Slashdot Mirror

The US supported Iraq because Iraq threatened us? That exactly why the US shouldn't support Iraq. Perhaps you meant Iran threatened us. There's a problem with this though, the US did support a dictator before his overthrow.

Ok, here's more: bush taliban $43. Your CATO article is #5. I don't see the link I provided on the first page of results, instead my TFA I had saved years ago. Ah, adding "opium" to the search then my link is #5 and the CATO link is 7.

Ignoring Blowback isn't exactly smart either, it makes us look reckless as well.

Even the CATO article does not say anything about the Taliban getting any more money. Googling bush taliban $43 opium "down payment" returns no results saying the payment was a down payment to the Taliban.

This is actually a very interesting article:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77346/ ...it talks about how, before Kerry was seen as a flip-flopper, Bush's media advisor laid out his plan during an interview. I'm not sure it really matters who they run as long as they can't combat this stuff. You can find some sort of way to discredit almost anyone, and if it isn't addressed as bullshit right away it gets into the public subconscious.

Yes, alternative news sites like Democracy Now! and Alternet are clearly on the liberal side. But so what? I'm not suggesting that these should be your only source of news, but you'll discover things (important things) from them that you would never EVER hear from the mainstream media.

Do yourself a favor and check them out once in a while. I particularly like Alternet, as they are more of an aggregator of independent media.

Second, Ive heard this theory BS so much I felt compelled to write. Evolution: Just a Theory? Just so I wouldn't have to type it out every time.

you are criticizing Rush Limbaugh because you think he insults people, and you chose to do that by... insulting him?

Hey jackhole, get a clue. When a bloated gasbag spews lies about an advocate for people with a debilitating disease, you're goddamned right he gets insulted. And when Rush mocks the disease's effects , shaking his body spastically around on camera to mimic Fox's illness, oh holy crap does he deserve to be insulted. Shakespeare didn't write enough insults for sick bastard whores like Rush Limbaugh.

But guess what? Rush was right. Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms. Here is a video clip of him admitting this.

Guess what, you brain-dead moron? In that video clip Fox denies what he supposedly admitted, saying explicitly -- listen to your own video clip --

"It isn't as if I didn't take it deliberately, as some kind of theatrical thing."

Which of course pustulent corpse-raper Rush Limbaugh quotes as:

FOX: I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing...

Here, as usual, Rush listeners learn their facts about the world exactly backwards. It's the price you pay for giving a fat, impotent, parasitic slug-worm an invitation into your living room. Lend credence to the sneering ringmaster of a national freakshow and what happens is that you become stupid. Let me give you another example. If you'd bothered to learn something instead of lazily gulping down Limbaugh's diarrhea, you might have known that the visible tremors Rush was mocking come from the medication:

In fact, at the time he was over-medicated for his Parkinson's disease, Fox said Thursday in an exclusive interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric.

"The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic," Fox told Couric. "Because the thing about ... being symptomatic is that it's not comfortable. No one wants to be symptomatic; it's like being hit with a hammer."

His body visibly wracked by tremors, Fox appears in a political ad touting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's stance in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That prompted Limbaugh to speculate that Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

Fox told Couric, "At this point now, if I didn't take medication I wouldn't be able to speak."

I'm not the president of the Michael J. Fox fan club or anything. But the guy has to take his meds in order to be able to talk and move and interact with the world with some kind of normalcy. Without the medication, Parkinson's patients' muscles become rigid, their movements slow, and they even become unable to move at all. At the start of the filming day, Fox doesn't know if he's going to nail the ad in one take or is going to be there all day, so you can only imagine how carefully he plans out how much medication he's going to take and when, to ride the tightrope between his disease's wracking paralysis and the cure's tremors. Did he guess exactly right? I don't know, maybe not. Is Rush Limbaugh the biggest hate-smeared asshole the world has ever seen for second-guessing a prescription for someone he's never met, someone who is just trying to help a cause he believe

The real problem here IMHO is the protection of domestic farming, particularly using trade barriers and protectionism. See that article (and the book it describes) and judge by yourself : asymmetric trade barriers helped Great Britain, the US and Japan achieve economic domination in their own times.

