It's interesting to note that our two current wars are, in some way, resultant from Reagan's tenure: The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were both funded and armed by the US to oppose the Soviets in Afganistan. Similarly, Reagan funded and armed Saddam Hussein to oppose Iran, which was considered the greater threat at the time. Neither of these observations are meant to cast blame, but rather to note that history has no beginning and no end. Our victories will always be the launch pad for future conflicts. WWI laid the ground work for WWII, which begat the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union enabled the rise of the Taliban and Al Queda, and the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. 20 years from now, we will doubtless be dealing with the unforseen fallout of our current actions.

Hey, CMR, your tag line reminds me of a quote from Dale Gribble, on King of the Hill: "Guns don't kill people, the government does!"

Too young to have voted for Reagan? Gee, James, your picture makes you look so much older! I know he was a lot of people's favorite president, and a lot of republican lawmakers have been trying to deify him for years. The airport in Washington DC has already been renamed after him, as has a major DC building. I have even heard of attempts to put his face on currency or postage stamps. Perhaps we will see his face on Rushmore one day.

I just heard that Ronald Reagan died today. My thoughts go out to his family and to all of those who will mourn his passing. Though I won't pretend that I agreed with all of his policies or actions (I voted against him twice,) I recognize his greatness and importance in restoring a sense of pride in America. After a decade of pessimism brought on by Vietnam, Watergate, the fuel crisis and economic recession, he provided a vision and a sense of optimism that had been missing for too long. Even this self-confessed 'liberal' can respect that.

Hey Jack, could this be what you are referring to as the June 25th 'opening shot' in the battle for the White House? Seems sure to kick up a hornet's nest.

Every time I start thinking that the whole 'teh' thing is a tired old joke whose 15 minutes have long-since passed, I find myself making teh same damn typo, quite unintentionally. Guess it's still relevant. So what other typos do people make repeatedly? I know that I constantly am typing ; when I mean to type ', and whenever I try to type "George Bush", it comes out "(expletive deleted)." Mark teh ready to be flamed

I just heard that the re-election campaign officially begins (June 25th) Jack, Jack, Jack, you silly, naive Canadian. Here in America election season begins the day after the last election. Were we a more advanced civilization, perhaps we would limit our campaigns to the 6 weeks before the election. Perhaps we would have universal health care, too.

King of the power chord That would be Link Wray (or, at least, he would be the father of the power chord.)

Some guy at work recently bought one of those 420+ horse powered Dodge trucks, it’s the one you can hear idling from one block away Does he have that stupid and annoying habit, which seems to be peculiar to owners of big pickups, of letting the beast sit and idle non-stop while he goes into the mini-mart, or listens to the radio in the parking lot, or is otherwise parked? I can't figure out why it's the owners of the biggest gas guzzlers that leave them idling all day.

Hydrogen fuel cells still have lots of problems to solve before they'll be ready for mass production, but it's nothing that can't be solved with a few billion dollars of research and the incentive of selling millions of cars. BTW, regular is currently $2.41 per gallon here.

I can hardly wait for the big oil companies to announce "Record profits this qtr" and give their CEO's massive bonuses compliments of all of us. Just wait for a refinery "accident". You ain't seen high gas prices!!!!! Gosh, don't you guys trust the free market to 'correct' itself? Personally, I think the best way to end our dependence on foriegn oil is to end our dependence on oil. BTW, as far as the relative safety of a Prius vs a Hummer, the Prius is actually a far safer vehicle overall, other than in a collision with something like a Hummer. Accident avoidance (braking, acceleration, steering response, rollover resistance, etc) is far better in a car such as a Prius. Additionally, passenger cars have far more strict safety standards that they must meet, as opposed to light trucks (which is what even the most car-like SUVs qualify as.) Statistically, you are far more likely to be involved in an accident (especially single vehicle accidents like rollovers) in an SUV than in a passenger car. o/t for james meyette and all cali people Seems like an appropriate cross-link.

Gcode, Jack, and others have the right idea. Document things thoroughly, then present your boss with facts only and let him draw the conclusions. If he wants you to connect the dots for him, he will ask. Even then, I would tread very carefully. There is one other thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet: Protect Yourself!!! You have already tipped the other guy that you are, at minimum, second-guessing him and, at worst, trying to take him down. He may now have an incentive to undermine your position by any means possible. If there is, in fact, collusion going on and it goes up into management, then you have to be very cautious of your behaviour. I would suggest that you do nothing else to draw attention to yourself while you do your research. Be on time, work hard, keep your head down. And document your own performance (time in/time out, etc) just in case. This sounds paranoid, I know, but I've been in a somewhat similar situation. I used to work a warehouse job where I knew my supervisor was doing coke on the job. I never said anything about it, but he knew that I had seen him, so he trumped up a bunch of charges to try to get me fired. I ended up telling the manager what I knew and was able to keep my job, though the supervisor never got any reprimanded. Ultimately, you're the only one who knows what your work environment is like. Good luck!

