Slashdot Mirror

"Wouldn't it serve the best interests of the press to expose these people rather than protect them?"

It would serve the best interests of the public, yes, but it would mean these two reporters would effectively destroy their careers because no confidential source would ever trust them again, therefor they would never get any confidential information which is what most good journalists live for. There isn't much demand for journalists who only write about things that are already public knowledge.

I'm inclined to say Judith Miller does deserve some jail time but not in this case. She wisely opted to not publish this story, presumably because she appreciated the dangers of outing a CIA agent, or she realized that by doing it she was just being a pawn in a White House scheme to punish Wilson and his wife for daring to challenge the White House or their sham case for war against Iraq.

The thing Judith Miller does deserve some hard time for was being a lead cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq and the shameless extent to which she pumped up the national paranoia about biological weapons in particular. I'd dearly love to know what the motivation was for her little campaign to whip America in to a frenzy over biological weapons:

- Legitimate concern for the safety and well being of Americans
- Realized it would be a way to make a lot of money, especially by writing a book on biological weapons
- Unwitting pawn of the Bush administration in their desire to whip up a case for sham war in Iraq
- Witting pawn of the Bush administration in their desire to whip up a case for sham war in Iraq

The only two reporters who deserve some hard time in the Plame/Wilson affair are Robert Novak and maybe Jeff Gannon, but since they are both fanatical conservatives and darlings of the one party in charge of the one party state we live in now chances are they will get off scott free while the reporter from the despicable psuedo liberal rag the one party state hates so much, the New York Times, will go down and down hard.

The Bush administration seems to have a flair for sham investigations. For example this week the Pentagon investigation in to an apparent global epidemic of prisoner abuse and torture remarkably found the Pentagon to be completely innocent and it just happens elisted soldiers in Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably other secret locales around the world all took it upon themselves to torture prisoners, and of course the CIA's Rendition program was delivering 100's of prisoners to despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia's specificly for the purposes of interrogating them via torture. The irony here is either the chain of command ordered the torture, or the chain of command failed to prevent it. You cant have enlisted men do bad things in the military without an officer either ordering it, or being derelict in his duty for letting it happen without orders. Enlisted soldiers aren't free spirits who can just do their own thing in the military. They have a chain of command whose job it is to insure they do what the chain of command tells them to do.

"While this is certainly a concern, what are the overall effects of such a mass departure?"

In the case of Carly Fiorina all indications are the effects are overwhelming positive. Though rumours were circulating she might be tapped by the Bush administration to lead the World Bank, or a similar position of great influence, continuing the Bush administration policy of promoting incompetence. not clear if Carly has a clue about economics though she does have degrees in business administration. She does grasp the one principal apparently most important to todays business leaders and politicians, ""There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore,"

The article isn't clear if this exodus is U.S. only or globally. If its U.S. only perhaps its just an indicator that women are more astute and more career and survival savvy. IT is NOT a good profession since the bubble burst unless maybe you work at Google. I suspect most of the people who cashed in on the bubble were more the con artists than the IT professionals anyway.

Let's hop in the way back machine and remember John Chambers last year prognosticating on the future of IT in America:

"China will become the IT centre of the world and we can have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 2040."

"What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company," Chambers said.

There is great irony in American business and political elite bragging about the superiority of "Freedom and Democracy", "Free Markets" and Capitalism as they rush to embrace a Socialist Dictatorship and transfer most of America's wealth there. The routinely point out China's education system is superior, labor is firmly controlled and oppressed so they have a "disciplined" work force, every aspect of their markets, including their currency, are heavily manipulated. They also routinely implement massive trade barriers which are requiring companies like Cisco and IBM to transfer massive numbers of jobs, capital, market access and intellectual property to China in order to gain access to Chinese markets which are decidely not free.

There is great irony in this hypocrisy. Its pretty obvious America's business and political leaders dont want "Freedom and Democracy", they want dictatorship, manipulated markets, and cheap, oppressed labor. Since its difficult to retrofit this system on the U.S. at this point it appears they are just moving all their wealth where such a system is already in place.

Here is a quick summary of the new U.S. economy. Bottomline is if you want to have a future the career fields you want to be in are:

- Business administration
- Marketing
- Service jobs that can't be outsourced and where you aren't competing against illegal immigrants

The long term future in business administration and marketing is open to doubt once the Chinese and Indians have reached the point they no longer need their American partners (i.e. after they've learned the markets, once American markets collapse due to the fundemental unsoundness of the current U.S. economy and they possess all the production capacity and IP).

All in all its become pretty apparently American politicians, business leaders and shareholders are selling their own nation down the river in the name of short term profits and their personal wealth. It appears likely the U.S. economy could be collapsing and the stock markets would still flourish since most large U.S. companies are rushing to globalization that they can probably continue to be profitable even if the U.S. economy is deteriorating. Stock markets are most probably riding a wave of improved profitability from exploiting cheap Chinese labor and goods. Globalized American companies can flourish while America does not.

You have to wonder if all the

God damn, you are SOOO right.

I really need to stop getting hacked off watching American's in particular obsess over stuff like bad Star Wars sequels, O.C., reality TV and video games.

Me I'm getting all worried for no reason about scenarios like this. This article is a bit alarmist but the economic issues cited are VERY real and anyone with a clue about economics is deeply concerned about the precarious postition the U.S. is in today and I've heard it from multiple independent and generall relaiable source in recent weeks.

It does bother me when Americans in particular are obsessing over meaningluss crap lik movies, TV and video games, while we've basicly stopped most productive economic activity, and our government is shredding basic civil liberties, and the Bush administration is doleing out hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to their rich friends and miring us in a debt hole we will never get out of.

America has turned in to the world biggest debtor nation to the tune of $7-8 trillion dollars. Someone, usually foreign, has to buy $2 billion dollars worth of our debt a DAY just to keep us afloat, mostly thanks to a $600 billion a year trade deficit and a $400 billion a year budget deficit both of which are exploding. Our wealth as a nation is disappearing at a rate of maybe a trillion dollars a year, and accelerating.

And the key problem TODAY is, most foreign central banks and investors are coming to the conclusion that it is insane to be buying U.S. dollars and U.S. debt when the dollar is tanking and the U.S. economy is being managed by incompetents. As the U.S. dollar is plunging all those foreign investors are taking a bath holding dollars, and if it continues they are going to dump the U.S. and try to salvage their positions before things go really bad.

We are THIS close to seeing the rest of the world start dumping dollars and move the global economy to the Euro, including trading oil in Euro's. If that happens and there is a run on the U.S. dollar this country is going to be in a world of hurt like that Thailand and Korea saw a few years ago when there were runs on their currencies, though this run could be 100 times larger.

If oil producers switch to selling oil in Euros the price of oil in the U.S. is going to spike due to the collapse of the dollar. That aside people in OPEC are predicting oil demand is about to oustripe supply on a strucutural basis and oil could easily spike to $80 a barell.

I wager the only reasong foreign central banks haven't started dumping dollars is fear of the global economic crisis that would ensue if the dollar and the U.S. economy collapse.

I assure there is significant risk of this happening. Greenspan testified yesterday the Fed is watching anxiously for it to happen, it hasn't yet but it could at any moment. Greenspan also vented his strongest warning yet on the dangers of the U.S. continue to borrow $2 billion dollars a day, unfortunately it is falling on deaf ears in Washington.

Another key point is the Bush administration's arrogant contempt for the rest of the world has used up every ounce of good will the U.S. has in the world, so most places would be delighted if the U.S. economy collapsed if only it could happen without taking the rest of the world with it.

All in all, yea I think we should probably focus our attention on bad movies, bad ads, and bad TV.

Its a little off topic, but there was a brief breath of fresh air for civil liberties monday when a Federal judge, appointed by George W. no less, found George W. and John Ashcroft had no constitutional authority to hold an American citizen indefinitely without charges or any due process. Jose Padilla, was arrested in the U.S. and had set a precedent where the Bush administration could arrest and detain ANY American citizen in perpetuity without any due process or even access to a lawyer. That is the definition of a police state.

Of course the government will appeal in hopes of finding a friendly court, probably in Virginia. Last time this case made it to the Supreme Court they punted on a jurisdiction technicality and let the person rot in jail for a while longer while it was filed in South Carolina where Padilla, a civilian, is being held in isolation in a Navy brig. Padilla may be an Al Qaida member, and might have been planning terrorist acts but if there is any shred of our constitution left the government has to lay charges and prove it in a court of law, and not in front of a kangaroo court of a military tribunal.

On a less happy note I found thisarticle nteresting about an obscure defense contractor called ESSI who with the help of George W.'s Uncle Bucky has rocketed to being a major defense contractor, and is specializing in war profiteering in Iraq, mostly thanks to sole source contracts steered their way by friends in the Bush administration. Uncle Bucky was apparently tipped off that the Pentagon was going to launch an investigation of how they were landing all these juicy sole source, no risk contracts, and dumped a half million in stock just before the bad news came out. It sure is great to be a Bush and friend of the Republicans these days

It was Xenu! Great God of the Scientoligists who caused the power outage. He/she/it was angry you didn't pay all your hard earned cash to learn the inner secrets to find out about he/she/it. Read all about it on Wikipedia. Oh, wait you can't!

