Slashdot Mirror

'We the people' have spoken.. 'We' do not want more freedom.. In fact, too many (these are your kids, so this is your future) think we already have too much. If 'we' did, 'we' would vote for freedom regardless of the propaganda being spewed against it. 'We' want convenience and American Idol and will kill anybody who gets in the way of that... Big business is the government. It is delusional to expect 'reform'. Regime change will not be peaceful by any means.

Took me a while to find a reference... But you should read "How the Phone Companies Are Screwing America: The $320 Billion Broadband Rip-Off" before you jump to their defense.

Yes, well, you still said the part I did quote.. That's what stands out. That's why I asked the question.. You advocate following procedure, but you're going into it with the preconception that '..in this case, there is probably really no room for doubt'.. That, I believe would, and should get you thrown off the jury. And since it appears that finding an unbiased jury would be damn near impossible, there is probably really no room for a fair trial.. Eh, whatever, the argument is moot now.. but we do have a clear case of obstruction..and nobody cares, because we all 'know' he's guilty, and as it turns out, we really are 'random barbarians', which will lead us into another dark age of utter savagery.

This is just one more instance of the new American business model of making more and more people criminals.

Sure is refreshing to see some logic in all this stupidity.. Where too many people think the first amendment 'goes too far' in protecting one's rights, and these same people will tell you torture is ok... Dark times ahead...

...Skype has proprietary encryption that still has not been beaten...

I would wager that there are rules that limit the effectiveness of that.. in addition to the fact that the government would love to have you believe the encryption is still good.

So, there's no need for such an app, since on all these iDevices, people can get that info right from their website? In addition, regardless of it being an app that just does that, would YOU want to support an organization/cult that has harmed so many people? Dig deep and research them. I for one, regardless of what their app does, would be vehemently against doing anything supportive.

Correct, I've since downloaded the app and it's just a front-end to their website, all it does is download the same pages and display them in the app. It's made with a lame automatic app creation tool to make cookie cutter apps. Shouldn't be in the AppStore in the first place. I guess they were counting on the Streisand Effect from some cheap publicity.

I don't support anything about this group. I once read an article about a guy that went under cover in one of those "gay cure" places they have and it seriously disturbed me. That said everybody has rights, even bigots. It's up to us sane ones to make sure there are rules that protect everyone, not to join the patients in the asylum.

Substitute relationship or cohabitation for marriage

Buddy, that's exactly what a lot of us are trying to do and if it wasn't for the religious whackos in places like Utah, it would have happened already.

Until then, though, I don't think "substitute relationship or cohabitation for marriage" is a valid way to make any comparison, because there are a whole lot of kooks who believe that if you start to "substitute relationship or cohabitation for marriage" it would bring down all of Western civilization.

Personally, I don't give a shit if half a dozen women want to marry some patriarch and then believe that as long as Big Daddy makes it to heaven, they'll go to heaven too. As long as they don't go into fits if a pair of gay men or women want to have the rights to be married too.

Don't forget that a lot of the Utah "saints" (which should have been the name of the Salt Lake City NBA franchise) spent a whole lot of money to make sure that gay men and women couldn't get married in a neighboring state .

The takeaway being a whole lot of Utah is a "black hole" where the modern world is sucked into the singularity, leaving only a lot of guns and holy underpants.

It's a shame, too, because it's quite a beautiful place except for all the crazy.

Odd. The only place that quote exists on Google points to your post on slashdot. Care to point us to the relevant article?

MSNBC news was found to have the most informed users when they were asked about various facts on current news stories. Fox viewers fared the worst.

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

Unfortunately, the USA considers the entire rest of the world a potential enemy, and is working as hard as it can to turn them into actual enemies. Read this: http://www.alternet.org/world/148094/america's_empire_and_endless_wars_are_destroying_the_world,_and_ruining_our_great_country/

You are the uninformed idiot.

That worked so well with Iran and the overthrow of the Shah. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.

