Slashdot Mirror

I agree. The way the left tries to pretend there were never any WMD is absurd. Clearly, it was buried, destroyed, or (most likely) exported. See this link: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Pag e=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200410%5C %5CSPE20041004a.html

ABC
CBS
NBC
CNN


This is the new millenium. Information is at your fingertips. Come up with your own conclusions.
We're not dependent on these news outlets as our only source.

India has denied the aid as THE COUNTRY IS CAPABLE and HAS ENOUGH RESOURCES.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Pag e=%5C%5CForeignBureaus%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200412%5C %5CFOR20041229a.html

We do have proof. See this link: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Pag e=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200410%5C %5CSPE20041004a.html

I'm confused... Are we saying that evil US businesses were around destroying the environment 5,200 years ago? Cuz that's the only thing that causes climate changes today, apparently!

Secondly, why should I care what a right-wing website reports about the views of a sociologist, a lawyer and an MBA about global warming, none of whom has any relevent scientific expertise?

Take a look at Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global Warming is Ridiculed when you get a chance.

Whatever the merits of the argument, you're asking people to try to prove a negative, aren't you?

Typically the way these things work is that you come up with a hypothesis, gather some data, look for a mechanism and do some statistics. If the stats are amazing you can get by with asserting a causative effect without a mechanism, but if they're not you have to stick with correlation.

So far, we have a theory, some short-term data, and some signs of correlation. That Slashdotters are throwing out alternate unproven theories doesn't change the process - they can be safely ignored.

That they are driven to even try fits with Dr. Lindzen's observations on the media's love affair with the story. I mean, "End of the World," now that sells papers!

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Cult ure/archive/200412/CUL20041202a.html

Dunno if you've seen this yet, but it's an interesting attempt to focus attention this issue.

You weren't ignored. They voted for Bush.

Sure, laugh, but there really are people out there blaming this year's hurricane season on George W. Bush!

A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.

Babies have a good chance of living outside the womb at 24 weeks. They remove the placenta with a sharp suction tube, which is just as dangerous as cutting a C-section. Most doctors will tell you that a C-section is safer for the mother, it is tried and true, millions of women have them.

Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.

Personally, I think you should be hung from a lamp post.

A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.

I would call Kerry more of a liar. Look at the story he's touting right now about the stolen explosives in Iraq. He knows the truth, they were removed before we ever got there. SOURCE. I would call a lie having a prior knowledge of events and then telling something other, or in Bill Clintons case, the exact opposite ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") That is a lie. George Bush being given faulty intelligence from sources around the globe, that is not a lie in my book and a judge would agree with me there. John Kerry saying he was in Cambodia when he really wasn't, or that he met with the UN security council before the Iraq war when he really didn't, those are lies.

Though they didn't find WMD, there is proof that Saddam had WMD in 1993 and the summer of 2000 with the intent to use them on Americans, and he surely has been trying to do such.

And Bush's IQ is higher than Kerry's. It's hard for you to make the argument that Bush supporters are dimwitted.

I do admit there are many who don't understand the world's view of America. I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.

On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win.

Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my .sig. In fact, Iran and Russia are the only countries that seem to be supporting Bush. The rest of the world loves America, but wants Bush out.

I hope it is made so on the 2nd.

Ever heard of Salman Pak? It was a terrorist training camp in Baghdad where Arabs were trained to hijack planes and blow things up. I guess Saddam didn't notice. And we know that Saddam had personally corresponded with Osama bin Laden, but I guess that's coincidental hogwash, too.

and the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs

Do you understand the nature of high-level decision-making? You should take a college management course.

Leaders don't have the luxury of being Monday-morning/armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight. The preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the whole world was that Saddam had WMD. That was why the U.N. Security Council leveled 17 resolutions against his regime. Saddam had waged genocide with chemical warfare before, and he would've used WMD again. The national and international objections to the liberation had nothing to do with the "question" of Iraqi possession of WMD, because there were no significant disputes about that issue.

Even if Saddam didn't have them, do you know what preemption means? I'm not going to fight this again. Read this thread.

The bottom line is: we are better off with Saddam gone. Our allies (our true allies) are better off with Saddam gone. Iraq is better off with Saddam gone.

The only people in the world who are not better off (in the short term) are countries like France, Germany, and Russia who were illegally raking in billions of dollars by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program and selling weapons to Saddam.

Increasing our security is not an error. Abolishing dictatorships is not an error. Liberating millions of people is not an error. Incapacitating those who fund and aid terrorists is not an error. Fighting ideology of hate is not an error. Spreading democracy is not an error.

