Free Republic

Yeah, Brazil funny how the future WAS reflected in that twisted epic.

No kidding. And definitely in my top ten. Another fav...

The Exorcist

The only movie that scares me just as much today as the first time I saw it.

So does this mean thr Air Force has better quality pics? No mention of that.

I read another article today that said the company in charge of taking the liftoff pictures has had problems with quality lately. The pictures that we've seen of the insulation hitting the shuttle SHOULD have been much higher quality. I don't know if this has been posted elsewhere and I don't have a link. I read it in a hardcopy of the NYT.

Welcome to Free Republic. So long as you steer clear of hyperbolic slander, I believe you'll find the moderators quite, ... liberal.

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Apparently not.

It's not my responsibility to be sensitive.

Well, you're certainly being overly sensitive to this.

And to answer your question from the other thread, no I don't work for Scholastic, nor do I know anyone who does. I just happen to believe... no, i KNOW that you people are jumping to ridiculous conclusions. YES, it was a stupid mistake. But NO, unlike some of you, I don't believe it was intentional, nor do I believe it is part of some Islamic conspiracy.

I sent them the following message. I should have included the ISpy reference, but I forgot to do so...

I've got nothing in this, but please give these people a break. They've got enough to deal with now that everyone has taken their product off the shelf.

And by the way, it's the name "Lily", not "a white lily". As in Lily Tomlin. Short for Lillian. There are about 7 or 8 other names on it too. Look at the picture link someone posted. God, I feel awful for these people. Some of you too.

This reminds me of the trouble Proctor & Gamble had over the "demonic symbols" on their corporate logo. It's just so sad and silly at the same time.

So if you are going to create product to appeal to the masses of middle america that is to be sent out in 2003 for Valentine's day why would you select only the names Jihad and Lilly? Let's see:

First of all, "Jihad" is the issue here, not "Lily". If the photo only contained the name Lily, would anyone have noticed? Of course not. But put the name Jihad in there, and suddenly everyone is coming up with obscure references and hidden meanings.

To create this product they have to look at the entire picture and DECIDE which part of the graphic to use. Not only did they make a conscious choice to use this photo they then had to select the portion of the photo they wanted to use.

You have no way of knowing this. When a deadline approaches and the artwork's got to get off to the printer, some things will slip through the cracks. This is a cheap children's valentine. I doubt if a lot of time and effort went into it, considering it's just a rehash of a previously published work.

Don't you think there is something that was a little more appropriate to use than Jihad and Lilly?

Absolutely, as far as Jihad goes. It's too bad it slipped through, but that doesn't mean it's an evil plot.

If this company is responsible for educating the children of America, shouldn't they have a little more sensitivity than using Jihad of all the names possible on this product?

I honestly don't mean to insult you, but do you know how PC that sounds? "What about the children?", " a little more sensitivity". I am absolutely certain that no child of the age these things are targeted for would have given it a minute's pause. As usual, it's the over-reacting parents who turn it into an emotion-scarring event.

Now, who put this product out? Did a company obtain the license or is it an official product of Ispy/Scholastic.

I have no idea.

Again, why select the names of Jihad and Lilly. I cannot find any plausible reason to use those names and I have a Marketing degree.

In 1995, there was no plausible reason NOT to include the name. I'm willing to accept that it was just some random name the photographer used. Of course, since the photo was taken, the name has taken on a different meaning. You said yourself you can think of no plausible reason to use the name. So why would they intentionally use it? The only plausible answer is that it was an oversight. Admittedly a bad one. And I feel sorry for them because of the mess it'll cause.

If you're just arguing that it was a bad call to include the name, I agree. If you're insinuating they put it there as some sinister message, I'm not buying it. My tin-foil hat remains in the closet. I'm through with this thread. I've wasted enough time on it.

No, the friggin moron is the person at Scholastic who approved of Valentine cards being sent out with Jihad on them. If they wanted to use a Muslim name, they could have picked something else.