Andy, if you're looking for a boring bar, just head over to the Myrtletown Lounge on a Tuesday night.

I'm neither a fan of football, nor a fan of this war, but my hat is off to Pat Tillman for putting his convictions ahead of opportunity. Though I usually think Ted Rall is quite funny, he was tastelessly off base on this one, as were the comments from Indy Media. They should not take out their anger over the war by ridiculing a fallen soldier, whether it be Tillman or any of the hundreds of others on the list Marc Lindsay posted. For anyone to use a fallen soldier for political gain is beyond tasteless.

Just you watch, there will be an "accident" at one of the refineries this summer and prices will approach the $3.50/gal for 89. James, this is one conspiracy theory that you and I are on the same side of! For all of you moaning about paying $1.89, last time I filled up I paid $2.34 for regular, though I'm not sure what it is today. Like I said: The Most Expensive Gas Prices In The Nation. Question for all: Have the current high gas prices affected how much you drive, or what kind of vehicle you drive?

FYI, here in Arcata we have the Most Expensive Gas Prices In The Nation. Surveys across the country have shown this to be consistently true over the past two years. Anytime you hear on the news how bad prices are, add on about 60 cents. That's us. Not coincidentally, there's been a surge in sales of the Toyota Prius.

I have found carbide end mills to be sufficient for graphite, though they do wear out. If this were a production piece, diamond would be the way to go, but for just a one-off mold, graphite should be okay. The best thing I've found is actually to use carbide-tipped wood-working bits (router bits) if you can find the right size). They are lots cheaper than solid carbide, and they are not spirals. For some reason, this seems to improve cutter life. Of course, for the small size you are looking for, you probably won't find anything like what I'm talking about.

First off, I have seen and heard of these pictures from enough varied sources that it seems highly unlikely that they are not legit. This isn't like the John Kerry / Jane Fonda picture, which was a photoshop fake. Second, as someone who has been opposed to this war from the start, it bothers me that some sources (including commondreams.org) are using these pictures as an implicit indictment of the whole war. The actions portrayed in these pictures, as disgusting and disgraceful as they may be, do not change the underlying legitimacy or illegitimacy of the war itself. While I see these actions as an abberation, I see them also as a reminder that war is never pretty. Niether side in a killing conflict can ever fully occupy the 'moral high ground' because war by its very nature is immoral. It may be neccessary, it may be justifiable, and it may even be right, but the systematic killing of other humans is always immoral. The immoral nature of war will always provide fertile ground for attrocities. Keep in mind, too, that there are an estimated 30,000 Iraqi civilians, who never took up arms against the US forces, yet who have been killed in this conflict. That, to me, is a far greater attrocity than these pictures.

quote: Chasing a stranger around the mall yelling “TickleMonster! Gonna get you!” is apparently a misdemeanor.Rek'd, thanks for the warning. I will watch myself from now on. Adios, and cheers to everyone for using words instead of bullets.

quote: It's no more valid than someone asking "Why are all conservatives racists?"Your question was built on an unsupported assumption. I gave you an example of another question, based on an equally unsupported assumption. I thought it would be pretty clear that I believe neither question to have any merit. Conservative talk-show hosts use this kind of cheap, sophomoric tactic all of the time. When the person being asked tries to point out the falacy of the question, the host then attacks them for refusing to answer the question. The typical follow-up is something like "You’ve never replied to this question and nobody on the left will EVER, EVER, EVER, f#&%ing address this question." It's an easy set-up, but it's ultimately meaningless.

