Slashdot Mirror

If you go from IT to nursing, you may be going from bad to worse. The medical profession is EXTREMELY corrupt. Here are just two of the many examples:

Rooney On Health Care. His doctor billed $250 just for saying hello, literally for only saying hello. (Short video)

Be skeptical about flu reports. The reports about flu were so flawed I took the time to write my own, using information from The Atlantic magazine and CBS News, among other sources.

If there is extreme corruption, there may be a collapse of some kind, and you could become involved in a way you didn't foresee and don't like. As in the financial industry, the top executives will profit enormously, but the average person may lose his job.

BAAAA! BAAAA! My TV says I must get the pig flu shot or I will die. BAAAA!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

So if states have been asked to stop counting individual cases of the pig flu, how the hell do we know we have a pig flu pandemic? This is an experiment to determine if years of public education and pop culture shit have dulled your will and your wits enough to view the government as your supreme authority and savior. I'd say we're just about there, but not quite. The vaccine is mandatory - for now...

... an illness that I would best describe my first-hand experience as a "laughably mild cold, without the annoyance of a stuffy nose" ...

If you are from the US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, UK, France or one of the other countries that symptomatically *diagnose* someone as having swine flu without any lab tests, you may not have had swine flu at all. Your symptoms would not be valid swine flu symptoms in that case.

On the other hand, if you are from India, China, Japan, Australia, Thailand, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Germany, South Korea or the other countries that do lab tests do diagnose swine flu, you might have had a mild case of swine flu. Your symptoms are not generalizable to others.

That quote is not germane to the H1N1 discussion.

The U.S. has ordered around 251 million doses. North of the border, Canada is buying 50 million doses and expects to pay around $400 million dollars before the cost of administering. Assuming $8 per dose, that's 2.4 billion dollars spent from the North American public purse on a manufactured bit of fear-mongering. That's quite the tidy sale. --And the rest of the world is vaccinating against this 'swine flu' as well. Make no mistake; this is a cash-cow bonanza for a small number of companies.

That article you linked to is pure, high-charge emotionalism; as bad as anything you'd see on Fox News. By the time you get to the parts which contain actual data, the reader, (in this case you), are so worked up that you cannot reason your way out of a paper bag.

That's hardly a win for science. --Though it is certainly common enough among people who supposedly promote science.

While I am not a lover of network news in any form, this item is perhaps worth noting. . .

H1N1 Cases Exaggerated? - CBS

In any case, I really don't think it's that people have a problem with vaccines per se, it's that they don't trust the companies making and delivering them. And given the long and much-spotted track record of both the government and the pharmaceutical industry, this is a very reasonable position to take.

It sounds to me as though you're confusing the dream of a perfect world in which medical technologies are used appropriately and responsibly with the real world, which is filled with out-of-control capitalism and reckless disregard for human health and welfare. Geeks seem to have a lot of trouble differentiating between the two, I find.

-FL

Considering that all the scary stories (anecdotes) you cite are a minority of cases, it's entirely consistent with my report that most cases are mild.

The reports I have seen indicate "suspected" swine flu, etc, never "confirmed by PCR" swine flu. Not surprising since the CDC has asked that tests NOTbe done. A quote from that article:

With most cases diagnosed solely on symptoms and risk factors, the H1N1 flu epidemic may seem worse than it is.

I will happily forgo my shot so someone in the high risk group can have it.

About the CDC stats, a fair portion are self fulfilling. Hospital visits for flue-like symptoms. Not admissions, visits. Meaning someone is achy and feverish and would normally tough it out (and be fine) but because of 6 months of OMG SWINE FLU WILL KILL YOU!!!!! on the news, they visit the ER. As for the rest of their stats, combining influenza and pneumonia deaths together is suspect at best.

I have no doubt the swine flu and indeed the regular old flu can be fatal. I also have no doubt that the swine flue and regular flu tend to be fatal to different groups of people. I do NOT believe it's time to panic. Certainly this is shaping up to be nothing like the spanish flu.

There are many other things (such as auto accidents) that will kill many more people this (and every) year. Given the choice between flu shot or drive less, choose drive less. If we spent as much time, energy, money, and media attention on telecommuting initiatives we'd save more lives.

On the bright side,
at least with a joystick control you won't need to worry about carpet getting underneath your gas pedal.

