Slashdot Mirror

Recall the Office of Strategic Influence to push happy press material outside the USA.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0219-01.htm
Then you also have a new effort in Israel for "new media fighters" to create better blogs/forum post ect.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4025751,00.html
DARPA has seen the simple ideas of 'talking points' fail.
Expect a lot more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout efforts to flush out "digital artifacts" ie keywords on a blog.

Bringing in business interests, US or other, is exactly what Iraq needs. This will do more good than any other thing we could possibly come up with now. I know that people like to bash the "evil capitalist", but it's the entrepreneurs that make the world a better place for all.

Of course. Let's ask a few workers worldwide that have been aided by such charitable entrepreneurs:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm

In 1995 Nike said it thought it had tied up with responsible factories in Sialkot, in Pakistan, that would manufacture well-made footballs and provide good conditions for workers. Instead, the work was sub-contracted round local villages, and children were drawn into the production process.

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369

Hourly wage in US$
Bangladesh $0.13
China 0.44
Costa Rica 2.38
Dominican Republic 1.62
El Salvador 1.38
Haiti 0.49
Honduras 1.31
Indonesia 0.34
Nicaragua 0.76
Vietnam 0.26

But then again, TVs, iPads and whatnot will probably become even cheaper, so that's sort of "making a better place for all", isn't it?

[...] China, a communist state where conformity is law [...] - Dan.

Ahem ... Also, the pollution you mentioned is just one of many side effects of capitalist MO (limiting costs). And - conformity is the desired behavior in representative democracy, which is just a vestibule to fascism. /rant

In 2005 a clandestine group known as Les Dégonflés, The Deflated, began a campaign of sabotage against SUVs in the City.

"Under cover of night, Marrant's troops target Jeep Cherokees, Porsche Cayennes and other four-wheel-drive vehicles parked on the tree-lined avenues and cobblestoned lanes of wealthy neighborhoods. The eco-guerrillas deflate tires without damaging them, smear doors with mud and paste handbills on windshields proclaiming that the vehicles are dangerous, polluting behemoths that do not belong in the city."

And now, far from criminalizing their behavior, the government of the City is going to ratify it. Lessons to be learned, here: Direct Action gets the goods.

Couple what you said with this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1209-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1108-21.htm
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
http://www.bluezones.com/
http://books.google.com/books?id=hM_JDjq6V-kC
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/depression.shtml
http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html

See also my comment here on how it's all about our social paradigm:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1883960&cid=34448172

that sounds pretty good, but i think this crypto-thing would be better. people are working hard on the crypt to solve real problems

what you describe is pretty good, as it tries to fix problems with throwing the paper votes, but this improves on that a bit.

it's features include
* at the end i can check that my vote is in the published database of votes, which newspapers, etc can verify is added right.
* I cannot prove to anybody else who i voted for (so they can't strong-arm me)
* officials can not throw the votes in the trash, or a river, or bury them, or delete them... if the votes aren't in the published database people will see that their vote is missing.
* they can not scan the votes, keep them in the database, but add it up wrong and publish a wrong total, and then throw the records out. if they add it up wrong newspapers, universities, or any old slashdotter can do the adding themselves and call bullshit.

All this will take up a massive amount of space compared to LFTR and comes with problems of its own.

And we have plenty of space. The National Renewable Energy Lab's Wind Atlas details the wind potential of different regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all 48 contiguous states with electricity. However that's not all. On the Pacific Coast from British Colombia south through southern California then east to western Texas, there's more. Why during California's rolling blackouts in the early 2000s, there was an idle wind farm in the Mojave capable of generating 10 megawatts per hour. Over on the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras off the North Carolina coast there are good sites for wind farms. As senator before his death Ed Kennedy was one of the NIMBYs opposing one such wind farm, on Cape Cod. On-shore through the Appalachian Mountains north from Georgia then into Pennsylvania's Poconos and New York's Catskills Mountains, hell all along the Appalachian Trail to Maine, there is good wind potential.