I find it an interesting coincidence the power outage happened so soon after that the Xenu article was featured. I may be paranoid, but the Scientologists have taken paranoia to a new dimension. They are not above dirty tricks. Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove could learn a thing or two.

Was reading this interesting article today on the extent to which military recruiters are invading high schools and community colleges.

Anyone still in school who can confirm this is what's its like today?

- Military recruiters in the lunch room on a daily basis
- Guest military speakers in classrooms
- Army and Marine recruiting ads mandatory viewing in classrooms
- Recruiters telling kids to stay out of college and go in to the military instead because then college is free and you will be able to get jobs once you get out of the military and not if you go straight to college.
- Do recruiters disproportionately target the poor and minorties

That has to be great for American competitiveness and the economy when your own government is trying to dissuade kids from going to college in order to prop up sagging recruitment.

Rumsefeld and General Meyers(Chairman Joint Chiefs) were in front of Congress this week and grilled about the fact that the Army and Marin reserves and guard are now officially missing their recruiting goals. Meyers rationalized one reason is because the Army and Marines were doing such a good job of retaining soldiers there aren't veterans going in to the guard and reserves. I think he forgot to mention a prime retention tool is stop loss which prevents people from leaving the military when their enlistment is over.

Meyers other proposed solution was hire even more recruiters to hunt down young people and trick them in to the military.

It will be interesting, if the Bush administration will have to either:

- Start bailing on Iraq
- Refrain from starting new wars in Syria and Iran
- Restart the draft and commit political suicide
- If they do restart the draft what kind of dodges will they provide for rich, white kids like George W. had in the Air National Guard, trained at great expense to be a pilot and no chance of ever seeing combat and for the most part didn't even report for duty.

Probably should write a long post about the goal of the military to use video games and simulations to train children to be soldiers and to desensitize them to the consequences of being in a war where people are being killed and you might be killed. Computers are god to the military for that. Has anyone seen a video simulation or game showing dogs eating dead bodies and dragging of limbs, or maybe dead women and children, or people burned half way to charcoal. We really need more of that in video games, actual war footage so kids learn that war is not clean, tidy and heroic. Its brutal, ugly and horrific and lots of innocent people die. If you are a pilot it might not entirely register when you drop bombs you are killing people, often innocent people, but if you end up in the Army and Marines, you may be killing people close up, and one of two things will probably happen:

- You will regret it for the rest of your life
- You will start liking it and start doing it at every opportunity, and not be very discriminating in who you kill. In Vietnam it was apparently common for some people in this class to start taking pictures of their kills, building scrapbooks so they could revel in their handwork later.

"If you break it down to raw physics, how much energy does it take to heat at 1 acre/foot of water 1 degree celcious. Light is easy to produce, energy of the amount the sun or even the earth produces is beyond our foreseeable grasp."

Man you are thick. The problem from all the gas flaring isn't the heat produced, its the voluminous quantities of CO2 it produces. CO2 is a green house gas, which increases the propensity of our atmosphere to trap the Sun's heat and as you said yourself the Sun showers the earth with lots of HEAT. The fact that man is adding CO2 and methane to the atmosphere on a continuing basis is almost certainly contributing to increased trapping of the Sun's heat, increasing the Earth's temperature. Get it yet?

Another illuminating example of Man's capacity to alter our climate, which is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is ozone depletion. Its an amazingly good example because it too is caused by human activity releasing gasses, chlorofluorocarbons, in to the atmosphere, not huge releases, but billions of tiny releases by aerosol cans, refrigerators and air conditioning leaks. If we had taken your approach, denial, and hadn't banned the problem gasses we might well have destroyed the ozone layer that shields us from ultraviolet radiation and we would have all died and taken much of life on this planet with us.

"I will, but I recall a Syrian actually being an enemy combatant. I do plan to look into this as I really would like to see what came of the trials."

Here is one transcript from a man who was in the famous nude pyramid. He was an Iragi civilian being held for theft/looting and he is beyond a shadow of a doubt protected by the Geneva conventions on treatment of civilians in occupied countries, and they specificly band sexual humiliation. He is so ashamed he is is suicidal.

"I'm certain there are and I am content with covert missions and interrogations involving torcher."

WTF is "torcher"? You in favor of setting people on fire too? All I can say is you are sick, and I've had enough, you belong in my Foes list next to my allstar list of right wing wackos many of them think torture is cool too.

Probably should point out the obvious hypocrisy in supporting toppling Saddam because he tortured people and then saying its OK for the U.S. to torture people too.

The only thing I wish for you in life is that someday you land in dark, dank prison cell and spend a few years of your life being tortured every day, you deserve it.

"No, I'm no holding no war or information against you, nor have I committed any crimes punishable in such way."

Like I said many of those people in Abu Graib were being held on suspicion of theft/looting. They hadn't been charged with anything, they hadn't been convicted of anything, so by your lame ass standard I can accuse you of theft and come over and arrest and torture you. Whats your address?

Later dude, your posts aren't worth the bandwidth. Probably should consider not posting your B.S. for the rest of the world to see. Your embarrasing, you give Americans a bad name and they don't need any help in that regard.

"Kyoto is a massive efford and shows NO result."

Other than potentially making a start at ending global warming, which if it happens, and it is an "if", is going to do far more damage to the world both physically and economicly than Kyoto will.

I think a really good test for Americans would be to offer, or maybe compel them to trade their current homes and real estate for an estate several times more valuable on some low lying coastland or better yet a low lying tropical island and see if they are willing to gamble that global warming is a lie.

All in all its waste of time debating U.S. entry in to Kyoto, or even that the U.S. will make any significant investment in weaning itself from complete dependence on coal because with the current political regime its go a snow balls chance in hell. Even if the U.S. rejects Kyoto which there are valid reasons to reject, it should still solve its addiction to fossil fuels and there is an indisputable case for doing that.

But no, Kyoto is inevitably going to end up one of American's expansive land fills probably outside of Washingtoon D.C. alongside the Geneva conventions, the ABM treaty, U.S. law against torture, the rule of law, the Constitution and it appears very soon the global test ban treaty.

There is irony that as the U.S. tries to dictate to nation after nation that thou shalt not develop nuclear weapons the U.S. is in fact developing new ones, is going to test them in violation of treaty, and in the case of the new nuclear bunker busters is almost inevitably going to start using them to kill people for the first time since World War II. When the U.S. takes the first step off that slippery slope the world is going to become a VERY dangerous place.

"The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made."

It certainly is a subject for debate. Just because an election was held proves next to nothing. There is still a high probability that the Shia majority is just bideing its time until the constitution is written, the next elections are held which the Shia's will win, which the Shia will always win being 60% of the population and being an extremely cohesive voting block. Sistani issued a Fatwah compelling his large block of Shia's to vote which is why they did in such large numbers, the voted because they knew they would win the power they've been denied so long by doing so.

Sunni turnout was in fact dismal, they are shut completely out of power unless the Shia and Kurd's throw them crumbs, and this insures the Sunni insurgency will continue unabated which it has.

Once the Shia have cemented their hold on power, they can then tell the U.S. to get its troops out and the U.S. will either:

- Have to withdraw its troops in deference to Iraq's sovereign will and its Democraticly elected government
- Say no, leave its troops there and the elections the Republican's are so proud of are then proven to be a sham

You see the U.S. really only likes Democracies when they vote the way the White House wants them to. If they don't the U.S. really isn't that big a supporter of the concept.

Assuming the U.S. withdraws the Shia are then free to institute an Islamic theocracy and align themselves with Iran. Women will most probably be oppressed under Islamic law more like they were under the Taliban than the relative freedoms they enjoyed under Saddam's secular state, and in fact already are more oppressed than they were in most areas. Christians and Jews also enjoyed some tolerance for their religion under Saddam and are generally being forced to leave Iraq as it swings hard towards fundementalist Islamic state.

Meanwhile the Kurd's in the north are also voting en masse and trying to secure as much power as they can get at the ballot box and as much territorial control they can of the oil fields around Kirkuk. They are also bidding their time and waiting patiently. When the opport

"I expect the Religious Right will end up getting steam-rolled over the genetic engineering issue"

Well American bible thumpers have a multipart strategy for countering the hordes of 7.5 feet tall Chinese with the 220 IQ:

- Nuclear weapons, lots of nuclear weapons, so if the good lord wont start the rapture they can give him(or her) a hand with an artificial one. The U.S. government is apparently starting work on two new warhead designs, in defiance of several efforts by Congress to stop it, one really big and one really small. If the Republican's hold power a little while longer its likely we will see them break the global test ban treaty and start firing off nukes again. The test ban will most likely land in the same dumper as the ABM treaty, and the Kyoto accords, and the Geneva conventions on treating prisoners, Geneve conventions on treating civilians in occupied countries, U.S laws against torture, U.S. laws on due process, and of course the Constitution.

