convex vectors don’t decline to apex rear ground over the apex would rotate into the foreground over the apex for all of eternity YOU ARE NOT ON A BALL

You see this world FIRST PERSON
Not third person

It does not move
negative velocity in the direction of positive velocity is impossible the thing you are on is still and mot moving it is in a position of rim rest.
2nd law of thermodynamics you can’t have gas pressure without a container.
Stars FELL OUT OF THE FIRMAMENT IN 1833 on Alabama under the sign of St George’s cross.

Its heliocentric mind control aids programming combined with chemical lobotomies for slave labor and a lockout scheme a various input of many factors enabling the enslavement of man to a machine harvesting system of overlapped hegelian multicomplicit overlays communistic enslavement with capitalistic exemptions and privileges for the few and the elite and the complete annihilation of the bottom rung and the hollowing and kneecapping of the middle for machine corporatism literally run by cock roach people and luciferians. A syndicate hive mind emanating for the depths of hell.

Oligarcharical Collectiviism.

The earth is flat and the Globe is the container stars fell out of the dirmament in 1833 when you pray a lot you get to see this world for the way it truly is

jeez man judaism and freemasonry are satanic as hell this racist anti Christ anti God anti decent even religion much more ANTI THE ONE TRUE FAITH…which btw is not the Novus ordo ABOMINATION OF THE MOSSAD THE CIA THE MI6 AND KGB OF LUCIFERIAN SATANIST FREEMASONRY the cult of intelligence DEMONIC false intelligence false knowledge paths of evil of epic magnitudes

The illuminati the falsely illuminated ones

The earth is flat and the globe is the container

convex vectors don’t rise to apex you don’t have to look up to see a horizon

Its satanism the earth is flat the Globe is the container the crew are nothing but demonic freaks that consider you goyim and a bean to be harvested for their imbecilic retarded agenda.

All your points are valid. I should’ve spoken precisely the first time. China’s future is Han; I don’t see them succumbing to Jewish or Anglo-American influence — although attempts are being made and will continue. India is, of course, a country that can be and is being influenced by the usual suspects.

China is not America. Israel will not be able to take over China; Jewish power will not be able to overcome Chinese ethnocentrism. Jews existed in China once; they’re now all Chinese. The same thing will happen again; perhaps, these mixed families won’t eat pork, and they might have curly hair; however, in the future, such diverse children will be seen as Chinese — and will see themselves as Chinese. The future is Han.

Putin is NOT taxing account savings. It’s INTERESTS on investment savings, from accounts of more than 1 mill.
See difference ?

Rick I haven’t heard from you for a while. Magic jack and email don’t work

Come on, Ted. You and all your readers know damn well 911 was CIA / Mossad. Stop insulting our intelligence.

In this case Smollett is saved by a technicality of Illinois law. I looked into it back when the hoax first emerged, and the IL definition of “hate crime” is limited to a specific list of things like assault, murder, etc. Filing a false report sadly wasn’t on it.

What a bullshit !

To me, the important question is ….. What bathrooms does he/she use? Does Trillary use the Men’s room or the Lady’s?

The tax laws have changed. The taxes on the well off have decreased, primarily for passive income. The maximum tax rate has gone down from 85% to 35% or so. The tax rates are inflation adjusted, but the minimum wage isn’t. So those at the top pay less in taxes, those at the bottom pay less in taxes and the middle pay more. It’s simple actually. Most missed his comment about spending locally and employing locally, this is a simple version of what is called the velocity of money. Most of the jobs coming from places like Walmart are minimum wage jobs and Walmart depends on the Government to supplement their wages. Also, if you spend you money there, the profits go elsewhere, likely to the 1% who pay less in taxes than they used to. As the article says, this is, in part, the cause of the ills hollowing out America.

IIRC, a post like this attracted a very upset stalker to Steve's blog about ten years ago.

The whole subject is confusing, and understandably disturbing to non-transgender, heterosexual males, I think.

We are being told that we must accept that Y = X if someone wants, and to not openly celebrate this is criminal.

The supreme duty of 21st Century Americans is to be ignorant.

It feels more like we must all constantly practice our doublethink than be ignorant.

Also, linked to acadamia.

Another guess.

Autism spectrum is my guess.

Possibly medicated.

Talk of Mammoth Mountain brings back memories hot Hot Creek near there. That was a lot of fun in the seventies, but someone told me it is shut down by the park service now.