That's just wind, solar adds more. Again according to DOE, just 100 square miles of land in Nevada, that's an area of 10 miles by 10 miles, "could supply all U.S. electricity needs with current (~10%) commercial efficiency rates." But Nevada isn't the place with good solar potential. Now let's go back geothermal. According to an MIT led panel sponsored by DOE geothermal can be a "key U.S. energy source". Here's some info on geothermal in New York state, and more for Minnesota and Wisconsin. I've already mentioned California and Yellowstone, recently there was a discussion of how West Virginia Is Geothermically Active.

With today's technology solar and wind can provide the US's peak electricity, while geothermal and existing natural gas and nuclear power plants supply the baseload until more geothermal capacity and storage is developed.

Falcon

you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.

I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.

As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.

Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.

With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.

For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.

Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.

Falcon

A primer FROM a Liberal:

1) Liberal does not mean Democrat. Obama is not a liberal, he is a centrist. He only looks like a liberal to conservatives.

2) The Democratic party does not have to go insane left-wingers to win races. It does have to deliver on it's promises. Right now it's having problems with that, because the Democratic party is still convinced it can compromise with the Republicans. Who have decided on a role of saying "No" to anything, and then accepting the benefits of it somehow being passed anyway with no shame or even acknowledgement of the hypocrisy.

3) If you examine the polls on issues from abortion to single-payer health care, when you leave out loaded booga-booga words like "sociallism" and describe the actual policies, the majority of Americans prefer liberal positions.

The country is not "moving to the center".

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/18-3 - quoting a Pew poll.

The majority is to the left of our current Centrist government. And yes, Obama is a centrist, cut right out of Bill Clinton cloth.

4) the notion that the Federal government itself is responsible for our issues is mistaken. What is wrong is the last group of people who were running it, 100% from 2000-2006. We are still digging our way out of the mess.

And a lot of the current frustration with the Obama administration is not that they are "too Left" - it is that they are not nearly Left **enough**. We as a country thought we were voting for FDR. And it feels like we are getting LBJ. Which is better than another GWB, but "it could be worse" isn't a very exciting slogan even when it's very true.

Roughly 25% of people in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses.

We could implement this GPS plan and fund a nice chunk of corporate socialism for the industry around it.

Or we could get the stick out of our ass, end the war on drugs and start making our deeds better match our words about being the most free country on the planet and in the process shave 25% of the taxpayers' prison bill - maybe even more considering how much violent crime is derivative of the drug trade.

The whole affair was a whirlwind media circus trial orchestrated by conservatives who didn't think poor people had a right to fight back against the banking industry.

Democrats may have their own skeletons, but ACORN isn't one of them.

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

You're sure about that?

Just some more notes I was holding on to comparing Obama and Bush:

http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w.php
>> As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

Wiretap
http://donttreadonmike.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/obama-the-same-as-bush/

Total
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

Used the terrorist threats to call a national state of emergency
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/16-2

Their position on nuclear power is similar. Instead of focusing on the biggest problems---coal, diesel, gasoline---they focus on something that will get them the most attention---nuclear power.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/climate-change/apec-coal-protest

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181495

http://www.steelguru.com/raw_material_news/Four_Greenpeace_activists_arrested_after_coal_mine_protest/121282.html

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/really_who_needs_a_climate_dep.html#more

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/28-2

But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

But corporates are all about short term profits. Fuck the future!

Nothing else could explain their rapacious, irreversible, indefensible despoliation of our air, sea, freshwater (and in USA), forests,, environment, health, food, and economies.