Actually, if we really wanted to help those countries, we'd help them get rid of the strangleholds of the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF, three organizations that accept to lend money under conditions of massive deregulation. This is tantamount to destroying their developing industries by letting international corporations take away the markets and profits.

What about all the wars caused by Christian nations? Surely these wars have something to do with religion. Why is it that our current military is currently swamped with evangelical soldiers? http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/67385/

The initial sibling comment has shown your claims regarding Lew Rockwell are obviously false.

Ron Paul is the "Distinguished Counselor" of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. They publish his latest book - forward by Lew Rockwell.

Ron Paul also openly associates himself with their of the John Birch Society and thinks its ridiculous that someone would think its bad that he would.

Clearly you aren't interested in the truth, just in backing your guy. I linked several times to news sources. You then criticize my sources and link Judicial Watch of all places as a source when the first adjective it uses to describe itself is by political ideology ("conservative"). Even your second mentioned site identifies judicialwatch as "a conservative legal group that dogged the Clintons through the 1990s with a stream of document demands and related lawsuits" not a reliable source of facts.

Stephen Colbert says he once fathered a Black Child, does that count?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/74281/

(according to this http://www.newstarget.com/z019659.html, plain html, and this http://www.alternet.org/workplace/74262/, as examples)

What I care about, is what rights I have, which is what prevents a totalitarian government

And anonymity, privacy, is one of those rights. The right to remain anonymous is a basic part of the right to free speech. Anyone who can't reasonably remain anonymous does not have the right to speak out due to any concern that what they say can be used against them. Most of the pamphlets supporting the American Revolutionary War were written and published anonymously. Take the "Federalist Papers".

By arguing over the collection of information, you make yourself look guilty.

And by supporting collection of information you look like you support a dictatorship. But say you don't, would you like your opponent to have access to all of your data? Would you be comfortable with the Taliban, either those in Afghanistan or the Christian Talibans in the US, having that info? If you're a Muslim Ann Coulter wants to carpet bomb you.

I don't think you're a troll but I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/67034/

For example, when psychologist Angela Neal-Barnett in 1999 asked some focus-group students to identify acting-white behavior, they listed actions that ranged from speaking standard English and enrolling in an Advanced Placement or honors class to wearing clothes from the Gap or Abercrombie & Fitch (instead of Tommy Hilfiger or FUBU) and wearing shorts in winter!

• The majority of college students[1] don't live in dorms which are on the university's network

  I'd bet that the vast majority of college students who don't live in dorms still have broadband internet access via Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, local ISPs, whoever. I certainly did when I lived off-campus during college.

  [1] http://www.alternet.org/rights/70021/ - tracing this quote back a couple of articles: "since less than 20 percent of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4 percent of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9 percent of the losses. Over 91 percent of the claimed losses are on commercial networks."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/68295/

And be making as much noise.

Torture is still used because it works, and it works because it's still used? That's some nice circular logic there, Lou.

The only reason it's still used because some people are sociopaths who enjoy hurting others (or they are in search of "revenge"). This is why it's generally associated with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and North Korea. It's a verifiable fact
that
torture
does
not
work
for
the
reasons
I
explained
previously.

There Are Four Lights!

Joshua O'Brien,

I suggest you give that a little more thought. I don't think you actually believe that what you said is adequate.

It's true that email communications should all be encrypted. There may be people who are spying on other people; encryption stops some of the spying.

But the U.S. government is not just spying. The U.S. government has killed, or contributed to killing, about 11 million people in 24 countries since the end of the second world war. The U.S. government is using its power to do harm to other people.

The only way someone can have the opinion that U.S. government activities are not important is if the people he or she knows are not directly affected, and he or she takes a position of not caring about other people. If one of the people who was killed was a member of your family, I think you would be more concerned than just thinking encryption is a remedy. The U.S. government has been breaking its own laws and doing harm throughout the world.

The U.S. government has 737 military bases, about which we are allowed to know. Here is a map of the bigger ones: Large U.S. military bases.

Encryption is not a complete answer to adversarial behavior. Something terrible is happening in the world. Mentally ill people with power are using violence and corruption to make more profit in oil and weapons. We cannot allow ourselves to imply that we are not concerned about the bigger picture. I'm guessing that you are concerned, but you didn't express that in what you said in your parent comment.

