Feb 27, 2012 at 11:50:43
“The great culture he refers to was Persian. Once Islam took over, the country was thoroughly ruined, and its extremely tolerant Zoroastrian population was converted by force to Islam. Some escaped to the west coast of India and became today's Parsis. If the Iranians want to be great again, they will have to climb back out of the deep religious hole they are stuck in, and that's not going to happen soon, with or without nuclear weapons.”
CT Independent on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:33:00
“You have obviously not read any history, stop listening to Faux news and read "Islam: A short history:" by Karen Armstrong or "The Formation of Islam" by Jonathan Berkey. These are historical facts. Unlike Christianity (The Spanish Inquisition), Islam did not convert anyone by force.”
Kyle OConnor on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:05:17
“You are right and the same goes for us. We have to stop allowing religion to shape our politics as well.”
DAV2008 on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00:31
“F&F. The history speaks volumes. Islam is not peaceful.”
MarcEdward on Feb 27, 2012 at 11:58:00
“Much of Persians greatest writing and poetry cam long after the Muslim conquest. Fact is that the Arabs took over, and Persian culture conquered them.”
“They mostly hate drinking water, and much prefer Coca Cola as their top choice. It is classified in Spanish as "refresco", and abundantly available. No studies have been done on the ill effects of colas and other "soft drinks" instead of water. I have many cases of workers insisting on drinking colas because they have been led to think that it is much superior to water. I can even point to hard-core kidney cases who refuse to drink water even after the doctor has told them to! Of course, there may be other causes, but the health authorities can easily check out their statistics of cola consumption and therefore have enough material to work on to start with, instead of crying out for other folk to come in and tell them their people are fed junk.”
g13360 on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:37:17
“what about arsenic in applejuice?
But it wont hurt you if you dont drink much of it.......saw it on the news.....”
huntingtreasures on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:29:46
“Don't drink water fish pee in it.”
Laura Lee Noss on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:22:02
“And soda is full of chemicals. Enuff to strip a cars paint. These workers bring jugs of water with them to work and it says they refill them with water their employers supply. Also they are very poor so i'm sure they are not drinking soda everyday.”
“Ms. Tae Yoo: What happens when Broadband Connectivity, and in general all TI resources already developed abroad are monopolized by one single person or firm, as in much of Latin America, Africa and the Arab World?”
“The author has written a clear and insightful article. He should be advising Obama and Clinton on this important issue.
How Israel's "security" gets enhanced by wanting the Palestinians to disappear and be permanently dependent on Israel's charity is truly childish. The Muslim world is being reorganized very fast, mostly against Israel, and all Israel can think of is holding down the Palestinians, humiliating them every day with an illegal occupation, and stealing another piece of Palestinian land. Many aspire to lead the modern muslim world: Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The US (and therefore Israel) have only one reasonably sure ally there (Saudi Arabia). It looks like Turkey is going to win, mostly because it doesn't have problems with the others. And the Palestinian issue (which starts with internationally recognized statehood) is their first topic on the agenda. The US and Israel are going to have less and less to negotiate with as time goes on, because the Muslim world is slowly, clumsily if you like, closing the difference in development. So, it seems to me downright stupid not to support what is, by all accounts, the best the Palestinians have to offer.”
Freenation on Sep 16, 2011 at 20:17:10
“"He should be advising Obama and Clinton on this important issue. "
he can't because he doesn't have a business card from AIPAC...all the ME groups are littered with AIPAC or ex-AIPAC...look at the person who is negotiating with Palestinians to abandon US vote on behalf of US...Ross an ex-AIPAC, hawk and founder of think tank advocating status quo...”
“Basically, the economy needs everybody: the investor (big or small, although many small investors are to be preferred to one big investor); the workers to produce and more importantly to consume what has already been produced; unions to balance off investors and give workers a fair shake; and governments to take care of our collective needs. So, the idea that one of these participants in economic activity is critical and the others are not is far from the truth. A lot of what is going on in Wisconsin and elsewhere can be explained by one of the parts overreaching into the future income of some other part. That won't happen without a fight, perhaps a big one, normally termed class warfare. Additionally, Economics is essentially about distribution, not just production and consumption. All of the major functions in Economic Theory are concave, revealing diminishing returns to that particular activity, be it consumption, production or distribution. This means that if someone (Congress or whoever) has a billion dollars to give away, the economy benefits more if each of a million people get a thousand dollars, than if the reigning billionaire gets it all. This is the basic reason why the Governor of Wisconsin has it backwards in wanting to reduce the incomes of many people, ruining their life support systems and punishing economic demand, and then, through tax breaks, giving it all to a few, and finally complaing that the state is broke. It is poor politics and worse economic policy.”
