He/she was the sole responder, and it was his/her sole response to anything at TPMCafe. Called "Sapka" he signed up for TPMCafe apparently for the express purpose of responding to my post analyzing the Litvinenko murder and differing with Dmitri Simes' view at The National Interest.

The fact he has had no posts before or after the one, and that he joined the week my post went up was fascinating to me.

Recent Comments by Sapka

_______________________________________________________________

And he joined as a member 45 weeks ago, the same week I posted the Jan. 1, 2007 Litvinenko points.

History, Member for 45 weeks 1 day

---------------------------------------------------

Obviously I can't sleep.

There are standards of evidence for civil and criminal law, however, what is the standard of evidence, if any, used in the media or among bloggers to conclude that something is a scientific fact?

We can say there is scientific evidence for or against a proposition. However, would we be citing results from specific experiments as reported by popular media? Or, would we be citing actual findings from a scientific journal article? Or would we be citing the researcher's view of the findings?

Who here on TPMCafe, or, journalists related to TPMCafe, has a policy or practice in place for citing something as a scientific fact, evidence or finding? What is that policy, practice or standard?

If we do not use one, should we, and what would be a good practice to make citations more reliable?

Even as the so-called surge continues in Iraq (and we hit another record high in fatalities among American service members this year), the early signs of another surge are already showing up - homeless veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Some of the people who help homeless veterans say that these veterans are appearing on the streets even quicker than the Vietnam generation did.

We've all seen the stories about inadequate armor for our people in Iraq. We know that although the medical ability to save lives of badly injured troops that would have died is literally a life-saver, it also means we will have more veterans with completely disabling injuries (physical and mental) to care for.

The Veterans Administration likely won't be able to afford to help such increased numbers of the injured, the mentally disturbed, and the down-on-their-luck veterans at current funding levels.

But the de facto Bush Administration doesn't give a damn. The least you can do when you send men and women oversees to serve in a warzone (even in an illegitimate war like Iraq) is to take care of the ones who don't come back in good shape.

http://vaguelylogical.blogspot.com/ 

The discussion on this blog post in a cafe of ideas (not political only) is the existence and supernature of God. Do you believe? Do you find the belief reasonable? Who or what is God for you and why? We each have our reasons and motives, and these may exclude for us others' as non-convincing. However, before we decide that, we need to have a greater understanding of one another's spiritual / philosophical / moral / theological / or anti-any of the above, state of being.

Why the topic? In the context of some of Candidate Tom's cultural common good discussions the intriguing question arises as to whether we actually can discuss religion and politics and remain fellow Americans who solve problems together finding common ground to do so. 

You may have other interests, and may so state, but I am personally interested in troubleshooting the repeat experience of folks mis-taking the meaning conveyed in religious sources; the premises and propriety in using them; the substance seen in them; and worst of all, the communication problem that happens when one person thinks that they cannot take another person seriously because they believe in God or because they do not.

I am not neutral on the topic. I do believe in God and that God has communicated to mankind, among other matters, the simple personal objective of spiritual unity of each and all of mankind with God. I believe that God is all good, all loving, all powerful and all wise.

That is the beginning of a post that may go long, or gather no responses. In any case, to be able to take our time with it makes sense. Direct focus does too.