It isn't just one incident, it's literally thousands of very young people sentenced to absurd terms and even death, many times on feeble evidence that any competent attorney could successfully challenge.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1012-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html

It isn't just one incident, it's literally thousands of very young people sentenced to absurd terms and even death, many times on feeble evidence that any competent attorney could successfully challenge.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1012-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html

It isn't just one incident, it's literally thousands of very young people sentenced to absurd terms and even death, many times on feeble evidence that any competent attorney could successfully challenge.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1012-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html

Pre-drilling relief wells is only a requirement off Alaska

It's also a requirement in Canada (and possibly more, that's just the one I know), for wells in the Arctic. It's not a requirement to drill the well simultaneously, though, but within the same season (and for reasons similar to those you gave).

Ironically, BP has the audacity to lobby Canadian government to change that policy days before the whole mess in the Gulf started.

As a liberal, I am very, very upset with the man I voted for right now. At least Bush was just an idiot with Katrina. Obama seems to be deliberately pandering to Big Oil.

I'm not disappointed with Obama, I never expected any different. Here's a classic article on Obama, from Bill Moyer's journal, with Matt Taibbi and disillusioned Obama fanboy Robert Kuttner http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12182009/transcript1.html During the elections, http://www.commondreams.org/ had lots of stuff about Obama. His legal work in Chicago was to represent clients who were privatizing public housing.

The Democratic Party just takes hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and follows the interests of their campaign contributors rather than the people who vote for them. (Just like the Republicans.) We saw that in health care. When the progressive Democratic activists ran TV ads to push blue-dog Democrats to support the public option, Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called them "fucking retards" in a White House meeting. Then Emanuel apologized -- to the retarded organizations.

The Democrats lost one election because they kissed off the left, who voted for Nader. Maybe the way to get more respect from the Democratic party is to start voting for third-party candidates again. Do you vote for somebody who calls you a fucking retard? I don't.

One important component you left out: the greater ability of corporations to influence government -- Disney, Halliburton, GlaxoSmithKline, etc. Other, more "polite", keywords to Google: rent seeking and Public Choice Theory.

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.

Did you even read the articles you linked? Theses are exactly the cases that I was talking about. Those are about school sponsorship of prayer, student-lead prayer at school events, the moment of silence in class, and use of school property for religious purposes. So snide remarks aside, you aren't exactly showing me anything I didn't already refer to.

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

I see one article that refers to graduation ceremonies, and it's the one that the school agreed to ban proselytizing and prayer in the ceremonies. Are you sure you read these?

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

If you write God with the capital G, it's a proper noun. So you're referring to a specific person, place or thing. In this case, a specific god. You do understand what a proper noun is don't you?

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

As I said, the court's ruling was simply an appeal to tradition and a refusal to review it. The dissenting opinion by Stephen Reinhardt clearly shows, through their own statements, that the congressmen supporting the bill were doing it for religious reasons. From the dissent:

"The majority argues that the purpose of the amendment of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 was not predominantly religious because the words “under God” are simply a reference to the limited powers of our national government. That is, of course, an argument dreamt up by my colleagues that can nowhere be found in the Congressional Record. In addition, my colleagues have apparently forgotten that it is the Constitution that sets forth the limitations on government powe

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.

Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.

As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.

What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.

As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.

The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.

the point was to keep Iran's military in line.

Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.

At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.

Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.

By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?

• How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
• Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
• Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?
• Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
• How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
• Congressional Record: September 20, 2002

I decided to post the whole thing as a reply here since it is not easily accessible, even though there are a couple of replies there and additional comments by me.

Embedded software developer Joseph Stack allegedly intentionally flew a small plane into government offices in Austin, TX, in an act that has been labeled as domestic terrorism. He cited, among other things, IRS regulations about independent contractor status as well as other issues related to government corruption.

Could his behavior have been partially due to vitamin D deficiency syndrome from indoor work? Could vitamin D deficiency also have contributed to the violent behavior alleged of Hans Reiser or Amy Bishop? And is part of the problem also that Joe Stack was not talking to anyone about any of this to think through real solutions and find positive things to do that, as Mr. Rogers sang, would not hurt himself or anyone else?