- Missile defense, it probably doesn't work but if it did it would keep the super intelligent Chinese from shooting back

- Stamp out birth control and abortion. Most religions do everything in their power to maximize population growth to increase the size of their flock, even if it does mean massive overpopulation. The Chinese are, by contrast aggressively trying to control population growth so maybe the bible thumpers, given enough time can out breed and out number them. There will be irony if in the next big war there will be a billion American soldiers, praising Jesus, as they use human waves to overwhelm the tiny Chinese Army, big and intelligent though they may be.

If the Chinese do all develop 220 IQ's there is a chance they might all become extremely enlightened and liberal. That means they will probably unilaterally disarm, and will be reluctant to start a war.

In this area low IQ Americans have a huge advantage. They will bankrupt their country buying weapons, and more weapons, and they are willing to use them at a drop of a hat.

I guess I'm saying is its possible geneticly engineering, super intelligent Chinese might be sitting ducks for low IQ, bigoted, hate filled, bible thumping Americans, who'll push the button in the name of Jesus.

I was unaware that Lockheed was making a power play for control of the labs but it is 100% believable.

Lockheed has turned in to an all powerful cancer on America, they are THE case study in Eisenhower's prescient warning about the undue influence of the military-industrial complex after World War II.

Here is a pretty good article on how they run the government, instead of the government running them. Some of its a stretch as is St. Clair's way but he has lots of fascinating little tid bits you never see in main stream press.

A few choice lines:

- each household in the U.S. is estimated to pay $228 just to Lockheed in their taxes each year.

- Through heavy exploitation of tax loopholes their tax rate is around 7%, try getting that tax rate if you work for a living.

- The C-130J debacle described in the article is classic. The planes have so many design flaws they are useless to the Air Force. Some of them were to be Hurricane chaser replacements but the composite propellers are so flawed you can't fly them in bad weather. I heard a DOD budget briefing last week and it appears they are finally shutting down this disaster of a program. Instead of punishing Lockheed for incompetence they are going to pay them another billion dollars or so in shut down costs to reward Lockheed for delivering planes that are worthless.

I assure you Lockheed has plenty of incompetence of its own and there is NO way it should take over more national labs, but it probably will because it has acquired such massive influence over the government, and especially over the Republicans.

And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House

I didn't realize that members of Congress now populated the west wing. In case your longer term memory fails you, have a look here and remind yourself of all the people (including Kerry) who said Saddam had WMD's.

The fact remains that everyone's decision was based on faulty intelligence. Congress voted yes on on Iraqi invasion. Quit blaming Bush, as he was only the most visible proponent of invasion.

No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics. If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't.

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.

Your points are so 1984--"We are at war with Iraq--We've always been at war with Iraq."

Its nice that you drink the kool-aid and think this is about protecting the freedom's and liberties of others. Interestingly, we are very choosy about who's freedoms we protect. Could there be other interests?

Heh. Post on slashdot and ask why IT projects fail and surprise, surprise all the geeks blame it on the managers, venting angst they still feel from some recent IT project that was a disaster and they blame on their manager.

Big government IT projects, and government contracts in general, fail because there is zero reason for them to succeed, they are designed to fail. Big companies who live to drain tax dollars out of the government, like Lockheed, CSC or ESD can fail on project after project and they will still have a thouroughly good chance of winning new ones. The government rarely withholds payment even if the project craters. So if the government never punishes failure why would contractors care if the succeed or fail. The worst that will happen is a little bad press, they wont get the next contract for the department they just cratered but there are always plenty more. After CSC botches it, ESD gets it, they botch and then they will try CSC again etc. Same thing for Boeing and Lockheed. Thanks to merger mania in the 90's there are only two aerospace giants left and its not much different for every other big government contracting sector. The government has to pick one or the other of the big players no matter if they've cratered on contract after contract.

You really need to understand how these companies are structured. They are well oiled machines for identifying opportunities, submitting impressive proposals, using undo influence and landing contracts. They put their best people on winning contracts. Once they win it its another story. Then they are just putting warm bodies in there to fill slots and bill hours as they march through milestones.

The irony is a contractor will probably make more money if the project goes bad. If the project goes bad their contract will be extended year after year. The civil servants will just throw more money at the project in the hope that if they just put in a little more they will turn the corner and pull it through.

If the project comes in on time and on budget the contractor will make less on it than if it goes bad and overruns, so why should come in on time and on budget.

Consider Lockheed's F-22 as described in the link above. In some respects it an impressive fighter but at $300 million a copy it ridiculously expensive. It was supposed to be operational a decade ago but the government just keeps pouring more and more money in to though the U.S. already completely dominates every other Air Force on the planet with the much cheaper planes it already has. Lockheed can continue to develop it for another 20 years and may never field an operational squadron. They were punished for their failure with another $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter. They were just given a contract to build 5 or 6 Presidential helicopers for $1.5 billion dollars. Thats $300 million each for a helicopter.

Why does the government do it. Simple, the government/contractor system has devolved in to massively corrupt system. There is a giant revolving door between government, the military and these big contractors. The ambitious and greedy are only taking government and civil service jobs so they can establish connections and influence, do favors for big companies, retire from government and cash in a massive way with executive positions at those same contractors. Any Air Force general whose ever steered contracts to Boeing or Lockheed has a gold plated job waiting when they retire, where they can continue to influence contracts pulling strings with people who use to be below them in the chain of command.

Darlene Druyan is another classic example. She was one of the Air Forces' top civil servants for procurement. She steered a ridiculously lucrative contract to Boeing for 767 tankers, and before the ink is dry she gets a lucrative senior executive position at Boeing. Only catch is it was so blatant that Congress said enough is enough and damended the

New space suits would be cool I guess, but I'm kind of left wondering what exactly these will be used for other than the occasional turn around the ISS before the Bush administration mothballs it and the space shuttle.

I see Boeing and Northrop have teamed for the CEV leading to the inevitable result of every NASA contract competition, a team led by Boeing competeing against one led by Lockheed, assuming they don't either collude or spy on one another as is theire history.

So, I assume maybe these suits will be used for the CEV and maybe landing on the moon 20 years from now if its not cancelled first, when it becomes obvious the U.S. is so deeply in debt it can't afford it.

I sure wish there would be a real maverick CEV team lead by Burt Rutan and T/Space but it appears inevitable it will be the same old, same old pork going to Boeing and Lockheed and T/Space will have to partner with and be swallowed by one of them.

If you read the description in the link of what the Crew Exploration Vehicle is, it sure sounds to me like they are going to spend 10-15 years to basicly redevelop Apollo. Considering it took less than a decade the first time you'd think they would do it in slightly less time, not way more time this time around, especially with better computers, more experience etc.

Lockheed is a fascinating study in the giant corporations that run the U.S. government ... err ... excuse me work for the U.S. government. By one counting the average tax payer in the U.S. pays $228 dollars just to Lockheed in a year. The F-22 fighter has turned in to the most expensive and delayed fighter aircraft in history, at maybe $300 million a copy.

All in all the CEV just sounds like yet another avenue for redistributing our tax dollars to Lockheed and Boeing and it will probably never fly anything useful. Maybe the will make it to the moon briefly just so people wont be completely pissed over the billins spent on it and then just like Apollo everyone will be wondering what the point is, and why we are spending so much money on it. Unless we develop fusion power first, which would be a better use for the money, and are mining fuel for it from the Moon I'm really at a loss as to what going to he moon again would be good for except as a stunt.

Mars is a far more worthwhile place to go, and put a permenent colony, but its pretty much an unattainable goal due to the simple fact that NASA/Boeing/Lockheed budgets are so extravagantly wasteful that we will never be able to afford it.

What do you expect from an organization that did a telephone survey to determine the effectiveness of telephone surveys?

The best part was that they determined afterwards that most people answer their phones, don't screen survey calls, etc. Do they live in some kind of alternate reality?

That said, I see several reasons for the results- a)people not understanding the questions (such as responding to "have you used the internet" as if it was actually "do you have internet access at home"...people do this all the time) b)lying to fit in ("Oh sure, I have the Intraweb! Yeah, I know how to use it!"), or c)lying just to fuck with the results (like we used to do in high school with the anonymous drug surveys. "PCP?" "Oh no, I prefer cocaine, that PCP stuff will fuck you up." "You're both full of it, I like Speed"...is a sample of the lunchtime conversation on survey-day).

I guess you'll be OK if I drop over and do some of that stuff to you then. It was most decidely psychological torture, sexual humiliation has a particularly sharp edge in the Arab world, that is a key reason it was being used to soften up Arab prisoners, and I wager people higher up than Sargents figured that fact out:

Maybe you didn't read the testimony of one of the victims:

"What do you think our feelings are? This has never happened to us before. I think I'm going to have an emotional breakdown. I want to kill myself because my friends, my family, all people in my neighborhood knew about this incident. When I get released how would I go and see these people? What's ironic is that the Americans are taking my rights. How would I go out right now and face the public with myself?"

