Slashdot Mirror

"But wait", I hear you say, "Has anyone considered that creating artificial black holes might not be the best idea?" The idea of creating black holes in the laboratory has to give one pause. I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC...

You mean Westernize them like this: ""One story is of a young girl who is 16 years old," he says of one of the testimonies he video taped recently, "She stayed for three days with the bodies of her family who were killed in their home. When the soldiers entered she was in her home with her father, mother, 12 year-old brother and two sisters. She watched the soldiers enter and shoot her mother and father directly, without saying anything."

The girl managed to hide behind the refrigerator with her brother and witnessed the war crimes first-hand.

"They beat her two sisters, then shot them in the head," he said. After this her brother was enraged and ran at the soldiers while shouting at them, so they shot him dead. "??

There's more, a lot more, here. I'm not sure that we are creating many friends in Iraq or anywhere in the Mideast, except Israel. Polls of Iraqis show the overwhelming majority want us gone, now or in the very near future. But the US Army is not planning to leave anytime soon.

To say nothing of Abu Graib, etc.

So tell me again--how are we helping them, exactly?

it had significant volcanic activity a long time ago, as evidenced by Olympus Mons, but none that we've ever detected going on now or in the recent past

Actually, lava flowed on the surface of mars as recently as 4 million years ago. That is the "recent past".

I'll give you the word "threat". However, let's talk about the level of "threat". Was it severe, dire, imminent (which would have warranted an immediate military strike)? Absolutely not, and the actual reporting that Bush saw (not the heavily-doctored stuff that Rumsfeld's illegal Pentagon espionage office produced) was FAR from concrete in terminology and opinion regarding the existence of WMDs in Iraq past 1995.

The level of threat which existed was that Saddam, left unchecked, would undoubtedly reconstitute his weapons programs and use them to exert his influence throughout the Middle East (thereby lending a destabilizing effect on the region). It was necessary to recognize this threat in order to keep international political and economic sanctions going against Saddam until he submitted to verifiable dismantling of his WMD stocks and programs.

I'll reiterate that only BushCo told us that they knew what, how much, and exactly where all these materials were. It turns out that they were wrong about everything they claimed as a justification for this war.

I find it especially curious now, after having engaged in unilateral invasion and occupation based on intelligence which has been unequivocally proven vague, that the Bush Administration would now soft-peddle an outright admission of having WMDs (in the form of nuclear weapons), while still putting intense pressure on Iran where the level of doubt is much higher.

That said, I'll apologize for the name calling and insults. However, it is very tiring to constantly see people trying to use those out-of-context quotes as though they somehow rose to the level of justifying Bush's illegal and immoral actions in Iraq (and inside the US, for that matter).

And actually even the claim that Saddam gassed his own people in the 80s has been disputed.

Jude Wanniski (whose website you linked to), is quite alone in denying that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. Slate has a good article that discusses the issue. Besides, several of his claims are clearly false:

To begin with there were never any victims produced.

A quick Google image search for Halabja belies that claim. There are numerous photos of the immediate after-effects of the attack. More recently, there was a study to investigate the long term effects of the chemical exposure. The victims of the attack suffer from high rates of respiratory problems, cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and skin and eye problems. Maybe part of the reason he claims victims can't be found is because they're some of the 300,000 bodies discovered in mass graves.

The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The reports of the chemical bombing were not just from Kurds who crossed into Turkey. Some of the pictures linked above were from journalists flown in from Tehran the next day.

Wanniski even mentions the oft repeated myth: that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. According to this article from the Christian Science Monitor, that myth has been debunked by no less than Iraq's former Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz.

It may well have been Iran, and in either case it happened on a battlefield.

It is highly doubtful Iran was behind the attack. In the first place, their troops and allies were the ones attacked (see here). Secondly, there is no evidence of Iranian use of the type of chemicals at Halabja (see here).

In addition, although chemical weapons were used multiple times in the Iran-Iraq war, the reason the Halabja attack sticks out is precisely because it was not a battlefield. At the time, Halabja was a city with a population of about 80,000 which had just recently came under control of Iran and their Kurdish allies. Many of the approximately 5000 victims of that particluar attack were civilians. Most of the published photos were of women and children killed, for the simple reason that news media thrives on sensationalism.

We've managed to kill 100,000 civilians with our advanced "smart" bombs - is it surprising that primitive mortars would kill 5,000?

First, the claim of 100,000 dead is based on an extrapolation from a survey. I'd take the 100,000 figure with a grain of salt until a more extensive survey is done. There is a Slate article that dissects their methodology. A reliable number of civilians deaths reported can be found at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website. As of Feb 10, 2005, they count less than 18,000 civilians reported killed.