Here are some useful resources for preventing more copycat violence to show how there are plenty of alternatives to violence despite Joe Stack's claim otherwise in his manifesto:

Treating Disease With Vitamin D

Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy

Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals

Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science

A wombat talks about a global mindshift

TED | Peter Eigen on moving beyond corruption

The Optimism of Uncertainty

Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence

As another software developer who has done embedded work, here are some non-programming things I've worked on related to helping people see positive alternatives to violence:

Possible cures for a jobless recovery

Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease

Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future

The amazing thing to me is not that stuff like this happens. What is amazing is that it does not happen more often, which is a tribute to most of humanity's basic social nature. In a way, even Joe Stack chose a relatively limited approach; an embedded software developer such as he was could have done far more damage if trying to create general mayhem (he could have tampered with nuclear power plants or medical devices or airplane software). There is also irony here that a person took a very advanced piece of technology — a private airplane, and all that it represents as a technological marvel — and used it to destroy a past instead of to create a future.

What do people think and feel about all this?

The amateur radio operators are absolutely essential in a place where most of the communications structure has failed, and they didn't have much to begin with.

The fact that these guys are being fired upon just shows how much trouble Hatti is in right now. If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?

If they knew who these people were... why are they trying to scare away people who are rebuilding communication structures? If they didn't know who these people were... are they attacking anybody in a moving vehicle hoping they've got supplies they an steal for themselves without waiting in line like everybody else?

Ok. I'll bite regarding this media circus on Haiti. The country even down to the culture is an irreparable mess.

Just compare it to the Dominican Republic. If the US really wants to help, they'll send in the Air Force. However, I suspect that there may not be adequate amounts of napalm on hand to take care of the problem in a relatively human manner. When I see current Haiti news, I ask myself two things: How is that different then every day Haiti in months past? What 'liberal' issues on TV are being displaced by this drivel?

Answer to the first question: It's not.

Answer to the second question: I don't know. There are recent events that give strong indication that the election in Massachusetts could warrant some investigation in regards to media influence and especially in regards to electronic voting machines. The latter are the most problematic, because the same company is behind those as is behind the ongoing attacks against the Massachusetts government. Getting obedient politicians in office would make the latter easier.

I have no idea.

So, Obama's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present?

Where's the link about the time machine?

I have no idea.

> The genes aren't patentable.

Tell that to Monsanto. If the genes from their GE plants turn up in a farmer's soy crop, he's in for hell even if they just drifted over as pollen from neighboring fields.

In the United States, patents protect not just the device or technique, but also the product of it. Thus, those who patent techniques for isolating genes also have patent-protection for the genes, themselves. Patents do not ordinarily cover "products of nature," but when something exists in a lab in "purified" form, it's exempted from this limitation. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

Here's what Monsanto does with their patents:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm

Under U.S. patent law, a farmer commits an offense even if they unknowingly plant Monsanto's seeds without purchasing them from the company. Other countries have similar laws.

In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics.

The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties.

Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself.

"Monsanto should held legally responsible for the contamination," he said.

Another North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."

Exactly, because breaching a levee in one place does not magically strengthen it in others,

You're being a big fucking idiot. It becomes particularly easy to believe when confronted with proof that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight while they claimed ignorance for an entire additional day. It's important to add as much delay as possible after any malfeasance to muddy the trail... Put another way, what kind of fucking numbnuts thinks such a thing is impossible? They said the same thing about Olivehurst/Marysville/Yuba City.

Bush Jr also canceled all the funding for fusion experiments. It's the only reason we ever even heard of the Bussard Polywell, since the scientists were free to talk about it after their contract with the Navy ended. Of course, now that the Navy funding is back, we're not allowed to hear how development is going.

The obvious conspiracy theory is Big Oil doesn't like the threat of an alternative energy source, and they have a lot of clout at the White House when Republicans are in power. Other Bush Jr decisions included halting nearly all new permits for solar array power stations. So, the conspiracy theory has legs.

