Honesty
 

It's sad to see someone throw his potential away. You may be able to do better than this Coltrane but the clock is ticking.

Honesty
 

Are they supposed to be moving? On my computer they don't move. I am getting a new computer.

Honesty
 

I think the remembrance of your tryst with Voldemort, despite his cautionary warnings against the same, would help ease the pain.

Honesty
 

I know. You and I both are just one door opening away from real opportunity. the glass is half full. Hope springs eternal.

What is wrong with these people.......
 

Dark clouds over Doha
Nov 10th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

Trade negotiators have been forced to admit they are unlikely to reach substantial agreement at a supposedly crucial meeting in Hong Kong next month. The quest for liberalisation seems to be stalling everywhere, thanks largely to quarrels over sensitive areas like agriculture. But the Doha round is not dead yet


HARRY TRUMAN, an American president, wished for a one-handed economist, so that he wouldn’t have to endure advisers saying “On the one hand…but on the other hand…” These days, however, there is at least one thing about which almost all dismal scientists agree: cutting barriers to trade is good for all countries involved.

Yet outside of the world’s departments of economics, trade is one of the most bitter and contentious issues around. During the 1990s, when “globalisation” was still spoken of with affection, it seemed that the world was headed, slowly but inevitably, towards a liberal utopia where goods and services flowed seamlessly across borders. In the six years since world trade negotiations collapsed in Seattle, however, protectionism has staged a comeback. Though negotiators finally succeeded in launching an ambitious round of talks under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Doha in 2001, the subsequent negotiations have been inching along at a glacial pace. Talks this week in Geneva, which were supposed to set the stage for the crucial ministerial meeting in Hong Kong next month, ended without progress on Wednesday November 9th, as negotiators announced they had been unable to come to agreement over agriculture.


Time is running out for the Doha round. George Bush’s hard-won “fast track” authority for trade talks, which forces Congress to vote on deals quickly and without amendment, will expire in mid-2007. By then, Mr Bush will be heading towards his final year in office, and Congress will be gearing up for the 2008 elections, making it extremely unlikely that he will be able to get fast track renewed—particularly considering the resurgence of protectionist sentiment, among both the public and politicians, since he took office. Without fast track, there is little hope of getting a deal on Doha done.

To its credit, the Bush administration has been pushing hard for trade liberalisation. Rob Portman, America’s trade representative, attempted to revitalise Doha last month by making a bold proposal on agricultural subsidies, which have been the main sticking point so far. Under the American plan, the highest tariffs would be cut by 90%, and the most trade-distorting subsidies by 60%. Though this was less than developing countries had been calling for, it was a big concession from a country where a single agricultural lobby, the sugar growers, nearly mustered the political muscle to kill off the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) a few months ago.

But the European Union, where the common agricultural policy (CAP) accounts for nearly half of the budget, has dragged its feet. After much pressure, the EU’s trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, made an offer to cut farm tariffs by an average of 39%. This offer not only fell well short of the American one but also contained loopholes big enough to drive a combine harvester through, including a provision to allow the EU to designate up to 8% of categories as “sensitive” products that would be granted special protection. A World Bank report released on Wednesday says that exempting even 2% of agricultural categories from reform in rich countries would destroy nearly all the benefits of liberalisation to developing countries.

And those benefits are large. The report estimates that abolishing all kinds of tariffs, subsidies and domestic-support systems would boost global wealth by nearly $300 billion per year by 2015—with almost two-thirds of that increase coming from cutting farm supports.

Agricultural subsidies are the most politically sensitive form of support; farmers are well-organised, and voters everywhere romanticise their increasingly distant pastoral past. As a result, previous rounds of liberalisation have skirted round the issue. This has denied many poor countries the benefits of freer trade, as rich-world farm protections have locked them out of the main markets where they have a comparative advantage. At WTO talks in Cancún in 2003, a group of developing countries led by Brazil and India brought the proceedings to a screeching halt by insisting that they would not discuss freeing trade in goods and services until they saw substantial progress on agriculture.

The group, known as the G20, has a point. As well as keeping poor countries out of lucrative export markets, rich-world farm supports encourage overproduction, which undercuts poor farmers in their domestic markets. While this is very nice for vegetable-buying urban workers, it can be devastating to rural communities.