The Shah was yet another dictator installed by the US and UK after deposing a democratic government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Sometimes it's better not to back devils - the US is not obliged to send huge amounts of military aid to Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Uzbekistan etc etc. and probably a lot of covert funding for guerrilla groups that we don't know about (see numerous examples from past decades). Maybe that seemed like a good idea at some point, but we've reached the point where the US is currently bankrolling the majority of the world's oppressive regimes - that's got to stop.

http://www.alternet.org/world/149805/it_ain't_just_mubarak_--_7_of_the_worst_dictators_the_u.s._is_backing_to_the_hilt/

As to this story, the concept of the US actually imposing the internet on dictatorships is absurd. Given their recent backing of the torturer Suleiman as the new 'strong man of Egypt', they're more likely to help impose a media blackout in the name of continuity and stability than undermine any dictators. Unless, of course, those dictators decide they don't want to play along with the US in the region. Then perhaps they might have 'freedom' imposed on them.

Real heroes also don't rape women!

You mean like the troops we're supposed to be supporting in flag-humping fervor?

Just because your point sucks, doesn't mean that I didn't understand it just fine.

I am aware that Obama didn't mean it literally, and am claiming that Palin et alia didn't either.

No, seriously, feel free to give up absurd false equivalencies at any time. "Knife to a gunfight" is an old expression for being prepared - it's not a call for violence any more than is "dead to me", which anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex knows means to shun someone.

So, where, exactly, has it been a long time political analogy to put up a map of your opponents with crosshairs scattered over it? Fortunately, for those who continue to insist on being disingenuous, Palin doubled down by saying "don't retreat, RELOAD". It's not the same level as "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest", but you have to be willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't a great deal of violent rhetoric coming from the right wing, and a total sophist to pretend that "both sides do it".

Let's Get This Straight: There is No Leftist Equivalent to the Right's Violent Rhetoric

An anonymous commenter at Daily Kos and the last Republican vice presidential nominee are not equivalent, no matter how many ridiculously irresponsible members of the media would have us believe otherwise.

There is no leftist equivalent to Glenn Beck, host of a long-running nationally syndicated radio show, former host of a show on CNN and current host of a show on Fox, best-selling author, DC rally organizer, and longtime user of eliminationist rhetoric, including equating universal healthcare to rape, joking about victims of forest fires being America-hating liberals, comparing Al Gore to Hitler, condoning the murder of Michael Moore, accusing Holocaust survivor George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, equating immigration reform with burning US citizens alive, publicly endorsing violent revolution, and winkingly telling his viewers not to get violent, all of which amounts to a speck on the tip of a very big iceberg.

A minor point, but simply looking at the amount of time spent on a subject doesn't define bias. That coverage could have been good or bad (or McCain could just be boring and of little interest to the public). It does not indicate bias.

There are also interesting studies showing that when polled, most fox viewers held the least amount of true facts.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

Interesting enough, MSNBC viewers actually scored best on facts.

(Apologies for the URL. It is not intended as a flame, but rather what was published)

You forgot a couple of things. First, the University of Maryland associated polling organization did the referenced poll in 2003. I went first to the site of the polling organization, and looked for the poll. I couldn't find it. Then I went to the Article and jumped to the referenced poll. Look at the date.

Dude, where on Earth did you get that from?

TFA is here.
It references a summary of the poll, which is dated December 9, 2010.
The summary includes a link to a PDF of the full report, which on page 3 says:

To this end, WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted an in-depth survey of public opinion. The poll was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010.

I guess people see what they want to see, regardless of how outlandish it is (like believing a poll from 2003 would ask about Illinois state senator Obama... puh-lease!).

...On July 28, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans. When the veterans moved back into their old camp, they rushed two policeman trapped on the second floor of a building. The cornered police drew their revolvers and shot two veterans, William Hushka and Eric Carlson, who died later.[3] When told of this, President Hoover ordered the army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honour, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them--an action which prompted the civil service spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

http://www.alternet.org/rights/102220/is_posse_comitatus_dead/
Is Posse Comitatus Dead?
Why are there active duty soldiers stationed on U.S. streets? ...
Military Officer: So we've been given control of these forces so that we can train them, ensure they're responsive and direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called to support civil authority, those governors or local state jurisdictions that might need our help,...

It does note that for the time being heavy weaponry is still forbidden and other weapons would be "containerized" and only used as needed.

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

While a quick google search shows this article-- By the very site claiming that "economy getting worse" is misinformation-- from august, stating that "the economy is getting worse"! Wow, just wow.

