Vince Cable has called for highly paid executives in the private and public sectors to be named and shamed.

In his speech to the Lib Dem spring conference, the party's deputy leader demanded full disclosure of salaries more than £194,000 - what the PM earns.

The move would ensure "fat cats have nowhere to hide", he told delegates.

Publicly listed firms publish board members' pay but Mr Cable claimed some of the highest earners do not join boards to avoid full disclosure.

The Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, who has been one of the leading critics of excessive City salaries, criticised what he called "extreme, obscene, inequalities of reward".

But he extended criticism to public sector employees who expect bonuses whether they succeed or fail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7929664.stm

(V): We are nothing to them they could wipe us out just like that if need be.

heavenlyemma: I remember in one of Heinlein's books "Stranger in a Strange Land"... The Martians being a far superior race destroyed a world in our system, as the race was to insane and violent to be allowed to exist... hence the asteroid belt.

.... Oh they thought about Earth as well, but thanks to a kid they saw we had potential to grow and change.

It is while living with Jubal, that Mike begins his quest to "grok" the human condition. Grok is a basically untranslatable Martian term but it is a measure of the novel's impact that the word has sufficient gravitas to be defined in several dictionaries. For instance, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines it as "to understand profoundly through intuition or empathy." That's about as close as you can get to a definition, and as is readily stated in the novel, you really have to have grown up Martian to truly Grok the word. Heinlein writes a wonderfully convoluted tale, creating an incredibly rich weave from the many threads that run through the story. For instance, he creates a legal history upon which Mike's claim to be defacto owner of Mars (and incidentally much of the moon) is based, and this further allows him to touch on the moral ambiguity of laying claim to an already inhabited planet; shades of settlers encroaching on the land of native American Indians. Indeed, the entire book is a minefield of social commentary and discussion, much of it as muddled as it is profound.

The muddle is in fact one of the charms of the book. The characters grow and evolve significantly as the story progresses, and Mike is not the only one to learn what it is to be human, though the conclusions will not be to everyone's liking.

 A Bit   Science channel  that way  ------->

Artful Dodger: Actually, Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a very political book. It was published in 1960 and in some ways foreshadowed the '60s counterculture movement. This is especially interesting considering Heinlein himself was a political conservation. But he was also a genuine explorer of the social condition. The main character (Valentine Michael Smith) eventually is murdered by a mob won't suffer the social taboos he is breaking in America. So you can see Heinlein's libertarianism shining through in this: that most people are too close-minded to let others be, i.e., they don't really pay more than lip service to the idea of Liberty. That speaks volumes about today's political climate.

"conservative"

Being a pawn, I can't modify my (many) errors.

(V): I think I may lean a bit more towards Emma's interpretation here. lol :o)

The Usurper:   Sounds out of this world. 

Czuch: "well I have at least the same on my side, there are just as many people, even more, who will tell me it could have happened just that way"

What does it matter what people will tell you? Where does the evidence lead, that ought to be the question.

As to the Pentagon, you've got one government-released 5-frame video showing a blur & an explosion. However, we have testimony that all other video was confiscated immediately by the FBI (for examples, from a gas station across the street, from a hotel, from the Dept. of Transportation), nor has the Pentagon released video footage from its dozens of surrounding cameras. What does the video you've seen prove? Nothing. What do the unreleased videos prove? Nothing except the government doesn't want you to see them. If there is nothing to hide, why not?

The Usurper:  Still probably better suited here:  Books. 

Artful Dodger: lol It's one of the best books you'll ever read. It's worth the price alone just to get to "know" Jubal Harshaw, the old cantankerous, brilliant iconoclast whose view of politics and American culture is sure to get anyone to thinking.

...I can find conservatives, libertarians, liberals, constitutionalists, socialists, capitalists, you name it, against the so-called War on Terror, against the illegal Iraq invasion, and who recognize U.S. complicity in the events of 9/11. :o)

The Usurper:  Let me know when you find one here 

The Usurper:  I don't get what Baker was saying.   It didn't sound like he truly addressed Paul's objection.  Am I missing something?

Artful Dodger: It'd be better when you let ME know when you've been converted. :o)

Artful Dodger: You missed nothing. He had no defense against Paul's argument, so he threw straw-man arguments at him, none of which addressed the core issue.

Ron Paul nailed it. He harkens back to the Constitution, and accuses the Congress of relinquishing its power to the Executive branch, which - as all history indicates - is a formula for disaster.

Artful Dodger: I think Ron Paul may be the only Congressman, of the Left OR Right, that our Founding Fathers would actually recognize. He is the only I know of who remotely stands on the same principles.

The Usurper:  I thought Baker would be dead by now.   

Artful Dodger: You're confusing spiritual death with physical. lol

Czuch: "You got no problems with any of that crap????"

Either you're missing my point or I'm missing yours. I told you what I think of Al Gore. I told you what I think of all the corporate news media, both liberal and conservative. Why, if I reject all of it, would you then think I have no problem with any of it?

