Slashdot Mirror

Reporter: "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?" Bush: "All options are on the table." That option means nuclear weapons. http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm Perhaps if you, ah, read a newspaper you'd be aware of such comments. Also, ""If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons." http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/17/asia/prexy.php

If this was true then corps would be obliged to boil babies if they could get away with it and that was the best use of their funds.

They basically do.

What can Bush do to stop it when he has no official power

Shrub has already overruled past presidents who would like to release information.

I won't put it past him to produce an executive order prevent release of his papers once he's out of office.

You are right to fear the FBI. Now they have a one click way to harass, smear and jail the political and economic opposition they have spent the last few years identifying. Detention centers have been built and police have been practicing mass arrests. Arbitrary arrest and torture of opposition, this is how democracy dies. The FBI program is so obviously flawed that it can only be useful for crushing opposition.

I'd be packing my bags if I thought there was a place to run. The only option is to crank up resistance and vote these evil bastards out of office. It's time to dismantle the police state.

The stove pipes have been torn down. There is no division between government and private networks and data. Comcast's defiance of the FCC is an illusion because other elements in the government want Comcast to censor the net. It's the next logical step: awareness, control, dominance. Independent minded bloggers and a free internet threatened the Manufactured Consent model of US policy making.

The US is moving to a censored and controlled network faster than you think.

Between 1949 and 1969, for example, the Army sprayed bacterial tracers or simulants on unsuspecting populations in hundreds of biological warfare tests. According to the GAO: "Some of the tests involved spraying large areas, such as the cities of St. Louis and San Francisco, and others involved spraying more focused areas, such as the New York City subway system and Washington National Airport." No coherent attempt was made to warn those affected or to offer follow-up medical care.

-FL

I am not even close to being a troll. If American congress actually focused on the right things instead of things like war then we would be in much better shape. The war has made things worse not better.

You are right though, Medicaid and welfare are major problems, but you have to fix one thing before you can start on another. War has a lot to do with fusion research. Everyone knows the reason why we are over there is energy (oil). We need to secure the oil because US depends on it so heavily that with out it, our economy starts to take a dump. We need to do exactly what we did with the Manhattan project. Give all the funding we need to, to leading world scientists and essentially lock them in a room and figure this shit out.

It is very relevant because there are a lot of things we could of done with the money. Yet our congress keeps funding this war. Afghanistan was the only place we should of gone but our mighty cowboy of a leader had to get greedy. Anyone who says we are fighting terrorists over there so we don't fight them over here is just fooling themselves. First of all you can't fight terrorism. I am sorry but if anything this war has pissed off a lot more people and made things a lot worse. So, yes I get a little agro when I see science and math and projects go out the window because our congress is dumb. After all our interwebz is run on tubez.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/21/6507/

• 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.
• There were at least 700 previous cases of scalding coffee incidents at McDonalds before Liebeck's case. [Cases implying actual civil claims, not complaints]
• Lawyers found that McDonalds makes its coffee 30-50 degrees hotter than other restaurants, about 190 degrees. The Shriner Burn Institute had previously warned McDonalds not to serve coffee above 130 degrees. Doctors testified that it only takes 2-7 seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees.
• 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, but the judge cut it in half.
• McDonald's coffee is now sold at the same temperature as most other restaurants.

Whoever destroyed the World Trade Center killed 3,000 Americans. The decision of Cheney and Bush to have a war with Iraq has killed more" Americans than that.

See these stories, for example:

Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis: Survey.

The number is rapidly rising. In October 2006 the number of Iraqis killed was estimated to be 655,000.

The highest estimate of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein was 1 million, so the U.S. government has killed more than Saddam. See, for example, Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad.

If he doesn't want to fix it himself, can't he just hire a stupid and unskilled Mexican to do it for him? Rush, man, live up to your own principles.