Despite frequent attempts (often by Bob Metcalfe) to proclaim The Death Of The Internet, somehow the damn thing just keeps on surviving and expanding:

  * ARPANet Co-Founder Predicts An Internet Crisis October 25th 2007
  * Death of the Internet greatly exaggerated August 25 2004
  * The Death Of The Internet November 4 2002
  * Predicting the Death of the Internet May 18 2001
  * Internet still collapsing, Metcalfe says July 7 1997

I'd like to suggest a new anti-Internet-death-meme: the Internet is a giant collection of cockroaches. You can step on as many as you want with your HD video torrents, it just keeps on multiplying and scurrying around anyway.

A clay tablet, eh ? Well Dennis Kucinich took it one step further than you : he came up with the pocket-sized Rosetta stone. (clip from the Colbert Show).

What was in the package and what was claimed to have been in the package are identical... that's not fraud.

The fraud claim wasn't about the contents of the package - instead, it was based on how the order was placed. According to an article on AlterNet, "The $256 Question" :

[Steven] Ferrell, a geneticist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, allegedly provided Kurtz the organisms for use in an artwork, rather than using them in his own research, thereby violating an agreement he had signed when he purchased the cultures for $256 from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).

I think that's an accurate description from Kurtz's point of view, since I found the Alternet article via a link on the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund's press release page.

So yeah, seems like there was mail fraud, but in a technically-correct-but-really-lame sense of "fraud" that reeks of desperation to pin something - anything - on Kurtz.

Those who don't follow the Slashdot groupthink == Microsoft apologist?

Pointing out OO's deficiencies is slamming it? Is it a perfect piece of software?

I was correcting a mistake in the parent's post.

Read again. I did nothing of that sort and was adding relevant information to the parent post.

You mean one cannot make Microsoft-centric while being an expert in Linux kernel matters? As part of a OS course I once wrote a Linux filesystem driver which ran in the kernel. I have installed and run RedHat Linux, Mandrake, Gentoo, SuSe, Ubuntu, Debian and a few more. My thesis included writing a program that ran on Windows, Linux and OS X. These days I work with C# and ASP.NET. I once toyed with writing a Linux sound driver for a Soundblaster card but someone else did it first and I lost interest. I currently dual boot Vista and Ubuntu and use a FreeBSD shell.

So, maybe, just maybe, someone can be well versed in the Linux kernel as well as MS technologies? Or is it a black and white thing with no shades of grey and us vs. them?

Note that you cannot pinpoint any misappropriations in my post. I even asked readers to correct my account if they can, because I may not know all the facts. And nice job on the "Mod me down..." line. Atleast a couple of moderators have fallen for it.

That article does not say that the only reason for him quitting was the swap pre-fetch. It was just that Con announced his departure in a discussion related to it. I am sure swap prefetch was a small fry to him compared to the whole scheduler issue.

OMG IT'S A M$ SHILL.BURN HIM!!!! Needless paranoia. Where is the false grass-roots "history" that I have planted? And no, this is not Microsoft PR in action. The closest I was to Microsoft was when I was in Seattle to attend a Amazon interview for a C++/Linux position. Also, nice use of the question mark. Reminds me of Jon Stewart's take on FOX News in this very entertaining video .

Yes, I did read 1984. It scared the shit out of me. I don't care who's in power, republican or democrat, I like most people are more centrist, left-leaning on some issues, right leaning on others. If the phrase "permanent anything majority" doesn't scare you, than nothing will. And as for evidence of the US turning into a police state, look at the cameras atop traffic signals, look at the never ending wars on drugs, terrorism, the fact that a warrant is no longer required to wiretap any phone as long as it dials an international number (hope you don't have any friends outside our borders), the DOJ and their anonymous National Security Letters (thankfully ruled unconstitutional), the prison camps and the ability of the executive branch to label anyone an enemy combatant and suspend all their constitutional rights. I could go on, but even Ron Paul has said that the US is becoming a police state. Also, it has often been said that these new laws would not have prevented 9/11. Simple effective communication would have. Nice flamebait, troll and strawman all rolled into one though. Here's a few links for you: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3274 http://www.alternet.org/story/36553

You could say that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are equal opportunity trolls ;-) It's not like they spare any organisational entity whose deeds - or the deeds of individual members - are hypocritical. If an organisation defends or covers up for a person or deed, they're in for an even greater lampooning.