But some European politicians, it seems, would rather spend billions on aid than allow poor-world farmers to sell attractively priced food to Europe’s consumers. Led by Jacques Chirac, the French president, they are blocking Mr Mandelson from sweetening his offer, claiming that he has already gone too far. Thanks largely to their efforts, the Geneva talks broke up with the glum recognition that it was unlikely that any substantial agreement could be reached in Hong Kong.

Mr Mandelson, whose hands seem to be tied, gamely tried to pin the blame for the setbacks on developing countries, saying they were unwilling to discuss opening their markets to goods and services in exchange for European concessions on agriculture. But in an interview with the New York Times, Celso Amorim, the Brazilian foreign minister, said that his country’s attempts to discuss such a quid pro quo had met with the cold shoulder. “What we heard yesterday…led me to the conclusion that [the Europeans] are setting the bar very high on industrial goods because they don’t even want to talk about agriculture.”

Nothing is better than something
Yet there is still hope for Doha. Negotiators are talking about using Hong Kong to set up talks in the spring, giving them time, just, to find enough common ground for a substantial agreement. This is disappointing, but not nearly as disappointing as it would have been if negotiators had simply scaled back the ambitions for the Doha round to the sorts of modest tinkering on which they could readily agree. Both the EU and the G20 have much to gain from a trade deal, which makes it possible that their brinkmanship will soften as the talks go down to the wire.

If Doha collapses, there will be bitter times ahead for free-traders the world over. Deeper regional trade integration has, like the WTO talks, fallen victim to voter backlash. While Congress passed CAFTA by the slimmest of margins, Mr Bush’s other big regional push, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, ran aground at a summit last weekend in Argentina, thanks to opposition from Latin America’s largest economies. And China’s booming export industries—its trade surplus hit a record $12 billion in October—have provoked harsh reactions in the EU and America. Both have slapped restrictive quotas on textile imports from China, and American politicians have been making loud noises about severe retaliation unless China lets its currency rise against the dollar (making its goods more expensive for American consumers). The quotas are temporary, but the sentiment behind them seems more enduring. Perhaps there is a reason why those economists are so often dismal.

Honesty
 

I agree. Running sub-3 on only 45-50 miles/week just demonstrates how much faster I could be if I sucked it up and trained like a man.

I mean, if I trained to my potential, I could be A LOT faster than you, instead of just a little faster.

Oh well.

Honesty
 

Either way, your wife is thinking about what the ceiling would look like painted a different color.

Honesty
 

I think deep down you know, looking at my 5K and 10K PRs, who didn't train up to his potential, and what would happen if someone did.

Honesty
 

Hank's wife mainly likes it doggie, but she told me she is going to hit the cheap bastard up for some new carpetting.

Honesty
 

Even when I'm clearly kidding, it is patently obvious that it bothers the shit out of you that my marathon PR is faster than yours. That is sad, b/c neither of us are fast enough to brag.

Honesty
 

Given our off-board, albeit limited, correspondence, I know that you know that this is not true, which makes it patently obvious to me, that your continued and relentless attempts to lord it over me in an effourt to break down my psyche is a strategy to make me give a shit, which is inspired by the fact you must give a shit. Which is sad.

Now if we were talking about a real endurance race, I might give a shit, but you would have to step it up a notch or two to have that convo.

Honesty
 

I am trying to lord it over you (b/c it's fun), but I don't give a shit.

It would be much more fun if my PR were sub 2:40. Then I would never let up.

Honesty
 

Is that a challenge?

Honesty
 

To whom? My next goal is sub 2:55. I won't be at 2:40...ever.*

*although if I had the time I think I could get there. But that would require some serious dedication.

Honesty
 

you do know Penske took a first place age group in Special Olympics sumo, right?

Honesty
 

You have low expectations of yourself. This saddens me. I thought you were better than that.

If 2:55 is your pinnacle make sure and let me know where your next try is going to be so I can come and put the smack down once and for all.

Honesty
 

Did you read my post? 2:55 is my next goal, not my ultimate goal.

Considering that most people train much harder than I did to go sub-3, I think I know how fast I can be.

This is actually a great incentive; which marathon are you running next? This could be fun.

Honesty
 

You can count the number of times I ran more than 50 miles in a week on one hand, so I am down with you. We roll like that.


