Florida classroom bookshelves left empty as education reform law goes into effect

Rigby5 said:
It should be obvious every single US war was caused by false propaganda, like Iraqi WMD.
Click to expand...
No idea how WWII was caused by "false propaganda". The Nazis in Europe, Pearl Harbor.

Or the American Revolution, Korean War, and so forth.

As for the Iraqi WMD's I'm not sure it that was intentionally false or simply bad intelligence.
 
Shiftless2 said:
No idea how WWII was caused by "false propaganda". The Nazis in Europe, Pearl Harbor.

Or the American Revolution, Korean War, and so forth.

As for the Iraqi WMD's I'm not sure it that was intentionally false or simply bad intelligence.
Click to expand...

That's easy.
The Allies started WWI when the Russians ordered the Serbian BlackHand to train and arm Princip.
But WWII was started by the illegal starvation blockade of Germany in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles stealing half of Germany.
Pearl Harbor was caused by the illegal economic sanction on Japan, and Pearl Harbor was deliberate that we knew about months in advance, since the Japanese did not know we had broken their code.
The Korean war was caused by anti-Bolsheic propaganda, where the US was backing those who had collaborated with the Japanese, and Syngman Rhee was wanted for bank fraud.

With Iraqi WMD, it had to be all deliberate lies.
For example, they claimed Saddam had mobile bio-weapons labs, and it was obvious those trucks were open to the air, and were for generating hydrogen for artillery balloons.
We even knew where he had purchased these hydrogen generator trucks, but I do not remember exactly.
Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger to check out the yellow cake purchases, and it turned out it was a decade earlier for the Osiraq nuclear reactor the French has been hired to build and run.
So there was absolutely no possible nuclear weapons program, in any way.
Nor did Saddam ever have sarin or VX.
The only gas he had was the mustard gas the US had given him during the war with Iran.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"As for the Iraqi WMD's I'm not sure it that was intentionally false or simply bad intelligence." S2 #621
Click to expand...
I am.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003
Click to expand...
"U.N." inspectors Blix & Ritter picked Iraq clean, right down to rummaging through Saddam's refrigerator.

I'm not denying Bush made the claim. In fact, I'm quoting him. BUT !
What other governments?
What lethal weapons?
If it were true, why have they not yet been located?

GWB's Iraq War was a sham from before the start.
It was President GWB's effort to teach pappy, President GHWB that instead of merely expelling Saddam from Kuwait,
Schwarzkopf should have followed through to Baghdad, and finished Saddam off.

GHWB was mostly right.
GWB was entirely wrong.
 
sear said:
I am.

"U.N." inspectors Blix & Ritter picked Iraq clean, right down to rummaging through Saddam's refrigerator.

I'm not denying Bush made the claim. In fact, I'm quoting him. BUT !
What other governments?
What lethal weapons?
If it were true, why have they not yet been located?

GWB's Iraq War was a sham from before the start.
It was President GWB's effort to teach pappy, President GHWB that instead of merely expelling Saddam from Kuwait,
Schwarzkopf should have followed through to Baghdad, and finished Saddam off.

GHWB was mostly right.
GWB was entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

I think both Bush Sr. and Jr. were totally wrong.
Kuwait was in the wrong for stealing oil with slant drilling, and historically Kuwait was the coast of Iraq that the British had stolen around 1895.
The emir of Kuwait is a Bedouin who the British hired as puppets to rule Kuwait.
Bedouins are not native and were hired as body guards.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Yes, we European immigrants are being totally hypocritical.
Especially since those immigrating from south of the border had to have ancestors who lived in what is now the US at one time.
And considering how we now have taken over the governments south of the border." R5 #266
Click to expand...
Barry Farber was a superlative New York radio personality in the 1960's. At least once Farber challenged his radio listeners to name any People ostensibly native to an area, that had not displaced a previous indigenous human population.
I can't pretend to duplicate Farber's encyclopedic command, but his assertion as I understood it was there is no present day exception.

It is a cliché injustice to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers.
How many previous generations are you willing to reference, before you deem a population legitimately native & entitled to call the area where they reside "homeland"?

Or do you believe such tenure does not accrue to successive generations?
 
sear said:
Barry Farber was a superlative New York radio personality in the 1960's. At least once Farber challenged his radio listeners to name any People ostensibly native to an area, that had not displaced a previous indigenous human population.
I can't pretend to duplicate Farber's encyclopedic command, but his assertion as I understood it was there is no present day exception.

It is a cliché injustice to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers.
How many previous generations are you willing to reference, before you deem a population legitimately native & entitled to call the area where they reside "homeland"?

Or do you believe such tenure does not accrue to successive generations?
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that displacing previous indigenous populations is not normal and does not normally happen.
If you look at the Siberians crossing the Bering Straits, they walked all the way down to Terra del Fuego in just 20k years, so clearly have a desire to keep down population densities.
The only native population totally wiped out that I know of was the Hurons, and that was after the colonists took so much of the continent.
Never was a "previous indigenous population" displaced normally.
Almost always they were absorbed instead.

That is because any culture that can be cruel to another culture, sows the seeds of its own destruction.
If your culture can abuse another human culture, then you have lost your humanity, will abuse all those of your own culture, and it is just a matter of time before you go extinct.
 
Rigby5 said:
"If you look at the Siberians crossing the Bering Straits, they walked all the way down to Terra del Fuego in just 20k years, so clearly have a desire to keep down population densities." R5 #268
Click to expand...
Without challenging the 20k figure, I reach a different explanation.

An individual socio-averse malcontent turned explorer / adventurer may have traveled far enough to never again see the clan that spawned him. BUT !
That is not enough to extend the range of that human clan.
That requires at absolute least a breeding pair ... and a Garden of Eden incest scenario.

The survival skills necessary to maintain positive population growth in the numerous ecosystems between the Bering land-bridge & Tierra del Fuego
may each fill its own bound volume.

I suspect it's more likely to have been gradual.
~9,500 miles over 20k years = < 1/2 mile per year
Even a stumble through the jungle for half a mile can't take that long.

Encroaching on a pristine frontier without laser weapons and refrigeration is risky.
So I suspect it mainly occurred when the contentions within the clan became a greater adversity than the saber-toothed meanies lurking in the shrubbery.
 
sear said:
Without challenging the 20k figure, I reach a different explanation.

An individual socio-averse malcontent turned explorer / adventurer may have traveled far enough to never again see the clan that spawned him. BUT !
That is not enough to extend the range of that human clan.
That requires at absolute least a breeding pair ... and a Garden of Eden incest scenario.

The survival skills necessary to maintain positive population growth in the numerous ecosystems between the Bering land-bridge & Tierra del Fuego
may each fill its own bound volume.

I suspect it's more likely to have been gradual.
~9,500 miles over 20k years = < 1/2 mile per year
Even a stumble through the jungle for half a mile can't take that long.

Encroaching on a pristine frontier without laser weapons and refrigeration is risky.
So I suspect it mainly occurred when the contentions within the clan became a greater adversity than the saber-toothed meanies lurking in the shrubbery.
Click to expand...

The point is that since no one ever wants to pick up and leave all their housing, gardens, and local game knowledge behind, then clearly the move from Siberia to Terra del Fuego had to be in forced spurts. I do not know how far they felt they had to move each time, but they likely would not just move a half mile. More likely they would move far enough to feel relatively safe from being encroached upon again in the near future. I would guess more than 10 miles.

But you are also simplifying this to a linear north/south progression, and forgetting that the east/west surface area that had to fill up would make it take 10 times longer in wide areas like North American and South American. Only in the Isthmus of Panama would progress be simple linear north/south.

My point is just that this move happened so quickly that it would seem humans prefer low population densities.
Even more so when you take into account that they did not even start in Siberia, but actually all humans came out of Africa.
 
Rigby5 said:
" simplifying " R5 #270
Click to expand...
Indeed.
20,000 years of human history without omission in a single paragraph, far beyond my skill level. BUT !
I mentioned Barry Farber earlier today. He said "Oy!" is 4,000 years of Jewish history reduced to a single syllable.

Rigby5 said:
" forgetting " R5 #270
Click to expand...
Omitting?
I was contemplating the variety of habitats, & cultures of the various aboriginal American nations as I was composing that post.
I do not know if their chieftains knew of the common ancestry of the neighbor nations they traded, & warred with.
But surely Cherokee & Paiute had different life-styles / survival skills than the Mohawk & Ojibwa.
No hurry.

Rigby5 said:
"My point is just that this move happened so quickly that it would seem humans prefer low population densities." R5 #270
Click to expand...
Psychologist Joy Browne acknowledged we move toward pleasure, and away from pain.
I suspect the lowest pain path appealed to many.

Bear in mind, even in stone-age culture there is division of labor.
There's a African proverb: To go fast, go alone. To go far, go together.

It's a cognitive blunder to ascribe single or simple motive to 20,000 years of human history.
No doubt motives driving the 9,000 mile migration included love, hate, Nitrogen depletion of the soil, & countless etc.

Rigby5 said:
"Even more so when you take into account that they did not even start in Siberia, but actually all humans came out of Africa." R5 #270
Click to expand...
☑️
Some say Mars.
 
sear said:
Indeed.
20,000 years of human history without omission in a single paragraph, far beyond my skill level. BUT !
I mentioned Barry Farber earlier today. He said "Oy!" is 4,000 years of Jewish history reduced to a single syllable.


