It’s a time-honored tradition at Navy homecomings—one lucky sailor is chosen to be first off the ship for the long-awaited kiss with a loved one. Today, for the first time, the happily reunited couple was gay. The dock landing ship Oak Hill has been gone for nearly three months, training with military allies in Central America. As the homecoming drew near, the crew and ship’s family readiness group sold $1 raffle tickets for the first kiss. Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta bought 50—which is actually fewer than many people buy, she said, so she was surprised Monday to find out she'd won. Her girlfriend of two years, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, was waiting when she crossed the brow. They kissed. The crowd cheered.

excerpt from Savage blog at http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/21/theres-something-happening-here-cont

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.

Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.


Don't misunderstand me. I hold no argument that Cambodia and many other American atrocities were far greater crimes than 9/11.

What I am saying is from the view of an American President, killing a million people with aerial bombings in a foreign country during a war(declared or not) is one thing. Even if you did it in secret, when the secret comes out your administration might survive it by saying something about necessity. Killing 3000 American civilians, solely to trick the rest of America's civilians to support a war you want to start though, when that comes out it's worse. They are both crazy, but the important distinction is the later is also suicidal.

Which is Chomsky's point. America has done lots of horrible things, but being caught responsible for 9/11 would be far worse for the leader and party than pretty much anything in American history, ever.

9/11 may be a much lesser crime than Cambodia, but as far as picking one to be found out as responsible for, EVERY American politician will stand up and claim Cambodia as their choice before ever letting it be thought they were behind 9/11. At least Cambodia leaves the more acceptable lie of killing foreigners to protect Americans.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Deano:
I will say though that he's wrong to blithely dismiss the case for underlying truth. "So what" is not a reasonable response. IF it was a conspiracy born in the darkest hearts of the U.S government or some branch thereof, it would be the biggest story in modern times.

I don't think he's saying it wouldn't be a big story. I think he's saying given all the terrorism we commit around the world, this doesn't measure up and would be a mere footnote if it wasn't done to us. Because this was the one time terrorism went the other direction it's significant, other than that it wasn't really as huge of a deal as what we did to numerous countries during the 20th century.

So, America has regularly targeted civilians on purpose, and declared it a warning and magnificent act worthy of great praise?
I understood American wars and black ops to have killed a lot of civilians. I wasn't under the impression that there was wide spread practice of specifically singling out civilians for murder. Even the horrific boastful body counts of 'Nam and the carpet bombing of Cambodia had the flimsy pretense of evil done to prevent a greater evil. Which I add I condemn as one of the most evil acts done in recent history, but even that pales to what would be American officials deliberately killing everyone on 9/11 to get the policy changes they want.


Yes they deliberately ordered the attacks of "Soft Targets" in Honduras. Places like schools, hospitals, and churches but the rebel forces they trained and supported with arms. That's just one example...south and central america are littered with bodies that the US intentionally went after. Also Cambodia and Vietnam itself is a way greater crime than 9/11 ever could be. Estimates as high as 4 million dead...that's extreme.

--"They are all crazy. That doesn't take balls. That takes a whole lot of stupid"

Sadly, it only takes poverty.


From Wikipedia
Poverty
According to the PNUD, 48% of the population in Nicaragua live below the poverty line,79.9% of the population live with less than $2 per day,unemployment is 3.9%, and another 46.5% are underemployed (2008 est.). As in many other developing countries, a large segment of the economically poor in Nicaragua are women. In addition, a relatively high proportion of Nicaragua's homes have a woman as head of household: 39% of urban homes and 28% of rural homes. According to UN figures, 80% of the indigenous people (who make up 5% of the population) live on less than $1 per day. According to the FAO, 27% of all Nicaraguans are suffering from undernourishment; the highest percentage in Central America.
Infrastructure
During the war between the US-backed Contras and the Marxist government of the Sandinistas in the 1980s, much of the country's infrastructure was damaged or destroyed. Inflation averaged 30% throughout the 1980s. After the United States imposed a trade embargo in 1985, which lasted 5 years, Nicaragua's inflation rate rose dramatically. The 1985 annual rate of 220% tripled the following year and rose to more than 13,000% in 1988, the highest rate for any country in the Western Hemisphere in that year.

I didn't have enough information when I initially commented on this video (because the video didn't provide it), and I jumped to conclusions - my bad!! In any event, it would definitely have been helpful if the video had indicated if the otter was a sea otter, river otter, or ...

