lookin

Except that eating meals and going to the gentleman's room don't usually lead to the inept and ill-advised prosecution of wars and loss of life. We already know the results of letting the wrong folks get in the position to make war and, if we allow it to happen again and again, we will have only ourselves to blame.

If you think Paul Ryan's recent sabre-rattling over Iran echoes that of Cheney over Iraq, you are to be commended for your acumen. It turns out that none other than Dan Senor, the neo-conservative who advised members of the Bush II administration has been harnessed up again to guide the Republican Vice-Presidential hopeful. Senor was the advisor to Paul Bremer who was effectively the post-invasion governor of Iraq and decided it would be a good idea not only to "de-Baathify" the Iraqi government but, in one of the most boneheaded decisions of the war, to peremptorily release the million-man Iraqi army without notice and to send them into the countryside without jobs and looking for something to do. According to a recent article by Maureen Dowd, Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East — trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost — because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We’re still stumbling in the dark. We not only don’t know who our allies and enemies are, we don’t know who our allies’ and enemies’ allies and enemies are. As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress. And this is the guy the Republicans have chosen to build up their foreign policy chops. Let's hope their economic advisors aren't also the ones who convinced Bush that a trillion-dollar war wouldn't require any new taxes and wouldn't increase the deficit.

Check out this site for one set of definitions, although I expect there are no clear bright lines. They say that both sensual and erotic massages can have happy endings, but it looks like the difference lies in the ratio of massage to full-on sex. Again, I doubt that every practitioner will define it the same way, so more than one word may be needed to get exactly what you are looking for. (I find that Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please often does the trick. )

There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer. Personally, I don't agree with the above sentiment, anyway not enough to stop at least looking for the answer. I may not find it, but I sure intend to keep looking for it. But the quote itself is delightful. As are all of her others, if you ask me. The one that really resonates for me right now is: It is funny that men who are supposed to be scientific cannot get themselves to realise the basic principle of physics, that action and reaction are equal and opposite, that when you persecute people you always rouse them to be strong and stronger. Thanks for showing us the Stein way AdamSmith!

A most intriguing question !

Some of my best work has been done for the squeeze box.

I know where I'm using one of mine!

As much as I like Apple, I admire JKane's steadfast volleys at the company's vitals and feel honor-bound to put yet another arrow in his quiver. It turns out that, not only is there a new adapter required for the iPhone 5, but it is also losing its video-out capability and, at least for now, its ability to directly connect to a larger display. You'll need to buy the Apple TV to do that. So, yes, Apple does indeed know how to squeeze the last drop from the teats of its loyal customers though, to its credit, it generally leaves them smiling.

I don't have the answer to that question, but I am starting to come to the conclusion that we have been framing it the wrong way. Most everything I hear or read puts the blame on entire countries, rather than on specific individuals. Labeling an entire country as a 'rogue nation' or a 'hotbed of terrorism' may, in fact, only serve to perpetuate violence in the world. The reality, I believe, is that violence is perpetrated and supported by individuals who are almost invariably a small minority and who can be found in almost every country and in most of the world's major religions. Unfortunately, members of this violent minority often make their way into positions of leadership within political or religious factions, and those factions sometimes get their hands on the levers of government. I'd love to see a worldwide movement in which people of good will, who I believe form the vast majority of every country and every religion on earth, stand up and denounce those who would send them to war and cause them to kill off other people of good will. I don't know how such a movement could be formed and how it could gain the worldwide traction it deserves, but I do know that I'll be thinking about it daily until some ideas start to crop up.

Not everyone. Much more than half of my voting decision is based on the compassion shown by the candidate. I find more on the Democratic side of the ticket, so that's where I tend to vote. For me, vague promises to create jobs have never yet trumped the commitment to care for those who, in fact, are not able to get one.

Agree with all you say, except for the part about Obama 'backing down/cowering in the corner'. While you may not see a lot of fist pounding and chest thumping from this President, I think you will see a backbone that's sturdy enough to keep us moving steadily in the direction of less conflict with other nations and, eventually, less conflict at home. In my opinion, the day he starts rattling sabres tit-for-tat with the Republicans is the day they will have won the battle. And all of us will have lost the war.

Sheldon Adelson has to get something for his $100 million. If not a president, then at least a war with Iran. Just one of today's editorials in his newspaper, Israel Hayom, ends like this: Meanwhile, on the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombings, Hillary Clinton remains steadfast in her administration’s efforts “to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation,” and in its attempts to prevent Israel from taking Tehran’s words and deeds seriously. With such useful idiots in its corner, Iran can laugh its way straight to the bomb. Let us hope that American voters, particularly Jews, do not serve the same purpose for Obama. "All in" is pretty apt for an 'ally' that calls our Secretary of State a 'useful idiot'. Next ol' Bibi will be angling for a Cabinet position.

