"One cannot do less than is required, nor more than is allowed."
582699
Hasbro continue their new Legacy Collection for 2009 with wave five consisting of figures from A New Hope. As they did last year, these figures continue the Build-A-Droid theme with a component of an Astromech droid included with every figure.
The next figure in the series in #35 Pons Limbic. This character is one of the aliens from the Cantina bar and was nicknamed 'Brainiac' by Bo Shek.
He has head (rotational and vertical), shoulder (rotational and abductional), elbow (rotational and vertical), wrist (rotational), torso (rotational), hips (vertical) and knee (rotational and vertical) and ankle (rotational and vertical) articulation which gives him an excellent 23 ranges of movement.
He is armed with a light grey BlasTech DL-44 heavy blaster pistol which fits into the holster on his left hip. He also comes with a cantina table which is in two halves and clicks together. The table has special clips inside which mean that this is a one time assembly.
There is also the right leg of R2-L3. The rest of this droid is included with figures #33, #36, and #37.
Another great alien and a must have for those Cantina dioramas.
4012427
The limitation is the speed at which the table saw runs;  too fast. Still usable, but not the panacea.
3030912
When our nation is under attack, there is always a chance that we'll restrict civil liberties as part of our response.  We certainly did that with some American citizens of Japanese origin in World War Two.  And there is even a chance that some folks may be just waiting for an attack that will give them an excuse to do something like that and restrict civil liberties once again.

But let's not forget that there are far more people who look at very real threats to British subjects (or American citizens) and decide that the best way for them to satisfy their commitments to protect them (or us) is to take some emergency measures (or merely enforce some provisions that are already in place).  And I think that Tariq Ali is taking a flying leap overboard when he implies that those in Britain (as well as in the United States) who are trying to respond to attacks are in fact entirely to blame for everything.

I think Ali's comments about British politics are interesting.  But I can't trust Ali on anything, so I'd rather see a more serious analysis of questions civil liberties than this.

Ali quotes Robert Pape (who wrote the book "Dying to Win") to explain that suicide terrorism is simply a response to get democracies to "withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."  In my review of Pape's book, I did not focus on this statement.  Instead, I examined the possible responses to terrorism, the need for truth, and the fact (which Pape explained) that terrorism has in indeed been provoking concessions and is thus practical in some sense of the word.

Perhaps, given Ali's misuse of this quote, I ought to have discussed what it means to consider some land to be one's own and that the only way to obtain it is by force.  That could apply to any prospective thief.  We're not always talking about land that is known by all to belong to the terrorists!  Quite the contrary.  If you disagree, I encourage you to visit Maale Adumim, or Ariel's College of Judea and Samaria and tell me if everyone stipulates that this is Terrorist Land, given by a Goddess Herself to someone other than the inhabitants.

Appeasement of the terrorists is not the way to solve the problem.  I think we can see that the appetite of the terrorists is ultimately too great for such a plan to succeed.

I agree that we ought to be careful not to unnecessarily restrict civil liberties in order to defend ourselves from ruthless foes.  But there is a risk in the other direction as well.  If we are in fact defeated by our foes because we overly restricted our ability to fight them, we will have suffered a huge loss.  Even if we win, if we incur far more damage than we might have as a result of being too concerned with the rights and not sufficiently concerned with self-defence, there may be a reaction which restricts our rights even more afterwards.

I think we ought to read such books with these caveats in mind.
1129787
The tip-off comes early in chapter one: "... as when Franklin Roosevelt declared, in his 1933 inaugural address, that Americans 'must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline' and 'be ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline.' In other words, what the increasingly self-centered economy could not, or would not, produce on its own, government would now seek to MAKE it produce." Author Roberts heartily approves.

Sure, let's just do whatever the nanny-state says, including giving up our lives and property to the all-knowing national government's dictates. Hmm... sounds a bit like Adolf and Benito, doesn't it? But it's just fine and dandy to Mr. Roberts. Avoid this book if you care a whit about liberty.
984571
Extremely low limit of detection and quantitative abilities.
2914145
Time is relatively short.  Readers of this book must find a way to share its contents.  We must not be coerced into a way of life regulated by corporation kings deceiving the majority of this country.  Our way of life may be forever changed.  Do not let this happen.
1987106
The book is more philosophical than directive. The assumption is that we're driven by consumerism, hard to argue that, however the extreme rejection is not realistic for most people in first world countries. Of course you can live on odd jobs without permanent housing if you elect to be a permanent vagabond; most of us do not. I found the book thought provoking, but much easier to reject most of the lifestyle than to even consider accepting such a minimalist existence.
4269129
I liked a lot but it's an older book and some of the things it says to do you can not do
366400
The author clearly implies in the early pages of this book, that unless you have at least $12,000.00 there is no reason for you to continue. What more can I say?
3225481
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.-
Alan Turing
524363
Noting but having different things obout somebody that cannot do it anymore and I think this is a nice example.
1873765
The Dickinson quotation suggests -- as does the subtitle of John Kay's book -- that there are situations in which goals are best achieved indirectly. I agree with him: "If people are predictably irrational, perhaps they are not irrational at all. Perhaps the fault lies not with the world but with our concept of irrationality. Perhaps we should think differently about how we really make decisions and solve problems. Perhaps we should recognize the obliquity, and inevitability, of obliquity." In fact, why be oblique on this point? We SHOULD re-think how we think...we SHOULD recognize what we have previously missed or ignored.