When the Clintons left office, their staff broke equipment before leaving and violated the rest. For example, they would leave pornographic images in the photocopier. Think of it as the previous management of SlashDot leaving Goatse as the new logo when they left. Of course, let's not forget about all the silverware and furniture that Hillary stole like it was cheap hotel towels.

Not even remotely true. I have work tomorrow and it's late. You're a blatant troll and I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted. It should be enough to just throw out your first argument... but I'll even add a bonus link... Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin... but only the current president hid conversations using RNC accounts and fired attorneys in the middle of their term for purely political reasons (The only attorneys fired in the middle of their terms from 1981 to 2006 were for misconduct... which was never cited as a reason for the current firings).

Like I said, it's late and I have work. Quit trolling and read some real information.

All you have to do is look at what has actually happened with WalMart.

Ok let's look at what's happening with Walmart. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, and is one of China's biggest. The Chinese seem able to afford to shop there. Or take Brazil and Mexico. Walmart has been a success in both countries. In Brazil Walmart is closing in on Brazil's largest retailer, the French company Carrefour.

they're raking in billions of $ while Medicaide or other programs pay their workers health care costs

As in other areas I'd prefer a free market in health care. I don't believe in employer provided health insurance. In the US this is a vestige from World War II. Then the US had wage control laws that prevented employers from paying employees more, instead to allow businesses to attract employees employers were allowed to offer health insurance to employees. This alone distorted the market for health care and insurance. Even today laws and regulations favor employers who provide health insurance instead of paying them more so they can buy the type of insurance they want. However as you point out with Walmart some employers don't offer insurance for employees. Because health costs are skyrocketing employers are either requiring employees to pay more or are dropping coverage. That has been a sticking point with US auto manufacturers and United Auto Workers. The companies want workers to pay more but the union won't go along. What needs to be done is to let employers pay employees more without either having to pay more taxes then allow employees to buy insurance.

In any case you sound like you've swallowed the whole 'there is an evil liberal agenda to have all powerful government'.

On whether or not there's any agenda or not doesn't matter to me, but if there is one it's not liberal. Liberals, real ones not fakes, want liberty and small government.

It is crap. It is Corporatist propaganda.

Looks like you've missed where I've railed against corporation. A number of tymes I've stated corporations should have their Corporate Charter revoked if t hey no longer served to public good. The very first corporation, the Dutch East India Company, was granted a corporate charter for this very reason in 1602. Two years later the Honourable East India Company was granted a charter for the same reason, to serve the public good. If corporations today were treated the same it wouldn't be a problem. Thomas Jefferson said "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

while the Republicans have given loads of lip service to shrinking government, they've failed utterly to live up to their word.

Republicans have never done anything to shrink government. Two of past 3 Republican presidents increased the size of government. What's ironic is that the republican president that warned of the military industrial complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, actually made it stronger. Many Americans believe it was Kennedy who first sent US troops to Viet Nam, but it was actually Ike who sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to undermine a vote on whether North and South Viet Nam would re

All you have to do is look at what has actually happened with WalMart.

Ok let's look at what's happening with Walmart. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, and is one of China's biggest. The Chinese seem able to afford to shop there. Or take Brazil and Mexico. Walmart has been a success in both countries. In Brazil Walmart is closing in on Brazil's largest retailer, the French company Carrefour.

they're raking in billions of $ while Medicaide or other programs pay their workers health care costs

As in other areas I'd prefer a free market in health care. I don't believe in employer provided health insurance. In the US this is a vestige from World War II. Then the US had wage control laws that prevented employers from paying employees more, instead to allow businesses to attract employees employers were allowed to offer health insurance to employees. This alone distorted the market for health care and insurance. Even today laws and regulations favor employers who provide health insurance instead of paying them more so they can buy the type of insurance they want. However as you point out with Walmart some employers don't offer insurance for employees. Because health costs are skyrocketing employers are either requiring employees to pay more or are dropping coverage. That has been a sticking point with US auto manufacturers and United Auto Workers. The companies want workers to pay more but the union won't go along. What needs to be done is to let employers pay employees more without either having to pay more taxes then allow employees to buy insurance.