The guy wants to commit suicide. I think you are the one watering down what happened there. Besides which the only torture that has come out of Iraq so far is the torture that someone was foolish enough to take pictures of. You have no clue how bad it might really be in places where no pictures are being taken. Thats the problem with opening this pandora's box, you really dont know how far out of hand its gotten. The only approach a civilized nation should have for abusing prisoners is zero tolerance and the Bush administration has instead repeatedly rationalized it and trivialized it just like you are.

Americans in various places have beaten prisoners to death, and in one case threw prisoners off a bridge. I think there were twenty or so known cases of prisoners killed at the hands of American soldiers between Afghanistan and Iraq back when Abu Graib broke.

NBC has video, which we've managed to forgot so soon, of a Marine walking up to a wounded, prostate and unarmed insurgent and summarily executing him in a Mosque. Americans forgot it and brushed it under the rug but Iraqi's and the Arab world won't.

CNN has footage from the original invasion of Marines shooting an obviously wounded and incapitated insurgent, with no weapon, in the back and finishing him off while they cheered the fine marksmenship.

I think one of the lessons here is if you are going to commit war crimes don't do it in front of a camera, or if you do destroy the film.

It is another one of those Geneva convention things, that American's are so indifferent to, that you provide medical care to the wounded, you don't kill them. You are also supposed to provide medical care to the civilian population. Here is another good interview of an Army medic who served in Iraq and is now speaking against the war. He indicates he was ordered to deny medical care to Iraqis unless it was a matter of life or limb. That is again a violation of the Geneva conventions on treatment of civilians in occupied countries.

All in all I think Americans really aren't a civilized people any more.

"I still can't get over this Abu Graib thing."

Maybe you should be locked up in a prison on suspicion of a crime, especially a crime you didn't commit, and be tortured and sexually humiliated in front of a camera and then have those pictures shown to your friends and family if not the whole world.

Here , read this, its the testimony of one of the people tortured at Abu Graib. He was and is being held on "suspicion" of theft, not terrorism or decapitating people or anything he had been convicted of. Try putting yourself in his shoes while you are reading it and maybe you will stop being such an arrogant American dick.

I don't think ANY of the people tortured in Abu Graib were "terrorists" that had decapitated peoples. Most of them were people arrested for ordinary crimes, especially looting which EVERYONE in Iraq was doing after the invasion, or innocent people just caught up in dragnets when the U.S. was rounding up people looking mostly in vain for insurgents and Saddam loyalists.

Its key, NONE of the people in Abu Ghraib had been "convicted" of anything. They were suspects. You are basicly dropping the bar so low that the U.S. government can arrest and torture anyone, anywhere on suspicion, and maybe torture a confession out of them that isn't worth the paper its printed on. If they aren't found to be guilty of anything how do you justify torturing them?

You are in fact endorsing EXACTLY the same thing the U.S. has been so indignant about Saddam doing and used as an excuse to overthrow him. The stuff you are taking about is the antithesis of the "Freedom and Democracy" the Bush administration cons everyone in to thinking we brought to Iraq. It is a key reason the Iraqi people have become to despise the U.S. occupation force so much because it managed, with ease, to put itself at the same level as Saddam with arbitrary arrests, torture and killing innocent civilians, often women, children and wounded, unarmed combatants.

All in all you should probably turn in your U.S. citizenship because you have NO CLUE what your country is supposed to stand for, in particular due process is the most basic underpinning of the rule of law and if you chose to cast it aside for some people its a matter of time its thrown aside for everyone, you included, and you have a police state no different from Saddam's.

As for Geneva conventions not applying in Iraq they most certainly do. Its legal hair splitting if they apply to Al Qaida but they sure as hell apply to Iraq. When your nation invades and occupies a sovereign nation there are most definitely rules on how you treat the civilian population of that occupied country, they most definitely apply to the U.S. as a signatory no matter how much you and the Bush administration want to pretend they don't. They forbid:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

The U.S. has done EVERY one of these in Iraq.

If you want to cast aside U.S. adherence to the Geneva conventions then DON'T get mad if American's are taken as prisoners of war, in the upcoming war in Iran for example, if they are tortured and sexually humiliated, you've given every American adversary the rationale to do it and the world which just say America is getting what it deserves. You better also hope that you are never in place that is invaded and occupied because again you are giving the invading army a blank check to arrest, torture, sexually humiliate and kill you because you are an American who has chosen to cast aside the Geneva conventions.

""Bush's inauguration costs too much! Rich people are paying for it! The money should go to Tsunami relief! The money should go to the poor! There shouldn't be an inauguration!!!""

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Ranting about the cost and extravagance of the inauguration is silly. About the only criticism I can make of it is:

- Some of those singers they were unbelievable. Kind of proves Republicans are some combination of tone deaf or don't know how to throw a party. The fact they are going after Sponge Bob now confirms a few screws are loose someplace.
- That speech Bush gave was silly. All that never ending repetition of freedom, democracy and liberty. Everyone knows he his only going to liberate countries that are:

o Anti American
o Have oil
o Are a threat to Israel

Amazingly Iran pops to the top of the list on all counts. Venezuela is right up there too though they happen to have a democraticly elected government, it wasn't a perfect election but it was better than all the countries below. Meanwhile he ain't gonna lift a finger about the dicatorships in:

o Saudi Arabia
o Kuwait
o Egypt
o Pakistan
o Russia
o China
o Tajikistan, etc.

I love it how right wingers used to rant about Communist dictatorships but now that they are all making a killing in China they love the place and its government, though it hasn't really changed other than they threw open the door to the running dogs to make a fortune on their cheap labor, and transfered the world's economy to China's control. The Chinese are genius, they beat capitalism at its own game and destroyed it without firing a shot.

So all in all I'd agree ranting about the inauguration shows a lack of focus on the part of the media and the left. Lets:

- Focus on the quagmire of a war in Iraq. Here is an interview with an Army medic back from Iraq. Right wingers rant Iraq is going great and its the "liberal media" thats just making it look bad. Well this is grunt that was there and his main complaint is nobody in Iraq wants the U.S. there anymore and he had no clue what the point of the war is other than control of oil and he apparently isn't alone among the enlisted men. Don't listen to officers on Iraq, they are gonna spew the company line, the grunts will tell the truth.

- Focus on the fact Bush has increased government spending over 25% in three years at the same time he slashed taxes for the wealthy and is pushing U.S. debt to unsustainable levels. The U.S. government is becoming so in debt to China and Japan they can start dictating policy to the U.S. There is an old axiom the Bush administration has forgotten, "Neither a borrower or a lender be", well at least the borrower part is true. The U.S. is by a huge margin the world's largest debtor nation now and that debt is going to come home to roost. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont especially when its hitting these extravagant levels.

- Focus on the staggering trade deficits the U.S. is running with the world especially with China. It is crossing the 5% of GDP market and deficits of those levels violate every tenent of sound fiscal policy and again are not sustainable. The U.S. will be come so mired in debt it will again be vulnerable to foreign blackmail or foreign induced economic collapse

- Look at the state of the U.S. dollar especially compared to the Euro. It makes U.S. exports cheap but otherwise its a disaster waiting to happen and its cratering because of fundementally unsound fiscal policy coming out of the Bush administration. Foreign investors, especially OPEC states are getting tired of taking a bath on their dollars and are dumping them for Euros. There is also a real risk now they will start selling their oil in Euros and the dollar will stop being the worlds main currency. That will be another devastating blow to the U.S. economy and the dollar's value.

- Foc

It's not a myth. Or is it that you can't bring yourself to question your worldview that perhaps the US government isn't as benevolent as you'd hoped? As it stands today, the US is unable to support itself with domestic oil alone. That means that in order to support its war machine, it needs foreign oil and gas to keep functioning. Do you think it's coincidence that Pakistan enjoys impunity over its KNOWN nuclear black market while Iran is vilified for even ATTEMPTING to gain nuclear know how?

Wake up and realise you no longer live in a nation built on free and fair values, but rather on global hegemony designed to ensure its supply of resources to maintain living standards at present levels at the expense of everyone else. Democracy and freedom don't factor into the equation. They are merely platitudes to keep the populace uneducated. Why not read a few other sites for a different viewpoint:

Counterpunch

Truthout

Information Clearing House

Cryptome

This brings me back to Page's book, whose core thesis is that Murdoch offers his target governments a privatized version of a state propaganda service, manipulated without scruple and with no regard for truth. His price takes the form of vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief (as with the recent FCC ruling on the acquisition of Direct TV) monopoly markets and so forth. The propaganda is undertaken with the utmost cynicism, whether it's the stentorian fake populism and soft porn in the UK's Sun and News of the World, or shameless bootlicking of the butchers of Tiananmen Square. --- "I Am Thy Father's Ghost": A Journey into Rupert Murdoch's Soul

Classically bad, yes. Many people make this mistake, so don't feel bad. An ad hominem, as popularly known, is attacking the man to make the argument. I am doing no such thing: my attacking of the man is entirely separate from my argument.