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

As opposed to a NY Times article stating that thats EXACTLY what will happen. So we're sitting here bashing on how bad Fox is, when an avid reader of the times could walk away with exactly the same impression? Sort of like how above someone could have read an alternet article about how the economy is sinking, only to be called stupid for doing so in an article 4 months later? Fantastic. Not to mention "healthcare reform bill reducing deficit" is speculation ANYWAY (you saying there will be NO differences from projected costs?), so its rather brash to call anyone who believes otherwise "misinformed".

60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

I would wonder A) how the question was worded (ie, "do you believe MAN has caused significant global warming" vs "do you believe the climate is changing"), and B) what the poll statistics were for other news networks, or the population in general. Sadly the link to the poll is down, if anyone managed to grab it I would be interested in seeing it.

In fact the big problem with the article is that its so biased its not even funny-- the headline puts the worst of slashdot's to shame. You've got flamebait, wild speculation, and assumptions of causation when only correlation is shown. The links to previous polls are hillarious-- we have one poll, by NBC, showing that NBC viewers are smarter (didnt we just get done laughing at poll by Microsoft showing that Microsoft's browser is the best?). And their conclusion, that I particularly liked:

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

Yes, that totally follows-- first, we're going to assume causation, and then we're going to assume intent, and then we're going to claim, whats more, that there is a reason behind all this, and finally that all of this is corroborated by the poll.

Excuse me, while I dont much like a lot of what I see on Fox, its a hell of a lot better than this sort of garbage (well, the news segments at least).
Commenters, if you dont much like Fox, thats great, but please note just how biased this story you're applauding is. Its practically a parody of itself.

I should have taken the time to read your posts before posting. You have used the phrase "public domain" 3 times in 3 different posts, and I cite them:

1. Just because a document is leaked into the public domain does not automatically declassify it.

2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is on the public domain, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation

3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are on the public domain, it doesn't work that way in any service.

Here is a definition of "public domain" from Princeton WordNet ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=public%20domain )

S: (n) public domain (property rights that are held by the public at large)

Now, taking your comments into consideration, and instead replacing where you use "public domain" with the Princeton definition of "public domain" we get this:

1. Just because a document is leaked into the property rights that are held by the public at large does not automatically declassify it.

2. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is property rights that are held by the public at large, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation

3. As to the comments about documents being de-classified automatically whenever they are property rights that are held by the public at large, it doesn't work that way in any service.

I agree, who can argue with you?

This is in interesting article: http://www.alternet.org/media/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations/

I do not see any basis in thinking that American citizens are trying all that hard to crash planes into buildings.

Crazy people come in all colors, and since there are many more Americans flying each day than foreigners, you might be in just as much danger from Americans as you are from foreigners. It's terrorism either way.

That said, the full body scanners and hand jobs are a step or two too far. To make flying as dangerous as driving (per mile), terrorists would need to blow up a plane a month. So if they are blowing up two a year, I'm still going to fly. And if I die in a fireball, that's the price of freedom.

Not only that, but for all the people applauding Ecuador, have they noticed that Ecuador declined to renew the US lease at its Manta air base, and turned around and offered it to China? Here's a story from two years ago predicting this, something that has gotten utterly overlooked in this debate.

Does anyone really believe that as China presses its advantage in these areas that the Chinese Communist Party is going to be a better steward of the interests of freedom and democracy, even in light of anyone's opinions on US errors and missteps in foreign policy?

OOOhhh aaaaahh Cantonaaaaah

http://www.alternet.org/story/148977/join_in_on_the_world's_biggest_bank_run_this_december

"If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear." Those chilling words were spoken by James Pendergraph, then executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Office of State and Local Coordination, at a conference of police and sheriffs in August 2008.

http://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles

How in the world does this solve the problem of media corporations having the ability - unlike every other corporation under your regime - to run politically slanted content under the guise of news right up until the end of the election?

It does solve that, what opening the airwaves does is it allows more voices to be broadcast. Just as the web allows relatively cheap and easy websites, open airwaves will allow relatively cheap and easy radio stations. An example I used years ago was a station dedicated to model railroads where I start broadcasting a call-in show. Maybe I do it as a hobby an hour or two a week, or maybe I try to make it a career and business getting hobby shops to sponsor the show.

Of course doing that now, broadcasting pirate radio, is an invitation to have armed government employees bust down my door.

The Web and print are already this open, but most people get their news from big media corps' sites.

And how many are there? ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and others. Then there's Alternet, Indymedia, and wikipedia.