Lampooned for all eternity - ooh, scary.

There are large - and increasing - numbers of people in the world who are willing to declare that they are atheists. The only thing that has prevented an atheistic organisation from being accused of the kinds of hypocricies that churches have is that no such organisation exists yet, or if one does, it has not become large enough to attract insincere members - yet.

The thing atheism (in its currently fashionable form) has in its favour is logic: an ethos that subscribes completely to rationality is, in a practical sense, taking a "lower" stance than religion or any of the other -isms and therefore more open to scrutiny (a bit like the open source ethos). This does not mean that over time there will not be high profile stories of parasitic or predatory individuals or organisations that purport to be atheistic or working in the interests of atheism. There are plenty of charlatans who claim to subscribe to other -isms.

Threads like this do the atheist cause no favours: it gives people who purport to be atheists an opportunity to deny the truth of the pope's words just because he is a member of a religious organisation. I'm not saying that he's always right but he is doing his job when he says that the use of tax havens by corporations is socially unjust and immoral because it does not serve the greater well-being of society. His job - if it is worth anything - is to serve the greater well-being of society, so he should be able to tell the difference :-) Unfortunately, his view as to what is good for society is shaped by dogma so does not correspond with reality but no religion can deny that everybody needs to eat.

If you think that the pope is hypocritical in defending the rights of poor people while sitting in a gold-plated city, well, let's say that he wouldn't be in the news if he was say, you, standing on a street corner in Manhattan, or something. We should be grateful the recent popes have been, on average, good human beings who have taken the welfare of members into some consideration (although it would appear that some - if not all - have failed to put the welfare of individual members ahead of the organisation's ability to expand), given inspiration to many (e.g. Poland) provided some (but, unfortunately, not all) with a voice in times of need and a with a sense of support simply because it has that money. I'm sure that in their convictions that they are on an upward curve towards the impending re-arrival of god, or whatever, churches don't have emergency plans for redistributing their wealth among their members in times of threat ;-)

Do the corporations have a plan to redistribute wealth among those in need? Er, yes: pension plans. Pension funds are the main reason why corporations' earnings must keep on increasing, whether or not these corporations are actually producing products of worth (or worth comparable to asking price). We are working longer hours for less reward - not to mention reduced job security - so that the pension funds will be able to support us later in life (let's put aside for the moment the fact that the money we are generating is going towards current pensions, rather than our own, and that unemployment or some legal loophole may prevent us from ever getting our hands on the money we contributed, never mind the profits). Maybe somebody should explain that to the pope. Do you think he would change his mind?

Let's not delude ourselves: we put with personal injustices and impositions for the sake of being fed. We are willing for others to be subjected to greater

A mere $3 billion is minor league compared to GWB's handling of the war. Heck, we've wasted more in payouts to corrupt contractors.

I do agree with your statement that the poor in the US are significantly better off than the poor in some other countries, and probably not as well off as they are in other (mostly European) countries. But why does that matter. Being rich or poor is never about absolute values, but rather about comparison with those around you. And that comparison is getting more and more out of hand in the US.

And your point about how many times a dollar is taxes is completely off the mark. Inheritance tax is all about money that is changing hands: from the deceased to their inheritors. It is a form of unearned income. Some people love to frame the conversation by talking about how inheritance taxes end family farms (which few people want to continue, or can really compete with the mega-farms), or small businesses. But in most cases there are already methods to slowly transfer these using businesses or other methods.

These dollars are only being taxed once as they go from one person (deceased) to another. And since that person is getting money without doing any work for it (being born is not doing work in this sense), we are talking about them just getting a little less "free" money. And history does show quite clearly that inheritance is the best way of concentrating money in the hands of the few. Inheritance tax is a great way of combating this, and allows a variable amount of how much can pass from generation to generation.

Here is a nice link:

http://www.alternet.org/story/25480/

Actually, although the media didn't report on it much, there were many suspicious things going on in the Ohio counting and voting in the 2004 election - a state that would have given Kerry the victory. This is made all the more unusual by the fact that in violation of federal law almost 2/3 of Ohio's counties have destroyed records from that election. http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/

But it has a very bad effect too. The risk of death is all that stops some of these fanatics.

