 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
John Q. Citizen's Journal
The Hillary campaign's cynical and calculating decision to inject racism's ugly emotions into the democratic primaries could result in major damage for women and children in this country.
We all know that Hillary endorses John McCain as qualified: But what Hillary doesn't tell you is that some of the things he is qualified to do is: 1. Appoint judges that will overturn Roe v Wade, 2. To gut SCHIP 3. To shift taxes onto middle and lower income families off the wealthy 4. To wage endless war at the expense of women and children Hillary knows that the Democratic party can't win a national election in this country without the Democratic Party's major coalitions; The people of color, the young, and the baby-boomers who self identify as Democrats. Yet she is purposely and calculatedly attempting to drive a wedge into this coalition through introducing, fostering and nurturing racism. This will end up badly for women and children in this country. It's time for Hillary to go. Every day she stays makes President McCain a greater likelihood. Hillary is endangering women and children. do, and apparently so do a number of the major and minor honchos of the Democratic party if one believes their public statements at any rate.
The only recklessness I've seen is Hillary's twin assertions that Obama isn't qualified, yet that he is qualified, as the front runner in elected delegates, states won, and popular vote, to be a heart beat away from the oval office, but only on a Clinton headed ticket. That seems pretty reckless to me. My belief is that the supers will put Hillary out of her manic depressive bi-polar misery sooner rather than later. The recent election of a Democrat to Hastert's district is yet another indicator that Obama has the longer coat tails, and the supers who rely on winning elections for their bread and butter can't miss that aspect. This is also demonstrated in the constant and very large erosion of the once formidable but now rather small Clinton lead in super delegates. Once the supers decide enough is enough, the game will be over, and according to the rules. That will be long before the convention in my opinion. Still, I'm contemplating attending the convention as overflow crowd with 3 my kids who will range in age from 9 to 14 by August. I don't plan to attend as a street-fighting man but rather as a street-dancing man. Maybe I'll see you there.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Dear Editor (Missoulian)
Hillary needs to come clean with the voters. For over a year, she has refused to release her 1995 and 1996 tax returns. Hillary often says candidates need to be vetted, yet she snubs the voters and refuses to let us vet her. Hillary isn't hiding any illegal scams or lobbiest income - To the best of my knowledge. But why is she hiding anything from the voters of Montana? Shame on you Hillary! (my name) Demoractic Party member and voter
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
what is it?
Is Hill in a conspiracy with the Repos and losing 10 states in a row as well as the the popular vote on purpose to set Obama up for a giant November fall and 40 more years in the wilderness for the Democratic Party and especially the left in the Democratic Party and beyond? Or do you figure george isn't going anywhere and will do to some major national emergency declaration? Or are you just super afraid of the awful, horrible, mean rotten, Norquist? And his rotting friends? See us Obama voters? We're not afraid of Norquist. Every time he talks, we don't tremble. We don't stop contesting states, counties, cities, towns, neighborhoods, streets or people because we gave up. That's a lesson Clinton never learned, apparently, don't cede power to the opposition. Five elections and 3 primaries of the 17 state strategy. Ceding turf is not a winner. Just as she never learned how to move the grass roots. She's great as far as dealing with corporate movers and shakers, corporate consultants, and corporate lobbyists. That's been her whole life. But we have a candidate who actually worked in the grass roots and understands the grass roots and is actually able to move the grass roots. Plus he can talk to any and every CEO that Hill can. It scares the fuck out of people like Norquist, because they were supposed to do that with the fundies, the Dems weren't supposed to do that; But they got McCain and the fundies dislike McCain almost as much as they dislike Hill, and some of the fundies even like Obama anyway. They can shoot Obama, but other than that he's gonna kick their ass. Just like he's kicking old ready on day 1's, ass. She's ready on day one to have her ass kicked by a guy who has a facility available to him that she just doesn't have available to her. And Obama has enough sense to know not to cede power to the opposition by just walking away and turning your back on vast areas of people, policy, and communication. And once Obama has put Hill out of her misery come March, then he will turn his attention to McCain, and once again, quietly, methodically, and undeniably he will take him apart. I think Norquist is more afraid of Obama than Obama is afraid of Norquist. That's what the threats and bluster is about. And I think Norquist has very good reason to be afraid of Obama.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
The wrong answer is 'because of the Republicans.' Please read the whole article before responding. Due to DU rules, I could only include but a small portion of the analysis. Vicente Navarro was the sole advocate (the token) of single payer allowed onto Hillary's 500 member health care task force. Vicente Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University, U.S.A., and of Political Sciences in the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain.
