Slashdot Mirror

Nonsense. The US dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a military base . That was because they wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

Now, if congress really cared, they could bring the matter up to the Supreme Court

Can they do so right away? My impression was that SCOTUS can only be appealed to after a lower court decision. And Congress members have filed a lawsuit to the effect.

Louis Kelso's idea of a basic income removes the need for many job protections. A basic income almost passed under Richard Nixon, promoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.basicincome.com/
http://www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

One is being put in place in Brazil:
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=974
"""
A senator from Brazil, Suplicy was the sponsor of the "Citizen's Basic Income" legislation that was signed into law last year. The law is grounded in the concept that an unconditional and guaranteed minimum income is the simplest and most effective step toward the eradication of poverty. It will be implemented gradually in Brazil beginning this year."
    He said today: "All people -- regardless of their ethnicity, gender, whatever -- should be able to share in the wealth of the nation. This should be done in a way that is just and provides for dignity and real freedom. Ensuring a guaranteed unconditional income does several things: It ends bureaucracy of reporting and checking on people. It eliminates the stigma attached to getting resources from the government. It does not penalize someone for earning money from a job. And it removes uncertainty."
"""

No, as you see, I was modded Troll exactly like I said I would be. I've posted this sort of thread before with the exact same results. On slashdot:

1. Oppressive draconian copyright laws are generally regarded as bad. Enforcement of those laws are generally regarded as bad. Everyone loves to rip on the RIAA.
2. China is bad. They censor the media and only allow you to see what they want you to see.
3. Point out that American copyright law is censorship, just achieved by different means but with the same end result, and YOU are bad. Mod -1 Troll.

Different means, same result. Point out the uncomfortable truth and you are a troll. That's blind nationalism plain and simple.

• China made tankman disappear by removing him from all distributed media. Kids in China today have never even heard of tank man.
• "Eyes on the Prize" was buried for more than a decade by the American government. For every documentary like EOTP you hear about there are hundereds that were never made and thousands of reels of footage that are inaccessible because of copyright law.

Blind nationalism. Blind nationalism. Blind nationalism. The Germans were blind nationalists too. They sat back as their government abused, tortured, raped, murdered, and locked people up in concentration camps. They sat there like sheep and did nothing. They sat by passively and allowed the slaughter millions of people. The evidence was staring them right in the face, they watched their neighbors hauled off on cattle cars. They did nothing. They were despicable. Americans are despicable.

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1210

Michael Hayden told the Senate that the Fourth Amendment doesn't require probable cause.

Former NSA director and current CIA executive Michael Hayden doesn't know about probable cause. And he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

which is a polite word for how voting machine vendors influence election officials

It's true, American work more hours and get less vacation time than other industrialized nation--two weeks less than the Japanese.

A non-scientific analysis of how fewer work hours might not be as bad for productivity as we thought can be found here. (note: this link is only authoritative for those who view interesting thing of the day as having authority).

Institute for Public Accuracy

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

I knew I was forgetting those from my bookmarks -- I get their regular emails and recommend anyone with an interest in this topic sign up on their lists.

Could it be that, like during CA's energy crisis, companies can make a lot of money by restricting supply when they have a near-monopoly/cartel?

Please stop propagating junk science

Cutting spending in California should start with the bang for the buck: millions in corporate welfare. Like the money that ratepaying state agencies paid to monopoly market-gamers like Enron, before Gray Davis blew their books open and sank their battleship. Do you think that Arnie (whose characters usually run on batteries) will do that, when his total recall cannot recollect his meeting with Ken Lay, captain of the titanic failure?

States also protect their citizens, which we pay for, at a bulk-rate discount, in taxes. Which services would the Gubernator cut?

While you are here, please sort out our broken nuclear plants. They've been down for years, and are just eating up subsidies.

One minor correction: they don't call them "condor cuisinarts" at all. It's the faux-libertarian Cato Institute that calls them that, and we know all about them...

Compared to Toronto, a.k.a. The Megacity?

> the Sierra Club referred to these things as "Cuisinarts of the air"

ah, that convenient misquote from the Cato Institute, who are not known for their accuracy and impartiality. The Sierra Club denies ever saying it.

> But what types of birds are killed in cities ... ?

cars, buildings and cats claim all types, from songbirds to raptors. Wherever birds are, they are part of the local ecosystem.

> I'm ... suggesting that the best solution for energy generation is one that maximizes return.

Return of what? Smog? If it's return on investment you are after, WindShare is offering its members very good returns.

> ... at least some folks are saying that the ecological drawbacks to mass-scale wind-power right now are large

Let me tell you about one of the power stations running in my province, Ontario. Nanticoke, on Lake Erie, is the largest coal burning plant in North America, and one of the single biggest polluters. It's kept running for two reasons:

1. the promised nuclear reactors refits are running years late and billions over budget. Nanticoke is tiding them over, while New York State is lodging a formal pollution complaint about Ontario's coal plants.
2. the US's power infrastructure is in such chaos due to overconsumption and underinvestment that Nanticoke sells a lot of its power south. Most of its smog goes south, so I suppose that's only fair.

The last two points are from memory, from reading Power: Journeys across an energy nation, by Gordon Laird (ISBN: 0140290036). My numbers may be slightly off.

The negative environmental impact of wind energy is nothing compared to that of traditional non-renewable energy methods. Wind is "What You See Is All You Get" -- no smog, no radiation, no weird stuff.

accuracy.org

(also answer to ghoti221 and borzwazie)

I completely agree that remaining unbiased is not possible. But it gets my goat when it's presented as unbiased: commentaries aren't.

Guerrillanews and mediachannel were mostly thrown in there for the interested reader to get a counterbalance. The Institute for Public Accuracy might have been a better addition to the list.

Guerrillanews is more of a commentary site than anything else. Of cause you can find speculative qoutes, if you look for them, but what I appreciate about the site, is they bring on people with non mainstream views. Sometimes they are dumb, but at least they don't read from a government press release. It's deliberately opinionated, but not presented as something else.

And for mediachannel, it links so many interesting articles on "both sides of the camp". Like interviews with CNN journalists and editors.

That being said, I don't look at Guerillanews for breaking news - for sure. I read news papers, magazines and check out a range of channels. I completely agree that one source won't give you the entire picture, and that all you can is look around and make up your own mind.

My biggest complaint about CNN is NOT lou dobbs. At all. Did you read the article I linked to? Here's another complaint. There's much more.

And for CNN being regarded as being liberal biased news - hmm... let me guess. You are American and you don't have a passport, right ;) ? And even if CNN is liberal biased news, who cares? That's really not the point.

I'm glad that you see the Fox bias, because Fox always claim that they are not.

> Please, just admit it that your biggest
> complaint about foxnews is that it shows a
> conservative voice. I would find it hard to
> believe that if a news

I'm more conservative than you imagine. I'm a capitalist, for globalization etc. If all the media was libral biased, I would have less of a problem with Fox, because it wouldn't be such a big problem in terms of ratings. I just don't see that as the case now, so if one is to seek "alternative" news sources, they will generally (in the US at least) have to look a bit to the left.