Well, maybe so. But since the photo was originally published in 1995, with no resulting outrage, I doubt if anyone even noticed it. What I find impossible to believe (and many here are suggesting) is that Scholastic deliberately included it in order to send some sort of message. It was a mistake no doubt, but to put some sinister spin on it is ludicrous.

This is turning into some bizarre form of PC.

If you wanted to market an item with hopes of generating profits from middle america through Target would you use the name Jihad and Lilly?

Jihad? Today? No. But from what I understand from some of the other posts, this thing was made in 1995. Seven years ago, most people had never heard the word, or at least wouldn't think twice about it. The photgrapher may be guilty at most of PC, as Jihad is apparently a valid name. And I say again, Lilly is a somewhat common American girl's name. We even had a dog named Lily years ago. Until today, I'd never heard it connected with anything else, let alone as a symbol of death.

I predict that the only thing to come of this will be the Scholastic company will have its reputation tarnished and/or ruined, all because some idiot with a wild/deranged imagination made something out of nothing.

Jeez. Get a grip people.

"We have received word off our wire of a really strong thunderstorm near "any-ville" in Kansas. We will keep you updates as information comes in. For now we'll return you to your regularly scheduled Laci Peterson coverage."

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Besides the bogus "News Breaks", it pisses me off to no end when H & C spends an entire segment on the latest non-news story. Elizabeth Smart, Robert Blake, Laci Peterson, etc., etc. Who finds that crap interesting or the least bit important? I'm asking seriously. I guess it keeps Mark Fuhrman in a job.

Glad we TiVo all those shows so we can FF through it all.

Several people here have claimed to have heard the name "Jihad", and "Lily" is a perfectly common name for a girl. And the clock with the phrase "time for you to be mine" seems perfectly innocent.

Remember all the hubbub in the early 80s about subliminal advertising (the word "SEX" on Ritz crackers and the like)? It's all bunk. Just like this.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. This guy who "found" these messages in the pictures and made a big deal about it is a friggin' moron.

Of course Canada's acceptance will depend on whether they can find the key to the tank.

CWOJackson, between that and the Don Knotts reference, I love your sense of humor. Besides that, even if I don't agree with you, it's nice to hear from someone from the opposing viewpoint that has something interesting to say.

I don't think any of us want your 3 year old nephew to have pot.

I'll go out on a limb here and say I KNOW none of us want her 3 year old nephew to have pot.

On Christmas Day there was a legalize pot demonstration in downtown Seattle. They couldn't rally 20 people to their cause.

Christmas day? Why in the world would they pick that day? Were they high? Oh.. wait.

Seriously though, you gotta look around a bit. Forty-seven percent of Nevadans voted to decriminalize pot, and the voting was close in other states where it was up for referendum, even after a heroic last-minute propaganda tour by Mr. Walters. And those numbers are WAY up from years past. It's the WODders that will be playing with sticks and slingshots before long.

This is just the usual press release. "We would support a second resolution..."

By all the fuss going on here, you'd think we were sending the troops in right this minute.

Do your stuff.

Be sure to note that this is marked as COMMENTARY at the top, so don't bother telling me it's biased.

"If you removed the brains from everyone sitting across the table from me and mixed them all together, this is what you'd end up with!"

Where is she right? Did you read her title? You honestly believe rightwing radio is taking away the freedom of the press?

It's unfortunate that Ms. Ivins chose to inject politics into the equation. If you were to ignore her references to right-wing radio, the article is right on the mark. With the existing regulations relaxed or abolished, it won't be long before ALL TV and radio is owned by one or two mega-media empires.

The remaining privately owned stations will not be able to compete, and anyone who offers an opposing viewpoint that doesn't fit into the marketing plan will be silenced. After all, it's all about ratings and advertising dollars, which is more of a driving force in what we get today than any "liberal" or "conservative" bias. Go ahead and show me otherwise.

It's a very sad state of affairs when I have to tune into the BBC to get any news from outside the United States that doesn't involve the war on terror. Fox News is a pathetic joke when it comes to real news reporting. Sure, I tune into it for debate, but that's not news, it's opinion. Again, it's all about ratings, nothing more. News as a "public service" has gone the way of Edward R. Murrow.