The answer 'It was the Republicans fault that Hill's plan failed' isn't just wrong, it's stupidly and ignorantly wrong. It's just parroting propaganda at it's worst. This article, in it's entirety, should be mandatory reading before anyone opens their mouth with an opinion as to why Hill failed. November 12, 2007 Getting the Facts Right Why Hillary's Health Care Plan Really Failed By VICENTE NAVARRO http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro1112200... snip... Let's start with some corrections to Starr's assumptions. The commitment of the Democratic Party and candidate Bill Clinton to universal health care coverage for all citizens and residents started much earlier than Starr suggests. It began in the presidential primary campaigns of 1988, when Jesse Jackson (for whom I was senior health advisor), running for the Democratic nomination, made a commitment to universal, comprehensive health care benefits coverage a central component of his platform. This proposal was dismissed by the Democratic Party establishment as "too radical," but it had already mobilized large sectors of the party's grassroots (especially labor unions and social movements) to support Jackson, with more than 40% of the delegates at the Democratic Party Convention in Atlanta. This shook the Democratic establishment and stimulated responses from Governor Clinton, Senator Al Gore, and Congressman Richard Gephardt to block this rise of the left in the Democratic Party, which they did by establishing the Democratic Leadership Council, among other interventions. (Gore and Gephardt have changed since then; Bill Clinton hasn't.) (I describe these effects of Jackson's health proposals on the Democratic Party in "The 1988 Presidential Election," in The Politics of Health Policy: The U.S. Reforms 19801998, Blackwell, 1994. pp. 99-110.) To control this growth of the left, something had to be done. And as liberals always have done when faced with the left, they recycled its progressive proposals, adopting much of their narrative but emptying them of their content. This is what Clinton did in his 1992 campaign. He used the title, narrative, and symbols of Jesse Jackson's campaign, calling his platform "Putting People First" (the title used by Jackson in 1988) and including the call for universal health care benefits. As the perceptive Financial Times wrote, "Clinton Whereas Jackson had called for a single-payer program similar to that in Canada, Clinton chose the opposite pole of the political spectrum: managed care competition. Managed care competition basically meant the insurance companies exercised full control over health care providers, with doctors working in group practices called Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). As stated by Paul Elwood, a leading member of the White House task force, "insurers-controlled HMOs, under managed care competition will stimulate a course of change in the health care industry that would have some of the classical aspects of the industrial revolution--conversion to larger units of production, technological innovation, division of labor, substitution of capital for labor, vigorous competition and profitability as the mandatory condition of survival" ("Heath Maintenance Strategy," Medical Care, 9 (1971), p. 291). This industrial revolution in medical care would indeed have revolutionized the practice of medicine. It is important to note that the idea of managed care competition was first proposed as a solution to the irrationality of the U.S. health care sector by Alain Enthoven, personal advisor to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War. Enthoven was in charge of developing the "body count" as an indicator of military efficiency. After the Vietnam fiasco, Enthoven retired to the Rand Corporation, choosing to focus his intellectual efforts on the reform of U.S. health care. A strong ideologue and market fundamentalist, and completely ignorant of the mechanics of the medical care sector, Enthoven thought the best way to control out-of-control costs in the health sector was to increase competition in the sector, letting health insurance companies compete for consumers--meaning patients--based on the price of services. The problems with such a naďve and unrealistic scenario are many. First, patients do not determine the cost or price of medical care services. Second, patients have very little choice in the U.S. health care sector: employers choose which plans are available to employees. Third, the market does not exist in the health care sector. Fourth, the insurance industry's financial viability depends on its ability to discriminate against heavy care-users. I could go on and on detailing just how wrong Enthoven's proposals were. Not surprisingly, managed care was the proposal chosen by the insurance industry and by employers. As Bill Link, Executive Vice President of Prudential and one of the highest-paid CEOs in the country, stated: "for Prudential, the best scenario for reform--preferably even to the status quo--would be enactment of a managed competition proposal." Link envisioned the corporatization of U.S. medicine, breaking the long dominance of health care providers in the medical care sector. As Enthoven wrote in an article co-authored with Richard Kronick, another leader of the White House health care reform, "what about traditional fee-for-services individual and single specialty group practices? We doubt that they should generally be compatible with economic efficiency. . . . Some would survive in private solo practice without health plan contracts, serving the well-to-do." It could not have been put more clearly: managed care competition was corporate assembly-line capitalism for the masses and their health care providers, with free choice and fee-for-service medicine for the elites. Much more at the url http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro1112200... Vicente Navarro is Professor of Health and Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University, U.S.A., and of Political Sciences in the Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. Records are from 1997 to present as per gov tracks http://www.govtrack.us /
