joe s

I am able to ollie a inch or two high at times. But my problem is that my ollies are not consistent. Sometimes I can pull a 5-0 grind and then other days I cant do one thing clean. What is secret?

Regardless of whether you were for or against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, consider its implications. I've tried to provide an explanation of the death toll counts below. Don't forget about over 4,000 US troops who died, over a hundred thousand wounded, etc. And regardless if the civilian death toll count is over a million or not, consider the consequences of such renowned polls and journals spreading such information to the world. What will be said of America in the short-term and long-term?

We already know Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD's and links to Al Qaeda were proved false (no WMD's were found and the 9/11 commission found no link's between Iraq's regime and al qaeda. So, now what do we do with mounting casualties since the US invasion?

The Lancet, "one of the most well-known peer-reviewed medical journals in the world" (wikipedia, the lancet), estimated in 2006 that over 600,000 Iraqi deaths were due to violence after the 2003 US invasion. See the following link for a mention of the lancet report: (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53905.php...

The following website uses Lancet's report and other data to arrive at a current toll well over a million: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h...

Another count, by prestigiousus British polling agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion, which credits Just foreign Policy's site somewhat. Are we (or should I say corporation and state) trying to match Hitler's destruction of human life, or at least doing this without acknowledging it?

I am For a draft. Right now we have two mercenary armies in Iraq: the largely poor and uneducated soldiers in the US military and private military like Blackwater. Private forces actually outnumber US military soldiers now (see http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/04/nation/na-...

This is quite dangerous. Remember, the empire of Rome started to decline when it started using mercenary armies. I hope there is a draft; then, like in Vietnam, more people will protest and stop the war because the poor won't be fighting it anymore. How can you be against this? I can see how "conservatives" or neocons might be against this because they're afraid of what I just talked about: the "Vietnam Syndrome" or people fighting against large scale wars where there are large casualties.

Fernando Lugo, president of Paraguay, ran a candidacy focused on better land distribution for peasants and fighting inequality. He doesn't have any elitist qualities: the best education, millions in the bank, white ancestry, etc. I just read in the paper today he appointed an indigenous lady, trying to pursue her high school diploma, as a delegate in the government to concentrate on Indian affairs.

Why can't our officials be more representative of the common worker? McCain's wife is a millionaire, Obama has the best education, etc. Even Obama's wife makes over 300,000 a year. Do most Americans share these qualities? It seems we have much to learn from poorer countries, not the other way around.

Consider Roosevelt's message to congress in 1938:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

Or Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

(source for both quotes: Wikipedia. "Corporatism")

Cheney was CEO of Haliburton. After Iraqi occupation, his company got the number 1, no-bid contract in reconstruction. His wife is defense contracting too, and got a enormous contract while he was in office too. These are just a sampling. The boundary of corporation (a private group) and state (public) is certainly blurred. So, are we a fascist state?

Bush has said "The United States of America is an enemy of those who aid terrorists" and "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves."

The Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles still lives in Miami. LA times reported that declassified government documents "show that he told his handlers in Washington of plans to 'hit' a Cuban airliner days before the Oct. 6, 1976 explosion," where all 73 people aboard were killed.

Posada escaped from jail in Venezuela in 1985, then was charged in Panama for trying to kill Castro, but pardoned under US pressure. Posada's co-conspirator Orlando Bosch, was set free by Bush the first in Florida, 1990.

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Should we heed Bush's words?

Amid all the talk of danger and engendered fear and paranoia in the US, what do you think? Do you really buy into all the talk of terrorism, evildoers, etc.? If you do, then why do support an occupation that our own intelligence, and common sense, told us would increase terrorism (which it has)? When will you stop buying the hype and ask for regime change here? And please don't bring up 9/11 because the culprit (Osama) said our foreign policy is to blame, so you can't justify any military aggression (which has no basis anyways) because that leads to more terrorism.

If you're not sure, have you experienced something that makes you think you were abducted? I experienced "sleep paralysis," as they call it, but saw a flash of light outside my window sometime before it happened. It was weird.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_re_as/ko...

South Korean and US declassified documents assert that the US did kill South Korean refugees. 50-400 are reported do have perished in indiscriminate killing by US soldiers in bombings, etc.

Considering Vietnam, Iraqi sanctions and "strategic" bombings from 91-2000s, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Philipines, Iraq and Afghanistan occupation, etc., does this news today surprise you?

Please don't respond if you were attracted to debase him in here, even though you know nothing of his work.

The book can be interviews or one written by him. Mine is Understanding Power. If consisted of a wide array of topics, i think in interview form and speech. That was my first book on Chomsky, and my favorite book of all time.

Have you seen any interviews or DVDs? If so, what's your favorite. Manufacturing Consent is probably mine. But all of his interviews are excellent--i can't choose a favorite here.