This is precisely what Kay has in mind when observing, "An oblique approach recognizes that what we want from a home, or a community, has many elements. We will never succeed in fully specifying what they are, and to the extent that we do, we discover that they are often incompatible and inconsistent." This is one of his most important points: There are specific limits to what a direct approach can resolve; however, if there is a complicated question to answer, a complicated problem to solve, or a complicated task to completed, only an oblique approach can succeed. Moreover, with rare exception, several persons must be involved. The approach must be oblique because the process will be one of continuous discovery and adaptation, application and modification, etc.

Consider the great teams in history such as the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, the animators who produced a series of classics such as Snow White and Bambi, and the engineers employed by Lockheed at its Skunk Works. All of the members of a team know more, can do more, and do it better than any one member can. Here's what Kay has to say about all this: "Obliquity is the best approach whenever complex systems evolve in an uncertain environment and whenever the effect of our actions depends on the way in which others respond to them...Directness is only appropriate when the environment is stable, objectives are one-dimensional and transparent and it is possible to determine when and whether goals have been achieved. The word of politics and business today is afflicted by many hedgehogs, men and women who mistakenly believe the world is like that." Oh that it were.

Kay clearly explains the "what" of obliquity but devotes most of his attention to WHY and/or HOW. More specifically,

In Part One:

o How the happiest people do not pursue happiness
o The most profitable companies are not the most profit oriented
o The wealthiest people are not the most materialistic
o The means help us to discover the ends
o Obliquity is relevant to many aspects of our lives

In Part Two:

o Oblique approaches succeed
o There is usually more than one answer to a problem
o The Outcome of what we do depends on how we do it
o The world is too complex for directness to be direct
o We rarely know enough about the nature of our problems
o Models are imperfect

In Part Three:

o We mistakenly infer design from the outcome
o We have less freedom of choice than we think
o Decision makers recognize the limits of their knowledge
o Adaptation is smarter than we are
o We know more than we can tell
o Complex outcomes are achieved without knowledge of an overall purpose
o It is more important to be right than to be consistent
o Spurious rationality is often confused with good decision making

The development of the concepts in this book followed an oblique path from drafts that resulted in an article published in the Financial Times (January 17, 2004). The process continued during John Kay's subsequent journey of continuous discovery and adaptation, application and modification, etc. The result is this book, first published in 2010. No brief commentary such as mine can possibly do full justice to the quality of information, insights, and counsel he provides but I hope that I have at least indicated why I think so highly of Obliquity. If you want to put some white caps on your gray matter, look no further.
2234240
In 1964, Barry Goldwater produced a superb treatise that calls for smaller, limited government, compliance with the U.S. Constitution, lower taxes and lower spending. He identified the first principle of totalitarianism: that the state is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the state. In contrast Conservatives believe that we are morally and legally obliged to comply with the U.S. Constitution ensuring the concept of limited government.

Goldwater then identifies that neither of the two main parties, Republican or Democrat, maintain a meaningful commitment to States Rights and the 10th Amendment, which is a prohibitory rule of law, recognizing State jurisdiction in certain areas: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Goldwater very succinctly explains the Conservative position related to numerous issues to include:

CIVIL RIGHTS - Unless a right is incorporated in the law it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.
FREEDOM FOR THE FARMER - No power over agriculture was given to any branch of national government.
FREEDOM FOR LABOR - Conservatives favor State right to work laws which forbid contracts that make union membership a condition of employment.
TAXES AND SPENDING - One of the foremost precepts of natural law is man's right to the possession and use of his property and earnings. Property and freedom are inseparable.
THE WELFARE STATE - Marxist objective is to socialize the means of production (and) intend to subordinate the individual to the state, buying votes with promises of "free" federal benefits: housing, school aid, medical, hospitalization and retirement.
EDUCATION - Federal intervention in education is unconstitutional.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, this book is concise primer on American politics that is as relevant today as it was in 1964.