I've seen post after post from Kucinich detractors and other rumor mongers that try to claim that Dennis Kucinich is somehow "less effective' in congress than his peers are. So i thought I'd look it up and find out for my self. What I discovered is that Kucinich has more of his bills voted out of committee than does Pelosi during the same time frame. This despite the fact that in 1997, when Kucinich entered Congress, Pelosi was already a 10 year veteran of the House, and she was then elected to the Dem House Whip Post in 2001, as Minority leader in 2002, and assumed the Speakership at the beginning of 2007. Also, relative to Kucinich's peers in the House of Representatives, he has a better record than say Senator Clinton, or Senator Dodd in getting bills voted out of committee, who have a "very poor" rating relative to their peers in the Senate. I also included Bernie Sanders' record, since he was another quite liberal House member (moved up to the Senate in 2007) and I thought it might be interesting for comparison purposes. Sanders entered the house in 2001. Dennis' attendance (missed votes) record is also average relative to his peers in the House, even though he is in his second run for the President. (2004 and current) This compares favorably against both Obama and Biden, who have a "very poor" and "poor" rating respectively when compared to their peers in the Senate. US HOUSE KUCINICH http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 101 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 92 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Kucinich has co-sponsored 3069 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Dennis Kucinich missed 323 of 6907 votes (5%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). PELOSI http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 55 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 48 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Pelosi has co-sponsored 1724 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Nancy Pelosi missed 278 of 5936 votes (5%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). BERNIE SANDERS http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Bernard Sanders has sponsored 119 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Sanders has co-sponsored 2784 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Bernard Sanders missed 267 of 6234 votes (4%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers). US SENATE OBAMA http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 123 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 114 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 498 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Voting History Statistic: Barack Obama missed 148 of 1051 votes (14%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Very Poor relative to peers). DODD Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Christopher Dodd has sponsored 327 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 262 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 8 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Dodd has co-sponsored 1815 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Christopher Dodd missed 245 of 3678 votes (7%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Average relative to peers). CLINTON Voting History Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 337 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 291 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1670 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Hillary Clinton missed 114 of 2359 votes (5%) since Jan 23, 2001 (Average relative to peers). BIDEN Voting History Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship Statistics: Joseph Biden has sponsored 218 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 125 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 6 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Biden has co-sponsored 1118 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Statistic: Joseph Biden missed 334 of 3682 votes (9%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Poor relative to peers.) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... EDWARDS No info available at the govtracks site Dem majority no vote for the IWR in the House. He's an active member of the progressive caucus
