Slashdot Mirror

The lesson I've learned in the past 7 years is this: when you start to hear trial balloons floated about an issue of authoritarian enforcement, whether it's surveillance, police powers, rights of the accused, it's almost always about corporate profits rather than the "security" of the citizens of America or anywhere else.

At this point, I'm prepared to take my chances with the terrorists,

but I want to be protected from those in power.

I like my odds vs. the terrorists.

But the people who are currently in power have both motive and opportunity.

Now what about all the Righties fringe folks? Your are hardly in a position to complain about a splinter in the Dems' eye when the GOP has a log!

I think you are missing the point. Republicans go out of their way to distance themselves from the likes of David Duke. We shun our wing-nuts and disown them. The left embraces those like Code Pink who will sing the praises of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Why? Not because they offer a beacon of freedom in Latin America. Quite the opposite. They have shut down elections, silenced all opposing voices, and turned a formerly free press into a government mouthpiece. The lefty's hatred of Bush has blinded them to the point where they actually believe that these dictators offer more freedoms than the US, who has free elections, a free press and political opposition. Still, the more moderate left doesn't seem to mind. They gladly support their wing-nuts and don't say a word.

So really, there is no comparison. The GOP pulls the splinters out their own eyes while the left allows it to blind them.

As for what one member may have done to a door at Walter Reed Medical Center, that is just plain graffiti and wrong. I'd be surprised if all felt that way.
The Walter Reed Medical Center protests went on for months by much more than one member. They got a permit and protested on the front steps of Walter Reed every single day. Counter protectors who were there to support the troops were forced to stand across the street because Code Pink had the permit. If you think that it was simply a little graffiti, you are completely ignorant of what really happened. I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look stupid again. Any way, it proves my point. All you said was "I'd be surprised if they all felt that way" when you should have said, "They were fucking wrong and they don't represent me."

---And on a more personal note: 4) President Bush's home in Texas is actually a surprising green residence while Gore's pool house consumes more power than the average person's home. --- You need to be careful of those funny stories... they misrepresent what's really going on... like Gore paying tons extra per month to buy "green" power from a special place. Even Snopes admits that one Bush ranch house is about saving money and water b/c it's in the desert. But if you research more info behind all this (sadly snopes must have deleted the links to some of this material... I went to google), you'll see that comparing Gores main house/office combo where multiple people work per day should definitely use more resources than one of Bush's ranches that probably has one person in it once a month. More on http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070301c.html Some details. "It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate." Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added. Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said."

Yeah Like SARS in Toronto eh? A bunch of hype it seems. Someone I knew went there during the hype and was drinking with an NBC correspondent in a bar, who IIRC, seemed personally as perplexed as the locals.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page =%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200304%5CFOR2003042 5d.html

It would be nice if your link was more visible.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page =%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200503%5CSPE2005030 3a.html

In fact, your information about Media Matters is outdated.

It would be even easier if you were more thorough.

If you find a cannon on an old pirate ship at the bottom of the ocean, do you just call it a hunk of metal since it doesn't work anymore? Or do you call it a cannon?

Did we find Sarin Nerve Agent? Yes
Did we find weapons that were meant for the dispersal of Sarin (WMD)? Yes
Did we find weapons which contained Sarin? Yes
Did we find fully functional WMD? Maybe, but they were old and we weren't going to test them.
Did we find new WMD? No

See the clarification? Hell, some of our soldiers were even exposed to the effects of one. So to say they were useless or not considered WMD is hogwash.

There are plenty of reports outside of Fox News that say Sarin (WMD) was found. Here are a few:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i d=15918
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/06/iraq/mai n627580.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=40754

That article's headline is "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." Bush's actions were limited by that qualifier. Hussein was complying and had given up the WMD as required by the UN resolutions (primarily resolution 687 see:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news /iraq/un/index.html). So far 500 munitions of degraded sarin has been found (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Natio n/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html)(Personal, this doesn't seem like a stock pile). So technically, the war is illegal as it fails the qualifier that congress stipulated.

Most people feel that Congress wouldn't even have passed that resolution had Bush et al not been fabricating the intelegence (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3 87374.ece)

Exaggerate much? What percentage of gun control supporters are actually interested in "banning" guns? Seriously, now.

Exactly how do you view "assault weapon bans" then?

How about HR 1022, which would ban almost all semi-automatic rifles.

To say the gun-control advocates aren't interested in banning guns is disingenuous. That seems, instead, to be the point of their organization.