While part of me would like this event to fade from memory, I realize that to become desensitized to such acts anywhere in the world is a descent I hope never to make. In fact, I hope this day of mourning will serve over time to build our resolve to put such inhuman acts behind us once and for all, and wherever we find them. No one should be honored for wantonly killing others. I think we damage our souls when we do.

Maybe it was just the uniform?

Looks like the artificial flavor lab is working overtime at Nabisco. There was an interesting segment on 60 Minutes last week about flavor chemists. One of the best in the business said the goal is to develop a flavor that leaves the consumer wanting more. When asked if he meant an addictive flavor, he agreed wholeheartedly. When asked if such addictive flavors might lead to overeating, he said he didn't think so.

I'll educate you, my pretty!

Every once in a while, say every century or so, I don't think it would hurt organized religions to sit down and take a good look at the things they think God has told them to do and figure out if the current list is still a pretty good reflection of how God wants them to live their lives. I wonder if circumcision would still make the cut, you should pardon the expression. There might even be one or two other things that could drop off the list. . . . On the other hand, they could also take a fresh look at some of the old standbys written with the finger of God, like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" which seems to have lost a lot of its luster in the last few millenia and might be due for a comeback. Maybe it's just me, but a guy who thumps his chest about the right to get his kid clipped and then goes upstairs and shtupps the nanny, or lobs a bomb at a school bus in the name of God, seems to have a screw loose somewhere.

Thanks all for the thoughtful responses. The New York Times poll is actually the FiveThirtyEight poll I mentioned above. They joined forces last year, one more reason I give some credence to it. From Nate Silver's NYT blog today: On Friday, we began to see reasonably clear signs that President Obama would receive some kind of bounce in the polls from the Democratic convention. Mr. Obama had another strong day in the polls on Saturday, making further gains in each of four national tracking polls. The question now is not whether Mr. Obama will get a bounce in the polls, but how substantial it will be. Some of the data, in fact, suggests that the conventions may have changed the composition of the race, making Mr. Obama a reasonably clear favorite as we enter the stretch run of the campaign. . . . In fact, Mr. Romney has never held a lead over Mr. Obama by any substantive margin in the polls. The Real Clear Politics average of polls put Mr. Romney ahead by a fraction of a percentage point at one point in October 2011, and he pulled into an exact tie at one point late in the week of his convention, after it was over, but he has never done better than that. That makes this an extremely odd election. You would figure that at some point over the past year, Mr. Romney would have pulled into the lead in the polls, given how close it has usually been. John McCain held occasional leads in 2008; John Kerry led for much of the summer in 2004; and Michael Dukakis had moments where he was well ahead of George H.W. Bush in the spring and summer of 1988. But Mr. Romney, if there have been moments when his polls were ever-so-slightly stronger or weaker, has never really had his moment in the sun. . . . Certainly, Mr. Romney will win his fair share of independent voters because of the economy — and if there are substantive signs of economic decline in October and November, probably enough to win him the election. But unless there is some change of course, it looks increasingly as though he lacks the appeal to the voting blocks that might allow him to win 51 percent of the vote rather than 49 percent. . . . I will acknowledge that there is the risk of jumping the gun with this analysis. Our forecast model began to see Mr. Romney’s subpar convention bounce as a bearish indicator for him early during his convention week. Now that Mr. Obama appears to be making gains when Mr. Romney did not, it has become more entrenched in seeing Mr. Obama as the favorite — enough so that it now gives him almost a 4-in-5 chance of victory. Taking the temperature of voters around the party conventions is tricky: it is a period when a lot of undecided voters start to tune in for the first time, but it is also associated with volatile polling. Every election is different, and no statistical method to analyze them is beyond reproach. But in the immediate term, it seems like the upside case for Mr. Romney is that Mr. Obama’s polls cool off quickly — and soon revert to where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama about two points ahead in the polling average. That’s certainly a very winnable election for Mr. Romney, but nevertheless one where he is the modest underdog. And Mr. Romney’s downside case is that Mr. Obama’s polling bounce will be a little stickier, and that Mr. Obama will already be fairly close to having achieved 50 percent of the vote with precious few undecided voters left in the race. That would make Mr. Romney a clear underdog — perhaps even one who needs some foreign policy or economic crisis to intervene to give him much of a chance at winning. One of the commenters remarked on just such a possible foreign policy crisis, mentioning Canada's closing of its Iranian embassy on Friday and the opening of a window of opportunity for Israel to attack Iran before our November election. I can't yet sink to that level of cynicism, although scoring my daily fix of optimism is not the cakewalk it once was.