Omitting?
I was contemplating the variety of habitats, & cultures of the various aboriginal American nations as I was composing that post.
I do not know if their chieftains knew of the common ancestry of the neighbor nations they traded, & warred with.
But surely Cherokee & Paiute had different life-styles / survival skills than the Mohawk & Ojibwa.
No hurry.


Psychologist Joy Browne acknowledged we move toward pleasure, and away from pain.
I suspect the lowest pain path appealed to many.

Bear in mind, even in stone-age culture there is division of labor.
There's a African proverb: To go fast, go alone. To go far, go together.

It's a cognitive blunder to ascribe single or simple motive to 20,000 years of human history.
No doubt motives driving the 9,000 mile migration included love, hate, Nitrogen depletion of the soil, & countless etc.


☑️
Some say Mars.
Click to expand...

But of course Africa was much earlier.
They say about 100k years ago.
Somehow they use female mitochondrial DNA to determine lineage.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Somehow they use female mitochondrial DNA to determine lineage." R5 #272
Click to expand...
Recovering enough of the hair’s genetic code to compare with that of living descendants would be a major feat. Fleischer told me that scientists had succeeded in obtaining mitochondrial DNA from rootless hair. Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, comes not from the cell nucleus, but from other cellular structures. It codes for only a small fraction of one’s genes, but it is passed on by mothers to their offspring and hence cannot determine paternity.

www.smithsonianmag.com

Did Thomas Jefferson Father Sally Hemings' Children? After More Than a Decade of Research, the Answer Is Finally Firmly in Hand

A lock of hair, advances in genetic science and a community of descendants all contributed to solving an American mystery
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com
 
sear said:
Recovering enough of the hair’s genetic code to compare with that of living descendants would be a major feat. Fleischer told me that scientists had succeeded in obtaining mitochondrial DNA from rootless hair. Mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, comes not from the cell nucleus, but from other cellular structures. It codes for only a small fraction of one’s genes, but it is passed on by mothers to their offspring and hence cannot determine paternity.

www.smithsonianmag.com

Did Thomas Jefferson Father Sally Hemings' Children? After More Than a Decade of Research, the Answer Is Finally Firmly in Hand

A lock of hair, advances in genetic science and a community of descendants all contributed to solving an American mystery
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that cellular organelles that have their own DNA, like mitochondria and ribosomes, actually are derived from when the ancient ancestor of the organism absorbed the organelle as an external organism but just never digested it.
 
Rigby5 said:
"I read somewhere that cellular organelles that have their own DNA, like mitochondria and ribosomes, actually are derived from when the ancient ancestor of the organism absorbed the organelle as an external organism but just never digested it." R5 #274
Click to expand...
To put that in context:
Biological evolution has proceeded on Earth for countless millions of years. BUT !
The first biological reproducers were not cellular, but instead are believed to be more like organelles, mitochondria, etc.

Some estimate evolving sub-cellular evolution took approximately as long as biological evolution from the first intact cells, to modern humans. BUT !

There is a debate:
which is more highly evolved? The modern human? Or the modern house fly?
Many laymen believe the modern human is more highly evolved. BUT !

Evolution is less a process within one individual, within one generation,
rather more a divergence between successive generations,
divergence between attrition of the deficient, and survival and reproduction of the adequate.

Thus evolution occurs mostly generation to generation. AND !
House flies first appeared on Earth many years before humans.
So house flies got a huge head-start in that evolutionary race, AND !

Since evolution is a process from generation to generation,
and since there are many house fly generations in one human generation

even if that evolutionary race began at the same moment, house flies would still win
because their generations are shorter, their attrition rate higher, etc.

SO !
Which is more highly evolved? The house fly? Or the modern human?
"there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." St. Luke 12:2
Click to expand...
 
sear said:
To put that in context:
Biological evolution has proceeded on Earth for countless millions of years. BUT !
The first biological reproducers were not cellular, but instead are believed to be more like organelles, mitochondria, etc.

Some estimate evolving sub-cellular evolution took approximately as long as biological evolution from the first intact cells, to modern humans. BUT !

There is a debate:
which is more highly evolved? The modern human? Or the modern house fly?
Many laymen believe the modern human is more highly evolved. BUT !

Evolution is less a process within one individual, within one generation,
rather more a divergence between successive generations,
divergence between attrition of the deficient, and survival and reproduction of the adequate.

Thus evolution occurs mostly generation to generation. AND !
House flies first appeared on Earth many years before humans.
So house flies got a huge head-start in that evolutionary race, AND !

Since evolution is a process from generation to generation,
and since there are many house fly generations in one human generation

even if that evolutionary race began at the same moment, house flies would still win
because their generations are shorter, their attrition rate higher, etc.

SO !
Which is more highly evolved? The house fly? Or the modern human?
Click to expand...

Interesting questions.
And obviously house flies can fly, which is pretty amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top