The internet tells me otherwise though…

I agree that there are many non-fundamentalists who might be more easily persuaded to accept evolution, but please don’t give up on the fundamentalists, especially the younger ones. As someone who identified as a Christian fundamentalist in my youth, I can tell you that religious convictions are *not* set in stone. My training as a biologist opened my eyes to evidence I’d never encountered as a child, and being a reasonable person, I eventually felt I could no longer hold onto fundamentalism while being intellectually honest. I became agnostic for many years, and only recently joined a faith community that does *not* require blind acceptance of the creation myths in Genesis. I’m so grateful that my biology teachers in college never gave up on me and continued to present information, even when it seemed impossible that I would ever accept it.

I also have to point out that getting people to accept evolution is only part of the solution. You also have to get them to really understand the history of the Bible and to see it from a more critical perspective. When I took some serious religion classes in college, I learned so much about how the Bible actually came to be that I eventually realized it simply couldn’t be a text that came straight from the mouth of God; rather, I finally understood that it’s a collection of writings put together by many different people over many hundreds of years, each with his own agenda and goals.

At the same time, I think you have to reassure people that letting go of the creation myths and accepting evolution doesn’t mean they have to give up faith altogether. Just because the Bible isn’t 100% true doesn’t mean that there aren’t truths within the Bible. And just because you believe in evolution doesn’t mean you have to forsake spirituality. People like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris aren’t helping at all, in my opinion, because they keep perpetuating the stereotype that all evolutionists are not only atheists but also anti-religion of any kind. And many people–even if they don’t go to a house of worship regularly–don’t want to think of themselves as anti-religion. You need to have some very visible counter-examples to Dawkins and Harris if you want to reach those people.

I remember while studying evolution in college that they mentioned the neanderthal may have gone extinct due to inability to birth properly as evolution occured. It was hypothesized that the female pelvis eventually became too small for the babies head. Even though it was never proven, it would be interesting to compare the research to this study and see what kinds of correlations could be drawn.

I agree with Fargo, Buzz and Waves are very different beasts. Wave isn’t even out of the box yet, not really, and it has a range of really fascinating features (robots, gadgets, replay) as well as some that you find in Buzz too. It is also for a completely different market. Let’s not kill it off before it is born, and allowed to grow a bit.

David Brooks goes on to say, "It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades."

The movie doesn't display the natives as being helpless. They benefit from Jake joining them because he knows more about their enemy than they do (because he was one). Any side of a conflict could benefit from knowing more about their enemy, no matter what their culture or race happens to be.

Brooks claims, "It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace."

Of all the beautiful qualities that various tribal cultures have, Brooks decided to cherry-pick this particular aspect, totally ignoring the fact that tribal cultures often have very advanced sign-language and oral forms of communication (or in this case, a freaking global neural network) that more than make up for their illiteracy. Brooks is being completely ethnocentric here.

He continues, "It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration."

He's using the word "imperialists" interchangeably with the word "whites", implying that "white" people are one homogeneous culture throughout the world that are inherently imperialistic. He's conveniently ignoring that there have been non-imperialistic European cultures.

Yes, the last several hundred years of imperialist crimes have been committed almost entirely by nations ruled by white people. This has nothing to do with anything inherent in "white" behavior, and everything to do with the historical events leading up to European colonial expansion; most notably the death of Ogedei Khan, preventing the conquest of Europe.

So, if Avatar isn't about white "self-admiration" as Mr. Brooks claims it is, then what is it about?

Here's just a few of the themes:
It was against corporate greed, it was against destroying the environment, it was against imperialism, it was against violating people's rights, it was against ethnocentrism. It actually portrayed tribal cultures as being positive instead of pretending that they're all barbaric cavemen.

With all these themes that go against the status quo, of course there are going to be people who dislike this movie, especially self-proclaimed pro-war Republicans such as David Brooks.

David Brooks claims, "It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic."

Not all of the people who were invading were white, nor were all the humans who decided to help the Na'vi. I think Brooks is confusing a culture with a race.

Since strong female characters have been a recurring theme in James Cameron's films (Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, etc) it would have been great to see that continued in Avatar, or expanded upon by having a strong Latino or Black woman be the main character, but I don't think it's rational to call the movie racist just because Sam Worthington (a white man) was chosen for the role. Worthington was living in his car before auditioning for Avatar, so it's nice that Hollywood's money isn't going to only rich people all the time.