At least as important as the 1st Amendment? I'm not buying into it. I'm all for the individual right to gun ownership, but I'd put restrictions on it well before I'd put restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, if you rob a convenience store, I have zero problem with making it illegal for you to own a gun. Forever. No more guns for you. I can't think of a crime that you could commit that would cause me to support abridging your freedom of speech or religion.

There's already laws in place to prevent convicted felons ( and some convicted of misdemeanors ) from ever owning firearms again.

Perhaps those who engage in fraud, say securities fraud, should have the right to continue in that fraud? Or would you restrict their freedom of speach ( via the removal of their SEC license, for instance ) ?

How about the classic example of limiting the 1st amendment: Do you support the right of free speach to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire?

It might help the situation if we could get away from Second Amendment absolutism a bit. Do you really think that the right to bear arms should be 100% without restriction? Would you be OK with your neighbor down the street owning a hydrogen bomb or a VX gas rocket (to prevent government oppression, you know)?

Excellent strawman you've got there. We're not talking about hydrogen bombs or VX gas.

When you say "get away from Second Amendment absolutism", what some of us hear is "give your guns up".

That's been a non-starter for the Democrats for at least 20 years. We have only to look at US cities like Washington DC to see how well gun control works as crime control.

The point is, I think both sides of the gun debate like crime control.

Instead of trying to take firearms from the law abiding, which not only doesn't work as crime control, but is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US (
see here for a list of states which now permit law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal defense ), how about focusing on the things that can work.. like education and job opportunities for those economically disadvantaged, increased treatment of the mentally ill, increased treatment for cronic substance abusers / adicts, etc. .

If Democrats would like to create new laws to remove firearms from those who haven't commited any crime and make self-defense effectively illegal ( see: here ) then they will continue to alienate a large part of the electorate, who simply do not see any evidence that gun control == crime control (quite the contrary).

If the Democrats would, however, like to attract that part of the electorate then perhaps some changes in their platform are in order.

Note that Patrick Moore left Greenpeace because it's no longer dealing with the environment: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement any more, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level". Greenpeace isn't about the environment, it's about a social movement aimed at establishing a particular political view.

I'd encourage you to read his Wikipedia entry - quite enlightening about what a true environmentalist - one who believes in it so strongly he founded Greenpeace and Greenpeace International - thinks about the modern Greenpeace and other "environmental" organizations.

Are you willing to let me determine if you're both a) responsible and b) well-trained before I let you carry a weapon?

I will point out that the courts have determined that there are limits on all our rights: First Amendment rights don't let you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And, believe it or not, there are actual laws in place that specify who is permitted to carry and who is not.

In the state where I live, a person must apply for a permit, which involves going to a local police station, letting them take your fingerprints, and having the fingerprints sent to the FBI. There is no required training. Guess what? The people who walk into a police department and say "here, take my fingerprints"... those people aren't the problem. My state has incredibly low rates of crime by permit holders, and also incredibly low rates of accidental gun injuries.

So, any time someone proposes mandatory training, my first thought is: the situation isn't broken here, so don't try to fix it.

And I will point out that there are two states where any adult citizen can carry a firearm with no license required, and those states are not exactly hotbeds of gun deaths.

What if I merely require that you're "well regulated", as the 2nd Amendment does?

Sigh. That statement is the equivalent of "a well-educated population being a good thing, the right of people to own and read books shall not be infringed." "well-regulated" was used in the sense of "practiced in the use of".

At least you didn't try to claim that the Second Amendment isn't an individual right, and I thank you for that. (I'm amazed anyone can single out any Amendment from the Bill of Rights and claim that it alone was never intended to be an individual right.)

Seems to me that we've had all attempts at those three requirements resisted out of hand by pro-gun lobbyists.

Look, there are a bunch of "gun-control" laws and regulations that no-one argues about. The NRA has never proposed that the criminally insane should be allowed to own guns, for example.

The basic problem is that there is a group dedicated to chipping away at the rights of gun owners any way they can, because they sincerely believe that their ideas on "gun-control" would really make the world a better place. If they can't get all guns banned, they go for the handguns. If they can't get handguns banned, they go for "sniper rifles" and draft a law that would ban all deer-hunting rifles. If they can't get that, they draft a law that would ban all "close-in assault weapons" that would ban all shotguns. Or, how about those laws that ban all weapons within a five-mile radius of any school... guess how many people's homes are within a five-mile radius of any school? That's a ban in disguise. If advocates of the Second Amendment are suspicious of "gun-control" laws, it's because of history.