Maybe they should have perfected the joystick sooner?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/29/business/main5351341.shtml

It wasn't my study... I assume people checked off the no god box? I'm more worried about the 51% than the other 2 groups. I just pasted it the same way the survey showed it. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

My bad. I just grabbed the first google hit. Lots of other studies show similarly horrifying numbers. And none show numbers under 5% which is the level I could be comfortable with.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Your model omits some readily available data that would seem relevant. Population growth among non-immigrants of advanced, wealthy nations such as the US, Japan and parts of western Europe has plateaued at or below replacement. The "western" world has, despite an abundance or food, energy and space (in the case of North America,) tamed its population growth. This has occurred without coercive government control of breeding behavior.

Apparently there are more factors involved in the growth curve than Malthusians such as yourself choose to allow. It is certain that our international governance is equally blind; the next global treaty on the environment that acknowledges this success and, heaven forbid, incorporates population growth into its protocol bean counting will be the first.

They put Obama in as the Dem candidate, but, VOTERS put him in office, and I stick by my assertions on the Independents.

And who made up the vast majority of the VOTERS who put him in office? Democrats. And there is this fanciful idea that "independent" == the large middle between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that's just not the case. You have people who can't make up their minds, people who don't care about politics at all (but need to be categorized), conservatives who are consistent for two seconds at a time and thus can't vote GOP, and people who are pissed off at both parties for reasons both justified and not.

Wow..what polls are you getting this from??

The reputable ones. On the page they say "almost half" but it's actually 59%. LA Times: 53%. Hell, even a majority of Republican voters support a public option when separated from the lies about "Death Panels" and Concern trolling over the deficit which, funny enough, was never a concern with Iraq.

Not a single poll I've seen say the majority of US citizens want the public option

Maybe you should get out more; the reality-based community is a nice place to visit.

From what I've seen from multiple polls from multiple sources, it is quite the opposite of what you say.

That's because your poll is from Rassmusen, who are noted hacks.

Sure, I know one can search and find special polls and stats that will argue for any side of any case, but, from what I've seen, there is just not a majority support of the single payer option at all in the US.

The funny thing is that batshit crazy, immigrant hating, fascist, warmongering corporatist right wingers in other countries wonder what the hell is wrong with American conservatives for opposing single payer. For reasons like....single payer is the most fiscally conservative policy possible. The entire existence (and massive profits of) the health insurance industry depends on taking your premiums while doing their best to deny your claims. Which is why Medicare spends about 2 cents on the dollar in administrative costs, compared to 30-35% for private insurance.

And I thought conservatives wanted to hold onto their money...

You seem to think something is wrong with people protesting Obama's policies?

You seem to ignore that these protesters were didn't care about Bush doubling the national debt, lying us into a war, and shredding the Bill of Rights? You have Republican Congressmen calling for violent revolution, yet never gave a shit about NSA wiretapping?

One of the most glaring problems conservatives face is the complete inability to be consistent for two seconds. The other problem is that they are utterly divorced from reality. What SNL said: you guys can't complain about how Obama is a socialist, because he hasn't done anything yet.

I saw plenty of protest (and yes, some VERY distasteful things said too)

LOL. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't on the same planet. Where were the liberals burning and hanging GOP congressmen in effigy? Were Democratic voters showing up to rallies headed by VP nominee John Edwards, yelling "kill him" about Bush? Republicans mocked liberal celebrities for saying they would leave the country if Bush was re-elected, yet were openly calling for secession the month Obama took office.

This large middle class tax cut you mention....where and when exactly did this occur?

They put Obama in as the Dem candidate, but, VOTERS put him in office, and I stick by my assertions on the Independents.

And who made up the vast majority of the VOTERS who put him in office? Democrats. And there is this fanciful idea that "independent" == the large middle between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that's just not the case. You have people who can't make up their minds, people who don't care about politics at all (but need to be categorized), conservatives who are consistent for two seconds at a time and thus can't vote GOP, and people who are pissed off at both parties for reasons both justified and not.

Wow..what polls are you getting this from??

The reputable ones. On the page they say "almost half" but it's actually 59%. LA Times: 53%. Hell, even a majority of Republican voters support a public option when separated from the lies about "Death Panels" and Concern trolling over the deficit which, funny enough, was never a concern with Iraq.

Not a single poll I've seen say the majority of US citizens want the public option

Maybe you should get out more; the reality-based community is a nice place to visit.

From what I've seen from multiple polls from multiple sources, it is quite the opposite of what you say.

That's because your poll is from Rassmusen, who are noted hacks.

Sure, I know one can search and find special polls and stats that will argue for any side of any case, but, from what I've seen, there is just not a majority support of the single payer option at all in the US.

The funny thing is that batshit crazy, immigrant hating, fascist, warmongering corporatist right wingers in other countries wonder what the hell is wrong with American conservatives for opposing single payer. For reasons like....single payer is the most fiscally conservative policy possible. The entire existence (and massive profits of) the health insurance industry depends on taking your premiums while doing their best to deny your claims. Which is why Medicare spends about 2 cents on the dollar in administrative costs, compared to 30-35% for private insurance.

And I thought conservatives wanted to hold onto their money...

You seem to think something is wrong with people protesting Obama's policies?

You seem to ignore that these protesters were didn't care about Bush doubling the national debt, lying us into a war, and shredding the Bill of Rights? You have Republican Congressmen calling for violent revolution, yet never gave a shit about NSA wiretapping?

One of the most glaring problems conservatives face is the complete inability to be consistent for two seconds. The other problem is that they are utterly divorced from reality. What SNL said: you guys can't complain about how Obama is a socialist, because he hasn't done anything yet.

I saw plenty of protest (and yes, some VERY distasteful things said too)

LOL. Not only are they not on the same page, they aren't on the same planet. Where were the liberals burning and hanging GOP congressmen in effigy? Were Democratic voters showing up to rallies headed by VP nominee John Edwards, yelling "kill him" about Bush? Republicans mocked liberal celebrities for saying they would leave the country if Bush was re-elected, yet were openly calling for secession the month Obama took office.

This large middle class tax cut you mention....where and when exactly did this occur?

Ahh, more classic Slashdot snark stupidity. Make a pseudo-rational claim and then insult the opposition by calling them "weenies".

It's not that your idea is all bad, but in the real world corporate America will gladly poison and kill thousands to millions for profit. For a current example consider coal ash/fly ash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash. The coal lobby has bought enough legislation to keep this stuff completely unregulated. Actually it is rather toxic.

It has radioactivity: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste which has been shown to contaminate areas near coal fired power plants. It also has toxic heavy metals:

Fly ash contains trace concentrations of heavy metals and other substances that are known to be detrimental to health in sufficient quantities. Potentially toxic trace elements in coal include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Approximately 10 percent of the mass of coals burned in the United States consists of unburnable mineral material that becomes ash, so the concentration of most trace elements in coal ash is approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal.

(from the above linked Wikipedia article).

There is a vast amount of this dangerous material in unstable storage and it has already caused big problems. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/science/earth/01ash.html.

So, since you think that anyone who is worried about environmental issues is a "weenie", I propose that you put your money (or in this case your health) on the line. Get some coal ash, a 3 or 4 cubic feet and spread it around where you live. Make sure it gets in your food and in your lungs. The coal industry says that you have nothing to fear, and you can surly trust them with your life. if you choose not to do this then I suggest that you shut the fuck up

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

I suggest you watch a 60 Minutes interview where FBI Agent George Piro managed to get a lot of truth in regards to Iraq's nuclear program directly from Saddam Hussein.

It was revealed through this special interrogation that Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction after being disarmed in the 90's. He misled the world into believing that he had WMDs to not appear defenseless in front of Iran. He was afraid the Iranians might attack again.

The FBI was so proud of what George Piro accomplished, they considered it, "probably one of the top accomplishments of the agency in the last 100 years."

Not to mention that the Frontline documentary "Bush's War" pretty much debunked every single piece of "evidence" that Bush used to justify the invasion. And Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary from '03-'05, explained in his book What Happened that Bush only went as far as finding "evidence" to justify his war; he never bothered to verify its validity.

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Even Bush, in his later years as president, finally began to admit that his "evidence" was not valid. Please stop feeding this conspiracy theory.

Or entropy? We just discovered the same about autism and climate change. What's up? We've been working with one eye closed all this time?

What about proposed voucher systems, which hope to bring the success of privatization to families who can't afford private schools?

Can we say "government subsidy for private business"? How is that magically better than a well-executed public system?

Well, first off, let me clarify that I would much rather see this charity provided by organizations that are backed by charitable individuals, rather than provided by the government. Still, if government's going to bully in and take the job, I'd rather see the money used more efficiently. Public schools are run in an inefficient way, plain and simple. Private organizations would be motivated to provide a better product in a more efficient way, so they can make more money. This is where I think it helps to see education as a product (albeit, a product we should weep to see anyone not have access to), not a "right". Public schools are perfectly content to stay mediocre. Besides that, private schools wouldn't be forced to hire union teachers and follow union rules for promoting inept teachers simply because they have more seniority or know the right people. That's why Los Angeles is considering hiring private organizations to take over some of its public schools in the not-too-distant future (in the news: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/26/national/main5265756.shtml)

Of course a voucher program wouldn't magically happen overnight. Actually, though, it's different than government subsidy for private business, in that the government is, in this case, not deciding where the money will be used. The government could, of course, decide a list of approved schools from which beneficiaries could choose, similar to WIC. But I'm not here to argue the specifics. Personally, I'm a proponent of homeschooling, but I realize not every family is willing to put that much time and energy into their kids.

Do you *really* believe enough private schools will open such that the market would actually function? Because, I gotta say, I'm skeptical.

Don't be naive. If there's money to be spent, there will be places to spend it.

'I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users],' said John Pescatore

How about this: MS owes it to the world for putting out such a shitty, vulnerable operating system for so many years. Since 80% of spam comes from botnets, maybe, just maybe there would be less spam in the world if there weren't so many shitty, easily-exploited Windows boxes out there. Not only should MS give this away, they should make it available for all XP users as well, legit or not. Bill Gates said in 2004 that spam wouldn't be a problem in two years. He had the power to do so all along, he just never did. I'm sure he thought it would be an interesting solution, involving artificial intelligence and cool 3D worlds like in Hackers and Swordfish and Johnny Mnemonic, and lasers and magnets and sharks and God knows what else... not something boring like cleaning up the mess made by his own shitty products.

Seriously though, the opinion you express here points out a serious problem in America, a lack of faith or trust in law enforcement officials. While it would be possible to reasonably argue that this lack of trust is warranted or not, no rational, well informed person could claim that you don't have some justification to feel the way you do. Every once in a while I tell some recent cop horror story to my Swiss wife, and her jaw just drops. It's almost impossible to believe the kind of behaviour that police engage in, without repercussion, in America.

• cop strangles kid for skateboarding
• cop chokes (and kills) a man suspected of swallowing drug
• cops defend shooting 92 year old woman

The above are just a few examples that came to mind. I can't recall a week going by without some similar tragedy occurring somewhere in America. I think it's no coincidence that so many police brutality and murders by police officers occur in botched drug raids. It's a pretty well understood phenomenon how much the "war on drugs" has twisted and corrupted cop culture, much as alcohol prohibition exacerbated corruption back in the twenties. It creates an "us vs them" mentality for both cops and citizens of inner city neighberhoods. I think the problem was documented most poignantly in a work of television fiction, "The Wire".

The solution however is not looser gun laws, arming yourself, vigilante groups, or any other loony-libretarian nonsense (by loony-libretarian i refer to libretarian extremists, as opposed to rational thinking people with a libretarian mindset). The solution is better policing of our police, reform of the criminal justice system (please support Jim Webb's reform efforts, and drug-prohibition repeal. There are a number of politicians and citizens group working on the issue, so I suggest you please join us and lend your efforts.

You are quite correct. US law allows detention without bail only for certain crimes, and what Childs is accused of is not one of them. ... So they set the bail so impossibly high that it is effectively "no bail".

The court could demand a cash bail: Childs would have to pony up $5 million. Simple interest on a loan like that would be grievous, given that the trial could be a couple years down the road.

The court could demand a surety: 10% of the bail amount, with the rest due if the defendant fails to appear. If a direct surety, Childs would have to provide the 500,000 to the court, but would get it back on appearance. If through a bondsman, the bondsman would *keep* the 500,000.

Of course, since this is a "no bail" situation, it is unlikely they'd accept a cash bail. ... and might decide to up the bail amount, should he actually raise it.

Of course, $5 million is by no means the largest bail demanded... See Tiller Suspect's Bail and Rockefeller bail.

Since when is Israel our enemy? They are likely our only real ally and friend in the Middle East.

That doesn't mean their intelligence agency ignores the US:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Ami_Kadish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Wartime powers are wartime powers, and since we are in Afghanistan forever at war, the executive can probably claim this sort of power in perpetuity, with or without a law.

I'm surprised they're even trying to legislate. It's the kind of thing that can be challenged in a court. It involves far too many branches of government for the sort of power they're granting. Is Congress jealous and unable to set policy about the truly pressing issues of our day?

This is just nonsense. If a company's assets become a clear and present national security threat, I think we can rest assured that various agencies and the company itself will be tripping over themselves to take it off-line. This power can only be abused.

If this is the alternative, I'll take the unitary executive philosophy in a heartbeat. For God's sake, don't prescribe crazy emergency powers by law, protect the private property in law. That protection is what our nation is founded upon.

--
Toro

Too bad, they don't seem to find any time for the major invasion of privacy by the government, that may well become law, if efforts to derail "Obamacare" fail...

One can simply not sign-up with Facebook, but "opting out" of national-socialist health care will be impossible... And yet, the ACLU and EFF are silent — are they, perhaps, being partisan and rooting for the proposal to succeed, privacy be damned? Well, ACLU are busy helping America's enemies identify Americans, who fought them. But EFF? The threat I'm talking about — sharing of income and medical data electronically between State and Federal government agencies — is right up their valley...

There are substantial swaths of the "keyspace" of an SSN which are unused by design.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Structure

- Part of it is a code for a location: places with large numbers of people born therein will have more people having to share the same initial 3 digits.
- Area numbers cannot be > 772.
- zero groups are not allowed

The important part, though, is that it's not a random number, nor a centrally allocated one (that can avoid conflicts), and that there have been many people who have had others using the same SSN. (e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/national/main1726397.shtml )

"Since I'm lazy, I won't even go down the road of how the socialist Europeans can get more work done than us USians and still take a month off each year...."

You might want to re-examine your beliefs:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm

More information that gives a view of U.S. car manufacturing, and the U.S. government in general:

G.M.'s Road From Prosperity to Crisis

The U.S. government bought 60% of G.M., a company with $172.81 billion in debt and $82.29 billion in assets.

Death and Taxes poster.

Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal

Citation needed. On the other hand, I'll provide some:

"Nick d'Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
"By far the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest strategy to meet America's growing demand for electricity is energy efficiency and demand-side management."
"For Cheap Clean Energy, Go Geothermal, Study Says".
"Coal is America's most abundant and cheapest fossil fuel but, as Scott Pelley reports, burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming."

Wiki has a table of the cost of various energy sources at Levelised energy cost. Of more than 10 sources listed of cost per megawatt coal is cheapest while 4 others are potentially cheaper than nuclear. One of those potentially cheaper is wind.

with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint

Try to tell that to indigenous people's from who's land uranium is mined. Ask the Sioux or Navajo in the US. Ask the Algonquin First Nation in Canada. Or the aboriginals in Australia such as the Adnyamathanha community.

Now I picked on Australia, Canada, and the Unites States because they should have among the strictest environmental laws. Imagine what happens in countries without strong environmental laws.

AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).

Check into conservation which is listed as being cheaper and geothermal which is also listed as being cheaper by at least one of the links above and is good for baseload power.

Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered

Nuclear power asks and is addicted to subsides. Without them Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built. At least solar and wind would be built without subsidies. Think NanoSolar asked for or was given subsidies? Not that I know of, instead billionaire founders of Google invested in NanoSolar. Even if they did though, economically subsidies are supposed to be only temporary aid, however coal and nuclear power get subsidized year after year after year. There is nothing temporary about the subsidies they get.

One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper)

As referenced above coal is cheapest and even with cap and trade or carbon capture and storage it's still cheaper than nuclear power. Now if you have a link to data that disputes that provide it.

Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.

No matter how many tymes you repeat a lie* it doesn't magically make i

I agree about the potential risks, but not in this case. The Holocaust Museum shooting perpetrator is a poster child for prejudice, with a 60 year self-avowed history of anti-semitism. Furthermore, the Holocaust Museum has such overt symbolism that he could not possibly have attacked it without knowing exactly what message he would send. Are you arguing it's just a coincidence he attacked there?

