I dont support affirmative action blindly. I subscribe to the idea that people are excited about a new woman on the bench because the people presiding at that post have traditionally (or I should say almost exclusively) been white males. The idea that a Hispanic woman would give a more rounded perspective to the court is valid and it's what i believe she meant when she commented on her background giving her an advantage.

I don't support affirmative action at all. Airline pilot, brain surgeon, NBA star: one has either got the skillz to do the job or not.

I would imagine being a Supreme Court Justice was a cake job up until the 1940s, when FDR compromised the intent and meaning of the Constitution, opening the door to chaos and tyranny.

Justice is supposed to be blind, and the current nominee has already made racist comments that would, were the situation reversed, have shown a male non person-of-color the door. More disturbing is the slip where she's said the job of a judge is to "make law".

But my original question hasn't been answered. If men and women are "the same", then why such excitement over any perceived differences? It must only be the racial differences if there's no difference between men and women.

Well after a small amount of research it appears that the nazies used Carbon monoxide as well as cyanide. so there goes his large chimney and and sealed room theory ore at minimum his necessity for it.

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

"homosexuals, physically and mentally disabled, and intellectuals. In early 1940, the use of hydrogen cyanide produced as Zyklon B was tested on 250 Roma children from Brno at the Buchenwald concentration camp.[4] On September 3, 1941, 600 Soviet POWs were gassed with Zyklon B at Auschwitz camp I; this was the first experiment with the gas at Auschwitz.[5]
One of the destroyed crematoria at Auschwitz concentration camp

Carbon monoxide was also used in large purpose-built gas chambers. The gas was provided by internal combustion engines (detailed in the Gerstein Report).[6]"


"The gas chamber at Auschwitz I was reconstructed after the war as a memorial, but without a door in its doorway and without the wall that originally separated the gas chamber from a washroom. The door that had been added when the gas chamber was converted into an air raid shelter was left intact.[10]"

Whether or not this is true, I don't understand why everyone is up in arms. Don't you remember the thousands of Americans held hostage in the 1940s because they were of Japanese descent?

You have no rights.

You never did.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1940s, ww2, fallout, destructive, explode, 40s, nuclear, newsreel' to '1940s, ww2, fallout, destructive, explode, 40s, nuclear, newsreel, blandy' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from '1940s, ww2, fallout, destructive, explode, 40s' to '1940s, ww2, fallout, destructive, explode, 40s, nuclear, newsreel' - edited by calvados

ahoy! I replied to this note, and attempted to maintain civility. cheers!

In reply to this comment by BansheeX:
Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

bcglorf: "Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now."

Qualm:Even hard-core Israeli apologists like Benny Morris don't believe that. It is no mild understatement to say this is not historically accurate.
...
bcglorf: "Your insistence that it was just a series of murderous rampages initiated by Zionists against friendly Arab Palestinians is what's been exposed here."

Qualm:I never make that claim.


Okay, I don't see a whole lot of room in between the above statements for ambiguity. I've openly stated, more than once, that Zionists and Israelis have committed numerous atrocities, through the 1940's(and before and since for that matter). Yet when I point out that similarly atrocities where committed against them by Arab Palestinians, you suddenly balk at the notion. Do you or do you not recognize that the violence and atrocities committed in Palestine from 1900-1948(and again onwards for that matter), included a very large proportion of tit for tat and revenge/self defense motivations from BOTH sides.

That's my reading of history, and it seems pretty consistent(and unbiased) with all of human history. The Jews and Zionists were more aggressive/violent/defensive given their treatment in Europe and status as a minority in Palestine. Similarly the Arab Palestinians had been under the yoke of either the Ottomans or the British and were also more aggressive/violent/defensive as a result. Neither of those are any excuse for the atrocities committed, it's just a much stronger motivation for their societies than a simple Zionist campaign to expunge the Arabs and Arabs defending themselves. It's much simpler than the Zionist position of Arabs bent on annihilating all Jews. The truth is in the middle of those, do you reject the whole of this?


Rougy:Your obdurate unwillingness to admit that Israel is at fault for anything is what is really being exposed here.


Really? I repeatedly condemn the atrocities they've committed. Up thread I've repeatedly referenced atrocities committed by them from before 1948 through to the present day as a given. I referenced the most recent invasion up thread saying There's a lot of undeniable evidence the IDF need to be prosecuted for crimes committed in the recent offensive.


You are pro Israel, right or wrong, and that is clear as day.


No, I'm anti-Hamas, there's a very big difference. If you'd like me to condemn all of Israel just out of 'fairness' I won't. That'd be the equivalent of condemning all Palestinians, which is the workings of a racist. I condemn Hamas specifically as a horrific organization that manages to kill more of it's own people than anyone else. An equivalent condemnation would be of Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party as racists and a horrific evil, I'll happily condemn them as strongly as Hamas as they chant 'Death to Arabs' with as much vigor as Hamas chants 'Death to Israel'.

bcglorf: "Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now."

Even hard-core Israeli apologists like Benny Morris don't believe that. It is no mild understatement to say this is not historically accurate. But this is just the sort of genocidal logic I have exposed.


So you've exposed genocidal logic in your 'insight' of what? That Arab Palestinians weren't responsible for any atrocities in the 1940's? You can believe that as fervently as you wish, it still won't make it real. It was a boiling civil war, and people from both sides started murdering each other as it escalated. Your insistence that it was just a series of murderous rampages initiated by Zionists against friendly Arab Palestinians is what's been exposed here.

bcglorf: "Really? Alleged incidents? So you deny mistreatment of the Jewish people by the Arab majority in Palestine from well before 1948?"

I can't deny anything I haven't seen. What are you refering to? Was there even a single massacre perpetrated against Jewish settlers by the Palestinian majority? Because if you've read Morris you already know he meticulously documents a shockingly high number of massacres perpetrated against Palestinians.

bcglorf: "Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now."

Even hard-core Israeli apologists like Benny Morris don't believe that. It is no mild understatement to say this is not historically accurate. But this is just the sort of genocidal logic I have exposed.

you press forward with claims of Jewish mistreatment within Palestine pre-1948, as if those alleged incidents


Really? Alleged incidents? So you deny mistreatment of the Jewish people by the Arab majority in Palestine from well before 1948?


as if those alleged incidents supplied the necessary historical context to then go ahead and justify, to your mind, actually ignoring the serious and supported claims about actual atrocities.


I suggest we ignore them? Are you really gonna try to misread what I said that deliberately? I'll repeat myself again Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now.

Or how about my last paragraph:

Look at the whole history and there are no easy answers like some might like to think. How do you blame the Jewish people for fleeing Europe and defending themselves aggressively in Palestine after? How do you blame the Arab Palestinians for feeling threatened, especially after the British had been ruling over them as a colony until then? It's a mess, and blaming one side or the other is ignorance or personal bias.


Is that really anything like a defense of genocide? Really?

^If you read Gabriel Ash article there closely you should notice something. He takes EVERYTHING negative Morris' historical account says about Israel and declares it fact beyond contention. He then also declares EVERYTHING positive Morris' historical account says about Israel and declares it the working of a depraved and racist/colonial mind. That doesn't give you any pause?

Here's the bigger picture of 1948, since the context is important and cliff's notes versions are generally the tool of propagandists from either side. Palestine, under British rule, had both Jewish and Arab Palestinian's living there in 1900 already. By the 1940's, the Jewish population was growing, but still a minority that was being mistreated. By the mid 1940's the Nazi genocide was in full swing, and more European Jews came to Palestine as refugees. Many of them entering the country illegally, but under the circumstances I find that difficult to condemn. Among the European Jews, Zionist's had risen up as a result of European oppression and their ranks were filled by those who believed only a Jewish state would ever recognize the rights of Jews.

Low and behold as the majority of them settle in Palestine, the majority Arab Palestinians are mistreating them terribly. Is it really much of a wonder that this boiled into a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians? Is it really a nefarious act of conquest by the Jews, or is just a tragic series of events with hate begetting more hate, over and over again? Let's not pretend that for all the atrocities committed by the Jews and Zionists in 1940's Palestine there weren't just as many atrocities perpetrated against them by Arab Palestinians. It was a mess both then and now. I find it hard though to go back to that time and place all the blame on Jewish Zionist aggression. It's even harder when in '48 those Jewish Zionists declared their acceptance of a UN proposed 2 state solution, only to have all the neighboring Arab countries declare a united war to eliminate them. Given just how many of those Jewish people had just come from a Nazi dominated Europe and there might be some legitimate concerns for their own survival playing a role from that point forward, no? Was that really merely Zionist fear mongering?

Look at the whole history and there are no easy answers like some might like to think. How do you blame the Jewish people for fleeing Europe and defending themselves aggressively in Palestine after? How do you blame the Arab Palestinians for feeling threatened, especially after the British had been ruling over them as a colony until then? It's a mess, and blaming one side or the other is ignorance or personal bias.

>> ^zombieater:
It's interesting - every single person in every photograph is wearing a hat of some kind.


I was going to say the same thing. I collect vintage photographs and have one of a large crowd from the late 1940's where most everyone wears a hat. I don't know exactly when the hat trend died down.

Man, the little pedagogic sidebars are now indistinguishable from propaganda from the 1940's. Every statement is condensed into a simplistic slogan and a cartoon.

What is 'political religion'? posted by lenin

Michael Löwy has a lovely article on Walter Benjamin and capitalism-as-religion in the latest issue of Historical Materialism. I strongly recommend you get yourself a copy. But what Löwy doesn't say is that the final stage of capitalist religion, according to Benjamin, is Satanism. This is from The Arcades Project, composed between 1927 and 1940:

On Satanism: "When the puritans at the Council of Constance complained of the dissolate lives of the popes ..., Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly thundered at them: 'Only the devil in person can still save the Catholic church, and you ask for angels.' In like manner, after the coup d'etat, the French bourgeoisie cried: Only the chief of the Society of December 10 can still save bourgeois society! Only theft can still save property! Only perjury can save religion! Only bastardy can save the family! Only disorder can save order!" Marx, Der achtzehnte Brumaire, ed. Rjazanov, p. 124.