Second, most of the deaths are not from our precision guided munitions, the so-called "smart bombs." In fact, most of them

since some of you can't seem to read (or did not bother to follow the link to the article):

After the trust fund is empty, payroll tax revenue would cover 73 percent to 81 percent of benefits, according to estimates from both Social Security and the CBO.

i.e.: despite bush's lies to the contrary, the choice isn't between his asinine plan and total failure. it's between his asinine plan and a 19% to 26% reduction in benefits IF NOTHING AT ALL is done. and since this problem is at LEAST 40ish years off, i think it's very god damned likely something less asinine would be found by then.

not that it matters. obviously there are enough boneheads that his lies and scare tactics will work. just don't blame me for the scores of seniors who will living in the street and eating garbage. not everyone is a member of the middle class and above, and thus do not have the "disposable income" to invest in the stock market, even if it managed not to crash one or more times before they retire.

on the subject of budgeting, i'll avoid getting into the "was the surplus real or not" debate, and point this out instead: under Clinton, the deficit (not the debt) was reduced to ZERO (click the link). bush has recreated it and pushed it to new heights, such as 2004's record $412 billion (click the link).

i'll address the following directly:

trb001: He backed the marriage amendment when it was voted on DURING his reelection campaign. To say "now that the election is over..." is disingenuous and ignorant of (recent) history.

while bush is a skillful liar, and your statement is technically true, it is mostly false. i present the following quote (and link):

When the interviewer asked the President about this direct contradiction to Republican Party policy documents, the President smiled again, licked his lips and said he'd always supported full equal rights for same sex couples.

given the above, and numerous other instances of his doubletalk during the campaign, i think it's much more accurate to say HE is the one being "disingenuous" and YOU "ignorant of (recent) history".

bush is a utter poo-poo head, as are his ignorant and rather pathetic supporters. please bother to LEARN THE FACTS before you endorse this moron. oh wait, too late.

Agreed--for the most part. Corporations can and do use their money for lobbying, ensuring that legislators pass laws favorable to corporations. It's the same people within corporations that dream up these tax evasion schemes who are also among the highest paid employees. If corporations' profit was more evenly distributed, and everyone who received compensation paid taxes on that, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. But I believe any money a corporation uses to line the pockets of a lobbyist could be spent better, to actually get something useful done.

I agree the whole situation is not simple, but right now corporations have managed to almost completely avoid paying ANY taxes. It only took me a second to find this:

Corporations will pay about $136 billion in federal taxes this fiscal year. But, according to a study by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), a Washington research group, tax loopholes will save them $171 billion.

I'm not sure you want corporations to be taxed based on gross income as opposed to profit.

I never said that's what I wanted--just that there is a huge discrepancy between the wage tax that ordinary people have to pay (no deductions for life expenses, including food, medicine, rent) and the profit tax that corporations pay. What would be more fair would be similar deductions for wage earners, NOT gross income tax for corporations.

Here.

The Christian Science Monitor, which is a non-partisan newspaper I like to read online sometimes

Off-topic, I know... Anyway,
The Christian Science Monitor is published by a church called Christian Science, which can be categorized under "New Religious Movements". I wouldn't quote a source like that, because I don't know about their values, what they believe in and their agendas. And just because you say that it's non-partisan doesn't make it so. It may be, or it may not be.

Now there's definitely not a 1:1 match on any of those, but it makes you think about the "shades of gray" argument....

The Christian Science Monitor, which is a non-partisan newspaper I like to read online sometimes, wrote an article about Tiananmen Square. How many students were killed, run over by tanks, and otherwise butchered? The answer: We don't know. In fact, evidence is starting to show that no students were killed in the square at all. When there's no foreign reporters around, and the government is the only one that's talking, it is indeed dramatic misportrayal of the facts that tends to take over. That said, estimates of fatalities outside the square range vary, but it was *after* the peaceful protest left the square.

Secondly, I listen to WMBI, which is decidedly right-leaning. Yet, on one of their programs, one of the church leaders in Bejing reported that the government was not stifling state-allowed religions... in fact, the government was very much hands-off. (As Christianity is the fastest-growing religion in China, it may not be coincedence.) It was a different voice from the now-familiar persecution of believers in China, although, once again, that type of persecution was reported to have gone on in the rural areas -- it just wasn't as widespread as most Americans would believe.

I very much appreciate these examples as a welcomed, different view into what China is actually like versus what everyone says it's like.

What determines a society's fate, Diamond concludes, is how well its leaders and citizens anticipate problems before they become crises, and how decisively a society responds. Such factors may seem obvious, yet Diamond marshals overwhelming evidence of the short-sightedness, selfishness, and fractiousness of many otherwise robust cultures. He reveals that many leaders were (and are) so absorbed with their own pursuit of power that they lost sight of festering systemic problems.

Tell that to the Texas parks department. Also to the hundreds of coffee shops and other businesses that provide free wireless internet access to their customers.

Lots of them, here and here.