Damn! Take one day off and there's too much material to respond to! Okay, let's just pick a few; quote: Do you really, I mean really think Iraq was a total failure?The reasons given for the war were 1) Iraq had WMD that posed an "imminent threat" to the US, and 2) Iraq was aiding and abetting Al Queda (with the never-quite-stated implication that it was somehow involved in 9/11.) Iraq has just as many WMD now as it did immediately before the war: Zero. I guess I can't honestly say we failed to disarm Iraq when there was nothing to disarm in the first place. However, since the war, Iraq has become a hot-bed of terrorism, and our actions have stirred greater wrath towards our country. On that front, we seem to have taken a step back. I won't use the term 'failure.' I'll just say that the war has not achieved its stated goals. quote: ...why the double standard? You’ve never replied to this question and nobody on the left will EVER, EVER, EVER, f#&%ing address this question.You'll never get an answer to your question because it's built on an unsupported assumption. It's no more valid than someone asking "Why are all conservatives racists?" Personally, though, I'd say that if anyone is guilty of a 'double standard' it's the conservatives who blasted (and continue to blast) Clinton for lying, but defend the lies coming from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co. quote: Did you forget the Al Samoud missiles found at the beginning of the war that were modified to have enough range to reach Israel? These were the closest we've come to finding WMD, and they were found, and destroyed, by UN weapons inspectors before the war. Banned weapons systems found as a result of UN weapons inspectors: 1 Banned weapons systems found as a result of the war: 0 By the way, why does everyone here assume I'm a Democrat? I used to be a Republican. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, but when Bush got the nod, I registered as a Green and voted for Nader, so that means I effectively ended up voting for Bush, anyway. Now I'm registered as 'decline to state.'

Gcode, Yes, you are right. Not only did it get majority support, but I believe it got overwhelming support. I'm certainly not trying to say that this was all Bush's doing, and that the Democrats in Congress are blameless. But neither were the Democrats pushing him into a war he didn't want. They gave him their support, but the ultimate decision, and the ulitmate responsibility for the consequences of that decision, belongs to George W. Bush. If the President takes us to war for reasons that turn out to be false, he should be willing to stand before the people and say "I was wrong." He may choose to argue that the war was still the right thing to do, but he should at least have the guts, the courage, and the integrity to admit that the WMD, the nuclear capabilities, and the link to Al Queda were simply false. The President is the CEO of the United States, and he should bear ultimate responsibility for his decisions. Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"? I would have thought that, after 8 years of Clinton, you conservatives would be sick and tired of Presidents who can't admit when they've lied to the American people.

Hey, Rek'd, First, don't worry about the insults. I can take a hit. I always view insults as an indicator that the person delivering them has no other cards left in their hand. I take it as a sign that I'm moving in the right direction. Rek'd, we all know that Saddam put the weapons that Don Rumsfeld sold him to good use back in the '80s, but every expert who has looked at the issue has now said that Iraq simply did not possess any WMD at the time that we were preparing to attack. Most intelligence sources were saying this even before the war. One year later, you would be hard-pressed to find any intelligence agency the world over that would not concur. Your refusal to back down in the face of the truth is a quality you share with the President whom you so admire. You may choose to take that as a compliment, if you wish: I won't shatter yet another illusion.

It's been one year since the start of the war, and anyone who's read anything I've ever posted on the topic certainly knows where I stand. I won't try to convince anyone of anything, because I don't believe most people here (or at least the most vociferous among us) are really interested in listening to the other side, whichever side that may be. I do want to ask one question, though, and would be interested in replies. Imagine that it is one year ago, and George Bush is going on television to speak to the people of the United States, to tell them that we are going to war. Imagine, knowing what we all now know as fact, what his speech may have been like: "My fellow Americans... We have tried, and tried, but we cannot find any evidence connecting Iraq with Al Queda, or with 9/11. All of our available intelligence shows that Iraq's nuclear program was successfully destroyed in the 90's, and that they have not attempted to rebuild it. The majority, if not all, of their stocks of chemical and biological weapons stock have long-since been destroyed, and what remains unaccounted for has long exceeded its shelf life. Iraq has no weapons capable of reaching the United States, or even Israel. At the last hour, Iraq has allowed UN inspectors back into the country, and has granted them broader access than ever before." "Nonetheless, I have made the decision to send our troops into war, to remove Saddam Hussein. Though he poses no immediate threat to the United States, or even to his neighbors, I believe that it is neccessary to remove him by force." "This operation will cost the lives of more than 500 of our best young men and women. It will also cost us more than 108 billion dollars over the next year alone, at a time when our economy is struggling. Additionally, this war will cost us the trust, good will, and admiration of the rest of the world, and will cast us, for the first time ever, as an aggressor on the world stage." "We must not expect that this war will be quick, or easy. Nor should we expect victory to be easily defined. We may well leave the country of Iraq in ruins, without running water, electricity, or adequate infrastructure. We may turn Iraq from a stable, if vile, secular dictatorship into an unstable, fanatical Muslim theocracy, and create a safe haven, indeed a breeding ground, for future terrorists." "I know that the good people of the United States will support me in this difficult decision, though I cannot offer you even one accurate reason for doing so. We must all stand together in this dangerous time. May God bless America." So my questin is this: Would you have supported this war then knowing what you know now?

Hey, guys! Remember me? Your token liberal whipping boy? Well, since you seem to hate flip-flops, lying, and obfuscation, here's video of one of the masters: Donald Rumsfeld! http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/ Enjoy!