[quote]....or maybe it will be harder for them to get the guns if there aren't so many 'legal' ones on circulation.

It's not hard in the U.K., an island nation where there aren't any legal guns.

Get rid of legal guns...I am sure with all your security you can stop more coming into the country.[quote]

You mean the same " security " that is supposed to be able to stop the inflow of drugs??? Or the " security " that is supposed to be able to stop the flow of Illegal Immigrants?? Why would guns be any different? They can't even stop PEOPLE for cryin out loud.

Please, don't even start me on government complicity in the drugs trade.

prEtty plEasE . . .

U.S. has few friends in Middle East

DAVID IGNATIUS
THE WASHINGTON POST

February 21, 2007

DOHA, Qatar – “Are you on the road, or in the ditch?” Back when I covered labor negotiations 30 years ago, that was the question reporters would ask to get a sense of how contract talks were going. The phrase came back to me last weekend as I listened to a series of relentlessly negative presentations at a conference here on America's relations with the Muslim world.

We are in the ditch in the Middle East. As bad as you think it is watching TV, it's worse. It's not just Iraq, but the whole pattern of America's dealings with the Arab world. People aren't just angry at America – they've been that way to varying degrees since I first came here 27 years ago. What's worse is that they're giving up on us – on our ability to make good decisions, to solve problems, to play the role of honest broker.

Let's start with some poll numbers presented at the Doha conference by Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor and a fellow of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, which co-sponsored the conference with the Qatari foreign ministry. The polling was done last year by Zogby International in six countries that are usually regarded as pro-American: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In these six “friendly” countries, only 12 percent of those surveyed expressed favorable attitudes toward the United States. America's leaders have surpassed Israel's as objects of anger. Asked which foreign leader they disliked most, 38 percent named George Bush; Ariel Sharon was a distant second at 11 percent; and Ehud Olmert was third with 7 percent.

The poll data show a deep suspicion of American motives: 65 percent of those surveyed said they didn't think democracy was a real U.S. objective in the Middle East. Asked to name two countries that had the most freedom and democracy, only 14 percent said America, putting it far behind France and Germany. And remember, folks, this is coming from our friends.

During the Doha conference, speakers put into words the attitudes summarized by the poll numbers. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a fiery Sunni preacher who appears regularly on Al-Jazeera, said America acted as if “some people were created to lead and others to be led,” and that America had “lost the trust and confidence” of Muslims. Well, OK, he's notorious for his anti-America and anti-Israel views. But I heard the same thing from Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, who said Arabs were “losing confidence in the U.S. role” as a peace broker.

And my friend Rami Khouri, who is one of most balanced journalists in the Arab world, warned that a broad popular front is emerging to challenge American hegemony. Iraq “discredits what America tries to do in the Mideast,” he said. Khouri explained that Arabs admire Hezbollah because it represents “the end of docility, the end of acquiescence.”

You don't have to agree with these Muslim critics to recognize that the anger they express represents a serious national security problem for the United States. That's what President Bush seems not to understand in his surge of troops into Iraq, his bromides about democracy and his strategy of confrontation with Iran. It isn't a tiny handful of people in the Arab world who oppose what America is doing. It's nearly everyone.

To get out of the ditch, America must change its Iraq policy, soon. That doesn't mean pulling out of Iraq quickly, as many Democrats in Washington seem to favor. I found few people here who thought a quick American pullout made sense. But it does mean shifting the American focus – so that we are talking with Iraq's neighbors, and negotiating with the Iraqis a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Tellingly, the one American who got loud, sustained applause here was Chris Kojm, a senior adviser on the Baker-Hamilton report.

And to get back on the road, for real, America must broker a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I winced when I heard Prime Minister Olmert say last weekend in Jerusalem that “the American and Israeli positions are totally identical” on the terms for recognizing a Palestinian unity government.

The Israelis are right in insisting that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist. But how to get there? What if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had responded: America is a mediator in this conflict. Its positions are independent of either side, and it is willing to talk to all parties to achieve peace.

I would have loved to see the looks of astonishment from the America-bashers here.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

Just a question from a non-native speaker:
I always thought the term "PC" was just used for non-derogatory and non-discriminatory speach. Like black instead of negroe, human instead of man etc.

Here it is about prudishness, censorship and and simply "no-speak-at-all", this has nothing to do with "political correctness" in my sense of the word.

Is the term "PC" really used for such cases as well in the US and UK?

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Just a question from a non-native speaker:
I always thought the term "PC" was just used for non-derogatory and non-discriminatory speach. Like black instead of negroe, human instead of man etc.

Here it is about prudishness, censorship and and simply "no-speak-at-all", this has nothing to do with "political correctness" in my sense of the word.

Is the term "PC" really used for such cases as well in the US and UK?

Actually, "PC" is a term coined by the right wing as a way of ridiculing people who have genuine concerns about some of the words used which help perpetuate prejudice...they lump all sorts of things together and call it political correctness. Obviously the censorship of this book has nothing to do with genuine 'political correctness'. It is just prudishness...but by labelling it a 'PC' issue they help to undermine genuine issues, such as using racial slurs on a casual basis without looking at the real meaning of the words and their implications.

I've been reading Richard Dawkins' latest book and he has an interesting point about the use of language to challenge prejudice and raise awareness. He sums it up quite well. Take the example of the casual use of the masculine pronoun in the English language. It seems silly to always challenge its use and insist on using he/she...but by doing so you raise awareness about the casual exclusion of half the human race. So although it seems petty and trivial on the surface, it does help to gradually change people's attitudes in subtle yet significant ways....even if people don't agree with it...it still makes them think.

