Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

If all of those Constitution-loving Tea Party Libertarians are looking for more Obama administration actions to get all lathered up about, this would be as good a place to start as any...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html

Private Manning is in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. For one hour a day, he is allowed to walk around a room in shackles. He is forced to remove all his clothes every night. And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.

Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on "prevention of injury" watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)

Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administration's war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner "learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting."

Private Manning is not an enemy combatant, and there is no indication that the military is trying to extract information from him. Many military and government officials remain furious at the huge dump of classified materials to WikiLeaks. But if this treatment is someone's way of expressing that emotion, it would be useful to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the military's treatment of Private Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." He resigned on Sunday.

[R-V]

If all of those Constitution-loving Tea Party Libertarians are looking for more Obama administration actions to get all lathered up about, this would be as good a place to start as any...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html

Private Manning is in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. For one hour a day, he is allowed to walk around a room in shackles. He is forced to remove all his clothes every night. And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.

Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on "prevention of injury" watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)

Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administration's war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner "learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting."

Private Manning is not an enemy combatant, and there is no indication that the military is trying to extract information from him. Many military and government officials remain furious at the huge dump of classified materials to WikiLeaks. But if this treatment is someone's way of expressing that emotion, it would be useful to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the military's treatment of Private Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." He resigned on Sunday.

Nuclear power is completely safe. You're overreacting. Wait, what were we talking about?

This:

Oddly, Manning's treatment helps to justify his actions ex post. Is a govt that would do this a govt we should trust to act in secret?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Then again, some school board candidates are not talking, but yelling.

[R-V]

On experts:

There's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.

And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

On experts:

There's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.

And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.

We get it.  You can't stop peeing your pants at the prospect of Japan's nuclear reactors going *BLAMMO*.

[R-V]

On experts:

There's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.

And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.

We get it.  You can't stop peeing your pants at the prospect of Japan's nuclear reactors going *BLAMMO*.

I'm almost out of pants. Pretty soon I'll be peeing your pants.

[CBStew]

My youngest son lives in Tokyo.  Two months ago, shortly after the birth of their son,  he and his wife made reservations to come here this Friday to introduce us to our new grandson.  They planned to stay nine days.  I talked to him on Skype last night.  Tokyo felt the quake, but there was no damage to speak of.  He says that they are having constant aftershocks of 5.0 and higher.  The market shelves are bare.  They have rolling blackouts.  The transportation infrastructure is untrustworthy, especially the trains, which is unheard of in Japan.  Some bus lines have been cancelled.  Many businesses have told their employees to stay home.  The radiation levels are increasing.  My daughter in law wants to leave for the airport 24 hours early, check in and then stay overnight at a hotel to make sure that they can get on the plane.  They have asked us if they can stay with us at least a month.  They took the words out of our mouths.

[Quality Start Machine]

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.

[Gilgamesh]

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.

Crabs can film it.  No ghey stuff, though.

[SKO]

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.

It's tragic and heroic what those men are doing. I can't even imagine what must be going through their minds.

[Chuck to Chuck]

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.

It's tragic and heroic what those men are doing. I can't even imagine what must be going through their minds.

Gamma rays.

[MikeC]

Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?

I don't think Qaddafi would have let out a mouse fart for fear of being in the Bush Administrations cross hairs. No such fear exists with the current White House.

"Where are the Americans?" That's the sixty-four-dollar question. Chaos in Egypt: "Where are the Americans?" Gaddafi in Libya: "Where are the Americans?" Devastation in Japan: "Where are the Americans?" I am in London for a few days. At a dinner party last night, that was once again the question: "Where are the Americans?" On Tuesday, U.S. debt jumped $72 billion — in one day. What are the Americans doing about it? President Obama's secretary of the Treasury insisted that Congress raise the debt limit so that the government could borrow more. "Where are the Americans?" President Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a president of France appear decisive and effective.  Nicolas Sarkozy was the first Western leader to recognize the Libyan opposition. "Where are the Americans?"

The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President.

Good luck in Rio, god knows there is nothing important going on in the world.

[Chuck to Chuck]

[Gilgamesh]

Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?

I don't think Qaddafi would have let out a mouse fart for fear of being in the Bush Administrations cross hairs. No such fear exists with the current White House.

"Where are the Americans?" That's the sixty-four-dollar question. Chaos in Egypt: "Where are the Americans?" Gaddafi in Libya: "Where are the Americans?" Devastation in Japan: "Where are the Americans?" I am in London for a few days. At a dinner party last night, that was once again the question: "Where are the Americans?" On Tuesday, U.S. debt jumped $72 billion — in one day. What are the Americans doing about it? President Obama's secretary of the Treasury insisted that Congress raise the debt limit so that the government could borrow more. "Where are the Americans?" President Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a president of France appear decisive and effective.  Nicolas Sarkozy was the first Western leader to recognize the Libyan opposition. "Where are the Americans?"

The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President.

Good luck in Rio, god knows there is nothing important going on in the world.

I cannot believe that even you can possibly be this retarded.

If this no-fly-no-drive-no-handjobs zone fails, do we have to go in on the ground with troops?  What if we aren't successful?  Do we allow Quaddafi to continue to remain?  It seems we've been cool with his presence with the past 30 years.  Even McCain visited him two summers ago.

What if this no-fatchicks-zone succeeds?  Do we have to support the rebels?  Do we have to rebuild Libya?  Are we going to take sides in a civil war? 

Oh and here are two giant fucking questions, dumbshit: HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST?  WHAT CUTS/TAXES WILL YOU SUPPORT TO FUND IT??

You really are a right-wing autobot.  Get Malkin's cock out of your ass.

[CBStew]

"The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President."

No, the most dangerous thing is to have a decisive, incompetent American president.