The 12% number is off, but the 25% number is correct. The US does have the largest prison population in the world, both as an absolute number and in percentage terms. More than China and Russia, and 5 to 8 times the rates of Canada and Western European countries. And a lot of people are there for nonviolent drug offenses, including this 25-year-old who's going to be in prison until age 81, with no chance of parole.

I wish this insanity would stop, although I don't hold out much hope at the rate things are going.

Remember, kids, it's all about being tough on crime. If, for some inexplicable reason, crime continues to exist--you're simply not being tough enough. Throw more people in prison; make the sentences longer to keep 'em there. To hell with reform; make sentences punitive and harsh for the sake of scaring people straight. It'll work eventually, right?

1 out of 37 Americans have served time in prison. Our incarceration rates continue to skyrocket. How much more will it take for people to throw their hands in the air and say "Enough!"?

I know you would like to pretend I said we shouldnt build any weapons because thats better for your argument but in fact my point is that lots of the weapons systems in development are pork barrel. Useless unnecessary spending with no usable outcome. My decision to not be a part of it has to do with my political slant which would result in less DOD funding and also the fact that our DOD has caused the deaths of more innocent civilians than Saddam.

Here is the analysis I was talking about. I'm familiar with the claims that your are talking about on the theoretical inability of a politically unified middle east under leadership hostile to US elites, the first folks I heard talk about that was George Stigler and some colleagues at U of Chicago. What those folks tend to miss is the short term _military_ implications of that type of situation. Long term, they can't affect price much-if nothing else because alternative technologies get developed. Short term, they can cause extreme dislocation in Western economies-at serious financial costs to themselves.

Your race claim is a _low_ blow. The US has among the open immigration policy in the world. I fail to see how expropriating assets of businesses and wealthy individuals that have profited from illegal immigration--and using that revenue to facilitate repatriation is a "racist" policy. I _do_ think that NAFTA was racist--and the current practice of illegal immigration in the US has some important aspects of racism(i.e. since illegals can't vote, certain white voters get a boost in representation).

And that big Tour Eiffel thing; the Danish built that, right? And this this silly thing. Yes, obviously the French know nothing of engineering.

Since the 1950s, eminent domain for private benefit has been legal in the USA.

There's still good journalism in America, but you have to read it, not watch it:

The New York Times is widely derided for having a "liberal bias," but there is still no paper in the US that covers as much of what is going on in the world today and presents as wide a range of intelligent and interesting commentary. The print edition is jam-packed with info, and while people complain about the fact that you have to register to get free news from NYT online, it's more than worth the money. ;-)

The Christian Science Monitor, despite the name is a scrupulously independent voice. Their print version is formatted not to bring you every ounce of news, but to pick and choose stories of interest from around the world. CSM doesn't focus on immediacy, which is quite refreshing in the era of instant news stories without any meat.

The Wall Street Journal takes flak because it represents the voice of The Man, but if you recognize that the Journal's bias is in favor of the capitalist marketplace, it's an excellent source of information. The reporting is solid and the range of coverage is impressive.

Getting back to the theme of going beyond knee-jerk immediacy, there are several excellent weekly and monthly magazines available in the states. I'm partial to The Economist, which is not published in the States, and so provides much more coverage of the rest off the world. I happen to agree with most of their editorial bias, but I sometimes disagree with it. One of the nice things about the Economist is that they state their views in a way that allows you to separate the facts from their views.

I'm also partial to The Atlantic, a monthly magazine that explores a wide range of issues. Their coverage of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq has been superb for its depth, range of viewpoints, and clarity.

There are plenty of other great news sources in the United States. I merely listed some of my favorites. My point is that if you expect the television to provide you with serious news coverage, you'll continue to be disappointed. If you take the time to sift through a few print publications, you may be amazed at what's out there.

Now this spyware issue, the banning ceremonial swords and toy guns, crime rates rising, and the security camera epidemic. How much freedom are the citizens of these countries willing to give up?

"It's a real newspaper published by a church -- The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Mass., USA.... let's be clear: The Christian Science church doesn't publish news to propagate denominational doctrine; it provides news purely as a public service. Here's why: If the basic theology of that church says that what reaches and affects thought shapes experience, it follows that a newspaper would have significant impact on the lives of those who read it.

A newspaper whose motive is "to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," as its founder charged, would have a "leavening" effect on society, as well as on individual lives -- to use a metaphor Eddy herself appreciated and used. The idea is that the unblemished truth is freeing (as a fundamental human right); with it, citizens can make informed decisions and take intelligent action, for themselves and for society."

On a side note, I've just read throught the comments and I'm amazed at the number people that have made comments showing that they know no science... did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?

It is a publication of the Christian Science movement. Here's a link to the group (or at least to a church affiliated with them). The Christian Science Monitor can be found at this link, but they certainly are not exclusively devoted to Christian Science, and indeed often have articles of good value on many aspects of the world, society, technology and life in general.