“It is a great shame that real scientific and technological research are being shut down. They drive economic growth. Robert Solow found that out in 1956 with a historical study of the US Economy. The same finding has been repeated all over the world n times by renowned economists. Obviously, the Tea Partiers and their ilk haven't the foggiest notion of how much permanent damage they are doing to the US and themselves by attacking the scientific and technological communities, whose work is hard enough as it is.”
“All religions could get along wonderfully if they all accepted others' gods, religious books, ways of worship, symbols, mindsets, etc., on a par with their own; which in turn means that they at the very least can't:
a) go about preaching their own "faith" as the one true god, scripture, etc.; and
b) have to stop going into the strongholds of other religions via missionaries, evangelical swings, etc., to switch those folk over to their religion.
On a positive vein, they would have to participate in other peoples' religions.
I saw this happen and lived it for 20 years in my Bombay suburb of Khar, where at least a dozen religions coexisted in great harmony and respect, and where we all could go into the homes and hearts of our pals from other religions, but alas I haven't seen any of this happening in the rest of the world, ergo religious conflict is here to stay, until the Khar model becomes universal.”
“Legalization may seem an easy way to attack the financial part of the drug business. Unfortunately, it will not bring total violence down much, and may actually increase it, since the cartels are already into other related businesses like extortion, kidnapping, murder, and other forms of violence, all of which will grow tremendously if and when the drug violence peters out and the cartels are left intact. At the present time, all this violence, which is driving "insecurity" in Mexico is basically subsumed under the heading of "drug violence". Government officials participate in the violence in favor of this cartel and against that one, since they are corrupt and weak. If they take a stand, they get tortured and killed with their buddies tipping off the cartels. No easy answers are available unfortunately.”
Sam Hassock on Feb 22, 2011 at 14:18:22
“I've heard that before and it's like saying don't freeze the accounts of drug smugglers because they'll get antsy and kill more people. Aren't we supposed to NOT negotiate with terrorists? Did Prohibition work? what happened when we legalized alcohol? Did the Mafia spread out and get more violent? With what? Slingshots?”
“Why don't these people get a grip on their hyped-up fears and wait it out? That way, their pets and animals would not suffer. After all, they are part of their family, and it is terrible of them to cut and run without taking their dear ones with them.”
HSC55 on Feb 4, 2011 at 17:49:25
“the us govt has told them to evacuate. And foreigners are being attacked”
When you have a huge deficit, and you do not want private consumption (spending) to diminish, it is the middle class and the lower class you want to protect against fiscal wear and tear. So, basically you are left only with the millionaires. If they do not contribute more, then of course say good bye to reducing both deficits (governmental and foreign trade), which in turn means saying good bye to a healthy economy, and which then leaves you with permanently high unemployment.
What is true for individuals is also true of organizations. You know that corporate profits are at a historical record level, so you know that there is some slack to be taxed there, without driving anybody out of business. Of course, you can lay back and hope that doing nothing would be best for the economy. How I would love for that to be true! But that is unfortunately not true. There is a lot of experience that proves that economies do not get out of the cyclical rut on their own.
So, when you point out that the top 1% pays for 40% of the total tax bill, you do not necessarily mean that they are being overcharged in relation to what they earn next to the rest of the society. And that is what counts for tax policy and revenues.”
Peter007 on Dec 12, 2010 at 09:40:47
“You make good points.
Next, if there were no deficits, foreign and domestic, would the reason for your higher rates on the wealthy be valid?
Next, google the laffer Curve. It says that at a 0% income tax rate, you get zero in government revenues and at 100% tax rate you get zero in government revenues. ( looks like backward "C".)
The curve determines the optimum level of taxation to maximize government revenues. It also shows maximum private profits. Could our system be so complex and politically influenced that the laffer curve may be giving out false results.?”