I personally would have liked Avatar better if the hero of the story was one of the natives (that's why I loved "Apocalypto") but Cameron wanted to make a movie about self maturation and acceptance, so he had to use a human as the main character; because, if he had used a native then he/she would have already had the correct set of beliefs (environmentalist, non-corporatist) and there wouldn't have been a process of maturation.

Cameron's choice to use a human as the main character also helps the majority of the audience members relate to the story better, so they can understand the error in Jake's original way of thinking, and can then arrive at the correct set of beliefs themselves. This may be less creative than using a native as the main character, but it helps to make the movie much more popular since more people can relate to it.

Also, by the end of Avatar it's pretty clear that the mother/daughter pair are the Na'vi leaders and that the Humans who switched sides aren't "saviors" but were just correcting the situations they had actually set into motion. Jake had obviously become very influential, but it is usually the case with popular action movies that things turn out well for the protagonist so the audience can feel triumphant through the lead character.

The Heritage foundation's economic freedom index has total government spending for non-OECD countries (OECD always shows "general government" not just central).

I prefer cato's index, actually, but it breaks government spending down by consumption, investment and transfers — useful in many ways, but not in this simpler comparison.

For example, China is closer to 30% than 22% if local government is properly included. By 2009, I'd guess the U.S. is well above 40%, though that is partly because private GDP is down so much.

You have to include state/provincial spending. It's very important in Canada, the U.S., Switzerland, Japan. And you can't draw conclusions about the impact on economic growth without presenting some data about that. Iraq and Cuba are at the top of the list, while China, India, Hong Kong, Mauritius, Brazil, Singapore are among those with relatively small govt. who have grown quite well.

Nobody ever said that fiscal frugality was the sole key to economic vitality. But Krugman's recent suggestion that "big government" lessens recessions is at odds with what happened in Sweden (down 6.2% in the year ending Q2 09), the U.K., Iceland and many other big spenders.

There’s another consanguinous relationship to factor in, because Isabella of Portugal wasn’t really new blood. Her mother, Maria, was a sister of Juana of Castille, making Isabella and Charles V first cousins. More crossed branches! And at the end of the tree, it’s typical that Charles II’s sister, Margarita, married their maternal uncle, Leopold I… As you’ve discussed, inbreeding compromised their fertility as well. Interestingly, Leo commissioned a number of portraits of Margarita as she was growing up, and she appears much more normal than her brother Charles. Still, only one of her four live births survived infancy.

No, Nadya was born Nadya DOUD which was her name in high school AND on her marriage records. When she left her husband Marcos THAT was when she requested her name change to Suleman.
Prior to that her name on ALL records found is Nadya Doud.

Here are her divorce papers,
http://www.etonline.com/documents/nadyasulemandivorcepapers_et.pdf

Scroll down, almost to the bottom, she is Nadya DOUD, The JUDGEMENT was given as DOUD which WAS her name.

Nadya is NOT a nickname, it is her given first name.

The daughters AND sons of a Muslim father are given first names, but ALL the children from that father have his FIRST name as their middle name. No matter how many children the father has from however different many wives, his children ALL have his name as their middle name.

For instance, my own oldest daughter’s first name is —-, her middle name is my ex-husband’s FIRST name, and the last name is of course his.

In Islam a woman retains her maiden last name, but goes by Mrs. whatever, at least that is how it is in the Middle East. When coming here I am sure things get mixed up. All of my former sister in laws still go by their maiden names, but are referred to as Mrs. whatever.

Yes, first name (given name) first, middle name ALWAYS father’s given name, last name same as here.

This is why Nadya’s name when married should have been Nadya Adnan Doud. The last name on her marriage certificate is indeed Doud.

Angela and “Edward” BOTH used to go by the last name of Doud, but somewhere between Nadya’s marriage and when she requested her name change in 2001, all of them changed their names to Suleman. You don’t just go calling yourself something different for the heck of it.

And the wife ONLY takes on the last name if desired, no other parts of the husband’s name.

Regarding the anonymous comment above, regarding the UPI article from 2000.

Nadya when married in 1996, was married as Nadya DOUD.

In Islam, ALL the children take their fathers first name as their middle name, even girls. If his name had been “Adnan Doud Suleiman” her name would have been (when she got married in 1996) Nadya Adnan Suleman, NOT Nadya DOUD.

If you use USA People Search, you will see that there are two last names being used by the grandparents.