Oh sure, there are other sources like the internet for news, but the vast majority of Americans still get their news from TV and radio. And the thought of just a couple of corporations being in control of such a vital source of information ought to frighten all of us.

Thanks for the info. I kind of figured it was a little too simple.

What orbit do you put it in?

I realize space is a pretty big place. But don't all the orbiters have to eventually get into the same orbit/position before they prepare for reentry? Maybe the lifeboat could be moved around by remote control if needed to adjust its orbit. If nothing else, maybe the shuttle could meet it half way.

Sorry, I don't want to start making crazy suggestions that aren't practical. I'm just thinking out loud. Tell me if I'm off base.

Skynews website has a British scientist quoted as saying that NASA knew this ending was going to happen after finding out about the damaged tile, but couldn't do a damn thing about it. In other words, it was a sealed fate once the tile was hit upon liftoff. Guy seemed pretty sure of himself.

On the one hand, this wouldn't surprise me, but I'm yet willing to accept this. One thing that's got me wondering is that I recall on a previous flight last year (some secret military flight), they made a big deal about a new camera they had installed on the exterior of the main tank, pointing at the orbiter. I was watching NASA TV as the launch took place, and the camera got fogged up and didn't give much to look at. Assuming they were able to fix it, it's entirely possible that they've got high-quality footage of the insulation hitting the wing. So far, all we've seen is the fuzzy telephoto video of the launch. But I bet NASA has got much better footage to look at regardless. I still find it hard to believe NASA would OK the reentry if they knew it was doomed. I would think/hope they would have tried to come up with SOMETHING.

Is shuttle to shuttle docking even possible?

The question is, how long would it take to get another shuttle prepared for liftoff? I think even in an emergancy, it would still be weeks. Then the question is how long could they stay up there waiting for a rescue?

Seems to me the most practical solution in the future would be to send up a "lifeboat" vehicle and let it sit in low orbit until needed. Or maybe a sort of "service station" that has essential repair supplies, oxygen, etc. Wouldn't have to cost much.

Speaking of Crossfire, did anyone catch it last night (Thursday)? In the third segment (I think), they discussed legislation in Georgia that would outlaw smoking in your car if you have a child in it.

Supporting the legislation was Maryland State Senator Ira Ruben, and against it was Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute.

It was absolutely hilarious. Ms. Ruben was thoroughly SPANKED by the usually lightweight Tucker Carlson and the guy from Cato.

They had her contradicting herself every other sentence.
At one point she blurted out "If I had my way they wouldn't smoke in the home either." Well at least we know where her heart really lies.

You guys really should read the transcript. It's unbelievable:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/30/cf.00.html

Just to do a Find on "Georgia", and it'll take you right to it.

By the way, I looked and looked, and couldn't find anything on this proposed legislation. Anybody know about it?

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Are you getting lazy on us, or do you just have a set of canned responses you refer to?

Oh, and for the record, 43% to 57% doesn't qualify as a "wide margin". If it weren't for John Walters' heroic last-minute-pull-out-all-the-stops propaganda campaign, the Nevada referendum may well have passed (polls showed it very close at one point). But John's got an $18B budget to preserve, so truth goes out the door, and the undecideds fell for his garbage.

The day when tpaine denounces the modern(1960's-present) American leftist drug culture.

The George Soros thing didn't get the response you hoped for, so now you're trying the "American leftist drug culture" angle huh?

Do you oppose EVERYTHING the left supports? Must all issues be exclusively left or right? It must be so comforting to simply follow the official party line and never have to seriously consider the issues.

You see Dane, there are those of us who can actually see past "left vs. right" and look at an issue objectively without first having to consult the party checklist. Support for decriminalization goes across party lines. Does the REASON for that support have to be the same across the board?