Well, a pretty pessimistic attitude.

Not only can rehabilitation work, as the legions of successfully reformed criminals shows, but I think it shows a level of maturity in a society when rehabilitation is considered as an option over 'lock em up and forget em'.

As an example, look at the civilised way Norway reacted when two children murdered another, compared to the hysterical overreaction in Britain when James Bulger was killed by two children.

Years down the track, I know I would prefer to live next to the Norwegian children, who were treated via rehabilitation, compared to the Bulger killers, who were locked up for long periods before ultimately being released.

I think the death penalty is the signature of a society too stupid to realise that you don't teach people life is sacred by taking it away. If you need any further proof of this, take a look at the homicide rate in countries that have the death penalty, as compared to those that don't. You could also look at homicide rates in the US states with the death penalty, compared to the rate in those that don't.

In Canada the number of people murdered has declined since the death penalty was abolished. In 2007 (the most recent figures I could find), there were 594 homicides in Canada, 159 fewer than in 1975 (one year prior to the abolition of capital punishment), after a long trend downwards.

As for Germany's laws on suppression of criminals' names, I disagree with it because I believe in free speech. Nevertheless, this call to have them killed I think is just barbaric.

Our justice system is built on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to punish one innocent person.

So, something like 9% of prisoners in jail being innocent is a good target? I believe the quote you were referring to was actually:

Isn't that what the OP said? He's not saying 1 in 10 people in jail are innocent and that's a good target, he's saying it's better that 10 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person locked up... your reply confuses me...

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

- English jurist William Blackstone, from a UCLA page

Which is stupid. There should be no innocent people in jail. Period. People spend their lives in prison for crimes they didn't commit, because the legal system is mass producing justice. It's not good.

Again, even with your quote, isn't it saying there should be no innocent people in jail, period? You call the quote stupid and then agree with it - again, I'm confused. Perhaps I didn't get enough sleep last night...

Our justice system is built on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to punish one innocent person.

So, something like 9% of prisoners in jail being innocent is a good target? I believe the quote you were referring to was actually:

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

- English jurist William Blackstone, from a UCLA page

Which is stupid. There should be no innocent people in jail. Period. People spend their lives in prison for crimes they didn't commit, because the legal system is mass producing justice. It's not good.

I don't follow your logic. You seem to be assuming that any government interference in the marketplace is the cause of all failures of the marketplace to do what you want. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. Government interference in the markets make those market unfree. Blaming failures on markets when there is government interference isn't right. Blaming the government interference instead would be the correct thing most of the tyme. Not all but most of the tyme. When the markets fail it's because they don't pay external costs when others have to pay them. For instance when a company pollutes and it does not pay for cleanup others have to pay. But guess what? Guess who's the biggest polluter, at least in the US? The US government is. The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world.

OK, I misunderstood you. And here's the reason I got your argument wrong: I assumed it was somehow relevant to my argument. You're not arguing with statement, you're just complaining about the unfairness of the current tax code.

No, No, and again NO! You argued the market can not handle the problem, Part of the problem here is that U.S. public policy since Reagan is dominated by the mantra, "The marketplace can handle the problem." I even provide the same link, using the same text for the link. I am saying the market was never given a change to handle the problem. Are you really that lacking in comprehension? This is the third tyme I've had to explain it.

Troll

Falcon

tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why should a group of "concerned citizens" be able to block development on someone else's property? If there were an accident or a meltdown, or whatever other problem might come about from it, let the aggrieved party sue the daylights out of them. That is the free market feedback mechanism preventing harm to people.

Do you also support the removal of the subsidies nuclear power gets? Nuclear Power is Hooked on Subsidies. Wall Street would not fund nuclear power without subsides. Notice how at the bottom of the Forbes article, hosted on a free markets institutes's servers, it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Now if you had said that about offshore wind farms, like the one Ted Kennedy opposed, I'd agree.