Nothing scheduled. If Vegas had not moved dates I would propose Vegas. I am awol for most of January, so Houston is out (no offence RT), although if you wanted to have our own personal marathon sometime near the last weekend of the same......

Honesty
 

Can he use his chair?

Honesty
 

When is the Motorola? I like Austin.

Honesty
 

Don't you have a coming up wedding that might interfere with training schedules?

Honesty
 

The honeymoon might interfere. I don't see how the wedding would (it's not until summer).

Honesty
 

Experience says you can't let a wedding interfere with a big race.

[outable]I remember a friend who qualified for the World's. Huge. Biggest race of his burgeoning career. But. It conflicted with his upcoming wedding. Not directly, but in an indirect way, in a manner of speaking. Rather than just deal with the conflict and racing Worlds, he took the supposed high road and bowed out. In 20/20 hindsight, when the next two seasons produced a result of championship drought, there was......much.to.regret (hi Ty!) [/outable]

Of course, if its just a rinky dink race, don't let it fuck up the wedding. I bowed out of a race on the morning of my wedding. If I had crashed, the grief I would have received over the road rash and the damage it could have done to the pictures etc. would not have been worth it, although I still contend I could have won that race.

Honesty
 

if you're going to work for Spanky he'll expect yours to open when you go down.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics. Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

I only read every 7th word of that post, but I am pretty sure the message is Euro-socialism sucks and the continent's imbedded preternatural racism doesn't help. Correct?

I invented demonising the Dimwits' Klan ties
 

"Today when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts, I think the modern-day KKK comes to mind -- the Kennedy-Kerry Klan,"

Substitute "DNC" for "Massacussetts" and he hit the nail on the head. STS. NPI.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Fascinating, but homeowners or not, Latino-Americans aren't known for their anti-Western attitudes, fatwas, jihad or bad mustaches. And it isn't hard to integrate into a culture that shares the same religion and roughly the same traditions and values. Intermarriage? Gee I wonder why there's been more intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latinos. Surely Muslims are just as appealing as prospective spouses.

http://www.neurobashing.com/blog/ima...al-sadr.ap.jpghttp://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jcc22/oscar01.jpg
http://www.ciu.edu/seminary/muslimst...mages/lady.jpghttp://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/151/PP0544.jpg

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

I picture her doing some madd rapturous falalalalalalalalala'ing.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Spanks -

Nice to see I'm vindicated. I've been offering a simplified version of your point since 9/11.

Give a man money and a chance to make more money, and a woman, and a future, and he'll drop that fundamentalist shit like a bad habit. Islam is what you have when you have nothing else. Religion is the currency of those without actual currency (there are some exceptions in the backward sectors of this country and others).

The best way to keep these people out of those silly goddamned mosques is to get them working in a manner akin to what's going on in India right now. We ought to start initiatives with the Egyptians and Jordanians and Saudis to open plants, call centers, tech centers, whatever... in their nations. They say Islam is where a lot of advances in math started hundreds of years ago. I think it was once considered the religion of the scientifically progressive and open minded. Why not help these people recover that glorious part of their heritage?

We could start be offering massive tax breaks to US companies which open plants in Islamic nations. It'll be ugly at first. There will be bombings and such, but I think in time, if we offer Islamic people a path back to the better part of their culture, they'll take it. One thing the Arabs are is shrewd; they will not walk away from a win/win.

SD

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Except for the virulent and unabashed anti-semiticism in the radical moderate Islamic world of the ME, this makes some sense. Unfortunately Western Europe is proof that industry and commerce can't squelch ignorant hatred and prejudice against the Lord's chosen people (see France and Germany) or their freedom loving friends in the Lord's chosen shining city-nation on the golden hill, America.

eta: interesting reporting by the liberal MSM showing that a sizable number of Jordanians, who are a nation of the elusive moderate radical-moderate Islamic strain, believe Israel was behind the bombings last week, despite al Qaeda's claims of responsibility.

r-eta: SD, are we all supposed to be signing our posts now? TM style?

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

The AFL-CIO would never agree to this. But I agree with you. Free markets and economic growth are what the middle east needs. As soon as Mohammed is concerned about driving a nicer car than his neighbor Hassan all our troubles are over.