If, in your view, the "left" wants it decriminalized so they can get high, fine. I can't speak for them. But can you possibly fathom the possibility that those of us on the "right" want it decriminalized because it's a massive waste of taxpayer money, that our justice system is so overburdened that violent criminals are released early just to make room for "dopers", or that most importantly, we'd like the government to just stay the F out of our private lives?

I'm about as far removed from the "American leftist drug culture" as you can be, as I'm sure everyone else here is. If it makes you feel more secure calling us a bunch of leftist dopers, good for you. But I can assure you the reality is a bit more complex, and you won't be able to hide from the truth much longer. The rest of the nation is finally coming to its senses, and realizing how counter-productive the war on drugs really is. We're getting close to a dead heat right now, and the momentum is not going your way. What will you do when you're in the minority?

For those of you who have used or have loved ones who have used or are now using "medical" marijuana: Is it okay to break a law just because we disagree with it?

Let's turn the table:

"How many laws can we really have to stop crime if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?" President George W. Bush

I've been here for a long time, and I don't even know what moving it to chat means. I hit latest articles, and this was there. I hit latest posts, and this was there. Why should I care if it is officially classified as chat or not?

I'd like to know too. I've had some of my posts sent to "Chat", but I don't know what the heck it is. I'm not complaining mind you, I'd just like to know what it is.

For that matter, there's a lot I don't understand here as far as how the forums are laid out and what crosses over to what. The only thing I do when I come here is click on "Latest Posts". Maybe I'm missing out on other parts of the site. I don't know. And I've yet to find a Help page that explains it all.

Thank you eshu. You (and the article you posted) are right on the mark. The USA Patriot Act is the most un-American... no, ANTI-American bill ever passed into law since the Sedition Act of 1798.

The danger of abuse of the "sneak and peek" provision cannot be overstated. It has no sunset, and is now a permanent part of the US code. It applies to ALL criminal investigations, not just terrorism. Think about what this means in the hands of a gun-grabber administration for instance. It allows them to enter your home without notice. The Fourth Amendment has effectively been abolished from the Bill of Rights.

I get so sick of people saying "what rights have you lost?". Well, I say: just give it time. Just as the powers of RICO have been expanded to include stopping anti-abortion protesters recently, the Patriot Act is rife with even more potential.

The Patriot Act is nothing but a wet dream for those who occupy the Justice Department. Many of the provisions (including sneak and peek) are right out of previous failed bills (during the Clinton administration), mostly related to the war on drugs.

Those of you who scoff at suggestions that the powers granted by the Patriot Act will be abused obviously haven't read it. It is an Orwellian nightmare. And I don't give a rat's ass WHO is in the White House right now. These powers shouldn't be in ANYONE'S hands.

SUV's are much safer than most other cars, however, in collisions.

Yes, but if the people colliding with the SUV are in a smaller car, they stand a lesser chance of surviving than if they collided with another car. By increasing your own chances, you lower the chances of the smaller car occupants' survival.

I'm not arguing against SUVs, I'm just saying it's not only about you.

State Rep. Aaron Peña, who lost a son of his own to drugs in 2001, said the Texas-Mexico border region was rapidly becoming a war zone due to the proliferation prohibition of cocaine and marijuana, and associated violent crime.

When will they learn?

This whole thing really doesn't make sense as written.

I think you missed this part:

In the survey, 50 marks the threshold between growth and contraction.

So it was in contraction in November, hence a decline.
Sorry, don't mean to sound like a smart-ass, I just wanted to point that out.

The enemies of liberty never work that way. Instead they'll introduce aspects of it incrementally step by step to minimize potential opposition until the opportunity arises to put the final step in place. People will have lost their precious freedom without even realizing they lost it.

Amen brother. And we're already a long ways into it. Most recently, we have the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, which is one of the biggest steps we've yet taken towards a Big Brother Police State. If not for 9/11, Americans never would have stood for it. Most of the provisions in it WERE tried previously during the Clinton admin., and were rejected because of these same concerns.

In fact some of the provisions in the Patriot Act, such as sneak-n-peek, are now a permanent part of the US Code (with no sunset), and apply to ALL criminal investigations, not just terrorism. They tried attaching the same provision to a 1996 anti-drug law, but it failed. Now, people are perfectly willing to accept it.