Here's some fun and interesting information about otters from the World Famous San Diego Zoo web site:
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genera: 6
Species: 13
Length: largest—giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis, up to 7.8 feet (2.4 meters); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, up to 3 feet (0.9 meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter Enhydra lutris, males up to 95 pounds (43 kilograms); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter, up to 11 pounds (5 kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for smaller species to 5 months for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1 to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces (128 grams) for smaller species to 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Conservation status: four species, including the sea otter, are endangered; three otter species are vulnerable.
Fun facts
• You can tell otter species apart by the shape and amount of fur on their noses.
• Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to keep them warm; they rely on warm air trapped in their fur. Sea otters have the densest fur of any mammal, with about 100,000 hairs in a space about the size of a postage stamp!
• Most otter species capture prey with their mouths, but Asian small-clawed otters and sea otters have flexible fingers and grab with their hands.
• North American and European river otters have been known to share dens with beavers—but the beavers do all the building!

Mammals: Otter
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North America, Central America, and South America
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and along the coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and marshes

Champion swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family. They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through the water while their back feet act like rudders to steer.

Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its outer fur sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems dry? That’s because they have two layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, waterproof guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a lot of time grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can damage their ability to hunt for food and stay warm.

Party animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say they love to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they are usually busy hunting, investigating, or playing with something. They like to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase their tails. They also play games of "tag" and chase each other, both in the water and on the ground. River otters seem to like sliding down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also make lots of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and coos. All this activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and since otter pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.

Life as a pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother takes care of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some species the dad may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called pups, open their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at two months, and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when they head off on their own.

For sea otters in their ocean habitat it’s a little different—the pups are born with their eyes open, and they have a special coat of hair so they can float, even though they can’t swim yet. They are carried on their mother’s stomach until they are about two months old, when they start swimming and diving on their own.

For most otters, social groups are made up of a mother, her older offspring, and her newest pups; the males spend most of their time alone or with a few other males. During breeding time or where there’s lots of food, though, larger groups of otters may gather, especially among sea otters in kelp beds.

The seafood diet
Otter food may not all come from the ocean, but it is definitely fishy! River otters eat mostly fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, and mollusks, with an occasional small mammal or bird. Sea otters eat many of the same things, but mostly sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, and clams, which they crack open against rocks they hold on their stomachs. Otters have long, sensitive whiskers that help them find prey, even in murky water. Some species, like the Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, also use their hands to probe into mud or under rocks to find a tasty meal that might be hiding there. River otters use lots of energy and digest their food very fast, so they eat several times a day. Sea otters need to eat 20 to 25 percent of their body weight each day. That’s a lot of abalone!
The otters at the San Diego Zoo are fed carnivore diet, carrots, and either squid or trout. They also get small amounts of "treats" for enrichment, like crayfish, worms, potatoes, or yams.

So Camboidia's in Central America now? I'm better traveled than I realised

ONN - nvm *blush*

As a cat, I must say, this disgusts me!

I'm a Nepeta kind of cat.

I've never heard of Ageratina Adenophora.

On a serious note, this catweed they talk about in the video is in fact Nepeta, it is not Catweed native of Central America. Though i suspect it's a play on words, cat and weed commonly referred to as Cannabis Sativa.

I took the name of the plant catweed literally I guess.

Yes, when I see someone in a politically-charged t-shirt, I automatically start asking about their views for a host of issues, because I understand that they're speaking up and making a difference by stating their opinions on a slogan-filled cotton blend tee.

And McLovin Guy is obviously funny, since he thought it would be hilarious to wear a shirt from a popular movie.

You know how you make real political change? By assassinating people. It worked for the US when we cleared out most of Central America in the last century. Maybe I should make that into a catchy t-shirt slogan.

>> ^jwray:
Technically Central America does not include any part of Mexico

My understanding is that it is customary to use either the Isthmus of Tehuantepec or the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt is the northerly inland border of north/central America, which, either way, makes a good chunk of Mexico part of central. While Mexico is not considered a "Central American country" since most of it is in North America, everyone I know who lives or grow up in Mexico is of the very clear impression that their country is in both north and central. While I was living in Mexico I flipped through some of the standard elementary curricula, and was surprised that they used the Volcanic Belt as the geographic border, which actually puts DF pretty close to the line.