A fun, real-life example: after 9/11, a bunch of airplane pilots got really organized and pressed hard for a license that would allow them to be armed while flying the plane. They succeeded, but it turns out that to qualify, the pilots need to jump through an incredible number of hoops, and only a tiny percentage of pilots has actually struggled all the way through and gotten the license. A quick web search found this; I've never heard of this "cnsnews.com" but I have read a similar story from sources I trust. Or see:

http://secure-skies.org/AirlinePilotsComments.php
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/columns/ArticlePri nt.aspx?aid=1178

As a more relevant example, in New York City, it is actually possible to get a license to carry a concealed weapon; at least in theory it is. In practice, you can get one if you are rich and well-connected, but if yo

The problem was corruption. I imagine that it still is, since New Orlean's mayor was reelected.

Money wasn't used right.

This is one of the areas that I had previously not heard about.

My company sees stuff related asset management - including disaster planning, and we've heard that money related to that was also diverted. So nobody locally knew what to do to get the national government involved after the levees burst.

I can't figure this out. The trail is clearly visible. If you look at where the money went you can see what money was wasted; you can see where self-interest superseded the good of everyone.

How should we, as a society deal with this problem? Rebuild the culture of New Orleans so that such a thing is impossible? Ignore it and spend money to make it exactly the same?

Personally, I've got no idea. For that matter, I don't know why this isn't common knowledge. I don't think that just putting money back into the same thing is the way to fix it, though. Removing corruption most likely means taking over a large portion of the government...which means killing a lot of the culture. Should we do that?

While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.

My main area of surprise and shock was learning that past concentrations of carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today, as revealed in the interview below:

RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

I have also seen a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigous universities):

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

And I have also seen a growing political backlash against scientifically-unfounded runaway global warming panic:

Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

When I see interviews such as

"You are one naive fucking asshole. Why don't you tell all your idiotarian conspiracy theories to the families of the police officers who are killed in the line of duty? The idea that the government works against "regular" citizens is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies told by the so called freedom movement."

Um no lets try that again
People are getting tired of varius government agencys abuseing their power and killing or serouisly injureing people and getting a paid vacation for it. But as you sound like part of the problem you know that don't you?

http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/lamplugh.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNati on%5Carchive%5C200603%5CNAT20060329a.html
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20051028.htm
http://www.gainesnet.com/police.htm

Real conservatives would have nothing to do with this stupid bill, which places way too heavy a load on small businesses. And no, I don't consider any of the supporters of the bill conservative in the fiscal sense.

Oh, the conservatives are pissed. But like you said, it all comes down to whether they'll stop strategizing long enough to not elect another Bush.

1) Human beings may or may not have had an influence on the Earth's climate in the past few hundred years.

Uh, no. I think I clearly said we have, or at least was asking "how much." I think by asking "how much" I clearly accept the fact that we have.

2) There exist people who claim that the Earth's climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords

Yes, very many leftists blame Katrina on right wingers, especially Bush (taking the blame even if he had no choice). Perhaps they don't phrase it that way, but here's a few choice ones:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi's Gulf Coast, it's worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush's iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

Now, you can argue he didn't come out and say it, but he certainly is relating Kyoto with Katrina.

From here: German Minister Links Katrina to Global Warming, Bush Policies.

How about this one: "Katrina's Real Name is Global Warming", with this choice quote: "In 2001, the Bush administration announced it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by 120 countries."

Again, why does the author include this in the article if it's not his sentiment that Kyoto and Katrina are related?

And here: "In Australia, the Greens party said Katrina was aggravated by climate change and criticised Bush for pulling out of Kyoto."

Again, the association goes Katrina as a result of global warming as a result of Bush not signing Kyoto.

The implication is clear.

No problem. Read this artcle There's plenty more on the net. Try Google.

yeah. That article itself is biased. For example, this quote:

33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)

that shows that Fox viewers are BETTER informed than viewers of other news services. You see, Iraq DID have WMDs and some of them have been found.

From this article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation \archive\200602\NAT20060215c.html

Now, I know what you're thinking: "omfg that doesn't agree with what I want to believe therefore I will purge it from my memory." and that's cool. You go right ahead and do that. That will give me the chance to post this link again in the future.