I was pleansantly surprised that people did put the kibosh on Operation TIPS though, but it's a minor victory.

My biggest fear from another terrorist attack is not what it will do to the economy, but the loss of our remaining freedom when Washington happily responds to a cowering (cowardly) public demanding more "security".

...that any attack on the United States by Iraq or a group working on its behalf could cripple the U.S. economy.

No sh_t Sherlock. And an attack by any other party (North Korea, Al Qaeda, Switzerland) couldn't?

I've been criticizing American Muslims, who live in a safe, free society where they can speak out without being lynched, for not condemning Islamic violence. Now someone in Canada has done so. At least it is a start.

They did. It's just that no one wanted to listen. Do a Google search on "muslim condemn terrorist attacks" and you'll find there was plenty of condemnation. Whether you believe they are sincere is up to you.

Bring on the flames. I don't care. I'm just sick and tired of hearing that tired old story (Muslims are silent on terorism), when even a cursory search proves that to be untrue.

And another thing: For those mainstream Muslims who ARE silent, maybe it's because they know they practice a completely different religion than the radicals, and DON'T OWE YOU an apology. Just as maintream Catholics don't feel responsible for IRA bombings in N. Ireland.

They just better stay the hell off my property!

We saw 'Signs' a few months back in a digital theater, and it it was awful (story-wise AND picture-wise).

It's definitely got a problem with dynamic range (difference between light and dark). Much of the movie takes place at night, hence a lot of dark scenes. During those scenes, the it looked like we were watching an 8mm film. The pixels were as big as softballs, dancing around like insects.

The buzzword "Digital" is automatically associated with "Quality" by many people, when in fact the opposite is often true. Our satellite TV picture varies from OK to downright unwatchable, because they screw around with the compression in order to squeeze more channels into a limited bandwidth. Just like a poor quality jpeg. I remember watching a "Sopranos" episode a while back where Tony is in Dr. Melphi's office, and the wood on the walls behind them looked like it was teeming with thousands of flies.

In any case, we swore to avoid digital theaters from then on.

It won't matter because both Wendy's and Culver's has them all beat).

I agree about Wendy's (never heard of Culver's). They've got the best burgers of the big three. But what the hell happened to their fries? I'm sure it's whatever they're cooking it in. In any case, their fries now suck. Like eating cardboard.

My personal preference above all else is still Steak 'n' Shake (a midwest chain). Their shakes are actually made with ice cream and milk!

Now that Iraq is getting all the attention, N. Korea acts out.

Hmm, I'm reminded of a "Brady Bunch" episode. "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!" I wonder if N.K. is the middle "sister" in the Axis of Evil.

And so called libertarians on Free Republic defend these smuggling scumbags.

No Lord, it is YOU who support these smuggling scumbags by making it such a lucrative business. As long as there is demand, there will be somebody figuring out a way to provide it. Crack down on the dealers, slow down the flow, and all you do is raise the stakes.

I've got a sure-fire way to win the war on drugs: Stop the demand! The scumbag dealers disappear and the "war" is won. Simple huh? I'll let you guys figure out the details, because I'm not too good at changing human nature.

I keep posting this quote, but I've yet to receive a rebuttal:

"How many laws can we really have to stop crime if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?" President George W. Bush

I meant "please disregard MY last post". This is Jennie65.

I was wrong. There is no such thing as Though Police. Please disregard her last post and go about your business.

The answer is YES. And I have proof.

Dang it, someone is pounding on the door. Hold on...

A brilliant piece, and not at all far from the truth. Thanks for posting it.

Ralsky has other ways to monitor the success of his campaigns. Buried in every e-mail he sends is a hidden code that sends back a message every time the e-mail is opened. About three-quarters of 1 percent of all the messages are opened by their recipients, he said. The rest are deleted.

Better known as "web beacons", "web bugs", "clear gifs". THAT'S where they get you. Merely opening the email lets the bastards know you have a valid address.