Why can't you people celebrate??? Unite with us and share in our joy. Why are you so angry? The United States has made fantastically wonderful, inspiring, historic achievements in advancing peace and liberty! What we've done is nothing short of miraculous (thanks be to the Lord Almighty). The results are great for the country and great for the world. This is success, not failure. There is nothing for Bush to apologize for.

I'm one and it's not hard to understand. We have National Public Radio that receives government funding (through albeit indirect means which they boast about - they use this mechanism to shield itself from accountability and public control. In this sense, they're even worse than the German model because they constantly pretend they don't receive public money, so they can be the propeganda wing for one U.S. political party). This article explains how the money flows. CPB money still flows, and now the trick is to flow it through the local, then have the local in turn buy NPR programming back from NPR.

Kiss my karma goodbye:

Even if an incoming administration didn't appreciate this fact (and Kerry who sat on the intelligence committee no doubt does), tutors would get them up to speed quickly.

Better hope for those tutors:

During Kerry missed 38 of 49 public hearings during the eight years he served on the intelligence panel.

Also interesting that in 1994 he managed to attend approximately zero, this is following the first WTC bombing.

I understand your point vs. the grandparent post, but your suggestion that because he was a member of the committee doesn't seem to help since he didn't seem to participate. We don't know what his attendance record is for the closed door meetings, he won't release those (they are not public record).

Saddam Possessed WMDs, Had Extensive Terror Ties

This just came out today. And here is the report the media didn't really blast all that much (insert liberal media bias accusations here):

Reports offer support to Bush uranium claim

Incidentally, Bill Clinton said about the uranium thing--"Everybody makes mistakes."

By the way, is anyone not surprised at the skewed moderating in this article? Every +5 is anti-Bush! All opposing are kind of drowned out. Just amusing. I hope this post gets at least a few viewings.

Um. 2.2 or so should do the trick. Are you just making this shit up?

You are correct, 2.2 is the accepted value if you factor in approximately 12 million immigrants per year. I rounded up to 3, which should allow us to close the borders and throw out the immigration factor. Do I have a hard formula to backup the 3 kids per woman statistic? No, but I could write a simulation if you like :)

Japan is doing just fine and will do fine. So what if there's more old people? It's not that big a deal. Japan wil be less crowded and depressing eventually leading to a higher quality of life. You do not need a pyramid structure to have a high quality of life. You're just making shit up, again.

First off, Japan IS NOT OVERCROWDED. There are areas of high population density, but it is far from overcrowded. The pictures you see on TV usually show Tokyo. Second, Japan is NOT doing well. Japan went from kicking America's butt in the 80's to a decline.

Here are some stories you can use to draw your own conclusion: Japan's economy in more trouble
Population Trends Pose Major Risks For Stability In Japan, Elsewhere: Japan's population would drop to 100 million by 2050

As for presidential politics. All policitians are for BIG BUSINESS, (period). This year, we have a choice between, "Give Big Business Anything They Want" and "I Like Big Business a Lot Less than Bush and Cheney, but they are still my good friends."

When Clinton signed NAFTA, that was the beginning of the end for the American middle class. When the Republican's came to power, the middle class really took a beating. Until we can all figure out how to deal with each other fairly and kick big business out of Washington, the decline is going to worsen.

Thus with the middle class dying off and contributing less money through taxes, we are going to need even more immigrants to come in and prop up the tax base since I doubt the Republican's will shift the tax burden to their rich friends. Because people will have less money, they buy cheaper good, forcing Wallmart to stock 100% of it's inventory from China. It's a viscious cycle.

Additionally, we have a $800 million/day sucking chest wound funding GW's war in Iraq and making Cheney's old company Haliburton rich off no-bid contracts. The debt is growing out of control and the Republican's are cutting taxes.

We need planners to help make our society livable, fair and equitable. As a white-male, I am glad that the day of the stupid white male running the country into the ground is coming to and end. Hopefully the new immigrants with large families will come to power and change the social structure of our country and get it back on track. However, neither Bush or Cheney have a clue about the "gathering storm" except for the fact that their Big Business Buddies are raking in the cash. I think GW and Cheney live in an insulated bubble and wear rose colored glasses.

The truly sad thing about America is that before anyone will deal with a long term problem it has to come crashing down from the sky on fire. We are a reactionary society. We need to look 5-10 years out and PLAN! Failing to PLAN is PLANNING to FAIL! Really, I'm not making this stuff up.