He just won't sell out because someone tells him he should. When he says "No, I'm not going along with something I know is wrong," then people try to smear him with this shit. The same thing happens to anybody who can't be bought, they try to bring social pressure on them to conform to those who can be bought. These same smear - Meister's always then go back when Dennis was 32 and taking on the monied interest in Cleavland. Yeah he pissed a lot of fat cat power brokers off. More power to him. I wish some more of our go along to get along spineless Dems would do that. They just don't have the personal confidence and center to take that kind of heat. Harry Truman got the same bad rap. Yeah, Dennis already said it was a mistake to fire his insubordinate Chief of Police on TV on good Friday. But that was 30 years ago. He's learned a heck of a lot since then. Here's Kucinich's record. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 101 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 92 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Kucinich has co-sponsored 3069 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). Some of Kucinich's most recently sponsored bills include... (View All) H.R. 3875: To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina. H.R. 4060: To assist States in establishing a universal prekindergarten program to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high-quality full-day, full-calendar-year prekindergarten education. H.J.Res. 39: Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously. H.R. 2707: To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. H.R. 3183: For the relief of Theresa and Stefan Sajac.Text Cali tries to attack Dennis by contrasting his record with another great progressive, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and tries to make the charge stick that 'Dennis doesn't work well with others.' However, when we look at his record over the same time period, we see that he hasn't had more success than Dennis in the GOP controlled house (up until Jan of 07)that both have had to labor under, not to mention the regressive attitudes of many in the Dem caucus. Dennis in fact, has co- sponsored more bills than Sanders, and gotten more bills voted out of committee. Dennis has gotten 9 bills out of committee to Sander's 2, and both Sanders and Kucinich have gotten one bill enacted into law. Why Cali tries to pit two great progressives against each other to smear Dennis is beyond me. Perhaps someone should ask her. Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Bernard Sanders has sponsored 119 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 117 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Sanders has co-sponsored 2784 bills during the same time period (Very Many, relative to peers). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd... And finally, here is the record of Nancy Pelosi, former minority leader of the house and current Speaker of the house Bill Sponsorship & Co sponsorship Statistics: Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 55 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 48 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Pelosi has co-sponsored 1724 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Notice anything here? Dennis has gotten more votes out of committee, sponsored and co-sponsored more bills than Sanders or Pelosi, and all have enacted one of their sponsored bills into law. Kucinich is doing a great job, and should be very proud of his record. He entered the House in 1997 as a freshman. Pelosi entered in 1987, and Sanders in 1993. Dennis got right down to getting things done, Cali not with standing
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
I was on a thread last night where the OP was complaining about the fact that the Dems seem to be wimps about a lot of issues that are important to thier base.
A number of posters took him to task about this, some with the fanatic ferver of partisons defending their team, some attacking the prognostication abilities of the OP. One reply got me thinking, because it's a point of view that I've seen repeatedly voiced; The theory that, hidden from view, that unknown to the world at large, that behind the scenes, the Democratic Party leaders are actually conspirering to do what their base wants them to, and if we just have faith, that they will deliver. The light is at the end of the tunnel, the check, though still a secret, is in the mail so to speak. I have to wonder about this. This a theory that gets put out their by variuos people all the time. Secretly, we are told, the Dems are setting up conditions for the impeachment of bush/chaney so that when the time is right, they will strike and viola; Our national nightmare will come to an end via these secret mechanizations of the party. We've heard the same thing over and over about ending the war, that behind the scenes, great plans are afoot that ultimatley, if we are just patient enough, and faithful enough, that through these unknown yet certain efforts, that everything will work out in the end. It's the same with many issues. If we just hang on tight,we are told, our Dems are going to save the day, even if we don't know it now, we need to have faith now. And I've about reached the point where I'm calling baloney. People can and will cling to this conspiracy theory of politics, but ultimatlly what you see is what you get. There ain't some great OZ behind the curtain, there's just a person working the levers making sure they get re-elected first formost, and forever. If that means bending over when some corporate CEO says to, then that's the deal. If that means talking tough on Gonzalez then going on a month vacation to shore up support back in the district, then that's all there is folks. It's time to grow up people. It's time to put down the fairy tale books. It's time to face reality. There ain't no secret plan now, and there never was. And there isn't going to be. The conspiracy is right out in the open. See they don't need to hide it, because we cover it up for them by refusing to see it. up against a truely dedicated force of evil who won't take no for an answer, especially a weak willed no.