And this there's this story:
http://apps.michigandaily.com/blogs/thepodium/?p=5 2

about how they found 500 or so chemical munitions in iraq - you know, WMDs. Now, I know what you're thinking, "omfg those are from before 1991 so therefore I will ignore this story" and that's cool, you go ahead and use that logic. Just like if you're on probation for armed robbery and they catch you with a gun, you can tell the judge you bought the gun before you were on probation so therefore it doesn't count.

Look, I don't care. The fact is, we've got a "respected" news service (CBS) where somebody actually sits down at a computer and types of a memo and prints it and then they try to pass that off as a 1950's memo about Bush. But you guys go on and on about how Fox news is bias. Whatever. It's obvious where the bias is.

The sad thing here (to me: a conservative) is that the Democrats made traction with labeling Republicans as not being fiscally responsible. Sure, the Republicans spent more than I had wanted them to, but on every appropration spent less than what the Dems wanted to spend. What did the Democrats not like about prescription drugs? (Answer: didn't spend enough); Homeland Security Funding? (Answer: Not enough funds for infrastructure, roads, firemen, etc...); No-Child Left Behind? (Answer: unfunded mandate!); Veterans Spending? (Answer: It goes up but they call it a cut).

So yes, the Republicans spent too much but the Democrats wanted to spend more. Why did they do this? It is called compromise. Ironically, by compromising with the Democrats (which is what I thought everyone wanted the two parties to do...) the Republicans gave them ammunition with which to finish them off...

Hi JakartaDean.

Add Gun Control to Litany of Misbegotten Government Plans
National crime rates compared
England has worst crime rate in world
Statistics Confirm Huge London Crime Wave
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

There are plenty more links out there--this was about 5 minutes of googling.

I found these articles in about three minutes: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page =/SpecialReports/archive/200608/SPE20060821a.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=45203 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=37981 KAREN SCHALER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Since October, more than 800,000 illegal aliens have been caught trying to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border. Close to 10 percent aren't from Mexico, creating serious homeland security concerns. SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: We're concerned about terrorists coming across the border because of the huge increases in other than Mexicans, people coming from abroad through Mexico, across our southern border. We know that al Qaeda specifically desires to bring people across this border.

Majority of places hit where Infrastructure, most of which it would of been impossible to fire a missile from (ever seen someone try to fire a missile in an active commercial airport?).

The majority? Maybe, I don't know. But Israel has indeed hit infrastructure, to prevent Hezbollah from easily moving around. It's war, after all.

Most of the targets hit in the first days of attacks where in areas that not only Hezbollah where not there but where also in parts of the country where it would of been impossible to fire a missile from simply because they don't have that range.

If they were infrastructure, then again, Israel would hit those targets to cripple Hezbollah's ability to move around.

Israel destroyed the roads around the cities, then the cities and then told civilains to get out (making it impossible to do so easily).

"The cities" we are talking about were Hezbollah strongholds, weren't they? And destroyed roads does not make it impossible to easily get out. It makes it difficult to move around cargo, but people could easily get out.

All the while shooting at people that did attempt to flee

I don't think that is the case.

and then declaring that anyone left in the city is clearly a terrorist (which mostly was the old/infirmed or people with children who couldn't flee).

These people could indeed flee. Children aren't tied to the ground, you know.

They have fired on and killed UN forces, despite being told there where no Hezbollah in the area of the attack.

That's funny, because according to one of the UN observers that were killed (in a report he wrote before the incident), Hezbollah had positions in and around their base.

In cases like Qana the refugees headed for that area BECAUSE THERE WAS NO HEZBOLLAH there.

Apparently there was. Why would they not be in Qana if they hide among civilians everywhere else?

The second a missile truck shows up in a populated area the locals flee and have been doing so for some time. IDF claimed Hezbollah where there but used days old footage to prove it and then only told the truth once they where pulled up on it.

They did? Source?

Hezbollahs initial rocket attack was in response to an attack by Israel first

Actually, what happened was that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, and then Israel went after them. Hezbollah responded by bombing Israel. So Hezbollah dropped the first bombs over Israel.

and Hezbollah have been targetting military based areas.

Actually, they have been targeting civilian areas.

Israel have killed over 30 civilians for every one civilian killed in Israel. That is not factoring in the number of Hezbollah killed (which is quite low).

Yes, as I said, this tragedy is so much greater because Hezbollah purposely hides among civilians, to sacrifice them as involuntary "martyrs".

Saying that Hezbollah started this is a joke unless your memory only goes back a month. This has been going on for decades and Hezbollah initially was formed because of Israels initial attacks on Lebanon.

