d16842

You make "ripped off" sound like armed robbery. Whatever happened, government agents that work for us approved it. Every dollar of it. Why aren't you attacking the ones who are actually responsible for wisely spending our money? I don't think you can find a logical reason. By definition companies exist to make money. It is their employees only job. Government purchasing agents are there to protect us. Which of the two failed in their job? This situation is not limited to the war, it infects every government body, all the time. And it will never end until we stop blaming companies, and start whacking those responsible, the purchasing agents, their boss, and their boss, right up the latter. Fire enough of them and it will stop. But we have yet to fire the first one. Tom B

And prosecutions are finally happening now that their protection is gone. Yeah, they are finally making such good prosecutions, aren't they. Like when they sent a Seal team out to get the fucking terrorist leader that had snatched for Americans, brutally tortured them, hung them on a bridge, and put it all on a Website. The seals go out at great personal risk, snatch the guy, and in the middle of it, one of them punched him. No major damage, just a punch. He claimed abuse, and the Navy has the four Seals now in a Court Martial. He tortured and killed four Americans and for just a punch we are upset enough to prosecute the very men who risk their lives for us daily? They should have just killed the son of a bitch, then they would not have to explain the punch. Or like the Attorney General declaring war on the CIA, starting investigations that Obama said should not occur. Before it is over they will end up prosecuting agents for doing what they were ordered to do, and advised by government lawyers that it was legitimate to do. Yea, that is such a good prosecution. Or how they are going to prosecute businesses for doing EXACTLY what the government told them to do. That no expense should be spared, get everything you can over there and set up as quickly as possible, money is no object. Then a year later when a congressman bitches about the cost, it is suddenly abuse of the government by the company. Before long no company will answer the governments call. Keep this crap up and soon we are going to run out of soldiers, agents, and companies willing to protect our ass. What then? Tom B

Have you ever worked for a government contractor in such circumstances. In my job I have been in similar situations many many times. A disaster of some kind happens, and the government cranks up the contractor, tells them money is no concern, that the only criteria is getting as much support there as is possible, as quickly as it can be done. The wave the flag, tell the contractor that American lives are at stake, and again money is no object. Then the contractor pulls out the few remaing limits in place and goes to incredible lengths to provide what is asked and does a hell of a good job of it. Then a year later when the contracting agent or Congress sees the bills they throw a hissy fit. How could you possibly have done all this expensive stuff, the special shipments on one of a kind aircraft, leasing ships for transport at twice the going rate, so that they can get them from other natoins or companies to get what the Government asked for. How could you possibly have spent this much money. How indeed. Tom B

Instead of basing your opinion on a four-year old study of one person's questionable method of analyzing media content (I call it questionable, because he calls the Wall Street Journal liberal, and the Drudge Report left-leaning), why don't you look at my post literally? Which aspect of your post do you refer to? I really don't see a problem using the study for several reasons. First, it was not one person's opinion. The data was collected by hundreds of researchers, from several universities. It does have some age I admit, but its methodology was first class, and that helps a lot in terms of getting useful data out of it. It really stands alone in creating methods to make consistent measurements of news articles, instead of using gut reactions which are unreliable. Second, I have personally seen nothing that even remotely suggests any of the news agencies improved on bias. If anything, it is worse today, probably from the polarization of the 2006-2008 elections. If you dig through the larger of the two papers, they explain the Drudge score. It is because of the slant of the non-headline issues. For starters, I never even attempted to write that Fox News was completely balanced. In fact, I did the opposite, plainly stating that Fox News is biased to the right, and that was also clearly noted in the UCLA study. My point, and yes anger now that the data is out, is that is that so many on the left are like members of the Waffen SS, believing that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be retarded. The pedestal they stand on when making that claim are news organizations far worse than Fox News. Tom B

Interesting... Judge not lest ye be judged... So you propose to do away with all police and court actions? No more trials or jails? For without judgement, dangerous criminals will walk among us freely. Are you an expert on the Bible? The reason I ask is although I tried to read it all way back when, never once did I see where Jesus objected to criminal trials or even the execution of criminals. My only heartburn with the death penalty is that it cost a couple of million bucks to get a case through all the appeals to get there. For that reason I would be more than happy to shove them in an overpopulated cell together, throw in food for about half of them, and let them sort it out in a Christian manner. Tom B

Liberal Democrats? Tom B

It is good to know we only have companies making extremely high profit during war time, that other companies never seek to make large profits off the government in peacetime or from non-defense programs. Give me a break! I don't blame any of the companies that make large profits off the government. Why? Because I pay purchasing people who work for the government to negotiate well and get good deals. They are the ones failing to do their jobs, not the companies. Every time you hear of a $6,000 bolt, or $10,000 toilet seat, remember that someone you paid actually bought it for that. If you are mad about such things, blame the purchasing agent, and his boss, and his boss, right up to the President, and fire them. Until you do, another "greedy" company will always be there. Tom B