The Source

I'd like to know which moron modded my post flamebait. There's lots of sources for this information about Kerry's relationship with the North Vietnamese, and also video and audio clips of him complimenting them. So, if you think this stuff is flamebait, then you're denying history. Don't you just love history revisionists? lol

-eventhorizon

The main point being that the word has been able to enter popular culture because it's utterance is no longer directly followed by, or is an implied threat of, direct violence against the name-called. A linguistic pavlovian response that has been mediated by cultural progess.

"The more you invest in that child, the more you are not going to let some CD tell your child how to curse and how to say the word 'nigger.' This is an accepted word. You are so hip with 'nigger,' but you can't even spell it," an impassioned Cosby lamented

Whatever happened to 'Black is beautiful?' Well, it was replaced with 'nigger please,'" he said to laughter.

Here are a few websites that reference this situation:

UPI: breaking news

littlegreenfootballs.com

AllahPundit here and here and here.

indcjournal.com

cnsnews.com

command-post.org

hftp.blogspot.com

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. (emphasis mine)

Check out the CNS story: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CP olitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html

Even on a Selectric or an Executive Proportional, you had to take special steps to get a smaller font superscript, including changing the typeball.

The old GI IBM C typewriters couldn't even do that.

I was typing orders on those things in 69-72.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CP olitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html

They cite and directly quote three typography experts, all hitting the same basic points as noted below: proportional type, the superscript 'th', the lack of a letterhead.

And one other -- it looks like the 01 Aug 72 signature may have been cut and pasted (the old fashioined way, actual cutting and pasting) because of the cutoff of the top loop.

The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. (emphasis mine)

Not to mention something along the lines of "Vote for Bush and get a free Taco! Just bring your reciept at any of our chain of restaurants and..."

This actually happened in the 2000 election. Except it was Democrats bribing homeless people with cigerettes.

Source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPo litics%5Carchive%5C200011%5CPOL20001106h.html/

it wasn't much of a secret that she worked for the CIA. She was listed in "Who's Who in America" for crying out loud! She's an analyst, not even a covert operative!

What's next, get someone in the White House because they reveal....gasp!... Kerry is a Democrat?

Give me a break! I find it hilarious that the rest of the whole Wilson thing is being completely ignored by the people that roared about it when it first alleged. Where's the outrage there???

This is just the last thread of hope people have over the whole Wilson scandal which will unravel just like the rest of it has.

Then vote for Senator Edwards - He's your guy!!!

Kids who should know better emulate the philistine attitudes found in rap music. Being cool is evidently more important than being smart. Bill Cosby, the well known Negro entertainer recent echoed these sentiments:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day. It's cursing and calling each other 'nigger' as they're walking up and down the street. They think they're hip -- can't read, can't write -- 50 percent of them"

Or at Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he said every soldier in Vietnam (including himself) was a child & woman killer & worse. If you watch the fair & balanced news you would save seen that and know Kerry's service record is nothing to brag about. You can be against the war if you want but don't attack the soldiers who are doing there jobs. Kerry should have stayed home and been a tree hugging hippy as that was how he acted! Here is a link to his comments: The Article Kerry is a bad choice for any war regardless of what he says!

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." don't they understand?

The winner of the commercial contest is this clip

There are no Nazis nor Hitler and no words in this clip.

Other clips have been recogniced in other categories.

Don't think you will be able to see anybody equating Bush with Hitler in there either.

One clip in poor test has been sent to the MoveOn.org contest that indeed did compare Bush to Hitler. Moveon.org did clearly state that it did not endorse this clip

The fact that you think that MoveOn.org believed this clip to be the best of their commercials says a lot about America's media.

As an aside, do you know how often concealed carry permit holders commit crimes compared to the rest of the population? Hardly ever. While there's not much data on actual firearms crimes committed by CCW permit holders, there is data on revocation percentages. Since permits are revoked upon conviction for any violent crime, with or without a firearm, as well as many other reasons firearms crimes are merely a subset of that already small percentage. That percentage? .5%. One half of one percent. (Accoring to this article)

If we had registration, gun dealers and individuals selling guns would have to indicate to whom guns were sold.

Oh, for Pete's sake, don't you know anything about the laws we already have? Gun dealers already have to indicate to whom guns are sold. They have to check your ID, they have to submit you to the Brady Law computer check, they have to fill out forms. They have to hold onto the forms forever. If they close up their business, they have to turn the forms over to the BATF.

Currently, transfers of already-owned guns between private individuals is not required to do similar paperwork. Lots of people want to change that; they call it the "gun show loophole".

