russell jones

Yeah I knew that... but I hate to see my city being used in that way. The reputation was deserved before the 60's, but Pittsburghers hate how the impression stuck after the city cleaned up. Why not use Gary, Indiana instead everyone? The sky is green there.

And before I forget... to AOD, Pittsburgh is not super-industrial in any way shape or form, and hasn't been since before the 1980's. The only factory that is still open that I can think of is Heinz. Pittsburgh's economy is computers, robotics, service, banking and corporate headquarters.

Thanks christo ...and to Zig, I think I took plenty of time to respond to one of these conspiracy type arguments. I don't have the time or inclination to waste too much energy on something so disjointed and lacking in historical perspective.

Come on AOD, I thought you were above this kind of stuff. I guess John Muir was a hired servant too. BTW, the writer really kills himself when he goes off on the MOMA tangent. He doesn't know jack shit about art if he thinks art buyers in this country didn't get dragged kicking and screaming into Modernism. On top of that, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article. The PBS, GM, Ken Burns argument is fucked up in so many confused ways, I won't even go into it.

ohhhh this made my morning. Hi-fucking-larious.

This conversation brought to you by the regulated capitalism. :)

^^^^^^ that I agree with... there's no substitute for experience. I appreciate that the Internet has made information cheap. After all, are we memorizing machines or thinking machines?

time is walking John Lee Hooker The most plays is a dubstep mix I made... but that doesn't count.

I have a Mac, and Veetle seems to work well for my TV watching needs. They have quite a few HD feeds for movies too.

When I was an undergraduate, I had a student from Tanzania in my class whose grandmother was duped into buying the 'terminator" seeds. They sold it by advertising greater yields, which was true, but neglected to mention that they would not seed and that she would have to buy seeds from them every year.

I'll skip the GMO debate, however, my parents always agreed with you. My father would always buy corn on the way home from work from a farmer who would set up shop on the side of the road. It was always the "sweetest" according to him. The only thing I can say about GMO and corn is that the debate is over, now we have to deal with the possible consequences, there is no stopping GMO's getting into all corn.

Thanks MAR. It seems somewhat silly to remove the fat from soy burgers, since most of the people who eat them are eating very low fat diets and the fats in soy are generally beneficial fats. My philosophy is that fat is not a bad thing. I wanted to lose weight, so I ate less. It is simple as that.

I do not see anything posted on here that clearly explains what the NWO is, except christo's definition of it. I believe that he mentioned that when politicians were using the term NWO, they were referring to the change in the balance of power in the post-Cold War world and how the United States' role has changed now that they are the only existing superpower. If you cannot define your term in just a few sentences, then you do not know what you are talking about.

With all due respect... I am not way past it. If one cannot define terms, then one will not be understood, or perhaps more importantly, one will not be able to convince intelligent people of the merits of their argument. NWO seems to be a nebulous concept to me, but all of the believers seem to know what it is. So tell me. Like I said, it's no skin off my back.

we coo

It is even funnier that you used text speak to make fun of my grammar mistake.

"Again, I agree with Brzenzinski. America, as a nation, needs to confront this new political reality and determine what America's global role will be. Right now, in my opinion, America's global role has been to establish a New World Order which doesn't serve the interest of the people, but rather the interest of the wealthy and elite. I fundamentally disagree with that, and I believe America's global role should be to lead by example by disengaging itself in corrupt wars around the world, corruption from within our country, and setting a new positive example for peace, prosperity, liberty and freedom. That can not be accomplished by continuing globalist policies which lead us further towards a NWO. " I would like to see a definition of New World Order in this paragraph. What is this NWO, who is involved, where is the evidence to support it? Otherwise, it is just speculation. "I don't believe America is an exception to this, but I do agree with his analysis. I personally believe that in foreign nations, these sentiments are more widely shared. However, I don't believe that young people in America aren't equally as physically and emotionally frustrated with the status-quo and the establishment. We may be slow to start, but we are picking up steam here in this country. Our movements are being co-opted, demonized, and misdirected by the media and our government, but I personally believe we are on the same page as a majority of the rest of the younger generation of this world." Again, I believe I am missing some kind of essential context here, because I am not sure what "our movement" refers to. Also, the writer ends by saying "I personally believe...," which is another way of saying that he has no evidence to back up his claim that the majority of youth agrees with "our movement." I would agree with the writer that Americans are probably not as radicalized politically as those in poorer nations. One of the standard theories for radicalization holds that it is caused by poverty. That could be an explanation for the lack of radicalization among America's youth, because of the relative levels of poverty between America's poor and the poor of third world nations. However, I do not know how much this argument holds water, considering that many "radicals" from Islamic countries, such as, the 9/11 bombers, were middle class or even wealthy. I have personal anecdotal evidence that people in the Middle East hate the United States government because of Middle Easterners' pride in their powerful heritage, such as the Ottoman Empire, and they feel shame that Islamic countries are now exploited by US companies and the US government. That is from my personal experience, so I would not put too much weight on the veracity of that notion for overall populations of radicals. However, "Frontline" made a similar argument in their piece on Osama Bin Laden a few years back. "And I agree with the editor. Here is where Brzezinski shows his true colors in my opinion. This "internationalization" or globalization, is what is creating a large portion of the world's systemic problems. I do personally believe that it is up to America to lead the way, confidently, towards solutions for human dignity, social rights, self-determination etc. We can do that by following our Constitution. Not by further escalating, and establishing a New World Order. " Again, he did not define NWO order, or how following the Constitution relates to his argument, except perhaps by explaining that the US should lead the way towards "solutions for human dignity, social rights, self-determination etc." I am not sure how the two relate though, since he does not explain it. The overall idea sounds good in a kind of Utopian sense though. "This is absurd to me. The man is saying, "No, we don't want Global GovernMENT, we want Global GovernANCE. Two different things, see? *Trollface*" When in reality, the steps being suggested, if established, would set the groundwork for exactly the kind of system Americans find unpopular. Americans not only don't want Global Government, Brzezinski, we don't want global governance either. We just want our government to follow and respect our Constitution, and we want freedom, and liberty. That's desirable. " I believe that Brzezinski makes an interesting distinction between "governance" and "government," which perhaps the writer fails to appreciate. Governance, seems to refer to international organizations that work together with individual governments to create rules and regulations for international relations. Government refers to a sovereign entity, which has little relationship with the UN, or WTO, or any other similar organization, since the authority of international bodies is limited by the individual governments. Governance is a set of agreements, government is a controlling body. However, I cannot be sure of Brzenzinski's meaning, since his quotes are out of context, and I have not read the original articles that this essay references. Additionally, the "we" that the writer refers to is again, not defined, so I am not sure what he is basing his assertions to the "we's" intent on. "Mixing truth with manipulation, this Brzezinski guy is a dangerous one." Here, the writer is referring to Brzenzinski's comment about the "mythical historical narrative" of the war on terror. I do not know how Brzenzinski is being manipulative, since the writer offers no evidence to support this assertion. The ball's in your court Zig.