The Huffington Post did a video asking why all these College Republicans who promote the Iraq war on campus, aren't IN IRAQ fighting. As it turned out they would all love to go, but erm, can't due to various ailments and excuses.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57382/

The same problem happened with the sons and daughters of the congressmen who voted to invade. They want other peoples sons and daughters to risk death, not their own.

But this remove the risk of death, and the risk of their own death is what keeps fanatics like that from being more destructive. It's probably the only moderator for some of the more psycho religious types.

Imagine weapons like this in the hands of that 'Christians United for Israel' group, a group backed by AIPAC (=Mossad front group), the group that wants to attack Iran to bring about Armageddon by cleaning the earth of evil. Imagine if they could kill without fear of counter attack. They'd be driving these machines across the net shooting at anyone that gets in their way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/raptu re-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html

(...) if they spot you doing something today which is not illegal and then make it illegal. They can't (in theory) prosecute you for it,(...)


I don't know that I understand you correctly but you seem to be implying that a Government can't take away previoulsy granted rights?

That is obviously not the case when you have abrupt discontinuities in the law. Such is the case, for instance, of coups d'état...

Today's law-abiding citizen becomes tomorrow's outlaw. Ask Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Uruguaians, etc., everywhere the loathsome School of the Americas set its dirty paws.

Most suicide bombers are Muslim

This means in no way that Muslims have any sort of monopoly on violence -- they're just willing to take their own lives.

Prior to 1980, suicide bombings existed (for instance, among the Buddhist and Christian Viet Kong) albeit in lesser numbers than today.

Insofar as there is a pattern in the motivation of suicide bombers, it is almost always motivated by misplaced idealism. It is usually the act of someone who wishes to resist massive perceived injustice and sees no other way of doing it.

It should be no surprise that the "shock and awe" tactics of the US military creates suicide bombers. By emphasising the invincible nature of the US, when challenged in a conventional manner, it encourages the view that only extreme non-conventional actions can have results.

If people really want to understand the psyche of the suicide bomber, and escape popular and inaccurate stereotypes, they need to search for reliable research. Some does exist. See The Hard Truth About Suicide Bombers By Nichole Argo for a recent example.

The majority of votes cast in 2004 were for Kerry.

The majority of votes counted in 2004 were for Bush.

Similarly in 2000, if we went on what voters intended, Gore would have won by a fairly easy margin.

The discrepancy is about a million votes. What accounts for the million vote discrepancy is that the rate of voter spoilage is closely tied to race, and race is tied to political party. If you don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, the cause is that blacks (who vote strongly democratic) tend to live in poor areas with poor equipment that is more likely to malfunction. If you do subscribe to (mild) conspiracy theories, there is no shortage of reasons why politicians prefer voting systems that can be manipulated, and there are no shortage of examples where they have engaged that preference.

Don't look for this in the mainstream news though. At least not in this country. :-(

Thank gawd someone cares about me..........

I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.

I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.

Don't people have to get to work somehow?

Telepresence. See the Wikipedia telepresence article.

"We must imagine a future without cars."
Designing a city without any cars.
Orson Scott Card on 'walking neighborhoods' (I first thought he was talking of some scifi idea, such as moving neighborhoods, haha.)
Carfree (?)
Monorail Opportunity in Seattle, Washington (1998)

From #19302663:

People got along for thousands of years without cars, so maybe you should consider getting rid of yours.

Also, from #10313790:

This is what I think... There won't be cars in the future. There will only be personalised vehicles to transport each individual. Roads, the larger they are, will not allow single vehicles. There has to be two or more (depending on the road) vehicles required to travel together. Probably the smallest road will allow individual vehicles to travel by themselves. As more vehicles travel together the overall fuel consumption will decrease and fuel efficiency will increase. Individual vehicles will be able to break off from this combined unit as they reach their destinations.

Creating car free cities dupe with >1k comments.

Post #5975896 gets it right:

Even with "emission free" cars, you still expend the energy to move the car to being with. Getting rid of pollution is an important goal, but the ultimate goal should be to conserve the environmental resources required to produce and operate cars. By creating a city in which cars are less necessary, you reduce the energy consumption of the average citizen, even after you factor in the energy required to operate the 24-hour mass transit systems.