A lot of people join the party because they have strong feelings about social matters like abortion and family values. And they also probably agree somewhat or strongly with keeping government small and spending little socially. But the reason I asked the question is because they, like democrats, spend year after year enormously on the military-industrial complex. This kind of huge, unprecedented, and liberal spending is astounding.

If you include military-related expenditures (the department of energies nuclear budget, veteran's affairs, foreign base appropriations, two occupation budgets, etc.) with "defense" spending, along with a substantial amount of our debt for wars and Reaganite deficit spending, the amount is more than every country on earth spends militarily, combined!! Our leaders are indeed liberals, enriching themselves and their corporate buddies. I thought we were a constitutional republic? I guess we're a plutocracy with a apathetic and quite ignorant public.

In a recent Time/Rockefeller poll, 82% of Americans believe the government should spend more socially on public works to increase jobs, etc. 82%!! Do any of our "leaders" advocate social spending rather than enriching "defense" corporations and maintaining an empire of bases around the world?

A majority of Americans believe our health care system needs major reform. The only hope is Obama here, but even his program will keep insurance companies. Why are US leaders not representing us adequately? Why do you think this is so?

In ancient Greece, some city-states had government bodies and leaders chosen by chance. To me, this method seems like an ingenious way to elect representatives without money and popularity invovled. Perhaps there could be preconditions, like only those with a certain amount of education, etc. What do you think?

I know it's a constitutional republic. Democratic theorist Robert Dahl calls modern so-called democracies a Polyarchy (rule by the many), where such nations have fair elections with universal suffrage. I like this definition, which is pretty practical and definitive. But it leaves out how the rich can pervade politics.

I know most people say he is a Republican, but I've also heard he's into big government spending and expansion (e.g., the military-industrial complex and the homeland security department).

As far as socially, is he religous? He is described with others like Rice as "devoutly" religous. But is initiating a "pre-emptive" invasion and occupation of Iraq, where his claims of WMD was refuted, Christian?

This is the play written by Howard Zinn. It's about Karl Marx coming back to the present day, reminiscing about his family and providing searing criticisms of today's world. I saw it in Venice, CA on Saturday. The actor's performance and Zinn's playwritting was so powerful I almost cried a few times. Don't miss it if it comes to your town.

I'm not talking about his advocation of two current military occupations. I'm talking about the Vietnam War, which people laud McCain for. The Viet Cong in the war fighting against a foreign power seem more to me like heroes, fighting bravely in their own civil war against the mighty imperial power. Over 2 million vietnamese were slaughtered (Vietnam has estimated 3 million). I don't see any other way at looking at the war, where the US covertly murdered a South Vietnam's leader in 63, who tried to work things out with the Vietcong. Then from 63-65, we massively bombed and attacked South Vietnam and created a foreign, artificial resistance to a large national movement. Sounds like terrorism to me.

I've just read General Smedley Butler's essay, "War is a Racket." Basically, he says wars are extremely profitable for the few, but also immensely disastrous for the masses. He argues quite convincingly and points out three ways to end the dishonest scheme of wars (huge profits for some and pretexts for the causes):

1. Take the profit factor out of war (e.g., pay manufacturers the same measly fees as soldiers risking it all).

2. Institute a soldiers' referendum, where they ultimately decide on going to war or not.

3. Abolish imperial forces and return to defensive positions (ie, keep boats no more than 200 miles off our coast, planes within 500 or so miles, etc.)

1 and 3 are very imperative in my opinion. Perhaps if we had a state militias or just the national guard, we wouldn't be in so much trouble and allowing for war to be such the racket it is.

I've been reading John S. Mill's essay on Liberty. He says, even when a majority agrees on something (like drugs are bad for us), it should not outweight the rights an individual has if he's not doing clear harm to another person and his/her rights. It's in essence a matter of opinion, and in such matters concerning opinion and morals, individual liberty should win because it leads to greater human freedom in the end.

People can argue just my question, but if you read my details you can see that we lose a lot of freedom when we can't use certain things or do certain things (like end our own life). Marijuana is a classic exmaple of this country like most others, won't let individuals have the simple freedom to use it (based on their own morals) because it's probably detrimental to making profits (keeping a job, being productive, paying taxes, etc.). So, the state is self-interested and ruling over individual rights. You and I may feel different about drugs, but don't limit my freedom

I know I'm going to get answers from people who think free markets just mean trade between nations. I mean, no ones against that. But free markets entail no government intervention, privatization, etc. I think we need to distinguish from the theory and real, existing markets. Neoliberal policies (mainly crafted and influenced by the US and other first worlds) do create economies and countries in developing countries with free markets because loans they take require foreign investors, privatization, reduced social spending, and little government intervention. The countries following the model are the worst (Brazil, Argentina in the past, columbia, etc.). To me, people who advocate free markets is just nonsense, but in fact, they're really advocating first world domination neoliberal policies. Disagree? Agree?