In any case you sound like you've swallowed the whole 'there is an evil liberal agenda to have all powerful government'.

On whether or not there's any agenda or not doesn't matter to me, but if there is one it's not liberal. Liberals, real ones not fakes, want liberty and small government.

It is crap. It is Corporatist propaganda.

Looks like you've missed where I've railed against corporation. A number of tymes I've stated corporations should have their Corporate Charter revoked if t hey no longer served to public good. The very first corporation, the Dutch East India Company, was granted a corporate charter for this very reason in 1602. Two years later the Honourable East India Company was granted a charter for the same reason, to serve the public good. If corporations today were treated the same it wouldn't be a problem. Thomas Jefferson said "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

while the Republicans have given loads of lip service to shrinking government, they've failed utterly to live up to their word.

Republicans have never done anything to shrink government. Two of past 3 Republican presidents increased the size of government. What's ironic is that the republican president that warned of the military industrial complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, actually made it stronger. Many Americans believe it was Kennedy who first sent US troops to Viet Nam, but it was actually Ike who sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to undermine a vote on whether North and South Viet Nam would re

I don't think the uninsured people are a problem in terms of the total cost. For instance look at

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

and

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-07.htm

The first says that total health care spending in 2005 was $2 trillion. The second says that total cost of providing care to the uninsured in 2004 was $125 billion.

Sure that's a lot but it's still only about 6.25%. All this universal insurance idea will do is give even more profits to the health care industry. I am much more interested in lowering the costs of health care rather than just spreading it out over more people.

Who the heck's idiotic idea was it that companies could make software to count votes, and then not let anybody look at the software and see what it actually does because it's "proprietary"?

Why, it would probably be Walden O'Dell, former CEO of Diebold. Of course, he's not alone in the software world for wanting to keep software secret (I know that my firm is big on it!!!) but given his past, and the later revelations of the actual quality of the software and design, his motives are suspect.

Yes, I know, it was rhetorical. Still, running an election system on the Microsoft Jet database engine was pure folly. Come on: democracy hinges on an Access database?!?

Given Bill Gates philanthropic endeavors, I think there is more to his desire to see the wealthy taxed than just that. Same with Warren Buffet. Not all rich people in the world only think about their jets. Some of them actually get the need to pay for society and gladly endorse the responsibility of the wealthy. The Bill Gates Sr. mentioned in the following article is his dad, but it's still relevant.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0408-06.htm

Actually, the grandparent was implicitly making the very reasonable point that we often see in this forum stories about how the United States government is screwing us over in some way, which upon further inspection turn out to be much ado about nothing.

Like when the government forcibly sterilized Native American Indian women? Or when the military conducted medical experiments on black airmen, giving them syphilis?

I would refer you to the following article to clear up any illusions you may be harboring as to the voting process - it has clearly been corporate-controlled for some time now and will only become worse......

From Corporate Profits Take an Offshore Vacation : Google similarly set up an Irish subsidiary, Google Ireland Holdings Ltd, which in 2004, its first year, helped the company avoid paying about 131 million dollars in U.S. taxes. Google noted in its annual report that year that it expected its effective tax rate to drop even more significantly. It explained, "This is primarily because proportionately more of earnings in 2005 compared to 2004 are expected to be recognised by our Irish subsidiary, and such earnings are taxed at a lower statutory tax rate (12.5 percent) than in the U.S. (35 percent)."

Why the hell do you need Windows CE to count votes? Can't you just flash a chip and use basic hardware? The developers of this stuff are too lazy. They just want to open Visual Studio, make some code and then be done with it. They don't see that if you go minimalist, work from the hardware up and just use the bare minimum software needed to count the votes you get even better security.


I think you're missing the point.

This article that was anchored above in my post explains how 1 teacher dies every day of AIDS. It doesn't have to be sex that gets someone infected. With rates as high as that, the chances would be an elevated chance of transmission also cuts don't heal well and depending on the social norm people may continue to interact with the children even if they are not feeling "well".

Look at their curriculum first off. Who is going to teach these young people what they want / need to know rather than what their government is willing to sponsor. Just to give you a point of reference this paper shows how most students have no curriculum to begin with and are out of school most of the year. There are too many teachers getting infected with AIDS and other diseases even if there is funding. In sub Saharan Africa 30% of teachers get AIDS, exposing children to the virus and of course leaving the children without a teacher to tell them anything.

If they had a way of looking up things that interested them whether it be educational or not it is a light year past what they are getting now. Even if we were to take the $150 per laptop and give them the cash you can note the first paper and look for World Bank restructure, there it tells you even when the countries have money they are instructed by the World Bank what they are allowed to spend on this is quoted "conditions set by the World Bank and IMF within the context of structural adjustment".

The best bet to help these kids is to give them SOMETHING. There are even hits on Google that show the UK is hiring up most of the teachers from 3rd world countries that are any good. These kids have nothing, at least this will give them a chance to augment their lives with some social knowledge and maybe a static copy of Wikipedia. That might give them somewhere to start, something solid, something.

I will just dump a mess of links from an old E-mail I did on this some time ago. It's all good stuff, Solar two in Mojave was also molten salt based. I knew someone who bought it after it failed and got to explore it before it was partly dismantled.

---------

Solar two was a flat mirror array.

Search google image search with
            "solar two" Mojave

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=yermo,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=34.871919,-116.83416&spn=0.005915,0.010042&t=h&z=17&om=1

Take the link above and zoom out, just below and to the right is a Parabolic glass mirrors plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Two

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Chapter10/Chapter10new.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Two_2003.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Two_Heliostat.jpg

http://theothersolar.com/?m=200702

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1101-10.htm

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/solar-central-power-towers.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/U4735/projections/pitman/solar.elec.jpg

http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/wp/s/Solar_power.htm
(search for "Solar two")

http://www.reia-nm.org/HTML_Docs/Solar_Thermal_Electrical.html

http://greatgreengadgets.com/gadgets/category/solar/

http://www.answers.com/topic/solar-thermal-energy

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2006/week44/index.html

Excellent page on many technologies - Sorry it's in Spanish.
      http://g3nergy.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html
      Search for "Australia to Build 154 MW Solar Energy Plant"
      This one is identical in design to the one in the Mojave Dessert here.

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4965/ Abandoned Solar Power Plant

Clinton was a Wal-Mart board member for 6 years. She was also a partner of the Rose Law Firm. That law firm typically represents large corporations such as Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, etc. I don't have a definition for "corporate whore" to offer, but I suspect that if we had one she would qualify.

I may owe everyone an apology... The *most charitable* characterization of their misbehavior is professional neglect.

In my heart of hearts, the execrable security performance of the top three electronic vendors is reflective of intentional misconduct. I simply don't say such things publicly as if they were factual, since it is possible that they were simply a bunch of putzes going for HAVA money.

It's a near statistical impossibility that in all but one instance, the variances between exit polls and the "official totals" favored one candidate, across all states, all precincts nationwide.

In New Mexico, the relationship between "surprisingly high" undervote statistics correlates nearly perfectly with paper versus electonic voting.

In the 2006 election in Florida district 13, there are 18000 undervotes in a contested congressional election. People took the time to participate in an off-year election in 2006, voted for other offices and issues, but *didn't vote* in the hotly contested big congressional race? Riight...

I live in central Ohio and saw firsthand during the 2004 election that progressive-leaning and democratic-leaning voting precincts and districts had waiting lines that didn't drop below 2 hours all day. During high traffic times, waiting times increased to 3 or 4 hours. In ex-urban districts, the waiting times rarely exceeded 20 minutes. This is not technical hacking, but it illustrates the "value" of having electronic systems to serve as a means for manipulating elections.