Note that I am not a Christian Scientist myself. I can assure you though that the Christian Science Monitor is not published by the Vatican or the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury :)

Linked at the bottom of the article. Or does nobody actually read the articles?

Interesting...

It's not a theological magazine, it's an actual newspaper. The have World/US/Science/etc news.

http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor .html

You should probably do a little research before jumping to such conclusions.

1. The CS Monitor is merely reporting the story and obviously had no part in creating it because...

2. It is a newspaper. One of the finest in the US if not the world.

Check it out.

• Here's a list of technical I put together on Bhopal at my site, listed in my sig. These are very deadly chemicals with effects that linger on and on and on and on...you know Union Carbide became the EverReady before Dow bought them...

  New Exportation of Risk: The Case of Bhopal

• New Bhopal Papers V. Ramana Dhara at Emory University is a nice cource of technical papers including health effects, epidemiology, toxicology and respiratory effects.

• New Chemical Accidents, CHEMICAL SAFETY & SECURITY Environmental Health Watch. A comprehensive page of articles on chemical safety, security and implications since the Bhopal tragedy.

• Toxicological Profiles for Key Pollutants in Bhopal

• The Disaster and Its aftermath: The Hiroshima of the Chemical Industry "Indeed those who died may have been the lucky ones......" Ward Morehouse.

• A child is born... Site not recommended for children.

• Growth Patterns Journal of the American Medical Association (pdf format)

• The $195 Million Discrepancy - Where's The Money Gone?

• Bhopal gas tragedy lives on, 20 years later

• Personal Exposure and Long-Term Health Effects in Survivors of the Union Carbide Disaster at Bhopal

• Lessons Learned? Chemical Plant Safety Since Bhopal

• Chemical Process Safety at a Crossroads

Friday Dec.3rd marks the 20th anniversary of the tragedy in Bhopal, India. Unfortunately, the Bhopal disaster has never ended. It remains one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of the century.

More than half a million people were exposed to the deadly MIC gases on the night of the accident, 120,000 so badly that they've been left with permanent and debilitating health effects. Blindness, extreme difficulty in breathing, and cancer are common after effects of exposure, and gynecological problems are also rampant. Some women are still waiting for their first period at the age of twenty, while others have as many as four or five per month. Brain damage and birth defects are also common. The after effects of gas exposure have extended to the second and third generations, and few of the victims have access to adequate medical treatment.

The people of Bhopal have endured unimaginable pain and suffering, and will continue to do so until the site is cleaned up (Union Carbide simply packed up and left the site as it was) and is now after 20 years, the chemicals are contaminating local water supplies. Students and other organizations are joining together in the struggle for Bhopal, one of the most beautiful areas of India. I have collected over 200 links to information on the Bhopal tragedy including local actions on the 20th anniversary, humor, Dow/Union Carbide statements, activist groups, news, book reviews, petitions, timelines, photos and videos, case studies and technical papers.

Please visit my site at...

20th Anniversary of Bhopal, India tragedy on December 2/3. 1984

Thanks for your time,

also aswell

Here's a previous slashdot story the Yesmen vs. Dow, Dow vs. Parody.

PS this post was rejected two days ago

this article is based solely on europe - its projections are vague at best: mainly, one would deduce, due to the fact that it only seems to cite data from 2003. perhaps it's intended to be alarmist by citing the human death factor, for the average joe who doesnt keep at all abreast of such issues - but other recent data, namely, the mauna loa anomaly and the international arctic science committee's report, appear to harbor much more catastrophic potentiality.

mauna loa is the big one to watch - with 2 years (some would argue even 1), we should know whether or not the major 2 year co2 increase is a fluke - or if it's a sign of runaway global warming (which many say we're technically in now, but accelerated to varying degrees depending on the source). this could trigger methane hydrate deposits to break free from river and seabeds by warming said bodies of water - and then, we're in anything from some really hot water (har) to aworld of shit. (note: latter link is distant future, but theoretically possible)

Um, why don't you look at the web site? The Christian Science Monitor is basically a normal newpaper with only one religious article in each issue. It was founded in 1908 and is published by the First Christ of Christ, Scientist as a public service thing. Check out their FAQ

Can I take the opportunity to point out that faxyourmp is for UK citizens ONLY and should only be used to fax your own MP. It is not for international write-ins or mass lobbying.

Why? If British people can be encouraged to interfere with the American political process, then why can't Americans do the same to the Brits?

One could argue that spreading freedom and democracy is in our national interests, so our viewpoints are not as incompatible as you might think. After all, other countries that more or less subscribe to "our" way of governing and recognizing freedom are far less likely to be threats to us as compared to, say, hard-line theocracies like the former Taliban.

The primary distinction between our viewpoints, I suspect, is that you subscribe more to an ends-justify-the-means philosophy than I do. While there is some appeal to me for the pragmatism of that position, I feel that it's a very slippery slope to go down. Again, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, the administration may have honestly believed in an imminent threat to our national security.

What bothers me is that even now in the face of evidence refuting the claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq, our president and his team continue to gloss over the annoying details that don't fit their worldview. I feel strongly that there was some serious spin happening in the leadup to the war, and it persisted as the war progressed.

To what do you attribute the fact that so many Americans believe(d) that there was a concrete link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Stupidity? Irresponsible journalism? I think it has a lot to do with certain key statements made by members of Bush's team.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06 -poll-iraq_x.htm
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic le_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm l
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/tim e.iraq/

Those are just some of the top hits I got for a quick google search for "americans believe link saddam al qaeda".

My problem is that I feel that we the people were misled. If the case for war was so compelling, why did the Bush team need to gin up the rationalizations they've been using? It just doesn't pass the sniff test. We didn't see this level of questioning and divisiveness when we invaded Afghanistan. There was a clear threat in that case, and besides, they weren't an internationally recognized sovereign state (recognition by a handful of Arab countries notwithstanding).

Whatever. We're committed for at least the next four years. My unhappiness with the current state of affairs doesn't matter now. Unless I want to take up arms and try to start a revolution, I'm just going to have to sit tight and hope for the best.

Someone has to pay up and they figure it'll be you.

No-one ever said there was a connection between the two despite what Michael Moore would have you believe.

As for 9/11 being the cause of the Iraq war, I won't deny that.

WTF? There's no connection but I'm right anyway? I don't care who claimed what if what I say is the truth. Besides, This is an example of the kind of crap that was coming out of the administration during the run-up to the war. You're right that nobody ever made an explicit connection, but they sure implied it as often as possible. And it worked, too, with almost half the country believing that Saddam Hussein was in some way responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

This article sums it up nicely.

Unfortunately we didn't know the intel was bad until after

You should have. After all, Condi Rice dropped the ball on the Bin laden memo. Seems like a clear indication that something was rotten in Denmark.

Saddam was sending conflicting signals.

The only conflicting signals I was hearing were between Hans Blix and the Administration. I've also never understood the whole WMD rationale. Even if Saddam had what intel said he had, shouldn't Pyonyang be a smoking crater now too? I mean, if you're going to infringe other countries' version of the 2nd amendment, why not start with the big boys and work your way down?

He had violated the terms of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War and numerous U.N. resolutions.

Jesus, not that old chestnut again. Israel's broken more resolutions than everyone else combined and they haven't had so much as a slap on the wrist.

See, shit like this, not being consistent, is what makes this President the world's laughingstock. I find it highly ironic that he's seen as a "steady" leader by his electorate.

I've never read a Tom Clancy novel, though I do admit I enjoyed the Clancy movies with Harrison Ford.

Lucky you. His early stuff was good, but then he disappeared up his own arse. Oh and Harrison Ford is not Jack Ryan. Damn you Alec Baldwin for being so greedy!

Where was I? Oh yes...

But what is so sick about what I said?

Anybody who espouses an honest-to-god "better them than me" attitude will always get my contempt. Like I said, we don't live in caves, we've evolved. Maybe your ideas should too.

It's called hitting them at home while they're on the other side of the world rather than waiting for them to come here. Completely logical and strategically sound.

Those that call things like Iraq "pre-emptive war" are not being entirely honest. It's a proactive response to terrorism. We don't wait for them to attack us, we take the fight to them. And based on the amount of insurgents/terrorists in Iraq it looks like we hit the bullseye.

Thanks, this actually mad me laugh out loud. You do realize that the terrorists are there because we're there, right? If Bush had really wanted to hit the Bullseye, he would have hit Saudi and finsihed the job in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq. Please tell me you don't honestly believe what you just wrote, you sound like a smart guy.

I'd be interested in what you were in the minority on and were later proved right on?

I dunno...I correctly predicted, a year ago, that Bush would win re-election and by a healthy-but-short-of-a-landslide margin.

Actually, I have to admit being wrong on one thing. I am highly surprised that no WMD's were found in Iraq, if for no other reason that they had been planted there by the US. Gotta say I didn't see that one coming.

PATRIOT is legislated intrusion into your privacy, but it's not just the government that you have to worry about abusing this newly created power.

"...has NEVER ONCE himself tied Saddam or Iraq to 9/11..."

Exactly in the same vein as Michael Moore can defend every fact in his "documentary". He's done everything but actually put the words together in the same sentence.

First hit on Google:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm l

Unless you're hiding under a rock, you know exactly what I'm talking about here.

Over at the CSMonitor they have a nice page that has links to different sites like The Times of London and the New York Times and their takes on this story.

Find the coverage here.