Everything escapes the notice of the public, or haven't you noticed? They see but they don't understand, or if they do understand they don't really want to think about it. Did you "see" the 9/11 commision? I did too. But who really wants to think about it. Did you "see" that bush lied us into an illegal armed assult and perpetual occupation in Iraq? I did too.....and? Insanity, according to Einstien, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Why would the result of another massive fraud be any diferent than the results of the last three massive frauds. Didn't you "see" what happened in Florida with 18,000 missing votes in 06? Or isn't that massive enough for the public? How about the 50,000 stolen black votes in Florida in 00? How massive does it need to be? Soon, they won't need to steal anything. Soon, people will intuitively know the Dems are so weak and lilly livered that no outrage, no ripoff, will ever be challenged, except with a few whiney plaintive voices, and then they will scurry back to the safety of their offices, their Sunday talking heads shows and shut up. Do you know any Dems who faught for you, lately? Did they get a bloody nose? Did Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, get a bloody nose fighting for you lately? Why would you expect that voters feel like they have our backs? $5.72 an hour?
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
protect and defend the constitution from all enemiesforeign and domestic
Their oath doesn't say, 'unless Joe Lieberman is in the Senate or unless our margin is thin. Their oath doesn't say 'unless we think we might have a better chance in 08 if we ignore our oath.' They have a duty to at least attempt to impeach the men who would be kings. Not to try to be those kings themselves by ignoring their duty. Our Congress has a duty and an obligation to bring articles of impeachment against the executives. If they fail to convict in the Senate, the American people can then kick out the Senators who betrayed their constitutional duty. The people will know the crimes committed, see the evidence of the crimes committed and can act accordingly. If the Democrats don't attempt to to honor their oath of office and to defend and protect the constitution, and to honor their obligation under the constitution to impeach, then they are no better than the usurpers themselves. They are then enablers of tyranny. Because if they roll over and allow bush/chaney to get away with murder, torture, kidnapping, secret warrant-less search and seizure, and usurping of unconstitutional power that will become the norm. That will be the purview of every executive in the future. The Dems will be remembered as putting their lust for party power first, above the constitution, above the country, and the D behind their name will come to symbolize deceit, dynastic despotism, and dictatorship. The woman you disparage with your clever little graphic at least has the will to fight for her country and her constitution. All you seem interested in fighting for is that D. Not any different really from the people who are fighting for their R. Because without a constitutional democratic republic what difference will it make? What kind of health care reform we get or don't get, how many troops we withdraw or commit, how much funding we give our vets, NOLA, and food stamps is all negotiable. The constitution isn't negotiable, due process isn't negotiable, warrant-less searches aren't negotiable, unrestrained executive power isn't negotiable, tyranny isn't negotiable. impeachment is imperative.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
I knew little about research and development of 4th generation nuclear fusion bombs before reading these papers.
They have some very interesting information both as to how fusion weapons could be utilized on the battlefield and the political implications of 4th generation nuclear weapons on the public/governmental interface, but also into the questions of how much research is going on and the legality of that research under existing test ban treaties. SOME INTERESTING FACTS ON 4TH GENERATION FUSION WEAPONS 1. They can produce small localized yet intense explosions. As small as 100 kilos (220 lbs)of TNT in equivalent energy release. 2.They can produce vastly lower amounts and durations of radiation than do earlier generation fission weapons. 3. Research and Development of fusion weapons is taking place around the world. 4th Generation Nuclear Weapons Military Effectiveness and Collateral Damage http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510... Andre Gsponer Independent Scientific Research Institute Box 30, CH1211 Geneva12, Switzerland Version ISRI0503.17 May 23, 2006 Abstract The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previousgeneration nuclearexplosives and from conventional weapons based on chemicalexplosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shapedcharge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc. ************************************************************************** The Question of Pure Fusion Explosions Under the CTBT (Comprehensive test Ban Treaty) http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publicat... Suzanne L. Joneso and Frank N. von Hippelb Fusion research involving implosions of deuterium-tritium targets driven by laser or particle beams appears to be widely accepted as not prohibited under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Research on fusion involving implosions driven by other means is underway in civilian and military laboratories in the US and other countries and could result in small (up to perhaps a few tons TNT equivalent) explosive fusion energy releases. However, the status of such experiments under the CTBT has not been clearly defined. Until the potential for this research to lead to the development of pure fusion weapons has been openly reviewed and an appropriate policy governing its conduct is established in the context of the CTBT, such experiments should be subject to two interim limits: (1) a maximum of -1014 neutrons produced; and (2) a ban on the use of tritium. Posted by John Q. Citizen in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sun Jan 07th 2007, 12:07 PM This ones called