"Side effects are the next big hurdle," she said. Well, duh! PS: Anyone else think AdamSmith will check in, perhaps with a black widow story, before day's end?

Seems to be getting better understood that folks can have a pretty wide range of sexual attractions, especially if those folks are young males. Labels may be desired but not necessarily required, accurate, or constant. As far as where to go with this, my suggestion would be to let your friend decide where to go with this. He'll probably be better off exploring his sexuality in his own way, at his own pace. If you can be there for him as a resource, if he requests it, and as you have already offered, rather than as a guide, it might be more comfortable for both of you. It sounds like he has a number of people with a stake in his journey, and he is the only one who has a chance of keeping himself and his relationships in balance.

While I watched most of the Democratic convention highlights on PBS, I did tune in to CBS in time to hear Scott Pelley echo the standard refrain that the presidential election is neck and neck. One of the other commentators had asked the White House for their reaction to the close race, and their reaction was that they are paying more attention to the electoral votes than to the popular vote. That's what I've been looking at too, and the predictions there seem anything but close. In fact, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog is the one I check most days and he's giving Obama better than 75% odds. He has a very good track record and missed only one state in 2008. He also correctly predicted all thirty-five Senate races. Does anyone else look at the electoral college projections? Is Silver's blog a reasonable interpretation of what's going on? I know that a lot can happen in two months but, until a lot actually does happen, I'm feeling pretty good about Obama's chances. Anyone else?

NFL Players Association president Domonique Foxworth also supported Ayanbedejo and piled on Burns. “I don’t know if I can come up with a strong enough word, but his request was asinine,” Foxworth said

It was a good speech alright but, as he went through his rebuttals to the Republican claims, I kept wondering why is everyone acting like this is news? Of course, Obama inherited a mess that won't be fixed overnight; of course, Romney doesn't have a plan to create jobs or fix the deficit; of course, Obama didn't lift $700 billion out of Medicare benefits; of course Ryan took the same $700 billion in savings that he skewered Obama for; and of course the Republicans will stick it to what's left of the middle class. But why was this all such big news so late in the game? Only the Medicaid grab was something I hadn't really copped to before. And I'm not a political animal, merely someone who knows how to read. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful that Clinton did it, and he did it as well as it could be done. It's just that I can't figure out why the Democrats waited until last night to get the message out effectively. I don't think the Democrats are brain dead, so maybe they thought this would be the ideal timing to get a clear message out through one of the best communicators around. But I would have loved to see Biden, Reid, and Pelosi already on the bases, and let Clinton bring in four runs rather than one. Still, I'm a happy fan, and one who is really looking forward to the debates. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that Obama will trounce Romney three out of three, we should be so lucky.

For me, as long as there's someone in my circle who finds a word objectionable - as one poster did - and I have it within my power to use a less offensive synonym - as I sometimes do - it doesn't seem absurd to do so. I think it shows respect for others. Of course, the amount of respect we choose to show for the feelings of others is an individual decision, and there are many shades of gray.

I watched it on PBS (KQED, San Francisco) and noticed the same thing. Most of the camera shots were close-ups so I couldn't tell if the convention floor itself was packed with minorities or if the camera operators made it a point to focus on attendees of color. My guess is that it was some of both. (Veterans were another group that was highly visible.) It seemed the intent was to show that the white 'majority' represented a declining group in the U. S., which it is, although the pictures coming from the convention floor appeared to exaggerate the trend. Personally, I welcomed this view of our country. I didn't see it as racist as much as presenting a country made up of lots of different folks and perhaps fast-forwarding us to the mix of ethnicities we might see a few decades from now. It looked like a much more interesting place to live in than one made up primarily of white folks. I thought it provided a clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican views of the country. I flipped over to CBS a couple of times, enough to learn that they didn't show Patrick Deval's speech. He's Mitt Romney's successor as Governor of Massachusetts, and largely responsible for implementing the State's universal health care program. His speech is definitely worth a read, in my opinion. Also, not sure if CBS covered Julian Castro's twin brother Joaquin introducing him. Color me shallow, but there's a pair of cuties I could easily enjoy seeing more of.