"The CIA. itself a ruthless, terrorist organization inspires terrorism in response. In some cases, notably the CIA and al Qaeda, the relationship between the CIA and terrorism is symbiotic. The CIA has perpetrated an “American Holocaust”, the deaths of some 6 million people from its inception to the year 1987. As Long as the CIA Exists, the US will never be safe from terrorism."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046866

The Usurper:  Probably

The Usurper:  This is what ticks me off about you most.  YOu never find anything controversial to discuss. 

Artful Dodger: LOL My momma told me never to rock the boat.

The Usurper:

This news item was carried in less than a dozen of the thousands of U.S. media outlets, including newspapers, television, radio, magazines, etc. In newspapers, where it was carried, it never made the front page. None of these few media outlets who DID carry the story, carried it more than once.

This is called cover-up by the so-called Fourth Estate. Cover-up of what? Murder by torture.

Note, of 44 autopsy reports carried out by U.S. military doctors, 21 causes of death were listed as "murder," and 23 as "heart failure" during interrogation. Lacerations, broken bones, contusions, you name it.

I didn't know of this. I bet no one here knew either. I listened to a speech this morning, where I learned of it. The ACLU sued for these documents, and eventually got them.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html

I forgot the link.

The Usurper:  I've never trusted the ACLU

Artful Dodger: You've been programmed not to by the corporate media. More importantly, the documents obtained speak for themselves.

The Usurper:  Not true. 

Artful Dodger: Perhaps not. But that's a side issue, is it not? The real issue here is, the U.S. tortured people to death on multiple occasions.

The Usurper:  If it's true.

Artful Dodger: It is true all right.

The Usurper:Well you haven't proven that yet.  It may or may not be true.  I don't have any solid facts other than your word.  I don't consider anything from the ACLU credible.  So another source and no far left radical Alex Jones stuff please. 

I even pasted a link to Google images of its effects on the unborn. But no one even commented on it. "It's too terrible to comtemplate, so let's pretend we didn't see it, or tell ourselves it can't be true."

Yes, it is true. Depleted Uranium causes radiation poisening, and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Our soldiers are infected, the Iraqi people are infected. This is what we coat our armor-penetrating missiles with. It is an evil weapon and only an evil regime would use it. And every sane person knows this. So it is better to ignore the ignorance, or question its validity.

Artful Dodger: So you think the ACLU forged documents blaming the U.S. government of murder, then the AP sent this story, along with the forged documents as evidence, out on the wire....which every news media organization except 12 recognized as a forgery, therefore didn't report?

Are you kidding me? If that were true, the media would have a field exposing the forgery, especially the right wing media....and the ACLU would be prosecuted for slander.

I meant, "ignore the evidence"

Just google "Operation Mockingbird" for starters.

The CIA is the enemy of any true republic or any true democracy.

The Usurper:I don't care what the ACLU says.  They are a group of radical nuts so whatever they have to say I shrug off.  They have many axes to grind.  I don't trust them.  So if the story is true or not, I don't  know.  And without all the facts, I can't make a judgment.  Frankly I prefer them dead to our guys. 

Artful Dodger: At least you admit you agree with torture and murder. I'm sure that makes you a Great American in Shaun Hannity's eyes.

Step out Bush, step in Obama.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?EdNo=001&At=046164

The Usurper:"At least you admit you agree with torture and murder."

If I agreed with that, I'd say that.  Using your way of assuming things from what's not said, I can say that at least you admit you'd rather see our soldiers ambushed and killed and that you are in favor of protecting the enemy.  You prefer a dead American soldier over a terrorist.  Jane Fonda would be proud.

Artful Dodger: No sir, I don't prefer a dead American. I prefer we get those troops out so they will neither kill or be killed. I support the troops, as human beings, more than any gung-ho warmonger.

And the blame for atrocities committed by soldiers in "the line of duty" lies with those who give the orders....ultimately with the White House & Congress.

The Usurper:*** ultimately with the White House & Congress.***


are you serious?

are you saying that Pres gives the order to viciously torture and it goes on down the line to the private in the field......


sorry.......


C R A P

Artful Dodger: "Frankly I prefer them dead to our guys."

Sorry if I connected the dots on your statement. We are talking about murder and torture. You said you prefer them dead. But they died through torture. It simply follows that you support torture and murder. You certainly did not clarify your statement, to segregate it from the discussion at hand, which I find terribly irresponsible at best. You might have said, "Although I do not support murder and torture, otherwise I prefer our enemies dead."

The Usurper:I agree with the last post.  But I also sympathize with the difficulties of fighting an enemy that blends in.  You can't know who the enemy is.  I can't find any sympathy for people who want to rule the world and see us all forcibly converted to Islam or have our throats slit. 

Bernice: I'm very serious. Wake up and learn that torture was authorized by the White House.

Artful Dodger: I, too, sympathy with those on the battlefield. On both sides, frankly. Perhaps you think that is too big-hearted of me. But soldiers don't choose their wars. As for those who want to rule the world, I think it pretty well established that we are guilty of that.