UConn James
-
Posts
9,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by UConn James
-
-
It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky.
Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you?
-
Yaknow, my father said No quite a bit in the Army. And it was followed up with "According to Article _, section _...." Just because someone has one more stripe than you doesn't mean they're not pulling orders out their a$$.
I liken it to Gilbride calling a HB Pass on 3&1.
-
They haven't been charged with anything yet. I'll concede they likely will be, but I don't think they'll get a dishonorable discharge. That'd be raking up a lot of political muck the brass would likely rather keep settled at the bottom.
No one seems to be absolutely right in this case.
-
Yeah, explain that to Chesty Puller and his men.
How's about Lt. O'Bannan who was outnumbered and out gunned in Tripoli.
Oh thats right you're the moron who felt that the government owes the youngsters of this country everything they want even if they haven't worked for it, because the potential is there.
The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers.
So, the soldiers have to work to earn their armor b/c you don't want to pay for it? In terms of issues, you're comparing apples to polar bears. I got a whopping $1600 from Pell Grant and I'm done with college, but I can still see the value of the program, as does MOST EVERY American. I'm sorry if other people tend to look at the macrocosm and the good that program provides rather than the relatively petty microcosm of their own wallet, having to pay their $2 share of the program over the course of a year.... Oh, wait. I'm not sorry for that, b/c it's my opinion. You're welcome to your own opinion, VA, and you can vote to effect change as you see fit. But in that booth, you compete against 250 million other people. Are you going to drop another F-bomb now?
"Son, when I first joined the Mounties, they gave you a paper bag and a stick. The paper bag was for boiling tea and the stick was for killing big game, and if you lost either of them, they charged you for it...." -- The ghost of Bob Fraser in "Due South"
-
Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks
Says Gen. James E. Chambers.
They'll still probably be charged, tho.
Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting?
How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about....
In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them!
Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"?
-
From everything I've heard, read and personally experienced about this, improper or unecessary prescribing is probably one of the bigger problems in mental health care. Don't get me wrong, some people need the meds, but for others, alternative therapies can work. I've seen examples of both.
Goes into our whole line of thought that a solution comes in the form of a little capsule. This same line of thought has teachers and parents going to doctors with claims of ADHD b/c a kid has behavior control problems. Put 'em on Ritalin, that's the cure!
Is this b/c of pressure from drug companies on doctors to drum up sales? I'm not absolutely cynical about this, but sometimes it's hard not to be. Especially when their ads are running on TV 24/7.
-
Oh, Mr. WILLLLLSSSOONNNNN!!!
Happy Birthday to a truly decent man! And here's wishing he has MANY more.
-
Well, the episode tonight is the one where her bathtowel falls off....
She looks great for 40, and to answer MadBuff, yeah, they do use make-up for the under-eye puffiness. Kind of plays up the distressed single-mom stereotype they're working with....
-
A pretty good blog write-up:
Jon Stewart: Crossfire "hurting America""I think you're a lot more fun on your show," said Tucker Carlson to "Crossfire" guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. "And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other," Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on "The Daily Show" but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it.
From the moment Stewart sat down he made no secret of how repugnant he found the show. In fact, he said to Carlson and co-host Paul Begala that he had been so hard on the show he felt it was his duty to come on and say to their faces what he has said to friends and in interviews. What he said was that their show was "hurting America," and he was being only slightly hyperbolic. Stewart told them that when America needed journalists to be journalists they had instead chosen to present theater.
Carlson, trying to affect an air of dry amusement that a comedian would presume to lecture him, important pundit that he is, but looking as if his bow-tie were about to start spinning, could barely contain his outrage. In an absolutely mind-boggling moment, Carlson tried to counter Stewart's criticism by pointing out that during John Kerry's recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart asked the candidate softball questions. "If you want to measure yourself against a comedy show," Stewart said, "be my guest."
Paul Begala tried to put a more conciliatory face on things by pointing out that theirs was a "debate" show. Stewart was having none of it. "I would love to see a real debate show," he said. And went on to tell them that instead of holding politicians' feet to the fire by asking tough question, "you're part of their strategy. You're partisan -- what's the word? -- uh, hacks."
It's almost a cliche by now to talk about "The Daily Show" being more trusted than real newscasts, but Stewart showed why. He pointed out to Carlson that he had asked Kerry if he really were in Cambodia but "I don't care," and when Carlson asked him what he thought about the "Bill O'Reilly vibrator flap," Stewart said, "I don't." It was as concise a demonstration of the triviality of the media as you could hope for.