Why? Better production quality. (Not necessarily the content, just the presentation.)

What? Only large organizations can put together quality presentations?

Falcon

As a bona-fide leftist, I was disgusted to see B.O. lift all kinds of left-sounding rhetoric during the 08 campaign. That the whole new kiddie/web2.0 set was pretty much totally fooled, even more despicable. His justice dept has continued Bush's legal battles (pro-"Patriot Act" et al..).. which has met deafening silence in the megaconglomerate (stands to gain) MSM.... his basic econ has been the wet dreams of Larry Summers and Geithner etc.. then note how the MSM eagerly promoted the billionaire-backed faux populism known as "Tea Party".. while continuing the blanket censorship of the Greens and all leftists, which has happened since Greens came to the US but has picked up steam as Dems' lies get more daring and desparate (note how they have moved in on the word "green" all over the place as an overall psy-op.) So just realize, there are real alternatives. (I've voted left of Dems since Dukakis flopped (horrified that Bush was running, knowing his fascist past. (see the front pg of yesterdays NYT re Nazis!)) Matt Gonzales was always a favorite of mine, since he won more votes but was cheated in the count by the Gavin Newsom machine.. (they just HAD to keep gpUS.org from running a major city apparently.) .. though voting for a black WOMAN-- McKinney running as Green, should've became a popular idea if it weren't for the stranglehold the MSM has. Please folks,expand your liberty radar beyond just the digital specialization.. For starters, try the top of todays Alternet for the latest from Kucinich's econ policy guy, Prof. Hudson: http://www.alternet.org/economy/148857/obama's_greatest_betrayal%3A_the_coming_sell-out_to_the_super_rich_and_what_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us/ -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

if you bring someone that the other party is totally against, you cannot have it passed. hence, everyone has to pick a candidate that is acceptable by the other party under the guise of 'bipartisanship'. otherwise your candidate gets rejected, and you get into a standoff. that was the way the candidates were selected even by obama, supposedly a very leftist president. candidates are vetted even before they are selected as a lot, through unofficial channels in between the sides. this is the way things work in every country. not only such a situation is detrimental for the administration, but also bad for the image of the country internationally. it never happens, because the ones who appoint never chooses someone who wouldnt get accepted. so its either the approver's candidate, or closest to what they can get.

When one party holds more then 51% of the senate, any candidate can be approved. There only needs to be a 51% majority to confirm nominations. If you are the president and your party controls more then 50% of the senate, then you can get anyone confirmed as long as the party supports your nomination. No watering down needed.

huh ? democrats won senate at 9 Nov 2006, and biggest halliburton contract was canceled in 31 jul 2006 http://www.alternet.org/story/39567/ [alternet.org]

So what your saying is that the republicans did what the democrats wouldn't. Actually, no that's not what your saying. What you are saying is that you are confused. Halliburton is still in contract with the US government and had been long before Bush was a president. If there was something wrong, Clinton could have changed that and Obama certainly could have too.

in addition stopping a military contract is not a trifle. because of the immense lock-in that occurs due to the military equipment, armies use the same vendor for decades until they can slowly replace their vendor with newly acquired equipment. however as you can see, democrats at least canceled the biggest contract they can cancel.

Actually, Halliburton picked up one of the three logistics contracts that the old contract was broken into. This wasn't as intricate as you are suggesting as Halliburton was providing services that wasn't directly ties into military operations. these services was transportation (not lock in), food and shelter (again, no locking outside caloric requirements).

also, by saying 'you showed nothing', you wont end up invalidating the opposing argument. its self-reinforcement at best.

Actually, a claim was made. Support for that claims needs to be made when it's questioned. He showed nothing means he has not supported the claim at all. So for all we know, it's a wild claim made up on the spot. Just like the claim that a political party having control of the executive and senate couldn't get a confirmation passed without support from an apposing party. If shows ignorant and wrong someone is.