Free trade and free markets are the key. The problem is the Unions and the far left are in the way.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Have you been by an inner city school recently? How about Juvenile hall? Or look at the average recruit in the US military. A large swath are multiracial. And if you didn't notice the article explained how muslims in this country have become much more integrated.

The US assimilates immigrants better than any country in the world. No other country on the planet even comes close.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

2. Additionally, if Clinton's peace plan was any indication, his wing of the DNC is also no friend of Israel, which is problematic.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

It's the American Dream, althought the concept of America as place of freedom and hope has become the American Nightmare to the UN-styled liberals and their comrades in the MSM who hate us first.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Don't know who you're arguing with here, Spank. I questioned your bit about why Muslims integrated less into Western culture than Latinos. You were throwing theories out there like home-ownership. My point was that the two cultures can't be compared at all and it is a lot easier for Latinos to "integrate" since the majority share the same religion as the majority of their host country. And yes, lots of people are multiracial, meaning what? Are we now talking about black/white integration? If not, I don't see how visiting an inner city school is going to prove the Muslim-integration points in the article (I thought you wrote that thing; was it someone else's article?). You're not going to be able to glance at a child and know if he's (A) 1/2 Dominican Republic and 1/2 Irish heritage; or (B) 1/2 African American and 1/2 Polish; (C) 1/3 South Asian and 1/3 Yanamomi with a Mom who eats monkey (NTTAWWT); or (D) 1/2 Appalachian and 1/2 Yemeni. The point is that Muslims may be integrating less into Western cultures than Latinos for reasons other than economics. The religious thing is huge. So is their having or accepting anti-Western sentiment. SD's cure-all of money, booze and chicks may work for him but the turd boys who took down our Towers had all that shit. The night before in fact. And Bin Laden has more wives than Bilmore has kids. And a fuck of a lot of money. And we all know how pro-Western that guy is. Same shit with the rich Arabs who dress Western style, live Western style and write checks to fund ulalating (hi Penske!) crazies with the strap-ons. There will always be an acceptance of violence (even among so-called moderate Arabs) against "Western Imperialists" even if the person becomes a Western Imperialist. Secretly, jihad and fatwas are appealing and romantic to the "moderate" Muslim set.

http://www.gfbv.de/uploads/bild/bild/36.jpg

Edited by RT because the picture fucked up the margins.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

Yes, the elusive moderate radical-moderate-Islamics. The liberals favourite cause and most dear comrade (next to the RedChinese). The people that Clinton was willing to ensure another holocaust to create a country for.

When I think back in solemn remembrance of September 11 and the fallen American heroes the images that burn most fervently in my mind's eye are those of our moderate radical-moderate Islamic friends, who so obviously shared our pain and grief. Allahu akhbar!!!


http://www.isfullofcrap.com/albums/P..._912.thumb.jpg

http://www.isfullofcrap.com/albums/P...on01.thumb.jpg

http://www.isfullofcrap.com/albums/P...tion.thumb.jpg

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

The Unions are dead. Who care what the AFL CIO thinks. Let them argue against developing a market driven detante with the Middle East. They can join Pat Buchanan and John Kerry in that coalition.

The Far Left is also dead. We don't have the money to indulge their Utopian nonsense anymore. We are tilting toward Milton Friedman's market-state. We cannot compete globally while spending lavish amounts of money to prop up people who aren't making it. Its a cruel reality we're better off facing and warnming people about very honestly than pretending doesn't exist.

The era of small govt is with us for good because we can't afford anything else. There's also been a societal shift. People don't care about the Great Society anymore because they have enough trouble just watching their own asses. We have to become a nimble competitive economy. We can't afford to worry about whether everyone is doing well anymore. We just don't have the time or cash to be so luxurious in our interests anymore.

I don't like this reality, but its reality, so whats the use of arguing with it. Complaining that we're being cruel to the domestic poor, or wringing our hands about need for more social engineering (read: bureacrats) is not going to slow down China or India.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

dissent. See the public schools. The Teachers' unions are alive and strong and ensuring the demise of our nation by marginalising the intellects and educations of thr masses.

Congrats Dimwits, your dumbing down of our morality has succeeded and now you are tackling more substantive areas.

Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 

I blame the Clintons.