It is just a suggestion, but I learned in my business travels to Asia to tell them ahead of time that I was vegitarian. All of their cultures accept and respect that. It works for short visits, so long as they don't see you lining up at the carnivore fast food place. Tom B

From: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm One way to measure news agency bias is to pay attention to the think tanks they reference in their reports. Think tanks almost always lean left or right. Thus the initial selection of a right or left think tank, literally predetermines the report's final conclusion. In a study, of the ten most cited think tanks used by major news agencies, only one right-wing think tank is among them. the American Enterprise Institute. The other nine are from the left. I agree with those of the left who say the Fox News organization's combined programming is biased to the right. One would be an idiot not to, with O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. But these are not news shows. My point here is we should know the difference in news and comentary. Far too many, on both sides, don't. But if I can can agree that Fox News' total programming schedule is biased right, it won't kill you guys to admit the same is true, and just as badly, by some left leaning broadcasters. Where Fox does a better job than many competitors is in balancing the content of its actual news programs. They consistently rate in the best 25% on this. While they do have a right bias, they are no more right than the best of the other programs are left. The study numbers demonstrate that soundly. People have a right to expect the actual news programs to be balanced. And it is clear that the public is finally catching on to the bias problem. Dan Rather's self destruction was caused by a clear and overt attempt to influence the 2004 election, not just report about it. His zeal to burn Bush, ignoring all of the basic rules of source verification, verifying a source, overcame any journalistic sense he still possessed. Consequently, public respect of journalists is at an all time low. It is a sad state of affairs. Tom B

So Riddler, you believe that Fox News is extremely partisan? OK, but does real, statistically valid research bear that claim out? Let's take a look at the huge UCLA media bias study of 2005 which objectively quantifies bias in 20 major media outlets. It is four years old, but I don't believe any of the media outlets have changed much since then. Here are two papers. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm Starting with Riddler's assertion that it is Fox News that is the problem, the study of 20 news organizations revealed: Think about it. Fox is the only news agency that isn't further left than the average voter. Given that industry baseline, it can be no surprise that the left views Fox News as incredibly biased, as their comparison group, all the other organizations, are biased to the left. I don't claim that Fox's news programs are not biased. But the studies demonstrate it is significantly less biased than many left leaning news organizations. Excluding Fox, 18 of the remaining 19 agencies studied were biased left. Riddler, you asked how much more biased could Fox News get? Perhaps you should ask that of sixteen remaining news shows, as the study found all of them more biased than Fox News. Tom B

I understand there is a great difference in quality in the firms that convert 8mm film. Any advice on how to choose one? Tom B

Maybe you are talking commercial reactors, but the thread is about Chernobyl and its impact on the environment. We slam the Russians for their stupidity, but at the time of their event we were running several reactors without containment and other essential safety systems right here in America, and it could have happened here to any of them. Tom B

If I remember that story, or one very much like it, investigators believe it was murder/suicide, using the reactor as a weapon. Inventive I guess. Tom B

The other great zone for wildlife is the DMZ of Korea. 155 miles long and 5 miles wide, where when people go there they get shot at, it makes a great wildlife zone. Tom B

I did look at the document, and much of what it says is just that. I do have some concerns with it, but choose not to list them, lest I continue to expand the problem. But my comment stands on "guilty of the same offense". It is either a big deal or it is not, but all involved, top to bottom did the same thing. Tom B

I have mine somewhere. It says that I was a young and coming manager for a company that funds them in large amounts, and that I personally directed a considerable amount of that funding, And for those reasons alone, they should accept me. They did. Tom B

Because if the bad guys have it it is the press's job to make sure that the authorities don't cover the breach up, to the detriment of the nation, in order to protect their asses. That argument might hold water, if attaching the documnent significantly aided the story. It didn't. The story itself stands well by any measure. Attaching the document spreads the problem. But doing so gets lots more web hits and increases the all important Google ranking. Every organization and individual who contributed to the spread of the document, not the story, the actual document, is guilty of the same offense as the idiots who put it on the contractor website. Tom B

That's exactly what it (i.e., US involvement in Afghanistan) is. That is true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. The topic and my discussions in it are all about Switzerland changing building codes. I don't know why another poster brought Afganistan in at all. Tom B