Evidently you don't even know what you speaking of yourself. First, it's the administration's right to stack the appointments under him. It's true that they need approval from congress but that's it. The president selects them, submits them, and directs their actions. IF at any time, they didn't want to use Halliburton, they could have stopped. If at any time, they wanted to make it legally required to have a separation between government employees and businesses like Halliburton, they could have by executive policy order as well as asked congress to pass a law. They didn't.

thats it ?


if you bring someone that the other party is totally against, you cannot have it passed. hence, everyone has to pick a candidate that is acceptable by the other party under the guise of 'bipartisanship'. otherwise your candidate gets rejected, and you get into a standoff. that was the way the candidates were selected even by obama, supposedly a very leftist president. candidates are vetted even before they are selected as a lot, through unofficial channels in between the sides. this is the way things work in every country. not only such a situation is detrimental for the administration, but also bad for the image of the country internationally. it never happens, because the ones who appoint never chooses someone who wouldnt get accepted. so its either the approver's candidate, or closest to what they can get.

huh ? democrats won senate at 9 Nov 2006, and biggest halliburton contract was canceled in 31 jul 2006 http://www.alternet.org/story/39567/

in addition stopping a military contract is not a trifle. because of the immense lock-in that occurs due to the military equipment, armies use the same vendor for decades until they can slowly replace their vendor with newly acquired equipment. however as you can see, democrats at least canceled the biggest contract they can cancel.

also, by saying 'you showed nothing', you wont end up invalidating the opposing argument. its self-reinforcement at best.

Who gets to define "intelligence?"

The (liberal), scientists, of course.

I Was a Professor at the Horribly Corrupt American University of Iraq... Until the Neocons Fired Me

Excerpt:

Oh, there’s a construction site, sitting on a dry hillside just out of town. And for years, AUIS shamelessly showed “virtual video” of that site as it’s supposed to look, if and when it’s ever finished, as if it already were the campus. It may never be finished; already the university hired and finally fired a local construction firm which missed every deadline it was set. A Turkish company has the contract now, adding to the Turks’ domination of all business in Iraqi Kurdistan.

When anyone at AUIS dared to suggest that it wasn’t very honest to keep up the “virtual tour” fiction, Mitchell and Agresto had a stock response: “We’re a startup operation!” It reminded me of a stand-up comic’s line: “I try to remain new on the job as long as possible.

One reason we accepted shocks like the nonexistent campus so docilely was that, when our minders met us at the Suli airport, they gave us a nice little packet containing a cellphone and $5000 cash “to help [us] settle in.”

Trading stocks based on fraction-of-a-second price arbitrage does not increase the wealth of the nation - it just diverts resources that could have gone to more productive activities.

The US took a crap-shoot, trying to change to the "New New" economy, and it turned out that the "New New" economy was about as sustainable as the Dutch Tulip Mania. Germany, on the other hand, exports as much as China does, with about 1/20 the population - and they get 6 weeks vacation and less than 40 hours per work week.

"Enterprisey java stuff" doesn't replace production of actual goods - and the majority of the actual production capability still on American soil after 30 years of bleeding is now owned by foreign corporations. Thank Reagan, because it started under him.

430 child pornography sites. You got to be kidding me. That like what, 0.000000000000001% of the websites worldwide? And for a hand full of sites they have to filter 100% of the traffic and spend millions of Australian $ for it?

How about a total filter on the catholic church, after all there are 10% of Catholic Priests Were Pedophiles. How about spend more money to protect real children in Australia? There was 5,591 sexual abuse and 11,789 physical abuse in 2008. There were 339,454 notifications but only 162,259 investigations, that's only 48% coverage. How about dropping this stupid filter and spend more money on protecting real children, living in Australia right now?

But what will happened is that Australia is going to spend millions to block 430 child pornography sites but then they have to cut spending on education and on child protection services.

how right you are

No, it's more like buying a shiny new house, smashing down walls for 13 years, and trying to foist it off onto a naive buyer.

GoDaddy is infamous. When someone posted MySpace passwords to a mailing list archived by seclists, MySpace complained and GoDaddy immediately shut down seclists.org with less than 1 minute's notice. They weren't even hosting the material, just the DNS record. GoDaddy's counsel said "I think the fact that we gave him notice at all was pretty generous."

As covered on slashdot they also have a habit of coming up with reasons to suspend customers' accounts and not just terminating service but refusing to release the domain to a different registrar unless you pay exorbitant fees.

Also GoDaddy shut down some guy's personal website because they sent him an email to update his invalid email address in the whois information and he didn't reply to it. They didn't just shut down the domain, they sold it.

What kind of joke of a service provider complies with random complaints from non-customers against customers without court order?

