Shinya. Shinya focused on techniques that would allow for successful operation of the endoscope by an individual, rejecting the common

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.

This was one time where I have to agree to disagree

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has been representing us at the United Nations since August. During the current Middle East crisis, I have been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations.
On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time.
During the late 1960s, I worked closely with our then-representative to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg gave up his lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in order to serve at the United Nations in an effort to end the war in Vietnam. He was hopeful that he could make a greater contribution to his country at the United Nations than on the high court.
He too was our representative during a critical period in the Middle East. It was Ambassador Goldberg who helped draft the famous Resolution 242, which has served as the basis for Mideast peace efforts since 1967.
During the 1970s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan served with distinction in that position. He too stood up to the enemies of the United States and other democracies, such as Israel. When, during his term, the General Assembly introduced its most overtly bigoted resolution equating Zionism with racism, it was Mr. Moynihan who fought tirelessly, if ultimately futilely, against its passage. He continued to identify rampant anti-Semitism as the scourge of the United Nations until his death three years ago.
Now, there’s John Bolton, who follows in that tradition with distinction. Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world’s perception of America’s solidarity with Israel.
Following his nomination, Senate Democrats asked the White House to release documents prepared under Mr. Bolton’s supervision during his tenure working for the administration. The president ultimately released some of the documents for senior Democrats to review, albeit with redactions. I agree with the demand by the Democrats and wish the Bush administration would be more forthcoming, but I believe that it would be a mistake at this time for the Democrats to hold the Bolton nomination hostage to this dispute. The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently vote based on what he has done at the United Nations and not based on documents related to his role as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
What remains of last year’s nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton’s oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations’ legal and moral authority. Mr. Bolton can even, at times, come off as “contemptuous of the U.N.,” in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s words.
But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical, and all the great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations — from Adlai Stevenson to Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick — have shared that skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, “If member countries want the United Nations to be respected … they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.”
Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to represent the United States and our interests to the world, and not the other way around. When The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank chided Mr. Bolton for “disparaging the very organization he would serve,” the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying, “the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N.”
I have observed Mr. Bolton’s performance with regard to Israel and its conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. On many other fronts he has proved himself a staunch advocate of freedom and human rights — specifically in Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Some critics have argued that Mr. Bolton is better in his public role as advocate than in his behind-the-scenes role as conciliator. But at this point in history, the United States needs a public advocate who can further its case in the court of public opinion. No one does that better than John Bolton.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html

– Consortium Newspapers (including the ultraconservative Washington Times) – conmissioned study by National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of Chicago – showed Gore won under all scenarios [oddly enough, published articles headlines said Bush won, but bodies of same said Gore won.];

– Admission by State of Florida (Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, et al) in lawsuit brought by NAACP that election was stolen;

– public statement by named Bush Department of Justice official that they had enough evidence to seek to overturn the election (i.e. it was stolen), but would not (how funny) [NYT / Wash Post ];

– statement by majority of US Supreme Court four days prior to its decision in Bush v. Gore that Bush did not have enough votes to win (i.e. that the election was being stolen);

– unscripted admission by GW Bush after the 2004 election that the “will of the people” was not with him before that time (i.e. the 2000 election was not run according to the US Constitution, i.e. it was stolen).

SR

“Sometimes a person, has to defend themselves.”

See “Healthy animals…” above. [This bears repeating.]

“Human nature is a violent nature. ”

Sorry, no. The ‘killer ape” hypothesis of the 60’s was discredited within a year of its proposal by the discovery of native pacifist societies. Further, ff human nature was a violent one, violence would be the norm as opposed to the exception, and the human race would not have survived more than a few generations at best.

“One can wish for peace, but sooner or later, someone else will do something to start conflict. Why, different motives. Power. Revenge. Who knows. You don’t start conflict for a good reason. Do you?”

Healthy animals fight for two reasons – food and survival, good reasons – and (especially when this occurs within their own species) act to minimize damage due to same.
Humans are in a stage where their evolved complexities are not fully integrated, and this sometimes gives rise to errors: acts of violence which an individual or group has managed to convince themselves is necessary for their survival but which in fact are not.

SR

Sometimes a person, has to defend themselves.

Ren, I now have a new found respect for the candid clarification you have given. Thank you. Very honest. Case and point. It kind of sort of make sense to me… as it could be interpreted from so many perspectives… It’s a very difficult time for all of us to be thinking clearly with so much going on around the world. We should support more of each other instead of attacking each other so easily. Have a good night.

Maybe the following can help anyone shed some light through this… although it was based on The Vietnam War… we all know now that history repeats itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

This is really emotional, and its from a very conservative American. I was touched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jFZDbDyinw

wow… charlie, you should be embarrassed about your pathetic writing and language skills… worse than a 4th grader… but keep it up – an excellent example of your cult…

SOURCE Koreas Oh My News

Israeli missile strike killed seven members of a Palestinian family picnicking on a Gaza beach, which prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-old informal ceasefire with Israel. Hamas has repeatedly pointed to the Gaza beach incident as one of the central events that prompted its cross-border raid. Hamas also points to the capture of some of its leaders by Israel as the provocation for its raid.

Israel fired 7,000 to 9,000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza, killing and wounding scores of people.

TO ALL YOU REPUBLICAN TROOLS PUT UP OT SHUT THE F*CK UP

http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
The latest updates on Israeli war crimes in Lebanon.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php

the link to the rest of the story seems to be faulty right now…
i’m sure john will have it fixed soon…

Conservatives Without a Conscience

The full extent and irreversibility of the damage to our country wrought by the Bush administration will likely not be known until well after George Bush finally disappears from our political life. But understanding the dynamics and impulses of the movement which has followed and enabled these abuses is a critically important task, and that is the project undertaken by John Dean’s new best-selling book, Conservatives Without Conscience. Fortuitously for Dean, this examination of what has become the so-called “conservative” movement (composed of Bush followers, neoconservatives and hard-core religious conservatives) comes at the perfect time.

With 2 1/2 years still left for this administration, the true radicalism of the administration and its followers has becoming unavoidably, depressingly clear, and it is equally clear that this movement has not reached anywhere near the peak of its extremism. Dean’s central thesis explains why that is so.

Dean contends, and amply documents, that the “conservative” movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.