Addi

try mediacoder audio edition. it's free. http://mediacoder.sourceforge.net/audio/

If you had bothered to actually read the article instead of just looking at the graphs, deciding you didn't like the what they meant for your argument and then discarding them out of hand you would have seen that the sources for their data are given at the end. There is no point in even trying to engage you in a reasonable discussion about these things. You have presented no evidence, you just state your opinion and when it's shown to be wrong using evidence (which you dont bother reading) you just decide that the evidence doesn't count. You have formed your opinion and no amount of evidence will change your mind.

I suggest you read this article (part 4 of 5). It has nice graphs showing the increase in terrorist attacks (both in the middle east and worldwide) after the invasion of Iraq. This link to a new york times article shows that the assessment by the US intelligence services concur with the above article

This is taken from an op-ed peice by Noam Chomsky, you can read the whole piece here, which was initially taken from the Guardian. To say that they are both as bad as each other would imply, to me, that the palestinians had not been willing to take part in a diplomatic solution - which is simply not true.

It only appears irrational when viewed against the stated goals of the Israeli government.

If nuclear states were willing to honour the commitments they made in the NNPT then we would all be dismantling our nuclear weapons stockpiles and no one would have nuclear weapons. When we refuse to live up to our obligations, and when we build new nuclear weapons we are making the world more dangerous for ourselves. The very fact that we have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them forces our 'enemies' into developing them. But, if there was an 'enemy' of ours that had nuclear weapons, i would still rather that we didn't.

What you are talking about is a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It is the most insane idea ever in the history of the world. The Fog Of War: 11 lessons from the life of Robert S. MacNamara is a film in which MacNamara (US Secretary of Defence, 1961-8) talks about the things he learned while in that position. Including how close we have come, on several occasions, to destroying the world with a massive nuclear war. His second lesson (of the 11 in the film) was "Rationality will not save us." I suggest watching this film. I imagine it is up on google video. Spend a couple of hours reading about MAD and how close we came to destroying the world during the cold war and it will probably change you perspective on our nuclear policies.

I imagine a claw job is very unpleasant though. Also, this whole idea just makes me think of HP Lovercraft stories.

These guys could make an awesome anti smoking advert.

Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thomas Paine was an author and revolutionary during the french and american revolutions. He was the main contributing factor to american independence of great britain. In 'Common Sense' called for american independence when everyone else was just arguing for america to get recognition and higher status in the commonwealth. His pamphlets were incredibly popular and many people learned to read just so they could read this writings. He also had a major impact on the french revolution with his pamphlet 'Rights of Man' For more information about him read the wikipedia article or find a book about him on amazon, there are plenty. You should care about what he said because his theories and observations have become integral parts of many governments around the world and his observations on social contracts are still very relevant today. And you do choose to enter into this society, simply by not leaving it. If you don't like this society, you can leave. So by staying you have implicitly chosen to be a part of it.

Monacles are like pirate eye patches for distinguished gentlemen.

Thomas Paine said that we are born with natural freedom to do whatever we want, but when we enter into a society we give up those freedoms and are given rights and responsibilities instead. One of the responsibilities is to respect the will of the majority. Here is why: As I said above, we gave up our freedom for rights in this society. We are not free. If we think we are free then it is only because we have never tried to do anything truly subversive/controversial. Our 'freedoms' extends only as far as they are protected by rights, and in this country there is no constitution so our rights are whatever is enshrined in law (which is always subject to interpretation) and after that it is whatever the majority hold our rights to be. Note here the important point that our rights don't stop where another persons rights begin, but they stop wherever the hell the majority want them to. Take for example assisted suicide: It doesn't affect society at large whether or not someone with a degenerative brain condition kills themselves or not. If they did kill themselves it wouldnt infringe on the rights of anyone else, but assisted suicide is still illegal. This is simply because the majority don't like the idea. They find it troubling, or they simply don't care about the suffering of someone else to put in the effort of reconsidering the current societal norms. Also, new media by it's very nature is blinkered. Video/Audio/Text is an inherently one dimensional, depth first, process whereas events as they happen in real life are breadth first. No part of the world exists in a vacuum. All stories happen in context with a large variety of contributing factors, the media can not cover all of these. So of course the story doesn't get accurately portrayed. The media is not perfect by a long shot of course but in this country we have quite good access to information. People should be held accountable for their prejudices, not the government. All this said I think it's important I say that I completely support these two people in their awesome gothy stylings and leash wearing capers. I think a society where people expressed themselves through the way they dress would be awesome instead of just expressing "look at me i have a nike tshirt" or "i enjoy the music of <insert band here>". Right now I am wearing a t-shirt with a big greek letter pi on it (geeky, yay!). Everyone is trying to be an attention whore, even people who dress 'normally'. That's why people will spend loads of money on clothes just because they have some logo on them. Those types of people are just harder to see in everyday life, because they are all attention whoring in the same direction and we call it a culture.

I really don't see why someone would find that offensive.

I think its amazing that goths even have bus passes. It's not an item I usually assosciate with goths. I would expect them to be riding a black horse across a windswept moor or something. Ah well, I guess that is the sacrifice the urban goth has to make. I love this story.

The driver is a twunt and should be fired. As for the girl on a leash I think she's awesome! Yay her! And the guy seems like a bit of a legend too. They should have refused to give up their seat on the bus and started the gothic rights movements.