Boy, I tell ya, I feel safe now, since Ontario considered allowing Sharia Law for settling some civil disputes between muslims. I have not followed the story closely, so I don't know if it turned out to be anything more than a proposal, but I am sure there will be a conflict between Sharia and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms

damned cold here in germany.

can't say much else. wish someone would send me some good moviez sites or something, that'd make the cold and grey go away for an hour or two.

NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

We don't have a 'winner takes all' system. You must be in that 99%!

Florida should be able to split its votes, as only Maine and Nebraska can now.

The flaw, however, was not Florida's but the winner-take-all electoral system used by 48 of the 50 states in presidential elections

Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about -- not because that state turned out to make the decisive difference in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters -- nearly as many as will go to the winning candidate -- had no say in the outcome. All of Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other guy.

You have a winner-take-all system for senate and house of representatives as well... and thats even worse than the presidential election... this way you make sure that all minorities (anyone not pro-republican or pro-democrat) are completely disenfranchised...

High voter turnout doesn't guarantee a good election result. Why is it prized so much?

ahhh... the mysteries of democracy :)
seriously haven't you got some kind of civics education in school? how old are you... oh well... here we go.
One good reason that having a large voter turnout is good is that it increases stability. People feel like they had some say in who rules over them . Another good reason for having a high voter turnout is that it helps protect peoples rights. If people can make an informed decision they can vote for the people that will represent them and fight for their rights. If people don't make the effort to understand politics and the underlying reason they have the freedoms they do, they will be apt to lose their rights and freedom. People might one day wake up and find that their rights have been taken from them by a president only actively supported by 20% of the population.
Democracy is not something that is god given, it is something you have to fight for. If you are not willing to fight for your freedom (or just taking the small effort to make an informed decision and voting) you, in my mind, deserve to have it taken away... and you probably will.

essentially voter turn-out is a litmus test for determining if the american people (or indeed any people) understand and appreciate the rights and freedoms their ancestors fought and died to give them.

I'm willing to give the american people the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not ignorant and that they do understand the responsibilities that democracy stows upon them, but that they are merely unfortunate to live in a system that was the first of its kind, and therefore not able to learn from the mistakes of others.

You are right... the european leaders are not perfect, but at least they were elected in a democracy. I'm going out on a limb here, but I take it you are talking about the war on iraq when you talk about europeans "not being able to find their arse with both hands in the dark". You might think that Schroeder and Chirac were acting out of petty ecnomical concerns when they were against the war in Iraq, but the fact is that they were supported in their decisions (by a very large margin) by the people who elected them. You might disagree with the europeans on the war, but you can't claim that the french and german leaders had an ulterior motive.
If you were realy trying to compare the EU with the US then you have probably misunderstood one or two things about europe... the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, that sovereign nations often disagree has NOTHING to do with the failings of democracies.
before you go criticize democracies outside of the united states, maybe you should try to understand how your own country works.

I just use a fake ssn for non-tax purposes like the dentist or video rentals. You should consistently remember the same fake one.

Considering that illegally employed people have deposited at least $374 BILLIONS in fake numbers: here Probably annother $200 BILLIONS in real numbers (assuming 1/3rd number space used so far).

I'm confused by this flip flop mantra that republicans keep chanting. Surely changing your position on an issue in the face of new evidence is a "Good Thing". It implies an open mind and critical thinking, whereas sticking doggedly to a position that has since been shown to be wrong is just stupid.

You are confused if you believe that John Kerry has been changing his mind as a result of "new evidence". He has been changing his position based on political expediency, what position was more advantageous at the moment. Go back and look at his record of statements and see if you can determine what "new evidence" there was at every zig and zag. The evidence doesn't point to John Kerry being open minded and looking for evidence. The evidence points to John Kerry being an opportunist who apparently either believes the voters are rubes who won't catch him at it, or fellow travellers who won't care as long as he is elected. Is the war popular? Then vote for it to avoid political heat like he took in 1990 when he opposed the first Gulf War despite Saddams naked aggression in invading Kuwait, the blessing of the UN, and a sizable coalition. Is Howard Dean ahead in the polls due to his anti-war stance? Then it is time to be the anti-war candidate. And so on, and so forth.

Regarding the war, I suggest you go back and actually read the reports. They show that even if Saddam didn't have militarily useful amounts of WMD, he still had the desire and ongoing research. There are still WMDs being found in Iraq in small numbers. Not enough for military purposes, but just perfect for terrorists. Please, do read the actual reports written by UNMOVIC, Duelfer, and Kay's testimony. It would be interesting to see what you do with new facts. Are you open minded enought to change your mind? Maybe, just to get your feet wet a little, you can start here.

Can you put aside your ideology and make a fact based decision? (I'm guessing you didn't make one before since it seems apparent you didn't have the facts then, or now.)

Cheers.

Low-quality health care? Where do you get that notion. Please entertain us. Up here, everybody gets the same quality health-care.

Yes, the same low-quality healthcare.