The derision of people when they use the phrase 'political correctness' shows that they completely miss the point.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Just a question from a non-native speaker:
I always thought the term "PC" was just used for non-derogatory and non-discriminatory speach. Like black instead of negroe, human instead of man etc.

Here it is about prudishness, censorship and and simply "no-speak-at-all", this has nothing to do with "political correctness" in my sense of the word.

Is the term "PC" really used for such cases as well in the US and UK?

Same here in America generally..."politically correct" has a mild derogatory conotation to it. Another meaning for "PC" is to describe prisoners who are in "protective custody" which are usually ex-police, rapists, and molesters; they are segregated from the general prison population for their own protection.

---

Account frozen...

[quote]....or maybe it will be harder for them to get the guns if there aren't so many 'legal' ones on circulation.

It's not hard in the U.K., an island nation where there aren't any legal guns.

Get rid of legal guns...I am sure with all your security you can stop more coming into the country.[quote]

You mean the same " security " that is supposed to be able to stop the inflow of drugs??? Or the " security " that is supposed to be able to stop the flow of Illegal Immigrants?? Why would guns be any different? They can't even stop PEOPLE for cryin out loud.

Please, don't even start me on government complicity in the drugs trade.

As if ANY of us know how to stop you from saying ANYTHING !!!!

---

PC must be used in the USA. About 3 years ago some bright eyed, bushy tailed, blue eyed blond decided to use her new degree to teach in a black school. She used the word "niggardly" in her lesson. She was ran out on a rail. lucky to live

---

As if ANY of us know how to stop you from saying ANYTHING !!!!

Hey...I wasn't here who would you all have to argue with?

It's just lucky for you all that you have so much that I disagree with.

---

Reality Internet Personality

As if ANY of us know how to stop you from saying ANYTHING !!!!

Hey...I wasn't here who would you all have to argue with?

It's just lucky for you all that you have so much that I disagree with.

Of course I do !~ Because you are ALWAYS WRONG !!! I guess I should expect that. After all, you are only working with a tiny girl brain....

---

As if ANY of us know how to stop you from saying ANYTHING !!!!

Hey...I wasn't here who would you all have to argue with?

It's just lucky for you all that you have so much that I disagree with.

Of course I do !~ Because you are ALWAYS WRONG !!! I guess I should expect that. After all, you are only working with a tiny girl brain....

Does your below the belt head do all the thinking for you...? The other one
appears to be having technical issues. I'm trying to be polite in a politically
correct way and I'm trying desperately not to reflexively hit the delete button.

---

Account frozen...

As if ANY of us know how to stop you from saying ANYTHING !!!!

Hey...I wasn't here who would you all have to argue with?

It's just lucky for you all that you have so much that I disagree with.

Of course I do !~ Because you are ALWAYS WRONG !!! I guess I should expect that. After all, you are only working with a tiny girl brain....

Does your below the belt head do all the thinking for you...? The other one
appears to be having technical issues. I'm trying to be polite in a politically
correct way and I'm trying desperately not to reflexively hit the delete button.

Are you kidding ? Es is the Queen of sarcasm and teasing. She sets us up for a reflex fighting back response....she is evil....

---

Play nice or no treats for recess...

---

Account frozen...

Play nice or no treats for recess...

She is a Treat ! That is best enjoyed with a tiny bit of proding.

---

Of course I do !~ Because you are ALWAYS WRONG !!! I guess I should expect that. After all, you are only working with a tiny girl brain....

---

Reality Internet Personality

SEE !!! She always attacks a rational male mega mind ! Where is the moderator NOW ? So it's OK for a mini minded woman to insult US, but not her ? Where is the fairness? The only thing she has in her favor is her kitten boiling skills

---

Does your below the belt head do all the thinking for you...?

This is a violation of the rules as being deliberately inflamitory.
As a moderator you know better.
As a moderator you are not above the rules, you are supposed to enforce the rules.
As a moderator you need to moderate yourself.

Does your below the belt head do all the thinking for you...?

This is a violation of the rules as being deliberately inflamitory.
As a moderator you know better.
As a moderator you are not above the rules, you are supposed to enforce the rules.
As a moderator you need to moderate yourself.

Wahoo ! Somebody finally defended my sensitvity. Thanks Bill. Should we let her slide on this one? I might have baited her just a tiny bit... But we both are OK with her boiling kittens in oil I notice

---

Does your below the belt head do all the thinking for you...?

This is a violation of the rules as being deliberately inflamitory.
As a moderator you know better.
As a moderator you are not above the rules, you are supposed to enforce the rules.
As a moderator you need to moderate yourself.

It's called sardonic humour in keeping with Lester's play on words and joking around...in other words Billy; try as you may, your attempts to "stick it to us/me" are not working since they have no real basis if fact. Look up the meaning of a popinjay...Lester is at least a jester.

---

Account frozen...

This is a violation of the rules as being deliberately inflamitory.
As a moderator you know better.
As a moderator you are not above the rules, you are supposed to enforce the rules.
As a moderator you need to moderate yourself.

"My greatest disappointment in life came when I realized that the people above me were not better than me, mentally, physically, nor spiritually... And that 'rank' was nothing more than the devils stamp of approval to do corruption in the land..." ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .