Slashdot Mirror

"The DoD budget should be written by DoD administrative staff based on actual, military need, not by a bunch of congressional staffers trying to appease big donors."

Don't presume the cliques in DoD have the OVERALL best interests of the troops in clear focus and aren't fighting over DIFFERENT rice bowls.

We went to war in Iraq with SOFT-SKINNED support vehicles and HMMWVs despite the lessons of Viet Nam and Somalia. Troops had to RE-learn how to build gun trucks, and RE-install gun shields on our APCs.

SFC Paul R. Smith died firing an OPEN machine gun from an unprotected M113:

http://www.combatartfund.org/Images/MOH.PatrickHaskett.jpg

(Most of the ACAV armor kits were REMOVED from M113s in the US inventory before it was realized Iraqis figured out what the VC did in the battle of Ap Bac many years ago. They are back, with the addition of TAGS windowed gunshields. As for the anti-RPG bar armor so common now, it was invented in the 1960s but rejected because it got tangled in Southeast Asian jungle. Tested on an M113, it was forgotten for decadesâ¦)

Viet Nam 113 with gunshields:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2570/4115742434_26c7ccf501_z.jpg

EARMARKS helped field uparmor kits, MRAPs, armored trucks, etc which save many Soldier lives. The stopgap HMMWV armor kits were better than nothing, but HWWWV are still merely light trucks and not armored fighting vehicles like MRAP.

The military is complex and so are its internal politics. If you want ethical earmarks, ask for oversight, but they've done a lot of good.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-09-03-congressmrap_N.htm

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sen-lindsey-graham-defends-certain-congressional-earmarks-us-military

Treats for his dog

The funny thing is, President Obama probably spent less for his pet on Christmas than a majority of Americans...

Treats for his dog

Trust me, there are many worse things these children can be forced to do rather than making trainers or iPads for a living. Apparently human trafficking can be just as horrific as drug addict child prostitution...

Assuming that your statements are true, you are basically saying that it is better for children to be forced to make iPads and fashion clothing in sweat shops of third world countries rather than having sex for money, and using heroin.

If only the children in 3rd world countries were given heroin by their slave masters, you might have a valid point. Otherwise you just sound like another Right Wing, neoliberal conservative.

The way you people twist things for your own benefit never surprises me. Just like how the conservative Christians can manage to demonize tolerance of homosexuality. How your post was rated +5 Insightful instead of +5 Troll really shows how you guys are getting better at your English skills and propaganda techniques.

China is just a metaphor, but 40% of US government spending is borrowed money. NASA is funded with government money, so 40% of its spending in 2011 is funded by those, who borrow it.

Do they get to play with the robot?

source for what? we have public school system in the US that perform below the standards set just to keep home schooled kids passing.and out of public schools.

Of course this will vary from different areas, and it is not a blanket one is better, but here are some interesting stories showing it..

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/11320

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3852653/Faith-school-pupils-outperforming-others-at-every-age.html

http://www.examiner.com/christian-history-in-national/catholic-high-schools-outperform-the-competition

and just to keep a perspective, it appears that if you adjust the schools performances for demographics, its a different result.

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/576/mythifying-public-school-claims

although demographically adjusted numbers still support the claim that there are some religious school run by religious fundies that out perform public-secular schools.,

where they spent over $280,000 for each job created or saved.

I don't know why people find this surprising. Obviously you can't build a road for just the cost of labor, teachers need classrooms to teach in, etc. Of course the rest of that money still goes to pay somebody, such as whoever sells construction supplies or maintains the classroom, but you aren't counting that, simply to make the numbers look worse.

As for the shovel-ready projects that weren't actually ready, that portion of the stimulus was never spent, so that should make you feel a little better.

As for healthcare, private and public healthcare in the US are in exactly the same mess, which is that we simply refuse to make any rational cost/benefit decisions about healthcare, and over-treat everybody, even lost causes.

Liberal tree-hugging pipe dream that destroys jobs and wastes money

`Stimulus' funded, tax break-ed liberal tree-hugging pipe dream failures in the past few days:
Seattle's 'green jobs' program a bust
Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China
Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy
Stimulus Created 'Green' Jobs at $2 Million Per Job

You're looking at a different measurement. Yours is probably also worth looking at of course, but it's a different measurement.

It is commonly call the debt-to-income ration, but that could certainly be called a poor choice of terms. It's about the accumulation of debt, not the total debt load. It is what I said it was: for every dollar they earn on a yearly basis, they borrow one. This does accumulate into a debt load over time, just like it does in businesses.

Of course, right now the biggest owner of US debt is actually the Federal Reserve, which overshadowed China 2 months ago: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fed-eclipses-china-top-owner-us-debt. So due to the weirdness that is the Fed, the govt now owes itself 1.4 Trillion.

If I had a point (and I'm not sure I did), it was that those seeking for the govt to be run more like a business might be in for a nasty shock if they got what they asked for. The budget of a sovereign nation is very different from that of a household or a business and approaching it from either direction will lead you astray if you aren't careful.

It is misleading trying to frame a government like a business (mostly because of the ghastly overgrown monsters that governments have become in recent decades.) Alas, to your point, what business borrows as much as they take in each year, and then doesn't EVER pay it back? Your phrase of "for every dollar they earn on a yearly basis, they borrow one" isn't accurate for ANY business over the long term. Businesses use credit facilities to leverage themselves when they need to grow or realign, but none of them borrows just to pay the bills. If a business were habitually in the red at the end of the FY their credit rating would be "junk" after two or three years, if not less. They would no doubt be extinct in under a decade. Name one business that has been *severely* in the red for almost every one of the last 30 years, has outstanding debt of many times their annual earnings, and is still around (with a sterling credit rating, no less) today.

To that end, the biggest difference between a government and a business when it comes to debt is that governments are typically VERY convincing when it comes time to make good on their debts; they either pass a law, beg/borrow/steal, or generate downright charity in order to make ends meet. If any business (with the notable exception of certain very VERY large banks and auto makers) resorted to such tactics, they would get laughed into bankruptcy.

You're looking at a different measurement. Yours is probably also worth looking at of course, but it's a different measurement.

It is commonly call the debt-to-income ration, but that could certainly be called a poor choice of terms. It's about the accumulation of debt, not the total debt load. It is what I said it was: for every dollar they earn on a yearly basis, they borrow one. This does accumulate into a debt load over time, just like it does in businesses.

Of course, right now the biggest owner of US debt is actually the Federal Reserve, which overshadowed China 2 months ago: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fed-eclipses-china-top-owner-us-debt. So due to the weirdness that is the Fed, the govt now owes itself 1.4 Trillion.

If I had a point (and I'm not sure I did), it was that those seeking for the govt to be run more like a business might be in for a nasty shock if they got what they asked for. The budget of a sovereign nation is very different from that of a household or a business and approaching it from either direction will lead you astray if you aren't careful.

We just have to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come and say it will be cheaper to clean up the damage than to fund the satellites.

And the solution to that is to fight an unwinnable war that increases violence all over, drives the profit of making drugs higher, and spends billions of our tax dollars to make shit worse for us?

Why don't we treat drugs like the public health problem they are, rather than something to be "fought"? You can't protect everyone from themselves, but you can help them help themselves. And you'd have a lot fewer women and children beheaded because of attitudes like yours.

Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press, October 3, 1993: “I am for people, individuals--exactly like automobile insurance--individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, ... And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” Here.

Isn't that pretty much what the right is complaining about in Obamacare now?

AC to preserve mods

"But, heavens, what if we - as world policemen - hadn't invaded Iraq?"

Saddam would still be slaughtering people, the middle east would be one huge terrorist training camp, and Bin Laden would still be alive.

Want to save money? Cut welfare so we don't have people who have never worked in 60 years complaining about their free house and their 60-inch HD TV. The US spent $622 billion on the entire Iraq war while welfare costs $888 billion EVERY YEAR

"Now that hybrids and electrics are really on the road we can't use the assumption that cars pay for road maintenance with fuel taxes."

Electrics? Do you know ANYONE with an electric car? Give me a break! And hybrids use gas, just because it's 40mpg instead of 15 doesn't mean they're dodging gas taxes.

This is the sky-is-falling argument and it's just one more thing the middle-class and working poor will get screwed on while welfare recipients will NOT HAVE TO PAY THE TAX because they don't pay taxes now.

Are we losing $$$$ on the gas tax? Has income generated from gas taxes gone down significantly over the past 10 years? The gas tax only makes $25 billion a year. Welfare costs $888 billion a year. Cut welfare and we don't need a tax on vehicle miles traveled.

Welfare costs more per year than the ENTIRE Iraq war, $888 BILLION a year on welfare vs $622 billion for the iraq war

There are people that have been on welfare for 50+ years and refuse to work and they have children doing the same thing.
""I tried it for a year..you know...working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year." "

Welfare needs to stop, it is killing our country. A year, maybe 2, and that's it, no more welfare.

Sorry, meant to include the link. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terror

putting us in the deepest hole we've ever been in.

Which Obama and the Democrats promptly doubled in size. Indeed, Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined. Check out the official Congressional Budget Office PDF reports linked in the article, the numbers don't lie. How much longer will the left "blame Bush" for the failures of the Obama administration? President Obama is in charge, not Bush. He wanted the job and he is responsible, like it or not, for failing to turn things around. The buck stops with the siting President and what do we have to show for 19 months of Obama? Steady 9%+ unemployment? The worst business environment in a generation? Naive foreign policy? Filing lawsuits instead of securing our borders? What a mess.

'The US Government is a Clear and Present Danger' says US Citizens

Yes, they do.

They never took anyone's rights away after 9/11. You must be confused with the expansion of powers that effect only a small amount of people engaged in a small amount of activities after 9/11.

Anyways, here is a link to it
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/51610 one of them, I'm sure your google finger can find links to the tricks they used to get it passed and how debate was stifled.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.

Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.

Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?

Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

But you don't get to decide that! That's what people such as yourself don't seem to want to understand.

You always throw up completely anecdotal "examples" of your claims of the "vast conspiracy" to ignore the constitution, but you seem to forget the little part in the constitution that says (Article Three Section 2, precisely):

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That means that the judgement as to whether anything is or is not constitutional is not in the purview of ANYONE other than the Supreme Court of the United States ...that includes anyone playing arm-chair constitutional scholar.

If anyone feels anything is not being done in accordance with the United States Constitution, then you have a SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY to attempt (they would have to agree to hear it) bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

The fact that no one has tells me volumes.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.

Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.

Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?

Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

But you don't get to decide that! That's what people such as yourself don't seem to want to understand.

You always throw up completely anecdotal "examples" of your claims of the "vast conspiracy" to ignore the constitution, but you seem to forget the little part in the constitution that says (Article Three Section 2, precisely):

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That means that the judgement as to whether anything is or is not constitutional is not in the purview of ANYONE other than the Supreme Court of the United States ...that includes anyone playing arm-chair constitutional scholar.

If anyone feels anything is not being done in accordance with the United States Constitution, then you have a SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY to attempt (they would have to agree to hear it) bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

The fact that no one has tells me volumes.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.
Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.
Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?
Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.
Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.
Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?
Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.

To understand the answers, you need to understand the true purpose of the bill.

The Democrats want to completely socialize health care: they call it "single payer", i.e. the US Government is the only entity to pay for health care. The Democrats knew they couldn't get there immediately, but rather needed to pretend to do something else.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788

This bill is over 2700 pages long, and I haven't read it. So, I'm relying on various news sources for this analysis. But as I understand it, here is how the bill works:

Each American is required to buy health insurance. Anyone who cannot afford it can apply to the government for help. But those who don't buy insurance, can simply pay a "fine" to the government. This fine will cost less than the insurance would have cost.

This bill also requires insurance companies to accept anyone, and pay for their care, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html

So, in short: I could cancel all my insurance, and pay a fine to the government, and no insurance company gets any of that money. Then one day I could discover that I had cancer, buy insurance, and that insurance company would be compelled to accept me as a patient and pay for my cancer treatment. Or, one day I could get in a car crash, then buy the insurance and get treated.

Because the above would completely destroy the actuarial basis of insurance, all the companies currently providing health insurance would be forced by cold hard economic reality to stop selling insurance. If they didn't stop on their own, they would go out of business, and close down.

The end game is that the US government would announce that due to the entirely unexpected and unforeseeable wave of insurance companies closing down, the US government would start offering insurance. That, or else it would buy the remaining insurance companies the way the government bought failing car manufacturers.

And there you go: single-payer. The US government would provide all "insurance" (really, it wouldn't look anything like insurance at that point, but the name would be kept for sentimental reasons).

Also, the bill as written saves a tiny bit of money: over ten years, it saves (IIRC) about 160 billion dollars. However, the bill as written includes drastic cuts to Medicare to help pay for it; and the bill does not include the "Doc Fix", so it assumes that bad cuts to doctor pay will be allowed to stand. Also, this bill includes the provision that the broad increases in taxes go into effect immediately, but the benefits don't start to get paid out for four years. I do not expect the cuts to Medicare to be allowed to stand; I expect to see another bill to increase taxes in order to put back everything that was cut. In short, I am expecting the actual costs of this bill to be far in excess of what was promised.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/

I view this bill as a complete disaster. Either everything I have read about it is wrong, or else all the cheerful and happy postings I have read here on Slashdot are uninformed.

steveha

Sorry,I read the linked page and I couldn't find where they were addressing the points made by BadAnalogyGuy. How about this if anthropgenic CO2 is responsible for significant global warming, then why after the CO2 levels have still been rising, there has been No Significant Global Warming for 15 years?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59933 "What Washington Post Didn’t Tell You about Its Own Poll: Most Americans Say They Want a Smaller Government"

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,'" said Conyers.
"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51610

Since when has congress cared about that old thing called the constitution? It sure hasn't stopped them with health care "reform".

You forgot to mention that the question of Constitutionality was specifically asked to Speaker of the House Pelosi, who simply ignored the question. Whether something is Constitutional is apparently irrelevant these days!

Who said I'm the only one that's discovered it?

I guess you get all of your news from Keith Olbermann, eh?

Hey buddy! I see you're posting in this thread. This is a union thread. No one posts here unless they're in the Teamsters Comment Posters Union.

That's a nice car you've got there. Wouldn't want Mikey to bust it up would you? Best pay up your dues now. Oh yeah, if you payup Mikey and the boys will make sure you get a pay rise.

Despite all the ignorance, the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South, but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS~!!1!!11ONEONEELEVEN

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499

He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.

“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.

For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.

I would imagine most of the comments I just read were by those who have never even seen or listened to Beck's show. Why? Because I have. Beck BACKS UP claims and does more research than most main stream media, who generally worship at the feet of the democrat party. The quotes he provides are on video and can be looked up on You-Tube. Often they are taken from the person's own speeches (and no, not out of context). It's simply rather difficult, for example, for White House officials to deny their admiration for communist dictator Mao Tse Tung, although I imagine that frosts their gonads that Beck keeps exposing their beliefs.

Calling the accusation of fictional rape of a young girl parody is ridiculous. Stooping to that level means you are simply trying to assassinate a person's character. But when it's done against a conservative, it's called parody. If it was done to a liberal, it would be defamation and slander.

And we know the left (with an agreeable media) NEVER tries to take down someone they don't like. Just like the claims of Rush Limbaugh and racism...oh wait!

I do wonder what part of the constitution is going to be used to force people to buy health insurance. This question was asked to Peloski but brushed aside. Further emails from her office say it's part of Interstate Commerce and the general welfare clause. How long before it's challenged in court?

The only ones I could see supporting software patents are some patent lawyers.

Well, then we are screwed, because tort reform of any kind certainly isn't in the interests of the current political party that happens in be in power in Washington. One of their own said it best.....

They're already forced to live under bridges: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45831 :

quoting:

Wiese is among 52 sex offenders living under a busy bridge over Biscayne Bay that connects Miami to Miami Beach. The state insisted two years ago it would urge them to leave, but the community has only grown.
It has become a makeshift town of parolees and others who struggle to find affordable housing that doesnâ(TM)t violate strict local ordinances against sex offenders living too close to schools, parks and other places children congregate.
In the angled area where the bridge meets a concrete slope, residents have put up domed tents, a shack housing a makeshift kitchen, a camper, even a weight bench. They've spray painted the slope and the pillars supporting the bridge: âoeWe âRâ(TM) Not Monsters.â âoeThey Treat Animals Better!!!â âoeWhy?â
âoeThey throw us under here and just hope that we can do something ourselves,â said 47-year-old Wiese, standing in the doorway to a small shack made of collected wood scraps. âoeIf I was a murderer, they would help me, they would find me a home, they would find me a job.â
[...]
Once entered in the sex offender registry, a person typically stays for life. In Miami-Dade County, such people must live at least 2,500 feet from places children gather, making only a handful of areas--generally out of an offender's price range--possible homes. The countyâ(TM)s rules governing its 1,030 registered sex offenders are considered among the stateâ(TM)s most restrictive.
  Many offenders have family or friends who would house them but can't because they live too close to a school or playground or bus stop.
  The state says offenders found the bridge because it was among the few covered places in compliance with the local ordinances. Officials say probation officers haven't suggested it outright, though some residents dispute that. Either way, it has become one of the only solutions.
  âoeSometimes when a probation officer is helping somebody to look for a place to live and they're not having any luck and the probation officer is required to know where a person is every night, they may suggest that there is a place where they can check on them," Rackleff said.

Skeptics? You bet, because this global warming nonsense is just that: Nonsense.

Here's a nice report of the EPA attempting to stampede congress into making the wrong decision to adopt the Cap and Trade disaster by witholding information:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50301

The major points:

(The TSD is EPA's Technical Support Document that it uses to promote the regulation of CO2.)

--The TSD glosses over long-term cyclical variations in ocean temperature, similar to El Nino, which "are by far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations," says the report.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are such variations, and occur in roughly 60-year cycles, as opposed to the 3-5 year El Nino cycle. Their role is "not really explained in the draft TSD," the report says. "(A)t the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why (EPA) believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are much more unimportant than we believe them to be."

--The TSD neglects to explore the "strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations." It dismissed solar variations based on data obtained by a U.N. climate panel, but the veracity of that data has since been called into question. New research "suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68 percent of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."

-- The TSD's assumption that greenhouse gases have triggered global warming is hard to verify, because "changes in (greenhouse gas) concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978."

--Global temperatures have declined for 11 straight years, and at the same time, "atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated." The TSD does not reconcile these findings.

--The TSD finds that there is endangerment to Americans' health and welfare due to greenhouse gas emissions, but the dissenting report says there is an "obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing U.S. health and welfare measures."

But of course the EPA sat on that, so nobody would know the fraud that is being perpetrated on America, as the "globalization" effort goes forward to carry jobs out of the USA to the "poor" of other countries, and thus make more poor in our country.

Somebody needs their a** kicked, and should the economic collapse that is virtually inevitable if this Cap and Trade disaster is passed occur, they will get it (kicked.) Out of office at a bare minimum, although the massive civil war between liberals and conservatives, alluded to in a previous slashdot article concerning a Russian scholar that predicts that such a war would start next year and break the USA into 5 major areas all under different foreign influence may also take place and totally obliterate the country as we know it.

If it happens, it'll be our own d*** faults for not taking an interest in our politics, but simply going to the beach and having a good time while Rome burns. For instance, we have an answer to our economic problems in the proposal for the "Fair Tax", but since a Republican thought of it, Democrats have all decided to be partisan and oppose it for no other reason than it's a Republican idea. We could be the manufacturing center of the world (again) with a tax structure like that, but... it isn't going to happen, because we've got our heads up our a**** about 5 miles so even the best of ideas will not be implemented.

Maybe things will get better after Civil War II, at least for the places that are NOT under the Russian sphere of influence...

But honestly, if our Congressmen and women won't even read the bills they pass why the hell are they signing their names on them in the first place?

Did not stop them from signing the "Stimulus" bill (the one they promised to post to the Internet for 3 days before voting — and lied) earlier this year...

" ... So far US, UK, Russia, France, China, and maybe Israel all have nuclear weapons capability. ..."

US, Russia, France, the UK, and China built and tested nukes around 50 or more years ago; the testing is considered important when you talk about who has and who does not have the capability to wage nuclear war. It's not a coincidence that these are the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council ... it was essentially the card you needed to be invited to the party (China was invited late).

Since then, three others have tested weapons, which is the gold standard for whether they have nukes ... in other words, you can't lie about it. That is India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

I see you include Israel, which is in another category where they are widely believed to have nukes, some people in high places actually know the answer for sure one way or another, but they deny they do and have not tested a weapon, making it clearly possible to lie about it.

For some time South Africa was in the same category, but they have voluntarily dismantled the six bombs they had at one time assembled, and like Israel they have never tested a weapon. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have relinquished the bombs they inherited as a result of their owning collective property, including military equipment, in the old USSR.

The above list is the one agreed upon by the US State Department, amongst others. But, there are other lists with other criteria.

Then there is the list of countries that are considered capable of building and deploying a nuclear weapon within six months time or less (1), but for whatever reason have not built any. That includes nations with mature domestic nuclear industries and large amounts of weapons-grade material like Japan, Germany and Canada, and a few that have might be able to build one, or might not, like Brazil, which has voluntarily moved all it's weapons-grade material out of the country (less than 1 Kg remains, not enough to build a nuke).

There are currently 40 non-nuclear nations with available bomb-making material on hand in the form of highly-enriched uranium, and that includes at least one in every continent save Antarctica. Some consider any nation with nuclear power facilities to be nuclear capable, which is a bit of a stretch in my mind, but if you agree, that's 44 nations.

Pakistan is the source of most of North Korea's nuclear bomb-making ability, and it's well documented, not Iran as at least one poster here suggested. Pakistan recently (9th February 09) released Abdel Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, from house arrest, which he was under for five years as punishment for selling nuclear secrets to North Korea (as well as a few others). At roughly the same time the United States imposed sanctions on Khan, 12 other individuals, and three companies. The United States claims that these individuals and companies are part of "an extensive network" under Khan's direction that offered or may still offer in exchange for money "one-stop" shopping for countries aspiring to have nuclear weapons.

There are about 27,000 built and presumably working nuclear weapons on Earth with around 2.000 deployed in missile launchers available for immediate use worldwide.

(1) According to the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists based at the University of Chicago, the same people with the Doomsday Clock. You know they've been at it a while because they use "Atomic" instead of "Nuclear" in their name ;-)

Links:
http://www.thebulletin.org/
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=43235

>>The Democrats aren't much better, but at least they're trying to spend money on people in THIS HEMISPHERE, let alone in this country.

Well, then independent of who let this through (below), Bush's Admin. or the Democratic Congress ... maybe they should go kill this (heard about it on the radio):

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47976&print=on
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905130010

How about this?

This poll follows another Rasmussen poll conducted July 19 which revealed that 57 percent of likely voters think Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has received the best treatment from the media so far, while 21 percent or respondents think Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has received the best media treatment.

Additionally, 49 percent think reporters will try to help Obama win the presidential campaign, while 14 percent think reporters will help McCain.

Media bias is real. You can deny it all you want, but it exists and no amount of you gnashing your teeth will change that. Ironically your argument is identical to most on the right, who just want the public to be able to evaluate the facts for themselves.

For instance my mother (average american, only sorta follows politics) for years talked about the "jobless recovery" under Bush, until I sat her down and showed her that the unemployment rate was actually higher under Clinton. The media just drove it into her head, and she refused to believe otherwise until I showed her facts.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat, New Mexico
"Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didn't know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year - but he would certainly like them to. Bingaman told the station he would support reimposition of the regulation - which was rescinded in 1987 - on the station."

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat, Micigan
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine: 'I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else - I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.' Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network."

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa
"Well, anytime - just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.'"

Former President Bill Clinton, Democrat:
"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality. "I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987."

Let's not pretend like it's not something they'd like to see to silence at least some of conservative talk radio.

Because even while the economy sputters the Federal, State, and local, governments are expanding. Where is the sense in that? Why shouldn't people complain? Better yet, the pay of government jobs keeps going up faster than inflation in many areas and exceeding the private sector as well.

Take a look at this chart, http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/governmentemployment.html

Now, explain how we can keep adding so many government jobs and not expect the burden to become too much? We are creating more non wealth producing jobs than wealth producing jobs.

So we have this big slow down, with many private sector jobs lost, yet government keeps growing. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=41780

We are simply running amok. The real problem with government paid jobs is that are nearly impossible to do away with them. We cannot keep expanding a segment of the work force which only consumes wealth. We will either have to tax everyone to the limit of sanity or accept the fact that government isn't here to wait on us for our every need.

People here decry government surveillance on one hand and cheer new government jobs because the later is giving them something. Hey, I got news for you, both are the same thing. They are imposing into your life by restricting your rights or restricting how much of your work you can take reward from, by that last I mean : How much they are willing to let you keep to spend as you see fit.

Dude, didn't you hear? Oh yeah, the mainstream media ignored it, so probably you don't know.

1. The bill was originally written by a group of Democrats. Not even all Democrats, much less a Republican.
2. The bill passed the House without a single Republican vote and minus 10 Democrat votes.
3. The bill passed the Senate after 3 Republicans formed a coalition with Democrats to trim down the stimulus and these 3 same Republicans helped to pass it without any other Republicans voting yes.
4. The bill went back to the Congress to be reconciled with the House version behind a closed door by Democrats. The Capitol Hill staffs didn't even see the bill when asked by the reporters since the lobbyist of the K Street had them.
5. The bill passed the Senate with the help of the same 3 turncoat Republicans. And not a single Senator, Democrat or Republican, would read the whole 1000+ pages of it in a day though the House previously unanimously passed a bill saying that the stimulus should be available to the public for 48 hours before the vote. Is it a prudent and responsible thing to vote yes on a bill you haven't thoroughly read especially a bill of this size and implication and with the money borrowed from the next next generation? The Dems pushed it so hard that they violated the bill just voted hours ago.

But you'd have to actually look at some of the provisions to understand, rather than parroting big-mouthed right-wing pundits.

Did you? Not even the Senators can actually take a close look of the bill in the time frame. Do you know that there are grants for a mob museum, endangered salt marsh harvest mice. And oh, the STD stuff is back. Maybe you should take your own advice and look at the provision to understand. Unless, you actually think that money slated to be spent in 2011-2012 has nothing to do with 2012 election and can actually stimulate the current economy that is badly need stimulation right this minute or else it's a catastrophe. Then there is really not much to talk about since you are obviously an ideologue.

While this is not entirely related to freedom of information, it is related to transparency, shining light on government corruption and rapid changes storming the executive.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42299

This article reports what I heard over NPR on the drive home yesterday. The revolving door that has been a peeve to me and many others is being addressed in Obama's actions. A lot of people who set their lives up using te good ole boy system of mutual mack scratching will be very upset by this... and I hope they are! It is time these despicable practices come to an end.

I'm no expert on the issue, but it ignores the societal differences between [wherever you are] and Africa. There are even significant differences between African nations that would preclude "it ought to be good enough for AIDS prevention efforts in Africa." Take Uganda as an example http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32108. The same ABC plan that worked well there did not have the same effect in other African countries. Once you start looking at the indicators for groups that are at highest risk of HIV/AIDS in different African countries and compare them to our K-12 population, you see that it is an entirely different set of circumstances. It is not the same issue, but we can disagree on that. Any HIV/AIDS reduction strategy is going to have to be tailored for the environment it targets.

And while I'm not a proponent of strict 'Abstinence-Only' Education, the ABC Plan emphasizing abstinence first, and contraceptives as a last resort, (hey, people are people), resounds strongly with me at least. Reading this article from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401458_pf.html It seems to indicate that ABC is the "centerpiece of the Bush administration's $15 billion, five-year plan to fight AIDS in 15 target countries, most of them in Africa." The article goes on to reference various attempts to implement a similar plan domestically. While it emphasizes abstinence, it seems far from an 'abstinence-only' approach.

Perhaps the original quote mischaracterized McCain's sentiments? Does McCain support 'Absinence-Only' only, or the Bush Administration's ABC Plan? Anyone know?

Read my comment here to see the links that you ignored.

Girl told she cannot read bible at school

Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess

How about that crow you just ate? Was it tasty?

Google is your friend:

Girl told she cannot read bible at school

Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess

Don't expect the main stream media to print these stories or lawsuits. Digg and Reddit reject them as well.

Besides it's to late Bill Clinton was the first black president.

I'd vote Clinton any day ahead of Obama. She's come a looong way, baby. They're both twisted, but Obama is a bit too close to Kenyan taliban....and Clinton already was america's first black president http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200110/NAT20011001e.html - and you're fooling yourself if you think either will do anything radical, you just can't get nominated if you're not handle-able.