Entertaining, indeed. Feh. Just another right-wing shill (Fraser Institute) job, and thus totally devoid of credibility. Next, please!

And if you're in a hurry, you're still free to go to the US and have the operation performed on you (at your expense, of course).

That is a cop-out and you know it. That is intellectually-dishonest.

Why? Because I do not drop on my knees and say Uncle ???

If you are going to defend Canada's healthcare system, don't defend it by saying "if Canada's system sucks too much for you, you can still go to other countries," because that is outright admission that Canada's system is inadequate.

It is perfectly adequate. Some people think it is not, but, again, you'll never have 100% of the people agree on anything.

It's a classic case of ignorance about what socialism is all about, social justice. But, of course, one cannot expect shrub-voters to understand what is social justice...

Read this VERY slowly: I AM NOT A SHRUB VOTER. I HATE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH WITH EVERY BONE IN MY BODY. I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR PRESIDENT BUSH ON NOV. 2, 2004. (you would have to put a gun to my head before I would vote for Bush -- but that would be a vote under duress, and not of my free will)

Ah, one of those lunatic anarchist nutjobs who wants to go back to the cavemen ages... Which is even WORSE than shrubbies...

I am a libertarian, not a fascist theocratist like Bush. Bush is the most anti-libertarian President we have had in decades. For all his socially anti-libertarian faults, at least Reagan shrank the size of govn't, even while he ran up the deficit and inflated the size of the military. Bush has expanded govn't more than any President since LBJ.

If it has expanded government so much, how come people still loses their houses to hospitals in the US???

Now, you claim "social justice." What is "social justice?" Is it not taking money from one man and giving it to another for what seems like a good purpose, i.e. keeping both men fed?

Social justice makes sure that no one is left behind in the dark/cold/rain/whatever.

Well, what gives *you* the right to steal from one person and give to another? How is theft = justice?

Taxation is not theft. It's wealth redistribution to insure that, as I said before, no one is left behind.

Please enlighten me, because I would like to see your defense of something as morally-indefensible as theft.

Rich people have plenty of spare money that shall have no other purpose than easing the plight of less fortunate people, and no, this can't be handled by charities, because charities are extremely inept at social justice, as they only cover a tiny amount of the needs, and they avoid like the plague causes that are not popular.

"Social justice" -- that's just the modern-day term for "wealth redistribution" or "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."

Well, one cannot expect a libertarian caveman to be sufficiently educated and intelligent to understand the complexities of human societies... What you want is I have a big stick, so gimme your stuff or I'm gonna beat the shit out of you. This will work fine for you, until you meet a meaner-than-you son-of-a-bitch...

It's also known as "socialism" -- an economic system which has eventually led to

Low-quality health care? Where do you get that notion. Please entertain us. Up here, everybody gets the same quality health-care.

Yes, the same low-quality healthcare.

And if you're in a hurry, you're still free to go to the US and have the operation performed on you (at your expense, of course).

That is a cop-out and you know it. That is intellectually-dishonest.

If you are going to defend Canada's healthcare system, don't defend it by saying "if Canada's system sucks too much for you, you can still go to other countries," because that is outright admission that Canada's system is inadequate.

It's a classic case of ignorance about what socialism is all about, social justice. But, of course, one cannot expect shrub-voters to understand what is social justice...

Read this VERY slowly: I AM NOT A SHRUB VOTER. I HATE PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH WITH EVERY BONE IN MY BODY. I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR PRESIDENT BUSH ON NOV. 2, 2004. (you would have to put a gun to my head before I would vote for Bush -- but that would be a vote under duress, and not of my free will)

I am a libertarian, not a fascist theocratist like Bush. Bush is the most anti-libertarian President we have had in decades. For all his socially anti-libertarian faults, at least Reagan shrank the size of govn't, even while he ran up the deficit and inflated the size of the military. Bush has expanded govn't more than any President since LBJ.

Now, you claim "social justice." What is "social justice?" Is it not taking money from one man and giving it to another for what seems like a good purpose, i.e. keeping both men fed?

Well, what gives *you* the right to steal from one person and give to another? How is theft = justice?

Please enlighten me, because I would like to see your defense of something as morally-indefensible as theft.

"Social justice" -- that's just the modern-day term for "wealth redistribution" or "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."

It's also known as "socialism" -- an economic system which has eventually led to the downfall of every nation in which it's been tried; the totalitarian downfall of Nazi ("National Socialist") Germany, for instance, or the USSR ("United Soviet Socialist Republics") for another, or North Korea for a third. European nations are mixed economies w/ varying levels of socialism, but the most-socialist countries, not surprisingly, also have rather poor economic growth figures. U.S. GDP will grow by over 3% this year, as it has years. No European country has a GDP growth rate of more than 1.6%; some have *negative* GDP growth.

Give it up.