Maybe you need a refresher on the ad hominem. An ad hominem attack consists of:

1) A makes claim B.

2) There is something objectionable about A.

3) Therefore claim B is false.

This is EXACTLY what you are doing. In every response to any of my arguments, you insist on inserting snide remarks about my intelligence, which satisfies (2), and this implies that what I claim is false.

Again, sad. The PATRIOT Act has no provision for kidnapping, so there is no such person. And I've not personally met people arrested under PATRIOT Act provisions, but I've seen and heard from them. *shrug*

Ignoring your personal attacks that in no way strengthen your argument, I guess you hold a double standard when it comes to assertions: Anything you claim doesn't need to be backed up with a reference or link, but anything I claim without a link is obviously false. In defense of my argument that Constitutional freedoms (including freedom of speech) are being taken away by the PATRIOT Act, you might want to read this article. Particularly interesting is this part:

The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses that loan, rent, or sell books, videos, magazines, and music CDs is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms. The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.

If the Act is not modified, book publishers will take even fewer chances on publishing works that, like The Hunt for Red October "might" result in the government investigation; bookstore owners may not buy as many different titles; and the people, fearing that whatever they read might be subject to Big Brother's scrutiny, may not buy controversial books or check books out of the library. Even worse, writers may not create the works that a free nation should read. How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.

Ignoring the slight editorializing in the first paragraph, the rest of this excerpt shows the PATRIOT Act in its true colors (and in my opinion, they are not red, white, and blue). I admit that my original argument was somewhat convoluted, and this one is more clear.

And as I have clearly shown, no, it does not. I've stated clearly that I hold to the former and not the latter, so any implication to the contrary of my statements is in your own little mind.

Ignoring once again the personal attacks which only makes your argument appear weaker, I am wondering once again why you hold this strange double-standard, where you are exempt from referencing anything to back up your assertions. Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.

I agree with you that higher ranking USMIL people probably have an axe to grind with respect to Seymour Hersch, but you should also be aware that he's widely considered to be a conduit for leaks from some CIA elements and he hasn't been doing any actual on-the-ground investigative journalism in recent years as compared to Robert Fisk who is one of the few Western journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, has actually physically visited the places that he reports on as a non-embedded (e.g. traditionally free agent) report, placing his own life at risk at times.

Yes, you can clearly see that he has a bias, but he's upfront about it and it's always clear in his writing which parts are his opinion and which are the factual experiences that he's recording.

With regard to Wikinews, I think that it's interesting that the "neutral" and "non biased" articles about (to take just one example) the Indonesian earthquake disaster don't mention the shenanigans going on over the withholding of disaster relief to "rebel" strongholds in Aceh and the request from representatives of the "rebels" that international aid is not delivered into the hands of the government. This is covered in one of the few independent and courageous news sources these days: Amy Goodman's "DemocracyNOW!" radio program. Here's a sample from January 7th:

Indonesian Military Beats Acehnese, Bars Journalists Meanwhile, Australian journalists who witnessed a confrontation between Indonesian soldiers and Acehnese yesterday were ordered to leave the area and warned not to report on the incident. The incident occurred just 25 miles from the provincial capital Banda Aceh, the centre of the relief operation spearheaded by US and Australian forces in Aceh. Government soldiers fired into the air and beat up Acehnese they claimed were supporters of the Free Aceh Movement, known as the GAM. The incident prompted special forces Kopassus soldiers to confront The Australian's representatives in the area. A Kopassus Commander told the journalists, "Your duties here are to observe the disaster, not the conflict between TNI (the Indonesian army) and GAM. Kopassus ordered the Australian journalist and photographer to leave. The Indonesian military has killed thousands of Acehnese in the conflict. Aceh has been under martial law and sealed off for years. The Kopassus are infamous for their extreme brutality during the occupation of East Timor.

If Wikinews isn't reporting this sort of stuff in order to avoid appearing "contentious" then it's providing a misleading picture of the actual physical facts of the world. Not very impressive.

Im very surprised that noone has replied to you yet on this matter, but the gas and bio weapons Saddam used in 1991/1992 against the Kurds was purchased from the US and the UK in the 1980s, including the ability to produce more of them. Yes, the vast majority of WMD that we are looking for in Iraq are tehre because we sold them to Iraq. It is true that Germany and France also took part, as did Russia and China, but for the 1980s WMD were commonly traded arms, and the US was one of the biggest traders in them.

Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source

I don't think you have to much further than the Ukraine to deduce that most elections today are shams. Eastern Ukraine(industrial and tied to the old U.S.S.R) and Russia were trying to steal the election in one direction, Western Ukraine, agricultural and closer to Europe, with the help of the U.S. and the CIA are trying to steal it in the other. At this point its impossible to tell who actually won. One thing that speaks highly of the Ukranians on both sides, they actually care enough to turn out en masse in freezing weather to protest fraudulent elections. The question is can they actually hold a fair election with the U.S. and Russia and their puppets doing everything in their power to rig it.

By contrast American elections are starting to look equally corrupt but no one in the U.S. seems to really care.

You don't even really need electronic voting to steal elections, there are old fashioned ways that work just as well, here is a report from Tampa on simple voter intimidation. Here is an unproven allegations of an effort to suppress black votes in South Carolina.

If you live in a swing state you were probably bombarded by auto dialers and recorded messages which if you actually listen to them, you found were basicly slander. Apparently there is no accountability or regulation of the bile you can pump out to voters, en masse, using computerized dialers these days.

Many right wingers love to point out how Afghanistan had "free" and democratic elections for the first time in nearly forever. Well they forget to mention that one candidate, Karzai, former oil executive, and America's hand picked ruler had a U.S. supplied helicopter so he could visit every tribal chief, while the rest of the candidates couldn't campaign much outside Kabul because its to dangerous the roads in much of Afghanistan. And of course when Karzai flew in to a tribe he could hand out buckets of "reconstruction" money to the tribal chiefs who in turn tell their tribe how to vote, illerate people in the countryside with no media access so it works.

Its going to be interesting to see how rigged the elections in Iraq look. Putting my hands to my head like Karnak, I predict the U.S. favored candidate will win :)

At this point nearly every contested election in the third world is being "influenced" by the U.S. and the CIA, and increasingly Putin is trying to influence them his way in Russia's sphere of influence. Of course Russia's elections have also reached the point they are a sham. Putin controls most of the media, and suppresses opposition parties so he is for all practical purposes a dictator again.

Its not really such a leap to assume U.S. elections are being rigged either. The 1960 election was probably rigged by the Democrats and swung the election to Kennedy. It would appear likely that since the Reagan era and especially since the late 1990's the Republican's have formed a well oiled machine for acquiring power at any cost. Not sure you can just blame it on electronic voting. It includes intimidation of minority voters, massive mobilization of white, conservative voters through churches in violation of their non profit restrictions, ruthless smear campaigns against the Democrats(Clinton impeachment and Kerry Swift Boat Vets). Of course the Dems help them out a lot by being incompetent and pathetic(exemplified by Kerry).

The next move you are going to see towards a Republican dominated police state, and they are already talking about it, is a change in Senate rules for approving judicial nominations. Since the Republican's didn't get the magic 60 votes to steamroll the senate, they are apparently going to try to just change the rules for approving judges in the Senate to a simple majority vote. They can then proceed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court, with radical right wing judges. I predict it may well happen

I don't think you have to much further than the Ukraine to deduce that most elections today are shams. Eastern Ukraine(industrial and tied to the old U.S.S.R) and Russia were trying to steal the election in one direction, Western Ukraine, agricultural and closer to Europe, with the help of the U.S. and the CIA are trying to steal it in the other. At this point its impossible to tell who actually won. One thing that speaks highly of the Ukranians on both sides, they actually care enough to turn out en masse in freezing weather to protest fraudulent elections. The question is can they actually hold a fair election with the U.S. and Russia and their puppets doing everything in their power to rig it.

By contrast American elections are starting to look equally corrupt but no one in the U.S. seems to really care.

You don't even really need electronic voting to steal elections, there are old fashioned ways that work just as well, here is a report from Tampa on simple voter intimidation. Here is an unproven allegations of an effort to suppress black votes in South Carolina.

If you live in a swing state you were probably bombarded by auto dialers and recorded messages which if you actually listen to them, you found were basicly slander. Apparently there is no accountability or regulation of the bile you can pump out to voters, en masse, using computerized dialers these days.