Just an interesting tidbit here: "It's things like cars that take people out of public spaces and make a community less safe."
Arcosanti, an interesting experimental town supposedly as an alternative to urban sprawl.
Argument that car-free is too expensive.
An interesting problem in #5975908:

1) People like cars. Tell them they can't use thier cars anymore, and you're liable to be voted out of office.
2) If you get rid of cars, you have to have an alternative system of transportation in place. Unfortunately, the only place to PUT that system will many times be where the roads are now. Result: you can't build the system until the cars are gone, and you can't get rid of the cars until the system is ready!

Apparently Venice is not the solution, either.
Small steps needed to make the change.
Pipes from Futurama? Or maybe, dare it be said, ...

For every one life saved by driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise more severe.Part of the reason for the high kill rate is that cars offer very little protection against an SUV hitting them from the side -- not because of the weight, but because of the design. When a car is hit from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV is so high off the ground. Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more life-threatening.

Bush is not incompetent. He is disgustingly competent at appearing incompetent.

'Sounds like the regular classroom teacher had a lot of time on her hands to go surfing around'

You do realize that spyware is designed to act without the users knowledge or intervention. How long do you think a Windows 98 PC with out of date anti-virus and no firewall would last on the Internet before getting infected. If you read the rest of the article you would have read that hair-styles.org directed to new-hairstyles.com that had pornographic links that initiated pop-ups.

"Mr. Napp, the class' regular teacher logged on to the PC because Julie Amero being a substitute teacher did not have her own id and password">

"We also noted that there was no firewall and there was an outdated antivirus program on the PC. The PCwas being tracked before October 19, 2004 by adware and spyware"

"Herb Horner .. exhaustive independent forensic analysis of Amero's hard drive showed that the machine had been infected with multiple pieces of malicious software before she arrived at the school ">

was Re:Analysis of her system

'did the substitute teacher circumvent the network? how was she able to surf pr0n in the first place?

"Detective Mark Lounsbury .. admitted under cross-examination that the prosecution never even checked the computer for malware"

"Amero was working on a very old Gateway PC running Windows 98, an extremely vulnerable setup"

when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?

When will Europe finally step up and admit they have failed badly WRT the Kyoto Protocol? (some countries have done great. But nowhere all or enough)
When will the world step up and bring China and India into the emission reduction mindset?
When will the rest of the world finally admit that the US is making significant efforts in emissions reductions, just not within the exact same rules as you'd like? (Individual states, and even Bush's latest proposal)
When will the rest of the world realize that 'carbon credit trading' is nothing more than money transfer/extortion, not anything to do with actual carbon emission reduction. As evidenced by none other than Al Gore.

Does the US need to do more to reduce its (carbon) emissions? Hell yes. But so does everyone else.
Make it simple. Everyone...reduce your individual countries emissions by x% in y years. No breaks, no 'trading', no excuses. X%.

Any treaty that affects all the planet, yet exempts almost 1/2 the planet, is badly flawed from the start.

Actually, "only" abouta third. "Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."

Problem is, McKinney never said it.

That's right. The "quote" from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin' made up.

Given that the firm, Blackwater USA, is responsible for performing the security background checks on TSA employees (I believe there was a news article several months back where four recently hired employees in the Seattle-Tacoma area were convicted - and jailed - for pilfering luggage - another fine Blackwater USA mission accomplished!), any compromised data is pretty much a moot point......

I posted this a week ago, and it may very well be nothing, but the folks at Alternet were raising concerns about the reporting of vote tallies in Ohio during the 04 election.

http://www.alternet.org/story/50941/

More specifically, they were concerned that the Ohio Secretary of State was hosting, tallying, and reporting election results with hardware / software architectures developed by companies with partisan connections.

FYI, Alternet is reporting Ohio vote tallying software and web development were also overseen by firms with potentially partisan interests.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50941/

On Election Night 2004, the Republican Party not only controlled the vote-counting process in Ohio, the final presidential swing state, through a secretary of state who was a co-chair of the Bush campaign, but it also controlled the technology that allowed the tally of the vote in Ohio's 88 counties to be reported to the media and voters.