True, but throw in Iran's, which he tried to get by force, Kuwait's, which he took by force, and Saudi Arabia, which he planned to take by force, but was dumb enough to pause. Getting the picture of Saddam yet? And the price of oil is set by the world at the margin. 3 million barrels per day has real impact on price, a LOT more than just its percentage of production. And just how long would continued threats without action have worked? Tried that approach with your kids lately? But the point is the threats were based on non-compliance to UN sanctions. Saddam had paid off UN officials and those of several key nations. The sanctions were soon to be lifted. Then what? Back to the old Saddam? Not so fast. It was 550 tons, not several And why was it still there? It sure as hell was not fuel for his blown up reactor as many claim. Fuel rod bundles would be. Instead, this was 550 tons still in the yellow cake stage. The French had previously retaken possession of the planned reactor fuel. So why did Saddam keep the yellowcake, instead of shipping it out during his compliance phase. What use would he have for yellowcake after sanctions were lifted? The same peaceful purposes as Iran? Tom B

That argument might work here in the US, but the last I heard, Switzerland was not in the US and is not under our Constitution. And even if their equivilent of our Constitution prevented it, the magnitide of the vote made it the equivilent of a constitutional change. But what I meant by our being harsh is that we encourage illegal immigration by waving dollars to get them to come, then make it literally life risking to actually cross the boarder. I have been on searches in the desert for lost imigrants when I lived in AZ. They do die coming. I find that harsh. And the two are most definitely linked together. The Swiss have watched as other European nations face ever increasing problems because of large Islamic immigration. Changes like an expectation of Islamic Law, the literal sale of young women for marriage, and much more. With this vote the Swiss have drawn a line in the sand that discourages both the problem behaviors and Islamic immigration in the future. Or at least says, This is our culture and it is not changing. It was mainly symbolic in nature, but make no mistake, that was what the vote was about. It wasn't really focused on denying things to those already in the nation, although it does have impact on them. Tom B

Well I will jump in on several levels. I believe our policy on illegal immigration really sucks. We openly make it economically rewarding for huge numbers of people to cross our borders illegally, and are unwilling to attack that root cause, that Americans keep hiring them. Yet we apply border enforcement efforts at great expense, which forces many crossing the border to literally risk their lives to get here. Anyone see a problem with encouraging them to come by waving dollars, then making it risky? And all this time, we literally have people who have applied to enter the US, many well educated and with money, and who have waited for a visa for twenty years, and won't let them in. I think we need to absolutely lock the southern border down, if for no other reason than to save lives. Then greatly increase our legal immigration quotas to all nations of the world, in fair amounts each, for it is very unfair to ignore illegal immigration from a few nations who can walk here, and enforce very small quotas on the rest of the world. Tom B

For starters, this isn't one nation forcing change on another. Instead it is just one nation proclaiming via a democratic free election that what we are is what we want and plan to stay. Move here if you want, but do so knowing how we feel. And in one of my posts above, I said that I believe it perfectly fine for present Islamic nations to do exactly the same thing, to have self determination as a culture. So nation building doesn't apply either way. But since you asked I think nation building is very unlikely to succeed, given that we want an exit strategy before we even deploy the needed troops. I don't think it reasonable to expect a culture to openly accept any change that comes their way, or more importantly in this case, one they see happening in other nearby nations in a very scary way, and act to avoid it. Tom B

First I sure as hell didn't write that! Hurtful ethnic discrimination? We are talking about a zoning code to preserve image, and perhaps the a line in the sand for the future cultural change. And right now, from everything I have read, things are pretty damn good there in interpersonal relations, this vote aside. I think this pales compared to Frances restrictions on any religious garb in schools, DK's restriction on foreign marriage, etc. Europe is just in a mess over the whole issue. People react. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120702945.html?hpid=sec-religion Poor analogy, which is why I try to avoid analogies if I can. The Amazon tribes (not to be confused with the anti-rePUBICans) are nearly extinct already, and are faced with disappearing altogether. Somehow, though, I don't think that Christians in Switzerland are going to be an endangered species any time soon. Who claimed Christians are going to be an endangered species? Wait, isn't that an analogy you try to avoid? But the image, culture, and customs of the nation are most certainly unique in my travels, and special. And the very culture of other European nations is already under siege. Tom B

You may want to do a little more research. Actually just get some sleep this week. I knew better than that, and corrected it. I have been there six times, and do understand the difference. Thanks. Tom B

The reactors in the US are pretty safe from this kinda of disater. Today perhaps. But not at the time of Chernobyl. When it went down, I am virtually sure we were still running three or four Hanford, WA DOE reactors, under a tin roof with no effective containment, just like... Chernobyl. They were built to create plutonium for nuclear weapons, and some ran from the mid-40's, until we got too afraid to keep running them. Tom B