Why Hezbollah was formed isn't really relevant to the fact that this time around, Hezbollah started it all by bombing Israel. It wasn't until they started bombing that Israel was forced to respond.

You would also ignore the 1,000s of Lebnonese held in detention centres over the years i

Seeing as though Google won't accept firearm ads, I'd advise against using GBuy to do anything firearm-related.

Give me a set of criteria that, if they are satisfied, you will regard as sufficent evidence for taking action against global warming and I will accept that you may have a pont. Otherwise, all you're doing is saying "Bah! Youse scientist dunt never nothing nowhow" only in an fancy accent.

Amen! The whole bogus "controversy" on the subject is deeply disrespectful to climate scientists: the papers gladly report the opinion of some hack from the American Energy Trade Association basically accusing the entire climate science community of being woolly-headed hippies, and this is followed up a professor of an unrelated subject who is quoted so the editors don't have to endure abuse for fact-based reporting. The following is a bit I wrote up ona crystal-clear example of this.

Here's a 2004 essay that analyzed the scientific literature and quite justifiably concluded that there was scientific consensus. Even if you dispute her study methodology, the fact that all of the import climate science organizations have endorsed this view is in itself nearly enough to claim consensus.

The paper was followed in short measure by this CBS article, in which various right-wing think tanks and a contrarian British anthropologist dismiss the study via comparisons to Stalin.

So if you're a non-climate scientist, or someone who's generally not comfortable with reading science magazines, and you try to read the papers to find out what's going on, you get the wrong story, the one about "controversy" over whether climate change is real, not the one about science concluding people are affecting the Earth's climate. Note also that the two links at the bottom of the story are also from climate change "skeptics". If you read the story from the second of those links, you'll see the same raft of quotes from the same set of players, plus a new contrarian scientist with this recently debunked plum:
"Antarctica has been cooling for the last 50 years. Most of the Arctic has not warmed over long time scales," Baliunas told CNSNews.com. Baliunas also serves as the enviro-science editor for Tech Central Station.

This claim has been debunked by a recent study which concluded that Antartica is in fact losing mass to melting, and in any it was known at the time that the center is cooling and the edges are melting. A reputable scientist would haev distinguished the mean from overall behavior.

And par usuel, the article neglects to mention that Tech Central Station is a basically a lobbyist funded rag, and nor that the people who do these kinds of studies work at the most reputable places in the world. The gravity measurement came from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, one of the first institutions to develop a Global Climate Model, and still one of world's finest climate science institutions.

The bottom line is that the scientific consensus has emerged and strengthened. I was consistently criticized in grad school for holding the view that you can't distinguish between anthropogenic temperature change and natural variability, and though I might well have been behind the times then, I would say I was exercising healthy scientific skepticism until I learned more. That's particularly true with regards to the so-called "hockey stick" in temperature change - several years of debate have done a lot to test the theory. And I continue to think it's fair and constructive for actual climate scientists like Richard Lindzen or even to some extent this VWRC-funded William Gray character at the University of Colorado to challenge the anthropogenic nature of warming, but why does every scientific development require a counter-quote from AEI on the fabricated "controversy"?

I can't fathom how a political movement whose basis was a reaction to disregard fo

Google Accepts Porn Ads but Refuses Those for Guns

And from Googles AdSense policy page:
https://www.google.com/adsense/policies
Site may not include:
Sales or promotion of certain weapons, such as firearms, ammunition, balisongs, butterfly knives, and brass knuckles

If preventing a nuclear attack is such an important goal, then why is Bush cutting funds to secure loose Russian nuclear material? That budget is a sliver of the Iraq war cost.

There is, as of now, not much chance of a nuclear weapon being used by terrorists. A state is not likely to give such a weapon to a stateless group - because they lose control of the weapon. This is why it never made sense that Saddam might give NBC weapons to an Islamist terrorist group: because they didn't like Saddam, either, and dictators don't like to lose control.

This administration is not acting as if they felt that preventing terrorist attacks on US cities was their primary concern. We don't have to imagine what would happen if a city disappeared - New Orleans was our test case. (Here's a preview - local governments confiscating firearms.)

Well, here then, this article will remove the subtlety for you: Pro-Family Groups Praise Efforts to Block '.xxx' Domain

Trueman noted that the U.S. Commerce Department has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concern regarding the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting the setting aside of a domain suffix for it.

As a result, Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the department, this week called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to delay approving the proposal to "ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered."