I ALWAYS temporarily disconnect from the internet after I download my email, THEN select the SPAM and delete them. That way their web bugs never connect to their servers. I use Netscape for mail (too many security issues with OE), and it's very easy to disconnect by clicking the "plug" icon in the lower left-hand corner of the window. Also, disable Java and Javascript in mail and news.

As for Mr. Ralski and his ilk, I rate him maybe two steps up the social ladder from a pedophile.

Marijuana is what the law refers to as a "controlled substance". In the United States, you are not allowed to smoke it, sell it, distribute it, cultivate it, or conspire to do any of these. If you do and you get caught, you will be arrested, jailed, tried, convicted, and possibly imprisoned for a very long time. A felony conviction for a marijuana crime can stay on your record for the rest of your life and can even damage your credit rating and destroy your family. Prison is a bad place to be, so why take the risk?
Lord Voldemort

"How many laws can we really have to stop crime if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?"
President George W. Bush

The state always steps in and extorts money from other taxpayers to take care of the dopers and clean up after them. The state may jail them, or coddle them with "doper victim" social transfer payments. Inasmuch as the money is not taken from me voluntarily, I prefer to see it spent to kick them square, swift, and hard in their doper britches.

Do you think this "kick" comes for free? Out of sight, out of mind, huh? How much does it cost to incarcerate a "doper" for a year? How much do we spend on drug-related law enforcement? Billions! That's my money! Now compare that to what it takes to treat a hard-core drug user or, God forbid, leave the casual users the hell alone?! What are YOU smoking that makes you think this is the proper way to spend our tax dollars?

"Nanny state" my ass. The government protecting people from themselves is the very definition of nanny state.

When they outlaw screwdrivers only the repairmen will move to Brazil, or something.

Ban Screwdrivers

George Soros, the quisling NWO apparatchik, spends big bucks pushing repeal of our drug laws. Why does a quisling billionaire like Soros want to have lots more American kids strung out on drugs? Is it because he loves this country? I don't think so.

Oh jeez, here we go with George Soros again. Is that you Dane?

No one here gives rat's ass what George Soros thinks. I do know I don't want kids "strung out on drugs". But I ALSO don't want them rotting away in jail. If you would just try to look at the big picture, it would become obvious that drug LAWS have done far more to destroy people's lives than drug USE.

Another thing people should consider. The so-called "USA Patriot Act" was passed so fast after 9/11/01, and without debate or even reading by most, it makes you wonder if the Big Brother stuff was drafted long before 9/11/01, just waiting for the golden opportunity for people to accept a crack down by the government under a blanket of "national security."

Much of what is in the Patriot Act HAS been tried before. In fact, some provisions were taken almost verbatum from previously failed bills, many of which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, but rather the war on drugs. They failed because they were given time to be publicly debated, and the American people rejected them as too draconian. In fact, many of them were proposed by the Clinton administration, but quickly shot down by the Republican congress. Now that "we" are in charge, everything seems to be A-OK.

I don't believe for a MINUTE that these laws being passed will be limited to terrorism. Give it a couple of years, and they'll be telling us that we must use these laws to catch all sorts of petty criminals. And I also don't believe for minute that they will EVER relinquish these powers. Sunset my ass.

Where do we stop? After all, if we only had transmitters in our cars, we could have 100% enforcement of speed laws. Just think of the manpower savings we could have when cops aren't needed on the roads!

And I will NOT accept the notion that it's OK in the hands of Bush. NO government/administration should be allowed to have these powers over the people. I don't give a flying f*ck who's in charge.

Freedom has a price - security. And total security has a price - freedom. Sure, you've got to balance the two, but right now the scales are tipping too much towards a police state.

Whew. That is a relief. Thanks for posting it. I haven't had a chance to read any of it yet. Maybe it won't be as bad as I had anticipated.

Give it a couple of years. Rest assured they'll figure out a way to expand it to everything else, like they did with RICO. Too much at once, and there's an outcry. Keep the process incremental, and we'll never notice. Like the frog in the boiling water.