Right, because it's okay to violate the rights of bad guys. We never, ever get the "bad guy" designation wrong. Just ask Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil

It's not like the vast majority of the donations to al-Haramain went to feed hungry Somalis, teach poor Indonesians, or help sick Kenyans. It couldn't possibly be that there were a few sympathizers working in al-Haramain were skimming the money for al-Qaida.

No, no, no, we don't care about any of that. Some very, very important people tell us that these other people are evil, so why should we care if their rights get trampled on? They're only terrorists, just like Wakil.

Harry Markopolos cared.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/27/60minutes/main4833667.shtml

... His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.

President Obama did come out and speak to the Marijuana question, but he answer it in a non-serious manner. See here: Legalizing Pot Won't Grow Economy

Signed an agreement reaffirming the sovereignty of Iraq

Have we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq?

Asserted Iraqi ownership over *every* military installation in use by US forces

That's absolute horseshit.

At withdrawal, the U.S. will return all the installations and the agreed upon areas allocated for the use of the U.S. combat forces according to two lists (of inventory) to the Iraqi government.

Translation: we keep our permanent military bases.

Handed control of many of the US Operated facilities over to the Iraqis for control (here, here, and here, for example)

Have we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq?

Handed security of the "Green Zone" over to Iraqi control

Have we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq?

Removed the vast majority of all combat forces outside of the limits of all major cities

Another lie.

In addition, there are no plans to close the Americans' Camp Victory base complex, which houses more than 20,000 soldiers, many of them combat troops, even though Camp Victory is only a 15-minute drive from the center of Baghdad and sprawls over both sides of the city's boundary. Iraqi officials, who are nervous about maintaining security as the Americans depart, have agreed to consider Camp Victory as outside the city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/middleeast/09military.html

Additionally, your assertion that "we own" the oil fields now points to an article explaining how the Iraqi Ministry of Oil is negotiating contracts from companies that lost to nationalization when Saddam was in power. I'm not sure how that means "we own" anything. The Iraqi government is contracting with corporations to extract the oil resources. Sounds like Iraq exercising its own sovereignty to me.

Why were they no bid contracts to American oil companies in 2008? And furthermore, if we have no colonial interest in their resources, why haven't we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq? This is the central question. Everything else is political theater.

The globalsecurity article you link has no information later than 2005. In the intervening 4 years - the US Government has:

1. Signed an agreement reaffirming the sovereignty of Iraq
2. Asserted Iraqi ownership over *every* military installation in use by US forces
3. Handed control of many of the US Operated facilities over to the Iraqis for control (here, here, and here, for example)
4. Handed security of the "Green Zone" over to Iraqi control
5. Removed the vast majority of all combat forces outside of the limits of all major cities

Additionally, your assertion that "we own" the oil fields now points to an article explaining how the Iraqi Ministry of Oil is negotiating contracts from companies that lost to nationalization when Saddam was in power. I'm not sure how that means "we own" anything. The Iraqi government is contracting with corporations to extract the oil resources. Sounds like Iraq exercising its own sovereignty to me.

I'd rather be an armed sheep than an unarmed one. One of the wolves is going with me, maybe both. The wolves know this.

Which is why there's absolutely no such thing as endemic gangsterism in Russia, and no one lives in fear of the Mafia. After all, you could just shoot back!

A well armed society is a polite society. There is a reason why Chivalry is measured by knights and manners.

Yes, very polite.

Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?

Most likely, it reminds people of at least one country where the government wanted a specific type of person.* That, and if someone didn't like the eye/hair color, they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person. And we all know the Pope's stand on this subject.

As far as picking the sex, there are numerous countries where a male child is wanted and if it's a girl, it is killed or sold. This of course has a distinct downside. See this story for tidbits of the situation.

*Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml

From January 2003, says that the flu kills an estimated 36,000 a year, and last I checked Swine Flu still hadn't killed 100 yet.

Sorry I couldn't find the CDC link for their estimate, Google kept giving me results for only H1N1 and it's late enough that I don't care to keep hunting.

...or, maybe he can do it with Vice President Biden. As Biden had a few choice words regarding Canada as well at a recent gala event in Washington sponsored by the MPAA.

Damn right! No Democrats agree with Hatch at all! Ooops. Well, ah, nevermind...