Given the findings here, can we have a do-over?

No liberal bias on this site. It should have been edited out for flaimbait. Wouldn't it be better to focus your energies on improving the voting problems some states are having? Or perhaps look inward as a democrat and figure out why the party 5 of the last 7 presidential elections.

Here are two reasons for no do-over: John Kerry and Al Gore

In some states, owners of private property are allowed the choice of whether to forbid CCW holders from carrying in their buildings. This is done by posting signs on the entrance.

Thing is, in such areas, businesses that post suffer a higher crime rate than those that don't. The reason can be very simple. How many criminals are going to view the signs as anything other than 'Come on in, We're Unarmed, so we can't shoot back!'?

10 Stores that posted are robbed
New York residents place 'No guns in this House' signs, suffered robbery/burglury spree. Oh, and during a police strike in Albuquerque, armed citizens patrolled during police strike and felonies dropped sharply.
Criminals don't seem to mind No-Gun signs in Ohio
Lengthy article Texas's CCW laws, includes posting

A good reference for CCW and other gun laws in the USA
A collection of interesting statistics

I agree that this is how things work in the current political climate, as created by people like Karl Rove. It started (in the national theatre anyway) with his outrageous attacks on John McCain in the primaries, and continues to this day.

Oh boy, do I disagree.

All through the 1980s and 1990s, nonviolent abortion protesters were treated in this same way by the Democrats. Some few murderers and terrorists killed doctors and bombed clinics while hypocritically claiming to support life. Consequently, the pro-choice movement and many leading Democrats take every opportunity to insinuate that anyone who dares to speak out against abortion is a supporter of murder and terrorism.

And so if you participated a few days ago in the Walk For Life in San Francisco, you were likely to be spit upon by counter-demonstrators, jeered at, called a murderer, woman-hater, etc.

When Republicans of the Rovian variety made unfair attacks on (for example) Senator Cleland, associating him with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they were only following in a long and ugly tradition of American politics.

Heh, this is almost fun.

Nope, this is just your usual dictatorship FUD; keep the population poor, afraid and ignorant.

Poor:

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending
Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group Says
Surplus? US Debt Pushes $6 Trillion
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK (this is a very interesting one, in my humble opinion)

(hint: guess whose taxes are going to pay for that)

Afraid:

U.S. Department of Defense News About The War On Terrorism
The War On Terrorism
AMERICA'S WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

Ignorant:

Education Not a Bush Budget Priority, Representative Miller to Testify
Bush Budget Slashes Education, Other Domestic Programs
$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs
Bush administration Cuts Public School Funding to Pay for New Private School Voucher Scheme

And you complain about China? I'm afraid you have the same problems in your country (assuming you're American).

"Separation of Church and State" was a coin termed by Thomas Jefferson to describe the effects of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

Doesn't matter; the term doesn't exist in our constitution, and therefore is not law. Further, from your own quote: "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

You later go on to say,

True, because a court room is a government facility and therefore placing religious reference to any religion in that court room is unconstitutional. So is asking someone to swear on a religious text.

You are contradicting yourself. It is very obvious even by your own quotes that the relevant section of the first amendment - the "separation of church and state" - was specifically intended to prevent our government from passing a law that establishes a state religion.

Then you go on to say that placing religious reference in a court room or asking someone to swear on a religious text is in violation. How is this akin to a law being passed?

If a teacher prays with his students, how is that passing a law? I understand that he is an "agent of the government" and his endorsement of religion could be taken by some to be government endorsement of religion, but the constitution has still not been violated because no law has been passed.

Why can't public school students be allowed to attend an optional religious class? If they aren't forced to attend, what's the problem? No law has been passed.

Laws have, however, been passed in the other direction, which seems to contradict "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

My primary point is that "separation of church and state" does not, nor was it ever intended to mean an actual, physical separation. The context in which Jefferson used those words must be taken into account, and that context clearly states a limiting factor of a law being passed. If no law is passed, church and state are separated, based on the full context of the statement.

Further backing this up is the simple fact that our founding fathers were, in part, escaping religious persecution. In England, you were Catholic - or else. They wanted to ensure you could be whatever you wanted to be in America. Allowing optional religious teachings in school does not violate this in any way, shape or form.

How about the attempts to ban stemp cell research and abortion for religious reasons

There is right and wrong outside of religion. One can believe abortion is murder without having a religious basis behind it. The argument about when a fetus becomes human is not strictly a religious argument. Plenty of non-religious people disagree with abortion, as well as the other issues you mentioned.