I hope we can agree that when a significant chunk of the country believes something that is provably not true, the media is not doing its job. 44% of Americans believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis - don't you agree that shows an inarguable problem?

There are things that are debatable, and should be debated - not shouted. There are other things that are just true, and the media should slap down people who try to assert that black is white, up is down, etc.

If people had a foundation in common facts - the economy is doing X, the war in Iraq is going Y - then it's possible to have a reasoned debate about issues. However, if people in this country live in different fact worlds depending on where (or whether!) they get their news, debate is unpossible.

I hate to break it to you, but the New York Times is not some conservative propaganda mouthpiece.

Well, if they aren't a conservative propaganda mouthpiece, why do they unquestioningly repeat conservative propaganda?

They do other things as well, and they're no Wall Street Journal editorial page, but the liberal/conservative "bias" in the media is trivial. The real media biases are laziness and greed.

Look at "anonymous sources" That's not journalism, and that's definitely not freedom of information.

There are complicated issues going on - and the choice is more complicated than "leave them alone" or "invade Iraq, give the money to Halliburton, and hire Republicans to rebuild it". The first rule of holes is to stop digging once you're in one!

I think if you look, you'll find that freedom of the things you mention are in short supply in Iraq. Faith-based science and faith-based foreign policy are no substitute for a well-informed public, and I argue that it is impossible for that public to be well-informed by the American media today.

I hope we can agree that when a significant chunk of the country believes something that is provably not true, the media is not doing its job. 44% of Americans believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis - don't you agree that shows an inarguable problem?

There are things that are debatable, and should be debated - not shouted. There are other things that are just true, and the media should slap down people who try to assert that black is white, up is down, etc.

If people had a foundation in common facts - the economy is doing X, the war in Iraq is going Y - then it's possible to have a reasoned debate about issues. However, if people in this country live in different fact worlds depending on where (or whether!) they get their news, debate is unpossible.

I hate to break it to you, but the New York Times is not some conservative propaganda mouthpiece.

Well, if they aren't a conservative propaganda mouthpiece, why do they unquestioningly repeat conservative propaganda?

They do other things as well, and they're no Wall Street Journal editorial page, but the liberal/conservative "bias" in the media is trivial. The real media biases are laziness and greed.

Look at "anonymous sources" That's not journalism, and that's definitely not freedom of information.

There are complicated issues going on - and the choice is more complicated than "leave them alone" or "invade Iraq, give the money to Halliburton, and hire Republicans to rebuild it". The first rule of holes is to stop digging once you're in one!

I think if you look, you'll find that freedom of the things you mention are in short supply in Iraq. Faith-based science and faith-based foreign policy are no substitute for a well-informed public, and I argue that it is impossible for that public to be well-informed by the American media today.

By David R. Francis, The Christian Science Monitor

CS Monitor link here.

Yes I do.

1998 Florida Mayoral race overturned because of massive voter fraud. This is only the most recent of a half dozen cases in Florida some of which resulted in convictions and/or invalidated elections. Lots of funs stuff... Deceased voters, vote buying, non-resident voters, ballot switching - the whole nine yards. (Gee I wonder if THAT could possibly explain the "intimidating" presence of Republican poll watchers and an attempt to purge the rolls of deceased, illegal and non-resident voters? NO it MUST be "suppression"). As it turns our there WERE still dead people that voted in 2000. The Miami Herald found André Alismé who died in 1997 among 144 other illegal voters after investigating only about a sixth of the precincts in Miami.

Forged absentee ballots in S. Dakota in 2002

Apparently some of the Democratic voting dead vote in primaries too.

Deceased voters still making it to the polls

Of course the 1960 Presidential election... Long past history but memories are long and political

And there is plenty of proof that this year may be a high-water mark for fraud... Fictional people registered to vote
Tons of registrations accumulated over months including many fraudulent ones with fictional names, dozens of the same name, forged signatures, dead people etc. all dumped on the county offices at the last minute to overload the checks to prevent fraud in Pennsylvania, Florida (and here), Colorado, Texas.

Last month I talked to a friend who is CEO of a company with about 100 software engineers in both Bangalore and Silicon Valley. He rated his India engineers better than his U.S. engineers. If he had to trim one location (he doesn't) it would be the U.S. On the topic of costs, he said that while the current pay rates are 5 Bangalore engineers to 1 Silicon Valley engineer, the real costs are closer. After taking into account extra overheads (e.g., travel) and loss of productivity caused by poor communications the current overall costs are more like 3.5 to 1. And due to rising salaries and costs in Bangalore he expects this to be 2 to 1 in a few years.

His key to making sure the loss of productivity on both ends didn't rise so far as to make it a negative sum game, was having good management at both ends capable of leading independent projects so less communications across the ocean would be needed.

BTW: USA Today just reprinted the story, so the Slashdot lead would have been better written as "The Christian Science Monitor reports ..." even though the original article is much the same.