If they won't even take the trouble to don a ski mask or pair of gloves, what's the chance that they will try to modify a gun barrel?

Tell you what. There are systems in place in Maryland and New York. Why don't we just check the news to see how effective they are?

Oh look, the Maryland system has yet to solve a single case.

CNS news story

And everyone on Slashdot knows that computers haven't progressed at all in the last ten years

The problem isn't so much the computers, it's that the markings aren't unique enough. And did you read the part where different bullets, fired from cartridges made by different companies, didn't match, and it wasn't clear that the bullets would match at all after the gun had significant wear?

If the U.S. government decides to unleash the full force of the U.S. military on the people, whether you have a Glock, AK-47, or Remington shotgun is not going to make any difference. You're toast.

So Iraq is completely pacified and meek now, right? Our soldiers over there have stopped taking losses?

How about Vietnam -- did our soldiers take any losses there from random people with firearms?

Yes, one person cannot stand against the full force of the government. But lots of people could, if they had to. Of course I hope it never comes to that. I did say the last resort.

This country has too long a history of supporting individual gun ownership to have me believe that it would turn around and confiscate all guns.

This country has a long history of supporting freedom of speech, yet we are tireless in resisting anything that might tend to infringe on freedom of speech. We should treat the right to keep and bear arms the same way.

steveha

Perhaps Paris?

BTW, can you *imagine* what would happen if the U.S. decided to implement this policy? All mighty hell would break loose! But if France does it, nobody notices...

You ask us to review why we are so hated but fail to question why we are so loved.

Certainly not for your foreign policies, maybe for pop culture? Those terrorist attacks have not occurred because the US is so loved, so your argument is moot. If you want to know why these terrorists are targetting the US you need to understand why they have their reasons to hate you. Is that so hard to grasp?

ALL governments have an agenda to gain more and at an efficient rate and obtain as much as they can when they can.

Yup, and that's why Portugal was admitted to the EU, because they were so rich and would pay lots of taxes to Brussels. And also why Estland, Letland, Lithouania, Poland, Slovenia and others are being addmitted into the EU right now, because the other countries can rob them of all their resources. NOT! Admitting those new member countries will cost the 'old' member countries loads of cash. We're trying to make the world a better place here. Please do not confuse US foreign policy with the foreign policies of EU member states. In the future (and no, that is not next year, but probably > 10 years from now) this will prove to turn out for the best for all european citizens, and hopefully for all people in the world. So, no, not all governments are out to obtain as much as they can. The US governments certainly seem to operate in that way.

You seem like an intelligent person, please use that intelligence to try and look further than what you are being shown.

Lets see: I give lots of arguments, you wipe them away with an unfounded "answers to wrong questions", you fail to make any point at all and then use my own quote against me, again without any substance to support the use of that quote?

A lot of people have followed George Soros on his very vocal position against outsourcing. He's the funder behind moveon.org and has claimed he'd be willing to part with his billions of dollars of wealth in order to get rid of Bush, the "outsourcing nightmare president." (Soros has launched a new ad campaign through MoveOn.org that specifically blames Bush for outsourcing job loss and lack of overtime pay which unfortunately ignores the same campaign finance reform laws. Just like Martha Stewart, Soros apparently feels that laws are for little folk, not rich folk like him).

Interestingly, if one looks at the companies Soros's investment company, Soros Fund Management, holds, (specifically check the Form 13F-HR), you'll discover outsourcing company after another. I spent an hour looking at just the companies starting with "A" and "B" and found over 90% were aggressively outsourcing. Several had financial reports literally bragging about how they've saved investors money through this process.

I had wondered where Soros was at. A few years ago, a Soros disciple approached a company I worked for and strongly recommended the company dispose of its information technology and call center operations to India as a precondition of the fund looking at the company. The disciple insisted outsourcing had worked well and Mr. Soros used it as part of his investing strategy to differentiate investments.

Imagine my surprise when I've heard Soros himself (as well as his moveon.org group) blaming the current president for the flight of jobs. How is Bush supposed to stop Soros from demanding his holdings "optimize"? Is it Bush's fault that he hasn't stopped Soros before he moves-jobs-on to India again? For those of you who've fallen sucker to the moveon.org ploy, do your own research and you'll confirm what a few of us who have crossed Soros's path have learned first hand. You're unfortunately playing in the guilt trip of a very rich man who must not like how he makes his money. For anyone in IT supporting moveon.org, it'd be like a Linux advocate joining a SCO fan club.