Many right wingers love to point out how Afghanistan had "free" and democratic elections for the first time in nearly forever. Well they forget to mention that one candidate, Karzai, former oil executive, and America's hand picked ruler had a U.S. supplied helicopter so he could visit every tribal chief, while the rest of the candidates couldn't campaign much outside Kabul because its to dangerous the roads in much of Afghanistan. And of course when Karzai flew in to a tribe he could hand out buckets of "reconstruction" money to the tribal chiefs who in turn tell their tribe how to vote, illerate people in the countryside with no media access so it works.

Its going to be interesting to see how rigged the elections in Iraq look. Putting my hands to my head like Karnak, I predict the U.S. favored candidate will win :)

At this point nearly every contested election in the third world is being "influenced" by the U.S. and the CIA, and increasingly Putin is trying to influence them his way in Russia's sphere of influence. Of course Russia's elections have also reached the point they are a sham. Putin controls most of the media, and suppresses opposition parties so he is for all practical purposes a dictator again.

Its not really such a leap to assume U.S. elections are being rigged either. The 1960 election was probably rigged by the Democrats and swung the election to Kennedy. It would appear likely that since the Reagan era and especially since the late 1990's the Republican's have formed a well oiled machine for acquiring power at any cost. Not sure you can just blame it on electronic voting. It includes intimidation of minority voters, massive mobilization of white, conservative voters through churches in violation of their non profit restrictions, ruthless smear campaigns against the Democrats(Clinton impeachment and Kerry Swift Boat Vets). Of course the Dems help them out a lot by being incompetent and pathetic(exemplified by Kerry).

The next move you are going to see towards a Republican dominated police state, and they are already talking about it, is a change in Senate rules for approving judicial nominations. Since the Republican's didn't get the magic 60 votes to steamroll the senate, they are apparently going to try to just change the rules for approving judges in the Senate to a simple majority vote. They can then proceed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court, with radical right wing judges. I predict it may well happen

"Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel"

I'm afraid Alan, being Orthodox Jewish, is more than a little biased. Here is one assault on his work, especially the extent to which he plagarized Peters, though Alex needs to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes.

For the other side you never hear, look for stuff by Ilan Pappe. He is Jewish and Israeli and it takes balls to be that and try to tell the Palestinian side of history, a lot more balls than it takes to be Dershowitz.

A problem is you will flat never hear the Palestinian side in the "West". They have no media voice. The Palestinian side is completely suppressed by governments, media and Jewish groups who start screaming "antisemitism" or "terrorism" at anything that isn't pro Israel, and it works. By contrast you will see a non stop pro Isreali spin in both media and government. It was obligatory in the debates for all four candidates to fall over each other trying to be more pro Isreal than the other guys.

"Palestinians can blame generations of their leaders"

They certainly can blame them, and its deserved, but it wasn't entirely their fault that their homeland and in most cases homes were taken from beneath their feet, often under the threat of violence. If they'd had better leaders, better funding and better organization maybe they would have stopped it. It isn't isn't grow great leaders in the poverty and desperation of the west bank and refugee camps. Their young people are almost inevitably radicalized and desperate.

Israel's founders were undisputedly good at what they set out to do, unfortunately they did their share of killing innocents to achieve their ends too, Menachim Begin in particular, remember for example Deir Yassin.

Not sure of its authenticity but Albert Einstein among others apparently wrote to the New York Times in 1948 condemning Begin and the extremist party that founded Israel. Wish I had an authoritative reference and hope it just isn't fantasy that circulates the Net sometimes:

Letters to the New York Times
December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real c

"Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel"

I'm afraid Alan, being Orthodox Jewish, is more than a little biased. Here is one assault on his work, especially the extent to which he plagarized Peters, though Alex needs to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes.

For the other side you never hear, look for stuff by Ilan Pappe. He is Jewish and Israeli and it takes balls to be that and try to tell the Palestinian side of history, a lot more balls than it takes to be Dershowitz.

A problem is you will flat never hear the Palestinian side in the "West". They have no media voice. The Palestinian side is completely suppressed by governments, media and Jewish groups who start screaming "antisemitism" or "terrorism" at anything that isn't pro Israel, and it works. By contrast you will see a non stop pro Isreali spin in both media and government. It was obligatory in the debates for all four candidates to fall over each other trying to be more pro Isreal than the other guys.

"Palestinians can blame generations of their leaders"

They certainly can blame them, and its deserved, but it wasn't entirely their fault that their homeland and in most cases homes were taken from beneath their feet, often under the threat of violence. If they'd had better leaders, better funding and better organization maybe they would have stopped it. It isn't isn't grow great leaders in the poverty and desperation of the west bank and refugee camps. Their young people are almost inevitably radicalized and desperate.

Israel's founders were undisputedly good at what they set out to do, unfortunately they did their share of killing innocents to achieve their ends too, Menachim Begin in particular, remember for example Deir Yassin.

Not sure of its authenticity but Albert Einstein among others apparently wrote to the New York Times in 1948 condemning Begin and the extremist party that founded Israel. Wish I had an authoritative reference and hope it just isn't fantasy that circulates the Net sometimes:

Letters to the New York Times
December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real c

Nader was actually one of the first to demand a recount. On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Jay Leno got his witless jab in at Nader's recount call. But, ironically, this recount will end up being little more than an academic excercise if Kerry doesn't recant his premature concession.

Also ironic that the man (and, now, a party) who the Democrats spent so much time and money on in order to prevent appearance on the ballot are now those who ask for democracy in the form of counting all the ballots (and accounting for the ballots). Also, ironic that the Greens are so vocal in asking for this: Cobb's stumped for Kerry in contested states, yet the Democrats tried to keep Greens off the ballot as well this year. Meanwhile, in Illinois, the Democrats are changing the law to make sure the Republicans got their candidate on Illinois ballots.

I'm guessing that in 3 years this will all be forgotten and we'll see an unapologetic Democratic party ready to spread more lies and half-truths about their left-leaning competition (this time, the smear job included failing to point out the orders of magnitude more Republican financial support that went to the Kerry campaign versus the Nader campaign: $10.7 Million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader, according to Counterpunch). Ah, if only that time and money had gone to winning senate seats instead, the Democrats could have won back the senate.

Nader's campaign platform more closely matched what Democratic party voters wanted (most importantly, getting out of the occupation of Iraq). Yet Democrats lost with a combination of "lesser evil" and fearmongering.

What does the future for the Democrats hold? I think not much of interest for those who don't like corporate-funded good-cop/bad-cop: When Nader says

"You will know within a week whether there'll be a turn around in the Democratic Party. There'd have to be a complete turnover of personnel; a clean out of the stables."

I look at the Democrats and I look forward to seeing such action.

Nader was actually one of the first to demand a recount. On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Jay Leno got his witless jab in at Nader's recount call. But, ironically, this recount will end up being little more than an academic excercise if Kerry doesn't recant his premature concession.

Also ironic that the man (and, now, a party) who the Democrats spent so much time and money on in order to prevent appearance on the ballot are now those who ask for democracy in the form of counting all the ballots (and accounting for the ballots). Also, ironic that the Greens are so vocal in asking for this: Cobb's stumped for Kerry in contested states, yet the Democrats tried to keep Greens off the ballot as well this year. Meanwhile, in Illinois, the Democrats are changing the law to make sure the Republicans got their candidate on Illinois ballots.

I'm guessing that in 3 years this will all be forgotten and we'll see an unapologetic Democratic party ready to spread more lies and half-truths about their left-leaning competition (this time, the smear job included failing to point out the orders of magnitude more Republican financial support that went to the Kerry campaign versus the Nader campaign: $10.7 Million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader, according to Counterpunch). Ah, if only that time and money had gone to winning senate seats instead, the Democrats could have won back the senate.

Nader's campaign platform more closely matched what Democratic party voters wanted (most importantly, getting out of the occupation of Iraq). Yet Democrats lost with a combination of "lesser evil" and fearmongering.

What does the future for the Democrats hold? I think not much of interest for those who don't like corporate-funded good-cop/bad-cop: When Nader says

"You will know within a week whether there'll be a turn around in the Democratic Party. There'd have to be a complete turnover of personnel; a clean out of the stables."

I look at the Democrats and I look forward to seeing such action.

If you think it works read this report from a volunteer election monitor in Tampa. You will get an enchanting picture of the still endemic rascism and voter suppression, now Republican inspired, that is designed to disenfranchise minority voters and rig elections.

In her report an old white cracker, and assorted other apparently Republican poll workers do there best to discourage, con and intimidate minorities and people they visually brand as Democrats from voting. This racially inspired voter intimidation is as old as the hills, and used to be the specialty of Southern Democrats but it has since migrated to the Republican's, along with Southern white voters, since the mid 1960's and is a key reason the Republicans now own the south.

This observer was a black lady and an old white guy did everything he could to try to intimidate her in to leaving including physically body slamming her, because she was calling in potential violations of the law and intimidation efforts.

They tried to send con one hispanic, first time voter, in to leaving the precinct where he was supposed to vote and go to a precinct where he wasn't supposed to be and which would have been closed by the time he got there.