It is documented in "invisible Ballots" that many of the people who originated the company that eventually became Diebold Election Systems were all multiply-convicted felons. Their crimes? Variations on a common theme: computer fraud!

So, I *believe* that there's massive fraud. But I have been prevented from investigating properly, as have been many others. So it's not possible to nail it down legally. The result is that I have to say "probable" and "incompetent" because I cannot legally say "they are liars and thieves".

That's the thing... punishments no longer fit the crime. Everything is being criminalized, and punishments far outstrip the crime or any consequence thereof. Soon enough, the government will be able to arrest you for anything and lock you away forever, or seize your assets with no obligation to prove you did anything wrong, or even present the charges against you.

Shining a green laser at a helicopter is stupid, but so is being sentenced to twenty years prison for doing it. Vote Libertarian.

>> These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Please stop spreading these lies about this issue, you are undermining the human rights legislation.

US Constitution applies to all people held under US government power. It doesn't matter where they are held, as do the Treaties on Human Rights that USA has signed and ratified.

The fact that americans have tortured hundreds of people to death (US Doctors Faked Death Certificates to Cover Up Homicides by Torture ACLU Autopsy Reports), despite these, is a shame that falls on every american, especially those who spread the above false propaganda rhetoric you posted. It is largely responsible for producing these human rights violations in the first place.

Under USA's own 1996 War Crimes Act, as people have been tortured to death, the people ordering the treatment are subject to receive the death penalty for supreme crimes against humanity.

This includes the US president and Vice President as well as Donald Rumsfeld and other facilitators.

Their crimes include having others Uzbekistani dictator's torturers boil people alive for the CIA.

Americans seriously need to owe up to this behaviour around the world.

>All it will do is hassle assorted people, many of them innocent, and do nothing to prevent terrorism.

"...they were detained, questioned and denied entry...The women were questioned at Canadian customs about their participation in anti-war efforts and informed that they had an FBI file indicating they had been arrested in acts of non-violent civil disobedience."

Although ethics and integrity are fundamental to well functioning journalism, it is important not to confuse theory with reality. The level of corruption and incompetence today is rampant and affects not only journalism with ad-driven business models, it is an affliction across the board. Unfortunately, a democracy can not function when journalism is overcome by corruption and incompetence (read about the CBS' Cowardice and Conflicts Behind Purge for a simple example among many). Maturity in journalism is not necessarily the same thing as honesty in journalism.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-10.htm

Story from July 2005.

Riot Control Ray Gun Causes Worry

WASHINGTON -- Scientists are questioning the safety of a Star Wars-style riot control ray gun due to be deployed in Iraq next year.

The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds.

The idea is people caught in the beam will rapidly try to move out of it and therefore break up the crowd.

But New Scientist magazine reported today that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes.

In another test they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.

"What happens if someone in a crowd is unable for whatever reason to move away from the beam," asked Neil Davison, coordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at Britain's Bradford University.

"How do you ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?," he said.

The magazine said a vehicle-mounted version of the weapon named Sheriff was scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 and that US Marines and police were both working on portable versions.

Talked about in 2005.
Used in Iraq in 2006.
In major news outlets in 2007. ..
In U.S streets in 2008?

Watch this space.

Guess who the largest polluter in the country is? Government itself, with military pollution topping the list. The "free" market (and it's hard to say "free" in a society where government takes about 1/2 the entire GDP) has certainly produced its share of pollution, but when it comes down to numbers, government itself is by far the champion of pollution.

Preferably with facts.
The Genius Doctor Who Diagnosed Nuke Power's Deadly Disease

Most people? How many people are "most people?" The general populace in China and India are in worse shape now than they were before the industrial revolution in many ways. Bill Gates, ironically, didn't start to make inroads with his charities until leaving Microsoft.

