specifications, but please do not overlook this one. I want to know your sources. Especially because you agree with B.Max's announcement " Science of global warming settled". It is this certitude which I bring into question. Data and sources, please & thank you. And pitiful, impressionable fools such as Nicholas Stern, not to mention entire governments and corporations managed to fall for this "fad", yet Scott, our resident Oracle, managed to see through these lies and propaganda generated upon the feeble minded masses. Pardon? They love it BECAUSE it is easy AND filled with promises that never have to be kept? This is your grand explanation? Fair enough. Kyoto was blatantly unfair, but was it ever an argument for socialism? I guess, albeit a pathetic argument. I agree with you here, but I must ask, is this a bad thing? Why stifle it? Especially if a nation such as ours has the know how and technology to potentially sell it and therefore better our own self interest? --------------- My position is also includes many "maybes". I however, tend not to be a gambling man. Being aware now is more an insurance policy, by putting away a minute amount now SHOULD an unlikely event ever come to fruition. 1. Maybe it is happening 2. Maybe it is manmade 3. If it is manmade, it is wisest to approach with caution, especially if at little cost to ourselves, but the potential aversion of a major risk one day in the future. This will at least buy us time to study it further.