Slashdot Mirror

It *seems* highly unlikely

Just in case you're still following this story, we have here exactly the case of someone hand-pointing a laser at an aircraft, illuminating the cockpit multiple times, and getting caught doing it. Of course, he first blamed it on his daughter!

the response to this disaster by governments has been more about public opinion than the welfare of the people involved

In the case of the US, true. France, that country we in the US were all expected to despise a couple years ago, was the first with the most aid.

Just FYI, the US gov't has just announced $350 million in aid. (MSNBC link; that happened to be where I was in rotation. CNN; Fox.)

So it's not that we're stingy so much as just slow getting up off our fat asses. :-p

Ya know, I read a bunch of articles, but that had the cleanest text. I could have quoted Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html , but I figured people would accuse me of conservative bias.

Then, I thought about quoting the Sunday Times from the UK:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-12 91280,00.html but who knows who might own that.

I also thought about quoting a French source. http://www.investigateur.info/news/articles/articl e_2003_05_5_auchi.html, but I think I have made my feelings clear about the French.

Finally, I considered a source from Pittsburgh, http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middlee astreports/s_273762.html, but was afriad I would be branded a Steelers fan.

That was at first. Spain, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, the Philippines and Thailand withdrew their troops in 2004. And other countries are very seriously considering it after seeing it is not the parade they thought it would be.

Afghanistan? still ocupied by US forces and frankly it hardly counts as a country. Of the list many are third world countries ("out of power") that felt the pressure of Bush administration and contributed a very small number of troops, just for the photos.

Few first world countries contributed significant numbers of troops, mainly UK but in those countries the polls usually were much against sending troops like in Spain (even Foxnews accepts this). Blair doesn't get support from it's own party.

You couldn't even convince Canada and Mexico, your two neighbors. That should tell you something.

I'm writing this mostly on memory but you would have read it anywhere in the last year provided you don't just read one-sided media like Fox, CNN or Rupert "$20 a barrel oil" Murdoch's media.
But you really don't want to hear other people opinions, or you would already done.
And I didn't even touched the motivation of the war, that started pissing countries in the first place.

That's funny. The news tells me that 44,000 people have died so far as a top story.

Because it's a U.S.-based news site, I find as a subheadline that a few Americans are among the dead. However, the vast majority of the coverage is international in nature.

If you wish to reply, please note at least one incident of conservative bias in the second link I posted. Replies lacking this information will be considered "double-opt-in replies to be added to my value-added email list."

That's funny. The news tells me that 44,000 people have died so far as a top story.

Because it's a U.S.-based news site, I find as a subheadline that a few Americans are among the dead. However, the vast majority of the coverage is international in nature.

If you wish to reply, please note at least one incident of conservative bias in the second link I posted. Replies lacking this information will be considered "double-opt-in replies to be added to my value-added email list."

But hey, we Americans don't care. Since only 8 Americans died (thus far) in the trajedy, the news isn't covering it the way you might think they would for a single event that has caused (so far) over 20,000 dead.

And since when did you get to speak for all of Americans? If you haven't noticed, tsunami story have been on the front pages of all major U.S. media websites, such as CNN, Fox News, NBC News, and ABC News. Are you so freaking lazy that you're only capable of watching/reading news if it's shown on prime time TV on Fox?

What's really sad is that the bias reflects most Americans: They don't care about it, since Americans weren't affected that much (except the 8 that died). Typical Americans, at most, only care enough to ask "Could this happen to us in America?"

While your actions will most likely be limited to bitching on Slashdot and maybe various other forums, there's already some relief campaigns starting in the U.S.

Having volunteered in soup kitchens in the past, I've noticed that most of the fellow volunteers were from church groups, preppies from various high school and college clubs/organizations, and select few who need to get their court ordered community service done. There are plenty of Americans who do care. Granted, there are also plenty who don't give a damn (and some who act like they care but won't anything about it exact bitching), but because because you fall into this catagory doesn't means every other Americans do as well.

Found this on the foxnews site at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142566,00.html / :
"Pentagon Duty Officer Cheryl Irwin told FOX News that the National Military Command Center has received no reports of any damage to the Diego Garcia Naval Support Facility, off the southern coast of India. The Navy is considering whether and what kind of aid to offer to local governments in the region, said Navy Press Duty Officer Lt. Pauline Pimetel."

Slightly OT, but just so you know, Reeves handed out $82 million of his own money to the various crew members who worked on the three Matrix movies. So while he may be making a lot more money than what his talent is worth, at least he sees the value in everyone else working on the project.

Here's a source for that information, btw

With stuff being leaked early all the time, there'll still be plenty of non-DRM'd copies of music and movies floating about the place. The trick will be to track them down and download them without the MPAA/RIAA detecting such things.

An exercise left to the reader is to spot all the inaccuracies and logical fallacies within. And yes, I do realize one story proves nothing; I'm just making a point.

Pretty much. The news is so heavily skewed to the left OR the right (depending on your outlet) that you have to go to several different sources to get even a glimmer of the truth. Even NPR, that one-time bastion of somewhat impartial reporting, has started sliding toward sensationalism.