Falcon

79 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her groin and inner thighs while trying to add sugar to her coffee at a McDonalds drive through. Third degree burns are the most serious kind of burn. McDonalds knew it had a problem. There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. McDonalds had settled many claim before but refused Liebeck's request for $20,000 compensation, forcing the case into court. Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. McDonalds knew its coffee was exceptionally hot but testified that they had never consulted with burn specialist. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. And so the jury came back with a decision- $160,000 for compensatory damages. But because McDonalds was guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct" punitive damages were also applied. The jury set the award at $2.7 million. The judge then reduced the fine to less than half a million. Ms. Liebeck then settled with McDonalds for a sum reported to be much less than a half million dollars. McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

Summary: 700 complaints of scalding incidents. Requests from the Shriners burn unit. This was willful disregard for people's health. And the size of the reward? Calculated as the profits from one morning's take from the sales of coffee across the enterprise. I'd say that's a reasonable--if maybe small--slap on the wrist.

I don't know why people choose to defend corporations over the people they hurt. It's not like McDonalds would cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire; it must be something like the Stockholm Syndrome.

So they had 88 pages on you for no reason? What the heck could warrant that?

Having a common name that just happens to also belong to at least one "person of interest" springs immediately to mind.
Or maybe being a Quaker - you know, those radical peace activists who are known to sympathize with terrorists.

"The US government does have issues with corruption, but it's not any worse that most places."

I guess that you are not someone who reads books. I suggest that anyone who loves the U.S. do some serious research.

The U.S. has more people in prison than farmers. The U.S. has 6 times the percentage of its citizens in prison as European countries.

In the U.S., prisons are a big business.

Those who are not willing to do research cannot say they love the United States. Can you say you love a woman if you aren't interested in anything about her? Can you say you love a woman if you don't want to know anything about her that you don't like? Can you say you love a woman if you live in a fantasy world about who she really is?

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq (sourced from The Independent)

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

I guess you went the TLDR route

I said 41.5%, which is considerably less than 'more than every other country combined', and only the last two figures from 2001 and 2003 are from the budget.

The source which your URL quotes ( http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/05 ), says that most of the increases have been 'emergency' approved and fast-tracked outside of normal budgetary procedures.

And from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0607-03.htm , "In 2003, U.S. spending stood at $405 billion, SIPRI said.". This chart, from your link, also bolsters that, since the amounts there are in 2009 dollars, and previous reports in 2003/2004 dollars. http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2000-2010.png That's an astounding difference of 9 billion dollars. 2%. Not as far off or irrelevant as you're implying.

but here is one citation from 2002

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

and a second with footnotes
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=504

really wasn't hard to find...

Um, you do realize that lots of people bashing your exalted Dear Leader Bush were harrassed by the FBI

Citation needed.

http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=111986&SecID=2

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0513-11.htm

http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/united-states-v.-brett-bursey

http://www.blogd.com/archives/000743.html

If media was liberal then how the hell does this happen:

That half or more Americans think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- perhaps the most media-covered event in our history -- stands as a horrific indictment of U.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can't be found in other countries.

Americans who are fundamentally misinformed about 9/11 provide the bulk of those tallied in polls as supporting Bush and the Iraq war. Subtract them from polls and Bush is an unpopular president -- widely seen as having accomplished a bait and switch, redirecting U.S. anger and vengeance toward a country that did not attack us.

Those blackouts are mostly due to NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitudes for power plants and transmission lines

No, those rolling CA blackouts was because of bad regulations. CA separated ownership of electrical generation from ownership of distribution. At the same tyme the state also capped the charges distributors could charge to electrical consumers, but the generators were not capped. Wholesale electricity costs increased more than 500% but prices were capped for instate customers. A wind farm capable of generating 240 megawatts of electricity sat idle, because it was not profitable to build the transition capabilities.

Quite simply CA's rolling blackouts was not caused by NIMBYs.

Falcon