When you talk about companies, you're right about one thing: "whats more important is reputation." Unfortunately, companies can buy reputations, and not by good works.

Have you boycotted Pepsi yet? They pressured the US into invading a Chilean democracy and replacing it with a US puppet dictatorship.

How about Coke? Fertile farmland has been razed and poisoned to bottle Dasani.

Could it be that Sony is still selling products to you? If the first rootkit didn't convince you, I guess the second wouldn't either.

Of course you've avoided my former employer, General Electric, inheritors of the Love Canal who refused to acknowledge their responsibility for as long as they could possibly get away with it.

Oh yes, and of course accidents happen when you cut corners. We could point to Union Carbide, Dow Corning, and of course, Exxon. Or, you could go for the jugular and mention Monsanto, possibly the most evil corporation on the planet. (and that comes with some pretty prestigious neighbors!)

The point isn't these companies, and it's not even anti-globalisation. Fundamentally, I'm anti-people and anti-humanity. We have never, as a species (NOT considering individual exceptions here, because there are always those), shown that we can do anything good unless it's for short-term, personal gain. The only thing that capitalism and the free market economy bring to the table is power and efficiency. They make it easier for psychopaths to be rich, powerful, and immoral.

Fundamentally, humanity sucks. Capitalism allows the worst of it to seize control. That's about all we've accomplished in the five thousand-plus years since we started herding cows.

Even Hatch can't be blamed completely. The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its "mission," had conclusive evidence by the mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within the Soviet Union. The CIA, as its deputy director Robert Gates acknowledged under congressional questioning in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence from President Reagan and his top advisors and instead continued to grossly exaggerate Soviet military and technological capabilities in its annual "Soviet Military Power" report right up to 1990.

Now your interpretation of the Reagan Erra policies of funding the Arabs to fight the soviets that hatch supported is a little misguided too. First, we didn't fund and arm bin laden or the taliban. Bin Laden was considered a glory seeker of sorts as well as many of the other gulf arabs that came to fight. They were outcasts and basically funded themselves. Bin Laden done a lot of this though his own fortunes and they raised funds and stuff in other countries including Pakistan. He and his outside military wasn't a direct part of mujahideen but the mujahideen did use them when it was convenient. The taliban was later formed after the soviets withdrew and the religious fundamentalist that came in with bin laden's groups as well as the people he (they) influenced had participated in (and won power from) a civil war. So the idea of it being evil to start with is flawed to some degree. Some say that if we would have kept a presence over there and picked a side in the civil war, that the taliban would never have came to power and Bin laden wouldn't have had a safe haven to sharpen his teams of terrorist.

For a little more perspective on this, you should read this article It describes a little of the separations and goes into some of the known-knowns of the time. It will give you a better understanding of the situation. This official government position on the matter details a little more about it. And no, before it even comes out, there is no reason to doubt either of these articles based on their sources. Even the one from the government's site.

So yes, there are shades of evil. Well that is if you consider any of it evil. Democrats were completely in control of congress during the Reagan Erra you mentioned. They funded the antics just as much as the republicans pushed and supported it. And to some degree, if you take the position that the democrats had to compromise in order to get their stuff though, then they are worse then the republicans. I mean selling out something this important in order to get something else aproved when you are the ones controlling congress and shaping policy is just mind blowing. The id

So, I guess this means that FEMA's lesson from Katrina was that they needed better press coverage?

Anyway, besides Jeff Gannon, we've seen this before. Here's another case:
March 29, 2005
Despite a rising chorus of condemnation from journalists and media critics, the George W. Bush administration shows no signs of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded "news" to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.

Free press advocates are up in arms about what they say is the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies.

In one case, the administration -- seeking to build support among black families for its education reform plans -- paid a prominent African American pundit, Armstrong Williams, 240,000 dollars to promote the "No Child Left Behind" law on his nationally syndicated television show and through his newspaper column, and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

Two other nationally known journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also admitted accepting thousands of dollars to endorse government programs.

Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create "good military news" to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service's "good news" segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts -- in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source.

More than 20 different federal agencies used taxpayer funds to produce television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These "video news releases," or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs. without disclosing their source....
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0329-12.htm

As long as you can vote and those votes are actually counted by someone you have power over the rich and the corrupt.

But can you vote, or will you be turned back at a roadblock or have your name added to a "do not vote list" like what happened in Florida in 2000. Even if you vote, how do you know the Diebold voting machine won't record your vote as a vote for Bush when you voted for someone else?

You mean Bushie's fictional war on terror that is a figment of his sociopathic metal state? Or how his cronies keep perpetuating his mental illness?

The fallacy of the War on Terror - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-13.htm

Isn't this the perfect case of being proactive? A possible danger existed, was looked for, and when found was avoided without incident. This is no scarier than some Toyoda designers thinking about a modification to improve mileage and discarding it when simulations showed that it would lower passenger safety.

It wasn't particularly proactive when, because of Roundup Ready seeds from Monsanto, farmers were able to drown crops in Roundup leading to superweeds that Roundup wasn't able to kill. Now there's even a Roundup Ready coca, the same plant used to make cocaine. Now instead of spraying Colombian villages and crops with Roundup they'll be using even more poisonous or toxic chemicals on villages.

What Democrat has offered to repeal USA PATRIOT?

1. US Senator John Tester. He won election as a Democrat in Montana, with a platform built largely from anti-federal-government planks. He's been anti-patriot act all along.

2. US Rep and (sorta) presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He's running for president against the patriot act.

There are probably others; these are the two I can think of right off the top of my head. Note also the absence of any D-prez frontrunners from this list... I bet Hillary can't wait to get her hands on the levers of power that work the police state. And, truth be told, if she promises to stick an electric cattle prod up Dick Cheney's ass and show it on national television, she would win my vote in a heartbeat.

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm , referring to an article in Science.

I'll like to see a meta analysis of a lot of these studies because different studies make different conclusions. The study I submitted, "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" comes to a different conclusion than the one you provided.

To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre.

Those Mexicans who work can afford food but those who work on farms can't. How's this, from the same source you used: "Mexican Farmers See Death Sentence in NAFTA".Or this one: "NAFTA Equals Death, Say Peasant Farmers". On the first page of Googling "mexican farmers" nafta all of the results are about how Mexican farmers got hammered by NAFTA. Economically the first thing that should matter the most is food security however when farmers have to leave their farms that goes out the window.

Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Yeap, all this is is another corporate welfare scheme. As you say sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol, even better is Switchgrass.

Falcon

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm , referring to an article in Science.

I'll like to see a meta analysis of a lot of these studies because different studies make different conclusions. The study I submitted, "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" comes to a different conclusion than the one you provided.

To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre.

Those Mexicans who work can afford food but those who work on farms can't. How's this, from the same source you used: "Mexican Farmers See Death Sentence in NAFTA".Or this one: "NAFTA Equals Death, Say Peasant Farmers". On the first page of Googling "mexican farmers" nafta all of the results are about how Mexican farmers got hammered by NAFTA. Economically the first thing that should matter the most is food security however when farmers have to leave their farms that goes out the window.

Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Yeap, all this is is another corporate welfare scheme. As you say sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol, even better is Switchgrass.

Falcon

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm , referring to an article in Science.

I'll like to see a meta analysis of a lot of these studies because different studies make different conclusions. The study I submitted, "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" comes to a different conclusion than the one you provided.

To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre.

Those Mexicans who work can afford food but those who work on farms can't. How's this, from the same source you used: "Mexican Farmers See Death Sentence in NAFTA".Or this one: "NAFTA Equals Death, Say Peasant Farmers". On the first page of Googling "mexican farmers" nafta all of the results are about how Mexican farmers got hammered by NAFTA. Economically the first thing that should matter the most is food security however when farmers have to leave their farms that goes out the window.

Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Yeap, all this is is another corporate welfare scheme. As you say sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol, even better is Switchgrass.

Falcon

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm , referring to an article in Science.

I'll like to see a meta analysis of a lot of these studies because different studies make different conclusions. The study I submitted, "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" comes to a different conclusion than the one you provided.

To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre.

Those Mexicans who work can afford food but those who work on farms can't. How's this, from the same source you used: "Mexican Farmers See Death Sentence in NAFTA".Or this one: "NAFTA Equals Death, Say Peasant Farmers". On the first page of Googling "mexican farmers" nafta all of the results are about how Mexican farmers got hammered by NAFTA. Economically the first thing that should matter the most is food security however when farmers have to leave their farms that goes out the window.

Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Yeap, all this is is another corporate welfare scheme. As you say sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol, even better is Switchgrass.

Falcon

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm, referring to an article in Science. I'd link to the science article, but you have to pay for it.

As far as your belief that subsidizing the production of food somehow yields starvation, I'd be curious to see some scientific backup for that. To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre. As for those farmers, they should switch crops -- they don't need to be cheaper than the US; they just need a comparative advantage.

Actually, at the moment, the big problem seems to be the diversion of corn to the manufacture of ethanol. Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Then again, 4 years ago the pollsters were all wrong.

Or were they ?

Really ?

-"Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said."

- "Winkler said campus police tried to quell the march, and at one point protesters grabbed the camera of a freelance media photographer and broke it. City police tried to help and said some protesters fought the effort to break up the march.

- "That's when they were told, due to the violence, that this was no longer a lawful protest," Winkler said. "They were told to disperse, peacefully disperse, and failed to do so we started down the sidewalk _ officers in front, K-9's behind us, and started pushing the crowd down the sidewalk.""

- ""The response was way over the top," Meieran said. "Why in the (expletive) were they using Tasers on these nonviolent protesters in the first place? I heard no dispersal order. What they're saying is total (expletive).""

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0821-01.htm

- "I was taken to the ground by a police officer during that time
      I was pepper sprayed the officer picked up my glasses sprayed my face
      with the pepper spray. Once I got to the ground I was then tasered in
      the thigh for what felt like an eternity. It was the most excruciating
      pain I have ever felt. I felt like I was burning. My hand reached
      down to feel what was on my leg and I felt an electrical shock running
      through my entire body. I could not stop myself from screaming. It was
      horrifying. I could not believe that after I had already been sprayed
      and on the ground they would then proceed to taser me."

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/20117.php

"McNeilly said the officers' use of pepper spray and Tasers
at the protest was justified because protestors had turned
from peaceful conduct to active resistance that became an assault on officers.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_374322.html

Hmmm, I'm not saying I support the use of a TASER in this case, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of police brutality. A peaceful protest turned violent and she was at the front of the line, wrong place and wrong time?

Hmm, a little more digging gets this:
"And a breakdown of events (from a local man posting on Digg, corroborated by the news):

1. A man, Edris Robinson, strikes a cameraman covering the event (later charged with assault)
2. The cameraman runs to get police
3. Robinson runs to the crowd
4. Police find Robinson, try to apprehend him
5. His girlfriend, Deanna Caliguiri, tries to pull him away (later plead guilty to disorderly conduct and resisting arrest)
6. The cops use pepper spray on Deanna, she continues to resist
7. The cops warn Deanna a few times that they will taser her
8. The cops taser her"

That site also states some of the action happens offscreen on the youtube video
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/342/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3559981

Make your own conclusions I suppose

Oh wait, another oped piece here with a longer youtube video tha pushes "tasers are bad":
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdH1G0KQt4 (again whatever happens that makes the cops taser the girl happens offscreen, but the video goes for 10 minutes)

You're right. Our police would never resort to violence during a protest.

Nor would the government would never abuse the court system.