Take a look at the list. Search google for the company name. It's shocking. My only theory is that Soros has the typical upper class guilt trip going where he wants to be thought of a better person than he is per his destruction of IT in the US.

For these Fortune 1000, it's not easy to tell Soros (who may be holding 5% or more of your company) to blow off and keep those jobs in the U.S.

In other news (which didn't make a dent in the U.S. press), Soros apparently has one-upped Martha Stewart. Just like Martha, he's liberal, a Bush hater, a rich fat cat, big business guy, believes he's immune to trading laws, and liberal. Warren Buffet, the U.S.'s second richest man, is also a big time Democrat and despises Bush. I think we can put away the myth that Republicans have a monopoly on "big business/special interest." Democrats seem to be leading the pack these days.

take memo's and probably money from groups like the MPAA. He's already shown he doesn't have any respect for the law. As shown hereA> [CNSNEWS.com]

1) That's interesting info and very relevant...

2) But i wouldn't put much faith in anything FreeRepublic.com put out about John Edwards. (Incidentally, why did you work so hard to hide the site name by using its IP address instead of its name and by not actually providing a link? They are proud of their bias, why aren't you?) They got the story from CNSNews.com They claim CNS stands for Cybercast News Service (Cybercast News Service News.com? Brilliant.) but a quick scan of their supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the FRC...) points more towards Conservative News Service as the real acronym.

At any rate, a quick search would've turned up a much more in-depth and balanced article on the subject in the New York Times. They don't clear Edwards of wrongdoing, but they also can't be accused of glossing over the story just to trash Edwards.

Trying to obscure your source and using a blatantly biased source when a less biased one is available weakens your argument, which at its heart is valid.

1) That's interesting info and very relevant...

2) But i wouldn't put much faith in anything FreeRepublic.com put out about John Edwards. (Incidentally, why did you work so hard to hide the site name by using its IP address instead of its name and by not actually providing a link? They are proud of their bias, why aren't you?) They got the story from CNSNews.com They claim CNS stands for Cybercast News Service (Cybercast News Service News.com? Brilliant.) but a quick scan of their supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the FRC...) points more towards Conservative News Service as the real acronym.

At any rate, a quick search would've turned up a much more in-depth and balanced article on the subject in the New York Times. They don't clear Edwards of wrongdoing, but they also can't be accused of glossing over the story just to trash Edwards.

Trying to obscure your source and using a blatantly biased source when a less biased one is available weakens your argument, which at its heart is valid.

>>It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn.

And you don't? Wait, 90% > 50% in my world. Oh, yeah, fed taxes. Make that 70% > 50%.

So are you running for governor, since it's such an easy job?

It's easy to be an armchair official. Spend a day or two inside a government agency and see how clear-cut this all is.

In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are.

We spend, in inflation-adjusted dollars, far, far less per student than we did in the 70's and even early 80's. I'll get the exact numbers later if I have the time. We can double the amount we spend, and if we have triple the students, our education will still go downhill.

In California, a new study by the Pacific Research Institute found that the state increased education spending by 29 percent over the past 10 years (in inflation-adjusted terms) , yet school children in the state rank near the bottom of performance.

The problem is of course that SCO sponsored a lot of Linux development, and we don't have any proof that they didn't put the code their themselves.

As far as the bike analogy goes - if your bike "shows up" in my garage because you planted it there, and then you say I stole it, you're not only lying, but you're slandering me by calling me a thief and you're also guilty of conspiracy to frame me. SCO is doing all of this and more.

Also, one last thing - keep in mind that just because SCO might actually have a case does NOT mean that they will win, not by a long shot. They obviously have no idea what they're doing or what they're talking about when it comes to patent infringement (hint: patent owners have the right to choose when and how they enforce their patents), and for all of their talk about how wrong the GPL is, they are still distributing the kernel sources from their own FTP server right now, without securing them via any sort of authentication mechanism. No password, no public-key handshaking, nothing.

So, as much as I doubt that SCO even has a case, I'm willing to grant the possibility that they might, but they're destroying it themselves via their own unprofessional actions and statements. Not only that... but they decided to go after IBM for an IP case. IBM, the company that out-litigated the Department of Justice. And we're not even talking "convinced a Republican president to call off the DoJ hounds" out-litigated - we're talking "spent more money and had better lawyers" out-litigated. So, even if they are in the right (which I personally seriously doubt) they still don't get to win necessarily, just because of our amazing legal system here in the USA.

And, even though Boies may be famous, he is an ex-IBM lawyer. He's also under review in Florida and may be disbarred.