Nadya in the year 2000 (when she moved back in with her parents after being married to Marcos Gutierrez) requested a name change to “Suleman”

It seems pretty darn clear that it was during this time frame (1996-2000) that the grandparents changed their last name from Doud to Suleman Why the heck would the grandfather change his last name to a KNOWN Baath party member? He HAD been going by the last name of DOUD,THEN he changed it to Suleman.

Sorry. But the anonymous poster doesn’t know how names work in Islam.

Fact: The grandfather IS Iraqi. FACT, he at some point in time changed his last name from Doud (which from the marriage records for Nadya gives her last name as DOUD)to Suleman.

FACT: Grandma (Angela) ALSO changed her last name from Doud to Suleman,

FACT: the grandparents were granted a divorce in 1999 in Las Vegas. They are still living with each other in a culdesac in Whittier.

What I was TOLD by the newsdesk at ABC when put on the phone by reporters on the scene-Angela is GERMAN-she stated she is 67 years old, other public records show her to be 70

FACT: Public records show Nadya to be their only child.

FACT: the name on birth records for the “donor” is David Soloman.

FACT: David Soloman IF translated to Arabic would be Doud Suleman, however the name “Soloman” is commonly a Jewish name.

FACT: Frozen implanted embryos do NOT multiply. All doctors interviewed have stated clearly this is MOST likely a case of her only being treated aggressively with fertility drugs. CNN did a ten minute internet search and were able to come up with sites available to obtain fertility drugs without prescription.

FACT: Is there any proof whatsoever that she worked at a fertility clinic other than what has been stated? NO!

FACT: Nadya began having these children when she was still LEGALLY married to Gutierrez. Their divorce was granted January 2008. Sorry to say folks, but legally speaking Gutierrez may very well be held responsible because these births occurred during their marriage (not the 8, but the prior 6) The courts COULD go after him if they so choose.

FACT: NO ARAB (and the Grandpa IS Arab) either of the Islamic or Christian faith of sound mind would EVER put up with his daughter spawning children by sperm donors. Got that, NO one from this background would put up with this! It would be an absolute SHAME brought to their family.

Look at the woman being interviewed in this video at one minute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI0PNG8fQE4

That is a MUSLIM friend of the family. I assure you that what was told to this woman is NOT what is being told to the press. ANYONE knowing Muslim culture would know that this sort of thing that is coming out would be UNACCEPTABLE. You CANNOT in Muslim culture as an unmarried woman (although remember she WAS legally married but separated-living with her parents)just be “obsessed with having children” and go and act on that obsession!
NO WAY!!!!

Folks, there is much more to this story than is currently apparent. Nadya apparently did get a bachelor’s degree from Cal-State Fullerton in child development. But it is also stated she worked as a psychiatric tech. That is an ASSOCIATE degree licensing-I know this because my own father was a psych-tech. It is very possible that she had this degree, but the saying “physician heal thyself” comes to mind.

Remember, Nadya also supposedly told a neighbor when asked how she supports all these children that she got PAID to have them! Does anyone in their right mind believe this? Surely I hope not.

Again, “Edward” Doud Suleman IS Iraqi and if his daughter was doing this, how could he POSSIBLY explain it to his own Muslim community and be accepted? I am SURE there is something more to this.

BTW-I am AMICABLY divorced from a Muslim and we lovingly share our 30 year old Arab/American daughter. I DO know what I am talking about when it comes to Muslim/Arab culture.

If the true purpose of this project were to locate “African Einsteins,” they could save a lot of money simply by identifying promising students and sending them to the UK or Europe for advanced studies. I’m sure they’d find some and the world would be a better place for enabling them to use their talents. As it stands, this will probably become a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and money pit that will produce large numbers of mediocre graduates and few or no true geniuses.

Sorry to bring unfounded knowledge into this, but aren’t there stories that hinduism was established by light skinned Persians? If the religious leaders were light skinned then clearly there is an adaptive advantage to being light skinned.

Nice breakdown of some stupid conclusions. Man it makes you want to thrash the guy.  
 
In a way it’s funny that the Rauch missed the obvious conclusion that having a degree is no longer “elite.” Maybe it’s hard to accept that what got us up the pecking order doesn’t rate anymore.

Directly, I think we can safely say YES! It deprived of existence, persons who would have gone on to commit crimes, and indeed, people who would have become victims of crime. By the same measure, it cut the numbers who would have attended university, got married, had abortions and, eventually, died.

Indirectly, as part of the liberal social agenda, it may well have contributed to the weakening of societal bonds which, in turn, fed the general societal propensity towards law-breaking.