[Fred Reed] My father, now dead, a mathematician without the slightest leaning toward the esoteric, once told me of driving by night with a friend through the hill country of North Carolina. Suddenly a large truck, lights blazing, came over a crest, passed through their car without a sound, and disappeared in the night. My father said that after a moment he asked, "Did you see what I saw?" The friend answered "Yes." They said no more about it, to each other or anyone else. They would have been thought mad.
Over the years I have talked to various people, apparently sane, who have had unexplainable experiences. Some of these had dreamed of the death of someone who shortly thereafter died in the circumstances of the dream. Others were more similar to my father's experience. Several remembered a sudden and terrible sense of the presence of something evil -- this latter now called a "panic attack," which explains nothing. Those involved seldom wanted to talk of such things in a scientific age for fear of being ridiculed.
But, one might reasonably ask, what could science, or scientists, know of these things? They can be neither proved nor disproved, nor repeated for study. And of course a number of equally improvable exploitations are ready to hand: the narrator is lying, or suffered a momentary imbalance of this or that neurotransmitter in his brain, or transitory dementia, or the delayed result of the ingestion of hallucinogen, and anyway the whole idea is so silly that we needn't talk about it. Geez, it's the kind of thing they believed in the Dark Ages. Second or third reading obligatory.
#4
Mind you, if you give me a grant. I can already can see a paper title: "The comparative effects of Mexican vs. Belgian beer on extra-sensory perception with special emphasis on clairvoyance".
#3
I gave a demonstration of my company's ElectroCoagulation technology to the Denver EPA office two years ago. They couldn't be bothered implementing a solution that would remove 90%+ of the heavy metals in this type of water, converting it to oxide form so it won't re-dissolve into the water above a pH of 4. No, the entire focus of the office was on global warming. And what an office it is. A damn palace in the heart of downtown Denver. 500 gallons per minute is strong flow, but they could do a complete plant for $5mil, a fraction of the cleanup and associated legal costs.
[DAWN] Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan ...Currently the Interior Minister of Pakistain. He is the senior leader of the Pak Moslem League (N) and a close aide to Nawaz Uncle Fester Sharif. He is noted for his vocal anti-American railing in the National Assembly. However (comma) Khan told the U.S. ambassador that he was in fact pro-American but he and the PML-N would have to be critical of US actions in order to remain publicly credible. Khan cited his wife and children's US citizenship as proof, which means he's lying to one side or the other and probably both. He wears a wig, but you probably guessed that. since hair doesn't grow naturally in that shape or texture... 's declaration that his government will now direct its energies to countering sectarianism can only be viewed as a positive development, though it will take a lot to pacify sceptics who continue to raise concerns about the slip between cup and lip.
The minister declared zero tolerance for those terming others as 'infidels', questioning their faith and fuelling sectarian fires in the country, already polarised along a number of lines. Nisar's statement was significant inasmuch as it followed two rounds of consultations with the leaders of the umbrella organization representing the Madaris (or religious schools) all over Pakistain.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/12/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
...
How about we move them into the homes and onto the estates of all these liberals blaming the US for the ongoing war over there. Let's start with the White House. Obama had a chance to stop this all before this got going heavily but he is actively supporting the terrorists that we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan now and attempting to use the surge in refugees to overthrow the legitimate government of the country. I say no, No more illegals and welfare moochers in this country or you can kiss this country goodbye.
#1
As a friend once remarked.
"When Americans elected Obama, they demonstrated that that they don't want to live. His reelection demonstrates that they don't deserve to."
Well, maybe my friend just dislikes America & Americans.
#2
As old as this country is we have always had traitors, malcontents and saboteurs. Now we have them in positions of political and media control. They work to add sand into the mechanisms that make this country work. They do their damage and walk away with a smirk on their face. They work to confound and confuse. Will they ever be happy. Will they ever be satisfied? NEVER.
#4
When enemies of the system are allowed to teach the young from early years through collage they will shape minds to hate the state and vote for those that hate the state. Well it just doesn't seem like a recipe for long term success as we are seeing now.
The only real hope is that Millennials suddenly pay attention and vote accordingly while aging Hippie Baby Boomers simultaneously stop voting due to age and legalized pot distracting them.
#9
I have a hard time coming up with a continuous form of government older than the USA. Perhaps the UK, if not counting the release of the Commonwealth States?
#10
I have a hard time coming up with a continuous form of government older than the USA.
Don't you mean a republic (an even that wouldn't be true---see Rome)? Because, most countries been monarchies for hundreds of years. China was for 2000.
#11
Ah true; I was looking around today. But yes as a question throughout history I would county dynasties and monarchies as continuous governments.
As for the USA, the Republic survived its civil war, but as a friend and I were discussing the dissolving of the Congress and Supreme Court around 2010, we shall see if we survive our Julius Caesar moment.
#13
Because, most countries been monarchies for hundreds of years. China was for 2000.
Cause humans are hierarchical, tribal, and territorial. Democratic/republican forms of government are not natural. That's why they don't last long as power has a tendency to create its own gravity helped by the ambitions of individuals and groups who seek that hierarchical position exploiting the injustices of the imperfect humans who maintain them, only to create even greater injustices when they achieve their goal. I believe the Swiss design their system pretty well to keep the center from achieving critical mass.
#15
Surprisingly some of the longest lasting governments were in the Near East. The Mamelukes ruled Egypt for about a thousand years, though during about half that time they were nominally under the Turks. The Turkish Empire lasted more than four hundred years, after it captured Constantinople.
OF course the rulers often took over by force either from their predecessors or upon their deaths.
The secret of this longevity in Turkey was the millet system. Each recognizable group was self governing. The Janissaries, who enforced Turkish rule only became involved when there were inter-group disputes. Since the Janissaries, who were foreigners, were notoriously brutal, inter-group disputes were rare.
In Egypt, the Mamelukes were foreign slaves, purchased from their parents usually in the Caucuses castrated and educated to be warriors and rulers. Being foreign they were non-partisan among local tribes and factions, and having no families their greed was quite limited. They were also brutal so the locals usually behaved themselves to stay out of their clutches.
Thus it took Napoleon's legions to end Mameluke rule. Saladin was a Mameluke six hundred years before.
Under either regime any group could adopt Sharia Law for itself, if it chose to do so, but this affected no other group.
Somehow these arrangements lasted for centuries.
[The Telegraph] Congress is finally having its say on the Iran deal. It will be an elaborate charade, however, because, having first gone to the UN, President Obama has largely drained congressional action of relevance. At the Security Council, he pushed through a resolution ratifying the deal, thus officially committing the United States as a nation to its implementation -- in advance of any congressional action.
The resolution abolishes the entire legal framework, built over a decade, underlying the international sanctions against Iran. A few months from now, they will be gone.
The script is already written: the International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on Iran's self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Iran's nuclear program is officially deemed peaceful.
So the sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country.
It is all pre-cooked. Last month, Britain's foreign secretary traveled to Tehran with an impressive delegation of British companies ready to deal. He was late, however. The Italian and French foreign ministers had already been there, accompanied by their own hungry businessmen and oil companies. Iran is back in business.
As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and geopolitical gravity.
#1
Ya, well, Vox Populi Vox Dei stopped being the guiding principal of the American Republic some time ago. Obama is mostly different from his predecessors by not hiding his contempt for the concept.
#3
The un-treaty is not binding on the next president. So my guess is that Iran will take the money and then run. That is, the bammer's agreement isn't worth the paper that it is printed on.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[DAWN] Interior Minister 