Oh, I guess a source would be helpful ;)

http://www.alternet.org/story/142239/will_biometric_passports_lead_to_a_state_of_constant_surveillance/

Ron AKA Chronic: You can create another account. Worse comes to worse, you can just lay low for a bit and then come back.
JasonQPublic: Zach, if they won’t reinstate your account, you really don’t have to leave digg unless you just want to. Just follow the steps below. 1. Go to whatismyip.com/ and write down the IP address that is displayed at the top of the page. 2. Turn off your cable or DSL modem for approx. 5 minutes then turn it back on. 3. When you are connected to the internet again, make sure that the IP address displayed at the top of the page is different from the one that you wrote down in step 1. If it is not different, go back to step 2 and leave modem off for longer period of time. 4. Create a new email address at your favorite email site. 5. Go to Digg and create a new account using the new email address.

I’ve been permanently banned 4 or 5 times. You gotta make sure you got a month or so between [accounts]. The libs make a big deal out of start dates on profiles after one of us returns from getting permanently banned. Maybe we should have 10 or 15 identities created so the next time one of us gets a permanent ban we could come back with an identity that was created weeks or months before. Kind of like Jeff came back as Benthedog and they had no clue. -Phoenixtx

So, next time I get banned I’ll also log off FP and twitter first, with the original IP and then create new accounts there with a new IP, then create a new account at digg. Of course you’ll also have to delete all cookies and web bugs from the three sites too. -Minarchian

I don't care that the leftist groups do it too. Both groups are being douches and need to suck it up and face it that not everyone wants an opinion shoved down their throats.

"I'm very sorry that a can of Pepsi killed your mother"

My mother does not have type 2 diabetes, but I know many others with it.

And for some that may suggest diet soda, sorry but that also leads to weight gain and diabetes.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

"last time I checked no one is marching into people's homes and forcing cola down people's throats."

You underestimate the power that marketing has over people.

Tobacco TV advertisement has been banned for some time because of the power of marketing, but currently soda advertisement has little regulation, so they are free to "march into peoples homes [television]".

http://www.alternet.org/story/45498/

Interesting how the farmers are not the ones against Monsanto.

Except there are many farmers who oppose Monsanto, or visa versa.

1. Monsanto versus Farmers.
2. Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
3. Haitian Farmers Fight Back Against Monsanto
4. Nelson Farm - A Fight Against A Giant -- Monsanto Sues North Dakota Farmer Over Biotech Crop Dispute
5. Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers
6. Monsanto vs. US Farmers [pdf]
7. Oregon farmers caught up in Monsanto suit over engineered alfalfa
8. Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers
9. Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?
10. Monsanto watch: Targeting American farmers with lawyers, fear and money
11. 1. Falcon

A lawful order is directive given by a police officer in the execution of his duties AS DEFINED BY LAW.

While I wish that you were correct, a Federal Court of Appeals disagrees with you.

To recap: Malaika Brooks got a speeding ticket. The officer demanded she sign it, and she refused, saying that she wasn't speeding, and didn't want to incriminate herself. In this jurisdiction, there is no law saying that a ticket must be signed by the accused, and a ticket does not have to be signed to be valid, so the officer's demand was unlawful. The officers then grabbed her keys, tasered her three times, dragged her to the ground and arrested her.

For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it

You can't be prosecuted, but you can be assaulted, repeatedly tasered, and arrested. And the courts will side with the police officers.

Quite a few Xians called for bans of Andres Serrano and defunding of the NEA during the "Piss Christ" controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts#1989_objections

College group bans Gays and people who have pre-martial sex:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/19/christian-college-group-bans-gays-and-people-who-have-premarital-sex-is-it-a-set-up/

Boycotting (not really a call for a ban, I know) Sony because of, get this, how Xians are portrayed in "The DaVinci Code": http://www.christianboycott.org/

Xian call for banning the game "Modern Warfare 2" because of violence and the "well established cause and effect relationshop between video games and violence": http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/Opinion_5/Ban_this_Game.shtml

Xians calling for ban on Muslims in the military: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-military

So bans, yes. Some Xians are very sensitive and call for bans all the time. Death, maybe not so much. (Unless you count the anti-abortion people...) There does seem to be a proto-Xian-al-quieda group in India though, called the National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://www.christianaggression.org/features_nlft.php. Don't know anything about it though.

This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music

It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.