Cool, that would be a good link to post if you could find it Mar.

When I was an undergraduate, I took a course on US international policy (with a focus on the Western Hemisphere). The professor was a free market conservative, who made his ideas well known. I respected the dude though, because he had evidence to back up everything he said, and a clear line of argument that led to his conclusions. I thought he was very valuable, because I could see how rationally someone could come to have radically different views about the world. I wrote my big research project on the Union Carbide chemical accident in Bhopal. I am sure that is was full of "leftist" conclusions. However, I heavily researched it, created a clear and logical argument, and was careful with my conclusions and staying within the boundaries of my thesis. I received an "A" on the paper. The teacher commented that he fundamentally disagreed with my conclusions, but the line of argument was sound. That is what is learned in a University. In fact, one of the best things to do is argue for a conclusion that you do not agree with, using the available evidence. Learning how to make a case is what I learned in college, both as an undergraduate and especially as a graduate, where they went through my thesis with a fine tooth comb and tore everything to shreds. Then I could see where my thinking was weak, where my logic was faulty, and where I was missing evidence. Then I had to edit it, they tore it up again, then more edits... you get the picture. You cannot fake it. If your argument does not make sense, you will not graduate. That is the difference between academic work and the conspiracy movies and websites. Academics will get called out on their mistakes, admit their mistakes, and fix them. Conspiracy people will bitch that their critics are brainwashed, or part of the conspiracy... blah blah blah. What I would like to see Zig, is you posting an article, then showing us what is wrong with it, tracing how the argument is made, how the conclusions are reached, etc. Instead, you post a huge article with no comments, no main points, nothing to tell us what we may get from it. The shit is not over are heads, we just do not want to read another poorly argued, jumping from ill founded to even more ill founded conclusion, conspiracy piece. If you do not like the way you are being treated, or how people are making fun of you, then show us that you understand what you are posting, and show us that you can think critically about it. Pick on specific point in one of those articles, and show us how the point is made. Criticize it. Tell us why you are criticizing it. Or you could just keep bitching... I don't care.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Mother Jones article makes a good point about locally grown produce at farmer's markets. Because each farmer is bringing their own truck to the market, the individual transportation costs and use of fossil fuels is higher than buying from a factory farm thousands of miles away. The factory farm and the supermarket uses big 18 wheelers, which would use less gas for the same amount of food than dozens of farmers in their own trucks. I like to buy stuff at the farmer's market because its cheap, and I can have a bunch a choices for the same produce, so I can pick what I like.

It's the Stele of Hammurabi. It contains the laws of the Babylonian Empire, which embody the concept of "an eye for an eye."

I wonder about the appearance of success. For instance, the media song seems to be that Iraq is a success now, and Petraeus was getting credit on NPR for that yesterday. The troop surge in Iraq is now seen as a success in the media as well. So perhaps Obama feels that the reality on the ground is not as important as the perception. Needless to say, Petraeus is far more media savvy than McC and can sell the war better than McC ever could. What do you think Christo? What's more important politically, actual success or the appearance of success? I will not even get into what actual success entails.

People like McChrystal don't get to where they are by making stupid mistakes. My guess is that he saw the writing on the wall that the Obama Administration was looking for an excuse to fire him, and he kindly obliged so he could rid himself of the responsibility and future blame. Just a thought.

No it's fun to watch you talk to brick walls!