All in all, I've got my popcorn ready. I've always got FreeBSD to fall back on if things get too out-of-hand.

In other news...

It's illegal for me to remove this stuff? Isn't it mine?

Legislators aren't above telling you what you can do with the stuff you think you own. All you have to do is convince them that there are negative effects to the public at large if you're allowed to do what you want with your own property. In theory, I can go along with this. But where do you draw the line? Where do things get silly?

Let me give you three examples:

Example one:

In the west, "land use" and "property rights" fights have been going on for decades. "How dare the damn new world order guvment tell me I can't do what I want with my own land! I own it! That gives me the absolute God-given right to stripmine it to the center of the earth and fill the hole with toxic waste if want to, by gum!" I've known ranchers who hold views this extreme. I've known ranchers who literally plowed up access roads on their property because the state passed a law saying that through-roads (roads connecting one publicly accessible road to another) had to be publicly accessible.

Example two:

In your own house, I'm willing to bet you have more than one cleaner with a label that reads "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" or words to that effect. So here's a couple of household cleaning tips: #1 - The best bathtub cleaner in the world is to take liquid drain opener and brush it on all the surfaces then sprinkle it with a scouring powder that will form a sort of paste and hold the liquid in place. Let it sit for an hour (with windows open and good ventilation) then come back and scrub. You'd be amazed at some of the greasy, stained, crudded-up salvaged tubs and sinks I've rescued with this method. Tip #2 - This method is illegal. Consider that and consult your conscience before employing it.

Example three:

The New Jersey state legislature has proposed legislation designed to make repairing firearms so ridiculously burdensome that no one will do it. Check out this link.s What that means is that if the extractor (a $5, easily-replaceable part) on the 1911 Colt left to you by your grandfather breaks, you have to fill out forms and turn the gun over to the state police for examination (with no guarantee written into the law that they'll ever have to give it back to you) and jump through all sorts of other hoops to get the thing fixed in-state. Or just break the law, fix it yourself, and risk a $10,000 fine and 18 months in jail. What's that, you say? It's yours? It's legal to own? You think you should be able to repair stuff you own without going, hat-in-hand to the state police for permission and procedures? Not if enough legislators can be convinced that the public has an legitimate interest in what you do with your own private stuff.

Where I live, it's de facto illegal for me to paint my garage door without approval of a quasi-governmental committee. (It's called a "home owners association" and where I live, the state grants it major power over my life and property. YMMV.)

So your example of, basically, "Why shouldn't I be allowed to do what I want with my own property?" doesn't really hold water. Governments make rules that often forbid it. Men and women with badges and guns enforce those rules. Individuals enter into contracts that encumber them with silly rules because life is darn near impossible to get through otherwise if you live near other human beings.

So where do you draw the line? Do you refuse to have a credit card out of high-minded principle and a practical concern for your own privacy and then make an inconsiderate ass out of yourself, causing problems for those around you just so you can say you adhere to your principles? Do you become a hermit, squatting in a shack in the forest? Or do you do as I have done - figure out where you draw the line (I disagree with the ranchers in example 1 and the legislators in example 3, but will take my chances by continuing to violate the law as in example 2) and accept that life involves compromises and that it's really OK for the government to tell me I can't do certain things even if I wish they'd just leave me alone?

It's a tough lot of thinking you're getting yourself into when you decide to be aware of what's going on around you, when you lose your innocence of the greed that underlies so much of our rules of personal, professional, and business interaction. Sometimes I wish I had never started down that path.

"he did, in fact, suspend the right of habeas corpus"

Later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I might add. See Ex parte Milligan. For the lazy, Ex parte Milligan was a declaration by the Supreme Court following the Civil War which stated a number of things, not the least of which were: the military cannot act as a judiciary in any place where the courts are able to function, no one (not even the President) may suspend Habeus Corpus so long as there is a functional government, and last but not least - the military cannot try a citizen who is not connected with the military.

This is, of course, something that was overlooked when Jose Padilla, who is an American citizen, and supposedly has some rights, was transferred to a military brig with little more than casual remarks from the government (Bush called him a "bad guy" - yes, he really did use those words).

if troll is the proper moderation for this.

you see pro-life groups actually do compare cloning to to nazi research. this argument certainly doesn't fly with me, but it is one of the arguments they use.

And hey it's hard to refute idiotic arguments, unless you at least realize that they exist

For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":


MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:

"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."

They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.

- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001


MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor ... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."


LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001


MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001

THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001


GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001