AND NO SCHOOL SYSTEM DOES - The law [constitution] states that the school cannot lead them in prayer

Neither does it allow students to lead other students in prayer, such as during graduation ceremonies, which I feel unconstitutionally limits the students' freedom of expression.

While they are at school they are agents of the US Government. They may pray while at school in private, they made not lead their students in prayer.

Teachers aren't even allowed to be present when students pray, even if the teacher has nothing to do with the prayer!

"Borden has been the football coach at East Brunswick High School for 23 years and gained national attention in October after he quit his job when told by school officials that he could no longer lead his team in prayer or even be present if his team prayed." Link.

Shit man, be careful - there's a new law on the books in Florida that ensures a Floridian with a permit to carry a concealed weapon even more leeway in the right to use deadly force if they feel threatened.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) Friday that, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, aviation security officials had not considered that a hijacker might commandeer an airplane for any reason other than taking hostages.
"I don't think we ever thought of an airplane being used as a missile," Mineta declared. Link to story

There was a plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. We've known planes were considered as weapons for years.

Planes as weapons, you say? Now that thar is a novel idea.

What's the very worst that can happen if the Internet goes down?

I don't know. But during times of extreme emergency, the internet seems to be the best way of communicating. Look at Katrina and 9-11. In both cases the 'net was invaluable. If the 'net goes down, you lose an extermely useful tool. Call me selfish but like I have as many tools available as possible.

If the worst thing that they can do is to steal your identify and money online, then you're "safe" in that it won't kill you or physically cripple you.

Lack of money can kill you. Just ask that guy holding the "will work for food" sign. Other examples: No cash to get out of a hurricane's way. No cash to get the meds you need; maybe something as simple as an ephren(sp?) shot for an allergic reaction to a bee sting or just insulin or even just penicillin. Maybe that stolen identity incident completely fubar'd your medical records or medical insurance. That too could kill you. Fubar'd medical records, maybe you got the wrong blood type during a transfusion or got a medication you are allergic to. The world is a deadly place, you'll never get out alive. ;)

I agree that if it doesn't need 'net access it shouldn't have it. But that doesn't stop it from happening. Employees at Nuclear Plants are going to have email access. Probably even web access. I'll even venture as far as to say some have laptops which are used outside of the plant. There are plenty of vectors for bad code to get at something. The "industrial west" is an information society, moving bits from point A to B as quickly as possible is the primary moviator, security is an after-thought at best.

The "cybersecurity czar"(what is the with the nazi sounding Homeland Security dept and a russian nobility title? Is someone taunting us?) doesn't really have any power. It is just a nice title to make people feel safe, knowing they have someone to blame when it all goes to crap. Nuclear plants are private industry. Only Congress thru an act of law can force them to do or not do something.

Just a couple blaming Bush for the Katrina Hurricane itself.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Poli tics\archive\200508\POL20050831a.html
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050909/2005-09- 09T124325Z_01_MCC945372_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ENVIRONMENT -DC.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,372455,00.html

I seem to recall that they never get a good rating in any large scale disaster. The key people keep forgetting is that this disaster isn't just New Orleans, we are talking about a Federal Disaster area the size of the United Kingdom.

Now tell me, just what do you expect? The media is going to focus on the worst cases they can find because it sells ads.

The issue about the levees is being disputed by many sources now and more and more will come out. One interesting story http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation \archive\200509\NAT20050907a.html covers the fact that they don't spend most of their levee money on making it work!

Also LA has received more money Corps money than any other state in the last five years. Yes, they got more than even California did! The problem was that the money meant to shore up the levee system went to pork projects instead.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/125/5602732.htm l

I know its the in thing to bash Bush here but damn it get you facts straight. It seems anything labeled "Insightful" and has Bush's name in it is only so provided it attacks.

FEMA has sucked for ages and it never gets better in what we are shown. Yes they screw up, but damn look at what they have done in such a short time. Biloxi and the rest of Miss. sure in the hell didn't get a pass in this storm but the way everyone is acting you would think only NO was affected.

Unless, of course, you happen to be President Bush.

Or John Kerry.

I don't call greens envirowackos. I call them deluded. They cling to a belief of an 'ideal' cozy green gaia where none really exists: life on earth exists on the whims of forces so powerful we glimpse them but rarely: the recent earthquake activity in the Indian ocean that caused the tsunami (which some nuts blamed on global warming), once-in-a-century micrometeor strikes, etc. They look for micro-effects caused by man and miss out totally on the macro effects of solar cycles and aperiodic weather patterns.