In my lifetime, I've been a machine designer, dog groomer, IT pro and electronics engineer--in spite of not being allowed to take "boys'" classes in high school, and my mother being told "She's a girl, she'll never need math!"

The only 'career' that paid well enough to raise and homeschool five kids was dog groomer. Men do not take women seriously no matter how well-educated, expert, efficient and competent they are. I have never made enough ever be able to retire, in spite of being more productive than any man I've ever worked with. The only people that have *ever* matched my productivity were other women.

The reality is that if you're a 'traditional woman'--the odds are very high that you will die in poverty. If you are NOT a traditional woman--the odds are not quite as high that you will die in poverty, but they're still much higher than mens. The entire system is still structured that the only women who are not likely to die in poverty are professionals--doctors and lawyers--and golddiggers.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/50528/

Men set the system up; they work very hard to perpetuate it. All this idiotic ranting about "women have it better than ever" simply ignores that fact that what women have now still sucks. Economically, the US ranks *below* Lithuania and and Estonia for women's economic success. Damned impressive, guys.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/50528/

And what's really interesting is that men cut their own throats with these attitudes. Societies that have high levels of sexual equality are more successful economically, and males are healthier. It's women that determine children's health--and women that have the resources do a much better job than women that are oppressed. Boys grow up bigger, stronger and healthier in societies where their moms are successful. There is also much less crime and greater economic stability in countries where women are equal to men in numbers and power in government.

Dr. Barres had it right--if a woman wants to succeed, she has to change into a man.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/07/13/BAGIDJU67A1.DTL

In my lifetime, I've been a machine designer, dog groomer, IT pro and electronics engineer--in spite of not being allowed to take "boys'" classes in high school, and my mother being told "She's a girl, she'll never need math!"

The only 'career' that paid well enough to raise and homeschool five kids was dog groomer. Men do not take women seriously no matter how well-educated, expert, efficient and competent they are. I have never made enough ever be able to retire, in spite of being more productive than any man I've ever worked with. The only people that have *ever* matched my productivity were other women.

The reality is that if you're a 'traditional woman'--the odds are very high that you will die in poverty. If you are NOT a traditional woman--the odds are not quite as high that you will die in poverty, but they're still much higher than mens. The entire system is still structured that the only women who are not likely to die in poverty are professionals--doctors and lawyers--and golddiggers.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/50528/

Men set the system up; they work very hard to perpetuate it. All this idiotic ranting about "women have it better than ever" simply ignores that fact that what women have now still sucks. Economically, the US ranks *below* Lithuania and and Estonia for women's economic success. Damned impressive, guys.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/50528/

And what's really interesting is that men cut their own throats with these attitudes. Societies that have high levels of sexual equality are more successful economically, and males are healthier. It's women that determine children's health--and women that have the resources do a much better job than women that are oppressed. Boys grow up bigger, stronger and healthier in societies where their moms are successful. There is also much less crime and greater economic stability in countries where women are equal to men in numbers and power in government.

Dr. Barres had it right--if a woman wants to succeed, she has to change into a man.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/07/13/BAGIDJU67A1.DTL

You're right! Here's a story about it from Dec. 2005: Neil Bush Meets the Messiah:

This "heavenly way," the Rev. Sun Myung Moon explained, demands a 51-mile underwater highway spanning Alaska and Russia. Sitting in the front row: Neil Bush, the brother of the president of the United States.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the South Korean giant of the religious right who owns the Washington Times, is on a 100-city speaking tour to promote his $200 billion "Peace King Tunnel" dream. As he describes it, the tunnel would be both a monument to his magnificence, and a totem to his prophecy of a unified Planet Earth. In this vision, the United Nations would be reinvented as an instrument of God's plan, and democracy and sexual freedom would crumble in the face of this faith-based glory.

[...] Moon's lobbying campaign is "ambitious and diffuse," as the D.C. newspaper The Hill reported last year, and the sheer range of guests revealed just how many Pacific Rim political leaders the Times owner has won over, including Filipino and Taiwanese politicians. And the head of the Arizona GOP attended a recent stop in San Francisco. But perhaps the most surprising VIP to tag along is Neil Bush, George H.W. Bush's youngest and most wayward son, who made both the Philippines and Taiwan legs of the journey, according to reports in newspapers from those countries and statements from Moon's Family Federation.