"I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." And that was what was so bracing.
Stewart's "Crossfire" appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't "nice" like he is on "The Daily Show." But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade.
I've heard people talk about "The Daily Show" as an oasis of sanity, a public service. I couldn't agree more. Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" was another public service. He went on and acted as if the show's purpose really was to confront tough issues, instead of being the political equivalent of pro wrestling. Given a chance to say absolutely what he thought, Stewart took it. He accomplished what almost never happens on television anymore: He made the dots come alive.
-- Charles Taylor
-
Well, Stewart says that unless something major comes to light, he's voting for Kerry.
And you apparently can't hate America any more than to cast your vote for the senator.
Wham won't be satisfied until we all chant, 'All hail President-for-life Bush.'
-
Just caught "Desperate Housewives" for the first time tonight. The years have aged her like a fine wine.
Longer hair seems to suit her better.
Sorry, this was the most gratuitous recent picture I could find....
-
Pace slipping? I dont know, but Bulger is able to wing a few td passes, no? Faulk is aging, but he still runs left. Besides, they DID win a superbowl! Btw, Pace on a broken leg, with cancer is better than Jennings in his finest hour.
I now can't find evidence that Bulger's shoulder was separated(?). Thought it was him... But the Rams got a couple good OL, like Turley from the 'Aints for a 2nd rounder. There was probably a reason that Warner got his clock cleaned last year. Maybe I'm wrong and Pace is a great player but he's still paid way too much and his Poston Bros. antics aren't exactly good for team chemistry. I don't disagree with your comparison; JJ doesn't want to be in Buffalo.
Oh, come on! Moderation, Bill. Moderation. It's good stuff, and if you need a quirky reason, just mention that it's distilled from 100% maple sap. That piques people's interest.
-
That's not what was said. Just that Why is this just coming to your attention now? Because it's now got a chance of having an effect?
I put the blame squarely on the Big Two Parties for not doing anything about / paying closer attention to this stuff b/c neither wants prying eyes looking into voting irregularities.
-
I do not fully agree with you about the impact of top 10 picks. If the Rams and Browns didn't grab Pace and Ogden, I am not sure that either of them would have won a superbowl. Perhaps yes, but I dont know. These LTs helped make Warner and Dilfer look like Hall of Fame QBs by eliminating any fear of being hit from the blindside.
You mean Orlando Pace, the headcase who was demanding a $27M signing bonus? And whose play, most would say, has slipped quite a bit? Ogden is a great OL, I'll give you that, but for every one like him, there's ten Darrel Russells, Ryan Leafs, Rick Mirers....
That said, trading down can certainly work. Sadly, the Bills are heading toward a top 5 pick. Look at what the Chargers got for trading down just a little bit.Yeah, but what did TD do last time he got that kinda pick? He used it rather than trade down to stockpile picks/other compensation.
I can't say as I fault you there. We all cope in different ways.... I'm recently trying Vermont Spirits Gold Vodka.
-
Cut and paste w/ additions from my post on the college board....
Why would anyone want a Top 10 pick? It's a great way to %$&* your salary cap, whether the player is any good or not, which many times the player's production isn't near what you expected. Take MW, for example. We have a large tub of lard playing matador to DLs league-wide, and for this, we paid out a huge contract. Okay, a Top 5 pick would be great if you could be assured of getting a Jim Kelly-type player, but that's not what you get now; it's about 1/3 that you get a player in the first round who's still on your roster four years later. And the signing bonus kills your cap; better to spend that money on a FA who can help your team right away or for two slightly-less rated rookies who'll be motivated in camp rather than know the job is de facto theirs and tank it.
Get out of the top 10 and the salaries go down exponentially. That's the reason why so many teams want to trade down for more picks every year, except for the perennial losers who think a high pick will magically make them better. If Dallas gets that high a draft pick next year, I'm not going to lambaste the move. They can pay some guy a $12M bonus. We paid a lot less of a contract for a player who's got just as good a chance to be an effective starter, a year earlier (too bad he broke his leg tho...).
-
In a country where we convict cops of murder and for discharging their weapons when their lives were in danger or assault when delivering "street justice," I'm sure that would go over really well with the American public....
Instead of "Support Our Troops" the calls would probably turn to "Stop the War, These Cats Is Killing Themselves."
-
Mickey,
What are you thinking? A court-martial where the facts can be explained and the soldiers can get due process? Posh! Hang 'em HIGH!