Dr. B Leland Baker, author of Tea Party Revival, The Conscience of a Conservative Reborn
4260176
This book is an encouragement that our very human limitations do not limit God's ability to work through us, if we are willing and open!
2037629
This rule is so nearly absolute that it may be taken in practice as admitting no exception. Apparent exceptions exist..." The subject quote is taken from the autobiography of a New Englander,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Education-of-Henry-Adams/dp/B0020MMSKG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Education of Henry Adams</a>&nbsp;that I just finished reading. I marked it as an observation that seems exceedingly true. Andrew Vietze newly published "Becoming Teddy Roosevelt," is on one of the marvelous "exceptions": the relationship between Theodore Roosevelt and the Maine guide, Bill Sewall. Roosevelt was a young Harvard student, rather puny and given to asthmatic attacks, when he first made the acquaintance of Sewall, a strong, 6'4" outdoorsman, during a summer visit to northern Maine, in 1878. It would develop into a lifetime bond.

William Wingate Sewall parent's moved to Aroostook County, Maine around 1840. It is in the extreme northern part of the state, and is bigger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. At the time, it was very much a "frontier," as anything in the West, with an ill-defined border with Canada. Bill Sewall was born there in 1845, and was also a sickly child. Vietze does alternating chapters that depict Sewall's rustic life on the frontier, and Roosevelt's naturalist instincts as they developed in the most unlikely of places, the heart of Manhattan. After Roosevelt's summer stay in the small town of Island Falls, which the Sewall's were instrumental in founding, he returned in the middle of the following winter for another couple of weeks. Roosevelt seemed to realize that his experiences in the natural world improved his health...certainly a lesson for today.

Like many Americans,  Roosevelt went West, and became enthralled with the landscape, in particular, around the "Badlands" of North Dakota. He wanted to increase his wealth, and like others at the time, felt cattle would be "the ticket." He talked Bill Sewall, and his nephew, along with their families, into joining him on his ranch venture. Overall, the extremes in temperature, as well as other factors, caused the venture to fail, and they all went back east, fortunately just before the horrendous winter of 1877, that wiped out many of the cattle herds. Roosevelt entered the political arena, and as the result of an assassin's bullet which killed President McKinley, became President, and was re-elected in his own right in 1904.

Vietze book is well-researched, and certainly benefited from the substantial correspondence between the two men, and well as secondary sources, such as a biography of Sewall's wife. The author tells the story well, and did not exceed his sources by speculating on Sewall's actual impact on our national park's system. I was surprised, however, that even in the section on Roosevelt's legacy, he never mentioned that a national park is named after him, and centers around the town of Medora, North Dakota, near where he tried to operate his ranch.

This book is certainly topical.  So many Americans are "hankering back" for the days when a President actually led, and DID something. Many Americans cite both Roosevelt's, and have been doing so long enough that President Obama, hoping to revive the "mojo," recently delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, the town where Theodore Roosevelt delivered a famous speech a bit more than a century earlier. Vietze does not mention the jingoist aspects of Roosevelt, nor his comments about American Indians. He also does not discuss some of the pluses, like busting the trusts. Instead, he stays true to his topic, a wonderful one, the influence of one man, of upright character, and a love for the natural world, on one of America's more impressive leaders. Certainly 5-stars for Vietze well-written effort.
3152065
It's tolerable in a time of crisis, especially after hurricane Matthew. Can accommodate only one.
292361
The central thesis of this book is that Western countries have largely become Servile States. This might come as a shock to the average modern reader. While everyone can relate to the feeling of being a slave in our modern world of big business and government, they would have a difficult time agreeing to the notion that they are slaves by law. After all, the Westerner has the political freedom to choose whether he wants to work or not.

As Belloc explains, freedom is made up of more than just political freedom. True freedom consists in the ability to produce, which by nature requires capital or land in addition to political freedom. Consequently, both capital and land are monopolized by a very few owners. The rest are proletarians that must work for their ability to produce on the owner's terms. The proletarians' political freedom does give them the liberty to bargain for their work, but the proletarian is constrained by the uncertainty of sustenance, so the bargain isn't quite an equal one. "The vast bulk of so-called `free' contracts are to-day leonine contracts: arrangements which one man was free to take or to leave, but which the other man was not free to take or to leave, because the second had for his alternative starvation."

Belloc acknowledges that the Servile State requires laws upon which the political freedom is also eliminated. Belloc shows how these laws are in place already in the form of welfare and minimum wages. The modern reader is compelled to question the reasoning here, as he sees how such laws as the minimum wage do not bind either the worker or the owner to the extent of slavery. Still, the underlying principle, that the legal framework for the modern Servile State will be abstract and indirect, as opposed to overt, is convincing.

Most importantly, this book does not explain how to avoid the Servile State and to return to what Belloc promotes as the only stable form of society, the Distributive State. To redistribute property would go against the principles that the Distributive State relies upon--the ownership of property. In a confined world, the reader is left to wonder if it is possible after all.

This should not discourage the potential reader. There is enough insight in this short volume to enlighten even the most ardent capitalist or socialist, and the fresh perspective offered therein is sure to incite more fruitful motives by all.