Technically Central America does not include any part of Mexico, but the distinction is arbitrarily drawn along current political boundaries, while the former influence of the Spanish empire runs through it all. If cultural and linguistic grouping were concerned, Mexico would be considered a part of Central America.

What's really disgusting about that commercial is that at the time it was being ran, the Reagan/Bush administration was flying tons of cocain into our country so that they could fund death squads in Central America, primarily to spread money around the military contractors and to satisfy some stinking fruit companies who didn't want some of the land that they owned - forest land, uncultivated - to be given to poor peasants.

"You'll never hear anything like that from any Democratic Pollster, er, President, including the Obamessiah."

That may be true, but he is lying... Just read the history of the Iran Contra affair. Not to mention the horror show the Regan regime caused in Central America.

My first computer was a Performa 6400/200. After that a long line of G3's and G4's stacked with insane amounts of ram (for the time) and big stacks of raids via SCSI for video editing and animation. Since I moved to Central America I am stuck in PC land, the only Apples I see are at the market.

I agree, Health care isn't America's #1 issue, but I definitely see it through a different lens here in Ohio. We don't really have the same sort of immigration difficulties you do. Instead, our primary NAFTA effect is that we have a large number of people being laid off as manufacturing jobs get moved to other countries. Our issue with health care here is much more about people's inability to pay for the care they need, than the care they need not being available because the system is too busy providing medical care for non-citizens.

In any case, here's Obama's stance (and possibly meaningless rhetoric) on immigration. For comparison, here's what McCain's website says about immigration. He doesn't really give specifics about what he'll do, just his assessment of what we need to think about on the issue. I've not been terribly interested in Immigration as an issue, but my own personal sense is that McCain and Obama have essentially the same plan on immigration, and McCain gets heckled by the other Republicans for that.

On NAFTA itself, this is all I'm finding at the moment, but it's probably as specific as a candidate can really be at this stage, since it involves negotiations with other countries. McCain's site is less specific still, in saying only that he "seeks to reduce barriers to trade", which I know from other sources means preserving NAFTA as is, and pushing to extend a similar agreement to Central America (CAFTA).

To the general decline of American culture, here's what Obama has to say about education, and family values. There's also this speech he gave on father's day, where he speaks about family and societal values in general.

While I'm worried about the decline of American culture, I'm not sure how much government can really do about it, beyond expanding education, trying to keep people's economic situation stable. I'd argue we also need to bring back real regulation of the media, something Obama has said he wants to do.

In any case, my post was spurred by finding two detailed, non-partisan analyses of the health care plans of the two main Presidential candidates, and I wanted to share them.

I try to have an open mind about these things, but aside from the accusation of "shadow government" which you could level at any one of these so-called "think tanks", I'm not sure what's so wrong about participating in an international governmental body.

I'm also curious, is Bush part of CFR?

How about European nations, are they?

Are the U.N., WTO, ICC, all hotbeds of CFR activity?

My problem with this whole line of thinking is that while Bill Clinton and Bush agree on the necessity of NAFTA, they disagree on the way they respond to the UN, WTO, and ICC. Bill Clinton, and Bush 41 liked 'em, Bush 43 despises them. McCain talks pie in the sky about replacing them with new organizations with more limited membership, and a more NATO-like bent. Long story short, if all these guys are all marching to CFR's orders, why have their policies toward international governing bodies differed?

Personally, I see changing NAFTA into NAU as a good thing, since it'd temper some of that capitalistic exploitation with a regulatory body that would make the playing field equal between all three countries, like with the EU. I wouldn't mind changing from the dollar to an "Amero" if it's a strong currency, especially if the dollar is gonna keep racing for parity with the Yen.

I hear Hillary Clinton and Obama making minor noises about "renegotiating" NAFTA to move slightly in this direction (and that's probably an exaggeration at that), but McCain says it's fine as is, and should just be expanded to Central America, too.

I may be a fire-breathing liberal, but free trade should be the policy, so long as there are protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. Protectionism ultimately stifles the economy to everyone's detriment, even if in the short term it can be beneficial.

Rage against the machine music notwithstanding, I don't see anything sinister about a group that sees a global governing body as being a necessity for globalization to work properly. I think we're being hit now by the problems of not doing that while still happily globalizing away (e.g. lead paint in toys, jobs moving overseas, stagnant/shrinking wages, etc.).

AIPAC or PNAC on the other hand, those guys are just out to screw with us.