</sarcasm>
-
-
Embryonic stem cells are going to have someones genes also...It takes tow to make an embryo...Not trying to be a smart ass but all SC have some genetic makeup from two different people. I am pretty sure that there is not much difference between the two so why not use Cord see if you can make any gains and if you can it should transfere to embryonic cells ...IMO
I think you're mind-effing this a little too much (one of my favorite words for overanalysis. Don't worry, I do that all the time
). In the common usage/treatment:
Umbilical cord SC do have the genetic make-up of two parents, but it's the exact genetic makeup of the child whose uc it was. Therefore, there's no chance of rejection of the cells if you use it to treat that person. That's what I meant.
Adult SC also come from one person's own exact cells to treat their disease for certain differentiated cell types they can get them from. No chance of rejection, but there are cell types where ASC cannot be gotten, which include some of the major ones like brain/nerve cells, heart cells, etc.
In the theoretical:
Embryonic SC are each seperate embryos that are cultured to replicate itself, and theoretically can turn into any kind of cell type (researchers have been able to differentiate ESCs into many cell types, like skin, heart cells, etc.). There would be a problem of rejection b/c in this case, it would not be the patient's own cells being used, it's the ones created from couples doing in-vitro fertilization. That's a problem researchers will be working on which I think they can solve.
-
Watching the the UM-Illinois game today was the first time I've seen their system in action.
Only the Technical Adviser (kind of like an ref, but not connected with the field crew) in the booth can request a replay, and they review the play with two other technicians. Coaches cannot call for a replay tho, which I think would have to be amended. The coaches both took time-outs after questionable plays so that person would have extra time to review. Don't like that, but the organizational system is what I do like. I think it'd probably reduce the time spent on NFL replays for the ref to put his already-biased two cents in.
IMO, it would be good to take the decision out of the hands of the people who may have made a bad call and don't want to admit it. And we've all seen that happen. Thoughts?
-
My understanding is that it's pretty similar, only that umbilical cord SC wouldn't create problems in accepting the cells, b/c it's someone's own genetic cells.
Unfortunately, there's 250 million people walking around whose umbilical cord SC weren't saved, and it's not very common to save it currently either.... Theortically it's exciting for the future. But with the relative newness of this science, I think it's important to do testing with ALL of the types. We need to cover the bases b/c it will invariably come to pass that one or two types won't be useful for X disease, and then what do you say, "Oops"?
-
Besides saying "Praise God" and "Hallelujah," anything Mr. Kerry talks about would be considered political by someone.
Religion ~= Politics, deified.
-
I hope that's not my uncle's definition of "high winds," which is called out after one hears a loud FWERRRT noise.
Anywho, if Clements is any kind of OC, we'll be seeing a lot from Willis tomorrow if Henry doesn't play or even if he does. Reliance on running game gives us a big advantage.
-
In that case, the left will say this is another Bush fug-up, and the right will say "that's what we get for letting Clinton put pussies in charge of our military for eight years."
Personally, I think collusion is too strong a word. It's not like two guys got crazy and called their mommies, or it's not like the guy who fragged his superior officers tent during the initial move into Iraq. There are 19 people involved...all of whom wrote to their parents, left voicemails, etc, saying "Please get me out of here because it's too dangerous."
They couldn't address this on their own? They had to start putting everything in print and audio?
Somewhere in the middle...yes, maybe. But I can pretty much tell you right now that anyone who has served in the military is going to give these guys a ration of crap. They didn't just disobey a direct order. They left the other soldiers...the one's closer to the fighting...hanging. That's irresponsible at best, and would likely be the meat of this situation if it were not an election year.
Whatever my beliefs about Bush, I don't hold him specifically responsible for this. He doesn't say, 'Send 3,000 gallons of contaminated fuel thru the ST w/o backup.' His was a from-the-top decision that will be proportionally judged on 2 Nov. I wouldn't hold a president responsible for the minutia.
Sometimes, making your voice heard when those in command refuse to hear it is necessary. As the LAST resort. They probably will be razzed; but if it were your butt on the line and you felt the conditions were a suicide mission, would you go along? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 (my brother did colorguard for a guy in his unit a few months ago, contributing factor was inadequate armor).
Link: Revolt in the ranks in Iraq
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Spec 5 in 2. He was drafted.
My uncle had just about the same attitude in the Corps. Has the same attitude today, God bless him. Two tours.