It's not quite so clear as far as accusations of "stealing" goes. There is something called compulsive licensing (for example, a radio station playing a music does not have to individually seek permission of the artist; it just has to pay a rate set by law). So, by law, anyone can play the music publicly as long as they pay the license fee set by law, no individualized permission from artists needed (and given the compulsive nature of this licensing, I doubt they can revoke this congress-granted permission; Lessig talks about this as being a case where Congress balanced the rights of copyright holders with public good).

Especially in the McCain campaign case, you will read about the artists returning the license fee—that's because McCain campaign played the music legally and paid the legally set license fee, as required by law. The artists can refuse the fee as a publicity thing if they want, but that doesn't change the fact that McCain campaign fulfilled all its obligations under the law.

Of course, why they would want to promote artists whose political views diverge so far from conservative views is baffling to me, but in any case, the only sense in which the campaign "stole music" is in the sense in which McCain campaign didn't seek permission that they didn't have to seek under the current law (but some people, like Weird Al, do seek such permission even if he doesn't have to, so you could argue it as a matter of courtesy—but not as a matter of law, as "stealing" implies).

Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.

Republicans have a long, sordid history of using music without permissions, they especially love to use songs from artists who are not Republicans. Google 'republicans stealing music.'
This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music

It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.

Or we could have reasonable gun control laws. Cue the nutcases who think they're going to 1) have a reason to fight the US Army and 2) think they could possibly beat them.

Thanks NRA! Not only are you keeping our murder rate high, but you're also helping to kill Mexicans too.

Especially if you're a private military contractor in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xT1DGJMoQ

DynCorp was operating like that in South America throughout the 1990s. These private military contractors are not held accountable, which is why they're used. They can get away with things the military would have a hard tyme getting away with. And I bet that's one reason Bush pushed to privatize the military. About the only way these corporations can be held accountable is via the Alien Tort Claims Act, which Bush tried to get rid of.

Falcon

Cost more, yes. Gets less, I don't think so.

Overall cost of health care is up because the tests, treatments, and medications that are now mainstream are all dramatically better than they were not all that long ago, when they were prohibitively expensive and rarely employed. They are used more widely now because they are less expensive (economies of scale), and, after all, nobody wants sub-standard treatment.

Absolutely provably false.

Harvard Business Review published a piece on this recently. It uses raw data to compare the US health care system to other developed nations. It's conclusions:

Americans realize amongst the poorest health outcomes of developed nations. Americans have the lowest life expectancy amongst developed nations -- 78.1 years, compared to 81 in the UK, and 82 in Switzerland. [...] And America has the highest infant mortality rate -- 6.9 deaths per 1000 live births, compared to 5.4 in Canada, or 4.7 in Belgium.

The numbers are preliminary, but suggest a visible trend. Where survival rates have increased in other countries -- sometimes significantly -- in the US, cancer survival rates have dropped over the last two decades.

Americans pay more for healthcare because they trade more expensive products for less service, realizing poorer outcomes. Why? Because that is what maximizes near-term profits along the value chain. [...] Healthcare in America is a textbook example of thin value. The healthcare industry maintains significantly supernormal profitability -- yet, those profits are divorced from people being relatively better off. An American healthcare industry that "creates value" by limiting how much better off people are is simply transferring value from society to shareholders.

(emphasis theirs)

The article also goes on to state that most pharmaceutical companies spend over TWICE as much on marketing as they do on R and that the gap between R&D and marketing continues to grow. By moving to a government single payer health insurance system, the pharmaceutical industries would have to forego their ~20% annual profit margins and live with profit margins in line with the state of the economy.

The outraged opposition from "Real Americans" to public health care is entirely a manufactured product, supported by those who have interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

On a personal note, I talk with some friends from Europe on a regular basis about this, and they don't really understand the fuss, or the need for insurance to be involved. One friend from Denmark summed it up by saying "If you're a citizen, you pay taxes and get health care. If you're sick, you go to the doctor, you get treated, the doctor sends the bill to the government. The end".

As opposed to my current situation, where the Family Practitioner that my family has been going to since my son was born (the OB/GYN that delivered him works there) is now suddenly not covered by my insurance company - EVEN THOUGH the insurance company's own website says that certain doctors at the practice participate, and EVEN THOUGH we have previously had coverage for things performed at the doc's place. We got a bill for over $500 for a STATE MANDATED health checkup for my son that was required before he could enroll in Kindergarten - not a drop of it was covered. My employer stepped in and reimbursed me for a portion of it, but told me sadly that they couldn't fight the insurance company and that I'd have to change doctors.

