For those of you who hadnt been keeping up, it looks like the Chinese and Russians are a bit upset with us after the US Navy shot down one of our own malfunctioning spy satellites last week. They did it under the guise that it was to avert a possible threat from an unspent hydrazine fuel cell on board the satellite if it were to come down intact.

China shot down a satellite of their own last year and a bunch of people believe that this is just the US flexing its muscle and showing the international community that 'anything you can do we can do (better)' but i believe thats just preposterous. The US has successfully tested its missile defense system before this event, so i doubt thats what this is about. Other nations fear we may be developing an anti satellite platform, but we already had a successful project in that area which we scrapped years ago. If anything they shot it down to keep it out of enemy hands, whoever that enemy may be.

In either case far less garbage is supposed to remain in space from this mission, than was left by the Chinese satellite, which was somewhere around 500 miles out versus ours which was about to re-enter the atmosphere on its own, around 130 miles out or so. My understanding from watching a handful of youtube videos is that they used a kinetic warhead to bring down the satellite, having an estimated mission cost of 40 million dollars. Some sources say less since only one of the 3 supposedly modified SM-3 missiles were fired, estimating the cost to a slimmer 10 million figure.

Below is a video of the missile launch and impact, but i suggest you visit the MSNBC link instead, higher quality video, and some commentary to go along with it. There were reports of seeing the debris burn up over Canada, and some of it may continue to come down for the next few days according to the reports. "Most" of it is expected to burn up.

Sounds to me like we spent 10 million dollars to give the Canadians a nice fireworks display, and now peace and harmony is expected to continue for another ten years between our two nations and much celebration is to be had. :P

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...72304#23272304

www.nataliedee.org have 3 of her shirts :)


Anyways my thoughts are that Obama and Clinton are almost identical, both being white males.

Republicans have a choice between a power hungry time bomb and mr. mormon and the internet sensation who doesnt believe in Evolution.

God Bless 2 Party "Democracies"

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/26/m...-launch-party/

I'm not actually sure how I feel about this.


On the one hand it seems kind of evil, right? And maybe it is. But it's nothing new. I don't really think joining the military out of some strange sense of "duty" or "honor" is any better than joining thinking it will be fun. OK, maybe slightly less mentally defective, but still.

Past generations, for whatever reason, might have felt inclined to serve out of a sense of responsibility. Modern generations lack feelings of responsibility, duty--whatever the hell you want to call it. Frankly I think this is a good thing, although I'm sure others would disagree.

So in that sense, appealing to kids with games today isn't that much different than appealing to them with words like "honor" and "duty" before. Maybe both are evil. I dunno. But just because they're using games instead of knights with swords on volcanos doesn't make it any better or worse than it has been in the past.

Given that your home land isn't being invaded the only rational reason I can see for wanting to join the military is money. If you want more, better recruits you need to offer them more money, more education, etc.

People in the military give up their freedom and often lives to fight (hopefully) for our country's interests. I tend to think they should be compensated better for this. Certainly this money could be better spent here than other BS programs =/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/ma...143&ei=5087%0A

Assuming you accept that the vast majority of voters have no relevant education or experience in national and world affairs, how can anyone suggest that democracy--even a democratic republic--is a good idea?

In my mind, it's not. There is no justifiable reason that every voter's opinion and views should be treated equally. Nor that every person should have the ability to vote. The right to acquire the ability to vote, sure. I've often floated the idea of competency tests given out every 5 years or so to anyone who wants to take them, granting the top 10-15% percentiles with the ability to vote. This is by no means the ideal method and it has a ton of flaws (fairness of the tests; bias; the fact that some very intelligent, informed people simply suck ass at taking tests). But it's better than this universal suffrage crap.

I'd point out that those who wrote the Constitution never intended that everyone have the right to vote. The concept of universal suffrage wasn't introduced until several decades later.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1879

Yeah, yeah, it's the dailymail but still a decent article.

I'm not sure I understand why the Imperialistic ways of Britain's and the US's past are held with such disdain today. IMHO, respecting foreign and religious cultures for the sake of respecting them is retarded. The idea that beliefs can't be "wrong" is asinine.

Manifest Destiny should be renewed. True civilization can only be accomplished through the forced acquisition of foreign land and the assimilation that follows.