Don't fret my little Canadian friend. The US Democrats are pissed off at you as well. You might be interested in reading what Joe Biden had to say about Canada at a recent MPAA dinner. Feel better now? :-)

I can't defend Hatch, but I submitted the following story to SlashDot a month ago and it was rejected. It is disingenuous to pretend that politicians on both sides of the isle don't have their hands dirty.

Just days after four Pirate Bay defendants were found guilty in Sweden, Vice President Joe Biden warned of the harms of Internet piracy at a private event organized by the MPAA in Washington, D.C. At the gala dinner on Tuesday evening, Biden lauded Hollywood, assailed movie piracy, and promised film executives that the Obama administration would pick "the right person" as its copyright czar. Biden also singled out Canada for criticism for not signing the treaty that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or placing other anti-circumvention restrictions on its citizens.

They were in a catch-22 because the government wouldn't confirm that the plaintiffs had been wiretapped, refusing subpoenas from the plaintiffs on national security grounds, and the court wouldn't give the plaintiffs standing unless they could prove it had happened to them.

Thank goodness for the incompetence of the government, then, since the geniuses accidentally delivered transcripts of tapped phone calls to the group they had been tapping. LOL.

"Battle-tested"? You mean "drunk"?

While it is different, and they do actually buy securities, they are doing some pure "lending" too, in addition to buying up our national debt and other shady stuff.

"China is the single largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys. The money it lends to the Feds finances our significant budget deficits. (Americans have been paying about $450 billion a year in interest on the national credit card; without that debt to pay off, personal income taxes could be almost 40 percent lower." CBS Article

Some colleges and universities are preferentially offering more admission spots to male candidates than otherwise they would. Why? In order to redress the gender imbalance that's seeing fewer men than women enroll. (See this article from 2007 in US News & World Report.)

Last month also saw the 2nd Conference on College Men which also dealt with some of these concerns.

As an academic and someone who advocates wide access to all sorts of education, I want to see everyone have a chance to study for what they want to and can manage, men and women.

E100 fuel isn't being chosen by racing because it's a "better fuel". In fact, they don't really care; what matters to them is that everybody is using the same fuel. It's being chosen in an attempt to make a decidedly non-green sport look greener. No other reason.

Actually, Indy cars have been alcohol fueled since the mid-60s, and in fact it is for a good technical reason; it burns cooler. The switch they're currently making is from methanol to ethanol, not from gasoline to ethanol-- they haven't used gasoline for years.

Skaret told jurors that a group of soldiers, including Green, were playing cards and drinking whiskey at a checkpoint near Mahmudiyah, about 15 miles south of Baghdad.

Talk turned to having sex with Iraqi women, when one soldier mentioned the al-Janabi family, who lived nearby, Skaret said. Soldiers then went to the home where, according to prosecutors, Green pulled the father, mother, and daughters ages 6 and 14 into another room, then pushed the 14-year-old out.

Skaret said Green used a shotgun to kill the three in the room with him and told the soldiers that the family was dead.

He then raped the girl and shot her, according to Skaret.

As the girl lay helpless, "Steven Green went over to the wall and picked up a gun and he shot her in the face again and again," Skaret said.

Later, Green would talk about the killings to superior officers, other soldiers and even civilian friends, Skaret said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/national/main5000038.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2559617.stm

Seems the BBC revealed the "secret" location long before Biden. Yet another Fox news lets make a story out of nothing event.

You indicate that this is some kind of conspiracy from Fox News, and yet all of the traditional networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, as well as major papers like the Washington Post and Boston Globe are reporting the same thing.

No wonder Democrats so frequently assume that the 2nd amendment means something that it doesn't--they believe (or at least, appear to believe) that rights and apparently human dignity are government-granted...!

Except Republicans oppose rights, small "r" not capital, as well. For instance Republicans support Three Strikes Laws and manditory minimum sentencing laws. Though some Democrats support them as well most Republicans love drug laws. During the 2008 presidential campaign only Republican Ron Paul wanted to get rid of these laws. Former Reform politician Jessy "The Body" Ventura has been vocal about getting rid of them too. A few days ago on CNN's Larry King show he said they should be legalized.

Falcon

I remember hearing about an exactly identical study when taking psychology in the late eighties. This news article even mentions a similar thing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

Here are the URLs to Gallup and CBS.

Fema!? Hahaha, wait. You were joking right?
here
here
and
here

Draw your own conclusions, but IMNSHO those idiots are close to the last people who should be managing more of our/my money...