A black lady, ex felon who'd apparently gone to the great lengths necessary to have her voting rights reinstated, which Jeb Bush does for a handful of people each year, was put on a phone to Tallahassee and threatened with felony charges if she voted. She did anyway, in spite of the threats, since it was her right under Florida law.

How Beltway Democrats Sank Howard Dean

It was perfectly valid for Slashdot to point out the absence of Abu Ghirab photos in Google's image index, and to QUESTION if this was intentional censorship.

If anything, news sources viewed by large numbers of the public are too fearful in reporting stories that have any hint of conspiracy.

Understanding the world we live in, and the cause-effect relations between events, requires we form theories, and then test and modify these theories in the light of new evidence.

Sometimes the best theory is a conspiracy theory. You'll want some examples.

First, there are striking similarities between plans drawn up by a neo-conservative cabal in 1998, the events of 9/11, and America's subsequent invasion of Iraq. The story reported by ABC may have disappeared from the internet, but is still available from the internet archive . You can find tons of stories about this possible connection in the indy-media on the internet. Whether you buy it or not, I think it's worthwhile to keep this theory in mind, and evaluate its plausibility as new events either fit it or do not.

Secondly, it looks like there was systematic vote fraud in the 2004 election, in favor of the Republicans. This hasn't been reported by the mainstream media at all. Here is a summary and screenshots showing how the practice of "weighting" election exit poll data to match offical vote tallys changed the exit poll result in Ohio.

Conspiracy theories have been given an undeserved bad reputation. The term "conspiracy theorist" is being used in a campaign of name-calling to lower the discourse in public forums to the intellectual level of the nursery school playground. It is an attempt by powerful interest groups to keep the public uninformed.

Yep. Not only that, but Kerry doesn't exactly plan to end the war anytime soon--he basically wants to send more troops to Iraq now. He needs to prove he's a "strong" leader (out-Bush Bush and his cowboy act, basically) so he wants to "win" the war. Only real difference between Bush and Kerry is Kerry is a better salesman, a better liar.

The Counterpunch writers have a book, Not a Dime's Worth of Difference, that details exactly how similar Kerry and Bush are. The book is a collection of essays, many of which have been published on the website, also.

Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya.

Those allegations are not proven, but they are at least worth exploring in more depth, no?

Of course -- but to draw a parallel to our criminal justice system, "innocent until proven guilty". Acting based on no more than a hunch in this case has proven irresponsible. How many people have to die for a hunch? Are you willing to go and fight -- and possibly sacrifice your life based on a hunch?

You can't trust him, he's insulted our real allies ("coalition of the bribed" etc) and that's one lousy Presidentical candidate.

You can't hold Kerry to that standard if you don't hold Bush to it...remember the "Old Europe" statements? Furthermore, these people were (in essence) bribed. My friends who are veterans from this war in Iraq tell me that Polish soldiers are being paid double the American's pay. The American taxpayer foots that bill. If this isn't a coalition of the bribed, what is? This name that Kerry used was a play on Bush's Coalition of the Willing. We used political pressure and dollars to win over our coalition. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. Furthermore, you calling Kerry out for criticizing his opponent is pretty stupid. If he didn't criticize Bush, then he wouldn't be a candidate...he'd be Bush in some other guy's body. If we all towed the line, there would be no dissent, and this wouldn't be America. Are you telling me that you're afraid of Kerry because he may have hurt our allies feelings? You must be joking. Bush pissed all over our real allies and you don't seem to even notice.

the millions of Iraqis who are now free and far better off than they were before.

I am not hearing independant thought from you -- this is Bush rhetoric. Who is safer after this war? The Iraqi politicians who tried to make a positive change but were assassinated? The innocent people who are killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs? The United States after Al Qaeda has gained sympathy all over the world? The American soldiers who are dying every day in Iraq after our "catastrophic success"? This entire war was turned against us as a rallying call for terrorists, and unfortunately there are more terrorists in Iraq than ever, and there will be more terrorists in the United States.

The fact is that Saddam Hussein could have had his power marginalized by us. There were alternatives to war -- Bush just ignored them.

I'm not even sure what John Kerry wants to do as President, but based on the Democratic convention, I'd say his campaign has been based on lies and hypocracy from the start.

Again, you are not holding Kerry to the same standard that you hold Bush to. You are making assumptions that Kerry's campaign is based on lies. What ever happened to "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."? How can you possibly assume that Kerry is lying and then conveniently ignore the constant barrage of misinformation from the Bush administration? Remember, this was all about WMD. There was no mention of Saddam Hussein's stipends to the families of Hammas terrorists leading up to the war. It was 100% about a material breach of the UN sanctions and a "smoking gun". Do you remember the 3D renderings of the mobile chemical weapons trucks that Colin Powell showed to the UN that we were so sure Iraq had? Do you remember how Bush changed his tune right away to some mystical link to Al Qaeda? Do you remember how he changed his tune again to liberating a people from the clutches of a horrible dictator?

These real "lies" (call it misleading information if you're more confortable with that) are a whole lot worse than the lies that you are accusing Kerry of because you haven't read his website. These are about as provable as Michael Moore'

Are you not aware, for example, that Bush completely blew Clinton's surplus and his balanced budget, the first time the budget was balanced for thirty years, and your supposedly conservative president just threw it away for a cheap political stunt, that tax cut you're so enamored of?

Or that No Child Left Behind is mind-boggingly underfunded and ineffective?

Or that Bush lies? Like, never tells the truth? Ever? Like, not once?

Do you choose not to believe this information, or have you just not heard about it?

And I'm just touching on a few of the more minor issues with Bush and his administration. Let's not even mention the total fuckup in Iraq, which surely you can't be as ignorant about as you claim. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you're not voting for Bush. You have no idea why you shouldn't vote for Bush. You're either not interested enough to educate yourself properly on the issues, or you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican pretending to be independent to convince others that Dubya is truly god, as he himself believes. If you're the former, get a clue and turn off CNN (the Convservative News Network) and Faux News. If you're the latter, then just fuck off.

Actually, right now the Republican party _has_ been pulled to the center.
Premptive war, tax cuts and increased military spending despite a huge deficit, rollbacks on civil liberties, ever-increasing influence for religious fundementalists... if this is the center than God help us all.

the democrats have been nearly entirely taken over by the radical left
You have to be joking.
Take some time to read what's going on in the radical left - here and here are good places to start (BTW - when I checked the counterpunch link, the headline was "The Democratic Party: an Advanced State of Decay"). The big rift going on with those people right now is whether or not voters should back Kerry in swing states so Bush doesn't get elected - all under the pretense that Kerry is horrible and any sane person would rather vote for Nader or the Green Party. The assumption is that Bush = Kerry = Capitalist Pigs.
At any rate, the plans of the Democratic Party do not coincide with the radical left AT ALL. These absurd proclamations that Marxists, hippies and Anarchists are secretly running the Democratic agenda are baseless. The Democratic Party is run by the DNC, which is a centrist, business-oriented group. Which is why we have John Kerry running for president instead of Howard Dean.

It's a perfectly natural reaction for anyone to look at "the other side" and see their exremists as behind everything that goes on. A good example of this is the situation in Israel. Lots of leftists think that the radical settlers control the government - while in reality they are talking about assasinating Sharon because they feel he is giving too much to the Palestinians. Or the Red Scare in the US, when McCarthy had congress and the public convinced that die-hard communists were behind every labor movement and human rights group. While expansionist settlers do help shape Israeli policy, and some labor organizers were communists, radicals do not run the world.

I thought I recalled that a couple of weeks ago there were congressional hearings on it, and a federal investigation led by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Just because you haven't been keeping up on the case doesn't mean nothing's happening.

The investigation you refer to began almost a year ago. It is not an independent investigation. The call to save evidence in the case began days after the scandal first broke allowing time to destroy evidence. So far we still don't know exactly who should be brought to justice for first leaking the information. I have a hard time believing an independent investigation will materialize any time soon but by now so much time has passed I would wonder how effective one could be.

Months ago there were follow-ups to hearings on rapes within the military. C-SPAN covered the hearings and in so doing brought some public attention to the issue. This awareness did not stop the rapes nor institute policy that will lead to institutional change. As a result of no clear leadership change or change in policy which places rapists on trial and brings them to justice regardless of rank, I think it's safe to say that rapes will continue to occur within the US military.

The June 2003 FCC meeting (where the FCC voted to further loosen media ownership caps) was publicized. A broad spectrum of political groups followed the issue and the FCC received more feedback than ever before (virtually all opposing raising the caps). A court sent the FCC's ruling back to them for revisions but public's focus on this issue has largely evaporated. Some corporate media outlets still operate in violation of the current limit on media ownership.

Big public hearings don't in themselves mean that the underlying system is changing. Sometimes the hearings give the impression of change where no significant change occurs.