We need health care reform. The Right Wing in Washington opposes it. They will fight it at any cost, because it cuts into their backing funds from the insurance and

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Many industrial scale cattle, swine and chicken operations use subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics in feed as a growth enhancing technique. Over 70% of all antibiotics used in teh US are used in agriculture, and the vast majority of those are used in feed, and subtherapeutic doses are the problem. The ag CAFOs are where many of these bugs get a toehold.

Tyson chicken, Smithfield pork, all the big operators use antibiotics in feed. Look it up. http://www.alternet.org/health/145272/the_overuse_of_antibiotics_in_livestock_feed_is_killing_us

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)

Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary [youtube.com]

Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says [bloomberg.com]
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [reuters.com]
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [dailybail.com]
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [bloomberg.com]
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [bbc.co.uk]
What are the reserve currencies? [wsj.net]
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ml-implode.com]
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' [telegraph.co.uk]
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [examiner.com]
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [cnbc.com]
A False Choice [viewfromsi...valley.com]
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com [ajc.com]
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands [alternet.org]
Socialising and Privatising [freeradical.co.nz]
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses [politico.com]
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [researchrecap.com]

Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund [ft.com]

- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. [en.rian.ru]

- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati

Oops, forgot the citation for that. 80% of fox news viewers in 2003 thought one or more of those 3 lies were true, and 45% believed all three.

Links that are not reputable or factual but seem to support my case... (but I'm not a doctor so I can't tell)

http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/content/summary/90/4/513
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0442e/a0442e0m.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28630.php
http://www.alternet.org/story/274/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280264/obese_britons_also_at_risk_for_malnutrition.html?cat=51
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r718533228ph9g55/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8581766
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S155072890800600X ...but in all truth I am not nearly as qualified as you are to talk about these things. I'm parroting things I've seen in biased documentaries. I bow before your might.

Nice anecdote. Perhaps it's even true. But the vast majority of publicly owned utilities do in fact provide better service at lower rates. Look at the TVA. Look at what happened in South America when water was privatized.

In general, privatization only works when there is a robust and competitive market. In the case of public utilities, they are a natural monopoly, and therefore, a competitive market is impossible. Cooperatives and other forms of public ownership are the most efficient way to run any form of natural monopoly.

We don't ban McDonald's because some folks don't eat anything else and hurt themselves in doing so.

You don't ban McDonald's, because that would be discriminatory. You ban trans fats, or perhaps, sub-grade beef. You make it unprofitable to poison the citizenry for money.

Do this many people really not want truly guilty people caught and prosecuted?

Guilty of what and at the expense of what? Could you cite specific examples, as you seem so eager to chastise others for failing to provide?

I don't want people truly guilty of possessing marijuana to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of indulging in whimsical fantasies involving fictional characters to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of copyright infringement to be caught and prosecuted. Had this been some years ago I would not have wanted people truly guilty of being gay to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of sexting to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of being mistaken for a terrorist to be shot on the London Underground. I do not want people truly guilty of possessing a knife to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of breast feeding to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of disobeying school authorities to be caught and prosecuted.

Aside from that, I'd rather rot in prison than have some moron telling me that my privacy is less important than their fishing expedition for child pornography or bomb making recipes. Note from that article a detective is quoted as saying "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know... What is anybody gonna think?". I'd rather be water-boarded than cooperate with that sort of pond life. If a detective wants me to cooperate then they will need a better reason than 'we hope you're guilty of something, let us pry into your private life or we will presume the worse'.

If you haven't guessed, I'm not by definition a 'law-abiding' citizen. Were laws in perfect alignment with my principles then I would still only be law abiding by circumstance, not choice. I'd feel much safer around a person who doesn't try to kill me because they choose not to than someone who is just abiding by the law. So, here's me. Sticking it to the man. And proud of it. With long hair. But not a hippy.

What your average pirate does to 1 ship, your average City or NY bankster does to a town, state or small country.
http://www.alternet.org/story/144203/
"Bailed-Out AIG Forcing Poor to Choose Between Running Water and Food"