“Peter, governments tax whoever CAN pay up, since it is absurd to expect them to tax those who CANNOT pay up. If you make, say 30 K a year, you can pay very little, say 3 K or 10% to the gvernment, and it gets almost nothing after you TAKE OUT the high cost of receiving, checking, auditing, etc., that reduces the tax amount consierably and naturally leaves only a net driblet for the govenment, perhaps 1 or 2 K. so government can only get between 3% and 6% of this person's income, and in a crisis situation, it may well be zero or negative, the government having o pay the person so that he-she does not go into economic shock and just conks out on society. Now, move onto someone who makes 100 K annually. Well, this person can pay upto say 15 K, and so can and should pay a higher rate, or the government would have a huge deficit, as it does. Finally, the people making1, 10, 100 or a 1,000 million a year, by the same fiscal logic, pay up more because they can. Of course, for them there have to be some limits. About 30% seems like a fair upper limit, but then this is only the Income side of the fiscal equation, and we have to see what could be done on the Expenses side also. and remember that all of this is in normal times.”
“Thirty years ago, the power gap between the sexes was much wider. Democratic initiatives opened up many situations for women, mostly women from the racial groups that could make the most of the openings, i.e., whites and asians. But now that they are beginning to enjoy power, they become Republicans and are not as interested in opening the doors for other women to follow as in enjoying the party within the newly closed doors that are admittedly more open than the previous ones. So, the shift is entirely to be expected as a result of human nature.”
“On the question of more than 2,000 respondents being a tiny fraction of the US population, and so being unworthy representatives of the results, I would point out:
1) With that many respondents, the results are almost certainly valid (95% of the time) within a range of 1.2% to 2% around the sample answers. So, if 40% say this or that, around 38% to 42% of the US population as a whole would give the same answers, of course if standard statistical procedures for sampling are complied with.
2) If you want absolute certainty (99.7% of the time), the error band around the sample answer has to be widened somewhat more, but not much more, only to say 36% to 44%.
Sampling is a valid statistical technique. Actually the 2,000+ sample is quite large, since small samples in statistics are generally understood to mean 30 or fewer elements in the sample. But then you get sample widths of around 20% or so, and they are just to wide for most people. So, most national samples get around to about 1,000 or 2,000 respondents. If they are carefully selected, you essentially have national representation. It is a quick and relatively cheap method of getting closer to the truth.”
“I think the problem consists in that the First Amendment grants many rights, but establishes no corresponding responsibilities on the different religions or persons. In a secular state, religion has to be restricted to the ongoing ideas of tolerance and private worship. When the Abrahamic faiths go public and try and impose their God, sacred book, sacred place of worship. priesthood, and the rest of their religion as the one "true" faith, religious conflict is inevitable with the other two similar faiths. This is the case of the Pastor. If religious acts are undertaken in the assigned places of worship and not in public, and without hostility to other religions, then there would be no conflict, since secular behavior smoothes the rough edges off religious provocation, and freedom of speech does not become the issue. However, if both secularist conduct and freedom of religion/speech vie to occupy the same available social space, then one has to stand down as occured with Pastor Jones.”
“On the mess that the Army Corps of Engineers has created over a century in the states that have rivers that drain into the Mighty M, look up a great book that's been out for some 20 or 30 years, "Dams and other Disasters". The science and the information have been out there for many years, but as you say, we just never learn.”
“Floods show up the true state of affairs. In Pakistan, they have revealed:
1) Widespread ecological destruction for many decades, as virtually no trees and little vegetation can be spotted. So, when more water than normal is received, floods are the result.
2) People live in the flood plain and on embankments and even in the river beds. So, human and material losses are proportionately very much higher than if they would have respected the river systems.
3) There is a science called planning, which prepares societies so that floods may affect them the least possible. This science has been overpowered by prejudice in the present case. Nobody in Pakistan expected water availability to vary, only visualizing a scenario of water scarcity, and so only a month ago, the Pakistani press was full of demands by everybody on India to send them more water!
4) The Indus system is binational, and so a unilateral solution can be implemented for the country where the rivers start (India), but not for the country (Pakistan) that receives the other's water. Thus, good sense requires Pakstan to be on excellent terms with India so that water control may be effective and beneficial to both. However, Pakistan has made a national career of making India's life as difficult as possible, and in the process has ignored its own needs and interests. How stupid can humans be? Certainly not very much more.”
Foodgrade on Aug 20, 2010 at 18:22:25
“Yeah, we showed how good we are at it in Louisiana. And we still build in flood plains all over the U.S. "Planning" approves the permits. Not that you're wrong, we just never learn.”