-FL

Some of the lies which helped beat the drums of war came from the New York Times and Judith Miller. In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press", Vice President Cheney referred to the Times' coverage while spreading his own lies to justify the war. The New York Times is quite an influential newspaper; it has been known to set the agenda for other media. The Times fired Jayson Blair for his repeated lies about far less consequential things. The Times printed a multi-page expose detailing Blair's lies. When it came to their coverage on the invasion of Iraq, The Times has issued a semi-apology to the public that never mentions Miller by name. Amy and David Goodman took the Times to task for the lack of coverage of and appropriate apology for what they call the Times' lowest point in its 152-year history. Miller, however, continues to work at the Times.

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

See this book on page 405 for the beginning of a description of the conflicts of interest and government corruption of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

For the corruption caused by the Bush family in general, see the many descriptions starting on page 397 and continuing throughout chapter 20 to page 428. "A glimpse into the business dealings of the Bush family shows that they acquired their wealth through the intermingling of public policy and private interests." This is Ms. Kelley's overly polite way of saying the Bush family sells the U.S. government to whoever will pay the most.

It's crazy to say the honest President Carter is partisan. It's really, really crazy to defend Jeb Bush.

I knew already, from reading about it for many years, that the Bush family was heavily involved with the Saudi Arabians most disliked by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden says the Bush family's (now former) business associates are preventing needed changes in Saudi Arabia. I knew George W. Bush's father attended a meeting with a brother of Osama bin Laden on the day before 9/11. I don't accept Osama bin Laden's violence; I think his ideas for the future of Saudi Arabia are not sensible and not achievable. However, his ideas and the ideas of many Arabs that the U.S. government is supporting corruption in Saudi Arabia seem correct. This corruption has been encouraged by George W. Bush's father.

What I didn't remember was that Neil Bush was involved in business with Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley, Jr., who almost killed President Reagan. Had Reagan died, George H.W. Bush would have become president. Scott Hinckley had "given a lot of money to the Bush family". (See page 384.)

Also, I didn't realize that the Air National Guard began drug testing for cocaine on the same month that George W. Bush dropped out of the Guard. (Page 301.) Alcoholics use cocaine because it helps them drink more, I'm told by an alcoholic friend.

Aside the from the known corruption, there are literally hundreds of coincidences and associations like this where there was a Bush family involvement, and then something bad happened to the United States. For other short descriptions of the widespread corruption, see the reviews of 3 movies and 35 other books that say the same things as the book linked above.

Many Americans, like the person who posted the parent comment, have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt. There is so much corruption that one Slashdot comment cannot even begin to describe it.

Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

The corruption is exactly what you would expect with dry drunks in charge. (It is more polite to call them "non-drinking alcholics".)

Other Bush family members have been arrested also. How does your family compare to the Bush family?

--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.

Is this, then, official U.S. government policy, and the law of the land? Can anyone who doesn't like his neighbor and thinks his neighbor may become a threat in the future solve his problem by killing the neighbor?

Or, is this just the typical thinking of dry drunks?

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush

I don't think I have much to add beyond this since I feel the issue is interesting but overall, not very relavent.

For those who haven't followed this: The Green party is divided into two factions, the "realos" (also called the Demogreens) and the "fundis". The realos are who nominated Cobb. You can read about it in several places including the Counterpunch article "Rigged Convention; Divided Party - How David Cobb Became the Green Nominee Even Though He Only Got 12 Percent of the Votes". The fundis want to build our party and win elections, the realo/Demogreens are more concerned about the Democrats winning than the Greens. Cobb is a realo/Demogreen.

The article makes the very good point that the states where there is a large green base and where voters actually voted in the primaries (California, Massachusetts, Washington DC), Camejo (who is a Green "fundi", and is now running as Nader's VP) got 72.7% of the vote. Cobb only got 12.2% of the vote. Nonetheless, in the Green version of the electoral college, Cobb managed to win due to delegates from states like Iowa voting for him. Iowa has 90 registered Greens and had 9 delegates to the Green convention - 1 delegate for every 10 Greens! California had 132 delegates for the over 150,000 registered Greens in California. So in the case of California, 1 delegate represented over 1,000 Greens. This sort of thing is how someone who got 12.2% of the vote (from Demogreens) versus 72.7% of the vote (fundis) nevertheless won the election.

Cobb's candidacy has probably destroyed the Green party which is probably what the Demogreens wanted anyway. Anyhow, in some ways I am not sad to see it go because the Greens are a little too hippy-dippy granola and Birkenstocks anyhow. Nader attracted me to the Greens (even though he was never a Green party member) because he talked about things I care about like repealing Taft-Hartley and so forth which the DLC Democrats never talk about any more. 70% of white men in the US voted Republican in 2000, which tells you how far these DLC Democrats have drifted from the working class roots it had on some level in the early 20th century. Now they are all for NAFTA, screwing workers and so forth just like the Republicans, they're just for gay marriage, abortion and things conservative Christians in rural areas are against.

The only solution for change I see is to do what happened in England a century ago - for militant rank-and-file run unions to be formed, and, if they find it strategically wise to do so, to form a Labor party like they did in England. It might not even be strategically wise to do so, but it would beat backing the Democrats if they were going to get into the electoral game.

So my question goes back to what I was saying earlier: do you feel you are a legitimate Green candidate if most of the Greens in the country prefer Nader and Camejo to yourself? In many ways your election was like Bush's, except the majority vote went way against you instead of by a few percent.

the Green Party and your candidacy in particular has been accused of being dominated by Democratic Party insiders who seek to undermine Nader's campaign using un-democratic methods.

A well-researched example of this is Marnie Glickman, one of the three members of the Green Party's National Co-ordinating Committee, who has a history as a committed and succesful (over $10 million) Democratic Party fundraiser.

The article referenced above concludes:

The upshot is not a single incumbent Oregon Democrat member of Congress has any possibility of the PGP [*] impacting their reelection. Add in Cobb's current polling at 0% and some might say "Mission Accomplished."

Given that your campaign would appear to have a number of recent "ex Democratic Party" activists and that your campaign seems mainly to have served to attack Nader's candidacy do you feel that you've been played for a patsy by more experienced politicos?

* PGP = Pacific Green Party

Not only is he taking in tons of money from the Republican Party, and letting them run ads for him, knowing full well that they are using him to as a tool against the Dems., but now he is running on the freaking Reform platform to get on the ticket after the Greens dropped him.

Read Counterpunch articles on Ralph Nader. They've recently published articles on these issues and frame the debate in a more balanced way by examining where the Democrats and Republicans are getting their money from (as well as differentiating between what individual citizens do versus what political parties do, and looking at how much money was collected from various sources for Nader and the two dominant parties), and recognizing that you can't control who runs ads criticizing you or your opponents, as well as examining how the Greens came to arrive at their nomination of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche over Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.

How anyone can imagine Nader to be a progressive while he is cozying up with a the party of a racist neanderthal like Pat Buchanan is beyond me.

Not that I'm saying you're an Anyone But Bush supporter (which I don't know if you are), but I would think this is something the ABB crowd could appreciate (and this is taking your critique at face value) -- swallowing something bad for a greater good. I don't think most Democratic Party voters actually like Kerry; the delegates disagree with him on some major points of policy, but they plan to vote for him to get Bush out of office. Similarly, if you believe Reform Party endorsement to be bad, consider that Reform Party endorsement gets Nader/Camejo on the ballot in some states and that means a lot when one is trying to push for democratic (small-d) electoral reforms as Nader/Camejo clearly are. I'm sure Nader realizes more than anyone posting to this website what immense barriers his campaign faces and how slim his chances are of winning. He wrote a book about the need for structural electoral reform a few years ago called "Crashing the Party" when he was endorsed by the Green Party. But we shouldn't push out people who have such a fight ahead of them. Not only would that have denied some victories (like Jesse Ventura's in Minnesota) but it would say that democracy is only for the two parties who already have a lock on the system.

The fact that you consider the New Republic left-of-center speaks volumes about your politics. Most Democrats (rank-and-filers, not idiot DNC consultants) can't stand TNR's foreign policy.

Conservatives: please do not take the New Republic as representative of left-of-center views. It is not.

For your left wing fix, consider Counterpunch. For something moderate, take a look at The Nation or the columnists for Salon.

PS Any slashdot story that includes the word "Bush" (notwithstanding those discussing plantlife) is flamebait and should probably go on flamebait central.

I truthfully don't know the whole story either

The people doing this are almost certainly not supporters of the "Democrats". If you read their own post then you'll see the following statement:

There is good reason behind this sentiment. Kerry is on his own admission pro-War, pro-tax cuts, anti-gay marriage. He's a fellow Skull&Bones member like George W. Bush. Basically he's a right-wing candidate wearing the friendly clown-face as opposed to G.W.B. who wears the sad clown face.

I can't possibly sum up the disgusting history of the Democratic Party (and hence the hypocrisy, blindness and ignorance of anyone that posits them as an alternative to the Republicans), but if you're actually interested (instead of wanting a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchange) then I recommend reading _Dime's Worth of Difference_ by Jeffrey St.Clair and Alexander Cockburn. Here are a couple of tastes of it.

By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!