4th Generation Nuclear Weapons Military Effectiveness and Collateral Damage http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510... Andre Gsponer Independent Scientific Research Institute Box 30, CH1211 Geneva12, Switzerland Version ISRI0503.17 May 23, 2006 Abstract The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly important military aspects on which there has been only limited public discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear weapons based on previousgeneration nuclearexplosives and from conventional weapons based on chemicalexplosives: yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful shapedcharge jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc. This ones called The Question of Pure Fusion Explosions Under the CTBT (Comprehensive test Ban Treaty) http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publicat... Suzanne L. Joneso and Frank N. von Hippelb Fusion research involving implosions of deuterium-tritium targets driven by laser or particle beams appears to be widely accepted as not prohibited under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Research on fusion involving implosions driven by other means is underway in civilian and military laboratories in the US and other countries and could result in small (up to perhaps a few tons TNT equivalent) explosive fusion energy releases. However, the status of such experiments under the CTBT has not been clearly defined. Until the potential for this research to lead to the development of pure fusion weapons has been openly reviewed and an appropriate policy governing its conduct is established in the context of the CTBT, such experiments should be subject to two interim limits: (1) a maximum of -1014 neutrons produced; and (2) a ban on the use of tritium.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Osama, cause Osama don't work for the FAA. (or maybe he does?)
Or do you have a better answer? (and pleease don't insult me by saying that Hani must a got lucky.)
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
you guys say that US intel were incompetent, you mean really really really incompentent i guess.
Hani sure pulled the wool over on those guys. But I have to admit, the terrorist were brillent using a guy like this. No one would suspect! Ha ha ha ha....
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
In January 2001, the Arizona flight school JetTech alerts the FAA about hijacker Hani Hanjour. No one at the school suspects Hanjour of terrorist intent, but they tell the FAA he lacks both the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he has already obtained. For instance, he had taken classes at the University of Arizona but failed his English classes with a 0.26 grade point average. A JetTech flight school manager “couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A former employee says, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” They also note he is an exceptionally poor student who does not seem to care about passing his courses.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context... Yeah, he was a real good talker and piloter an 0.26 GPA? ha ha. And you do know what you are talking about? Please, get a clue. You are being duped. This info is there. You can find it and read it yourself. You don't need me to or 9/11 myths to learn about it. You can do it! You know, King, when you said you were a pilot, I was kind of impressed. Now I know it ain't no big thing. Anybody can be a pilot. "Only in America can george w. bush be president and Hani Hanjour get a commercial pilots licence; And both for the same reason!" -JQC
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
|
Profile Information John Q. Citizen
 DU Donor13089 posts Member since Tue Jun 15th 2004 Montana Male Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.
Steal a little bit of money they put you in jail,
steal a lot and they make you king... Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Bush History: An All Night Session of Congressional Bullying, Threats & Promises 11/22 By BlueButGlad2 Who's being considered for Education? Anyone know? By mycritters2 The Seven Deadly Deficits By Demeter Has a Former Secretary of the State Department By swampg8r If you dont like the circus in your yard By swampg8r 28 years after his death, Vatican 'forgives' Lennon for 'more popular than Jesus' remark By Amerigo Vespucci I can't stand The Young Turks. By Writer Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Rec this puppy if you think Bush should face trial in America for WAR CRIMES 186 recs : By derby378 Nadler Introduces Resolution Opposing Bush Pardons 73 recs : By Hissyspit Somali Pirates in Discussions to Acquire Citigroup 39 recs : By BR_Parkway Please Help (Iroquois) 36 recs : By H2O Man I remember you from the General Election. 33 recs : By Bicoastal **Please Help Send a Request to the Obama Transition Team** 33 recs : By JeffR Michael Moore: "We're seeing ... the end of capitalism as we know it....And I say good riddance." 33 recs : By marmar Congress Opposes Bush Pardons 32 recs : By davidswanson Former Regulator: Clear Fraud in Financial Crisis -- Why Isn't Anyone in Jail? 28 recs : By DogPoundPup Presidents Kill People, Especially Bush (Featured Diary At DailyKos) 27 recs : By ihavenobias Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