Worse, they bully governments and industry into stasis, as increasing amounts of money have to be spent to come up to the green earth ideal, even as entire national industries become noncompetitive, causing flight of capital to the third world.

Also, people who call greens 'envirowackos' are not above name-calling themselves: they like words like 'republinazi' and so forth. Well, this one likes clean surroundings as much as the next man, but also believes that you can take cleanliness and lack of toxins too far. I have travelled in India (I have family there) and you know what? lots of Indians in urban centres survive with water levels so contaminated that according to every FDA rule I know of they should all be dying off (I drank bottled water, would've fallen sick in an instant given my immune system). And oddly enough , India (esp Indian cities) have much greater population growth than the US/EU -- even taking rural migration into account. The population also seems remarkably free of the dust/pollen allergies we see so much here. Perhaps species' adaptive capabilities deserve more credit than you give?

Don't get me wrong, clean air and water is important, but choking industry for a treaty based on starry eyed green politics and bad economics is not the way to do it.

How can those courts claim to be diligent and unbiased in their determination that the evidence of a crime points to the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt, when those same courts sanction the execution of those never even accused of any crime. They have gone so far as to begin not just allowing but *ordering* the execution even of adults who have not even been accused. (And Terri Schiavo was not the first - just the first with national attention.)

The UK courts have now announced that any one who is "terminally ill" may be starved to death - a moniker that could be applied to every one of us, it is just a matter of how long.

There is a similar case in Victoria, Australia. You can find more details here or here.

"The only place I can find your quote is from an allegation by a nurse - on Fox News."

So? This is from an affidavit filed by the nurse. Its as good or better than any other information.

Watch this video of Terri, and decide for yourself. You could take it either way, of whether she should be laid to rest or not, but I'm sure you'll be convinced that starving her to death is inhumane, and just the wrong thing to do.

You're spitting back the pap reverberating in the rightwing vulture media echo chamber

Look who's talking.

New York State and New York City are both attempting to collect so-called "usage" taxes on cigarettes.

They are not sales taxes per se because they may be charged on items (in this case cigarettes) purchased abroad, out of state and out of the city. Their law is written to cover a tax on the ownership and use of the cigarettes in city or State jurisdiction and they are suing on that basis in order to collect "unpaid usage fees."

The idea behind "no tax on the Internet" within the US Congress was to try to encourage growth and business as well as to try to attract Internet companies to build in the US, hiring American workers and basing the "brick and mortar" and "employee" part of the Internet at home.

Obviously this State system of taxation -- even on the "honor system" -- threatens this premise. It would, therefore, be just for Internet companies to leave that State (which may require that they collect revenues for the State) and, perhaps, cease from doing any business within that State (as cigarette sales websites are considering for New York State and City). I can imagine the public outcry were that to happen.

Perhaps more like the tyranny of the conservative-supported Parent's Television Council, which makes between 21-99% of complaints against TV indecency.

I do agree with their unsuccessful "'a la carte' programming option" plan though; hopefully soon I won't have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't need.

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

look at the 60% election turn out, it's obvious that the 'insurgents' do not represent the views of the majority.

So to call them "minutemen" (a la Michael Moore) is so obviously wrong it's sad.

so now, they are by definition: insurgents

remember, The Islamists' chief spokesman in Iraq, Musab al-Zarqawi was very straightforward: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

if he spoke for the "people" they wouldn't've shown up like they did.

now imagine how many more would've shown up if they weren't threatened with execution and hanging and torture of their family(ies).

read bernard goldberg's books, if you dont' think there is (left) bias in those other networks you're just as biased.

remember, corporate != conservative

"..All, more or less. Look at how all of those channels let the White House get away with things that had Clinton done it the Republicans would have howled about endlessly. ..." examples?

Speaking of Global Cooling...

This is a good example of traditional social patterns showing up in science and confusing the issue. Here's a good article about Richard Lindzen's take on the subject. You can find his papers and testimony before the Senate on his website at MIT.

See also Rufus's speech on ideas vs. beliefs in Dogma.

From tsunami to Kyoto not impacting the environment at all to dropping emissions, to overblown disaster movies, scientists resigning various environmental organizations, and other speeches. People are even connecting the environment to the tsunamis, which have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with Earthquakes that are going to happen anyway. Lets get some perspective here.