I, personally, have pretty much given up on the news. I dunno; maybe by averaging between Alternet and Fox News, you might be able to get at what the news really is.

Off topic rants always sway opinions.....

Nowhere did I say the "moral majority" were "stupid" by any standard. Nor did I call any of them bigots. Maybe you want to reply to a thread a little more in tune with your inferiority complex?

My tongue-in-cheek comment (notice the "Funny" modifier up top) was poking fun at how the seperation of church and state has blurred considerably under this administration. We're seeing more public schools teaching religion as science, funds being cut to programs that are not in total agreement with some religious standards, and the endorsement of a particular religion by a judge in the courtroom.

This is totaly unrelated to what I just said, but check out this old story(sorry if already covered):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97538,00.html

I didn't even read that far...

I saw "O'Reilly" and "comment", closed page while shouting "no noo!"

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly ;)

Blogs are the future of op-ed.

John Stewart is the future of journalism.

These guys are the future of comedy.

In the southern city of Basra, police said Thursday they had arrested five Arab foreign fighters who escaped from Fallujah with plans to attack coalition troops and Iraqi police in the south.

The five - two Saudis, two Tunisians and a Libyan, were arrested Wednesday night at a checkpoint north of Basra, police said.

You may want to look at Wikipedia for some of the actual Supreme Court rulings (Katzenbach v. McClung, Daniel v. Paul). As for the muhummad case, searching google for "John Muhammad interstate commerce traffic" gives me this link among others. I'm not sure whether or not a court actually bought the argument, but historical precedent seems to me to suggest that it would.

While looking up the answer to your question I did run into this, though. In US v Maxwell the 11th circuit appeals court decided that the federal government couldn't charge a man with possession of child pornography based on the fact that "because the Zip disks and floppy disks on which the incriminating evidence was found were either shipped or mailed to Florida, the defendant's possession of those disks substantially affected interstate commerce." That this even made it to the 11th circuit court of appeals though suggests that there is a pretty inclusive definition of interstate commerce.

If CNN isn't working for you, try the Fox News Web site. Not only will you not have to put up with the crashes, but you will get news that is fair and balanced, instead of propaganda that's been filtered through an army of liberal reporters and producers. Honestly, I've introduced at least 8 people to Fox News since the election and they're hooked. I think you would be too if you gave it a try. :)

All this is wonderful, but it kind of misses an overall point. Even if they're right, Kerry still wouldn't win Florida.

The state-wide impact of these disparities due to electronic voting amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a "ghost vote" mechanism and twice that - 260,000 votes - if we assume that a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the other.

According to many sites, Bush won by over 350,000 votes.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta tes/FL/P/00/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/youdecide2004/races.html?FL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5650738/

I know that the overall debate is whether electronic voting is accurate, but this seemed like an interesting fact overlooked.

The sensationalism. The trivial stories dominating the front pages. Suspense and drama instead of fact based reporting. The Ricky Lake of news if you will. Wait... we're still doing that? Oh... well uh, nevermind. ;-)

It appears that only Foxnews is carrying this article on the net at the moment (based on checking Google News).

It appears that only Foxnews is carrying this article on the net at the moment (based on checking Google News).

First, I want you to read parts 2 and 3 of the "almost Kerry" interview.

Now read the transcript of the Bush interview. I didn't agree with all of his points, but he at least has a vision about what he wants to do and some clear defined lines about what he will and will not do.

I agree that Iraq is a sore spot. I wish we hadn't gone in there in the first place. But to make that the *only* point in the election (for a US person at least) is rediculous. There are health care issues, border issues, crime issues, and a host of other problems we need solutions to, not just a vague promise of a better tomorrow. After Clinton fucked an intern, and I saw this picture, I really do believe that America needs to do what we need to do because obviously a democrat can't help the world opinion of us.

Eric

First, I want you to read parts 2 and 3 of the "almost Kerry" interview.

Now read the transcript of the Bush interview. I didn't agree with all of his points, but he at least has a vision about what he wants to do and some clear defined lines about what he will and will not do.

I agree that Iraq is a sore spot. I wish we hadn't gone in there in the first place. But to make that the *only* point in the election (for a US person at least) is rediculous. There are health care issues, border issues, crime issues, and a host of other problems we need solutions to, not just a vague promise of a better tomorrow. After Clinton fucked an intern, and I saw this picture, I really do believe that America needs to do what we need to do because obviously a democrat can't help the world opinion of us.

Eric

First, I want you to read parts 2 and 3 of the "almost Kerry" interview.

Now read the transcript of the Bush interview. I didn't agree with all of his points, but he at least has a vision about what he wants to do and some clear defined lines about what he will and will not do.

I agree that Iraq is a sore spot. I wish we hadn't gone in there in the first place. But to make that the *only* point in the election (for a US person at least) is rediculous. There are health care issues, border issues, crime issues, and a host of other problems we need solutions to, not just a vague promise of a better tomorrow. After Clinton fucked an intern, and I saw this picture, I really do believe that America needs to do what we need to do because obviously a democrat can't help the world opinion of us.

Eric

It is official -- Drudge Report confirms: Dick Cheney is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered GOP community when FOX News confirmed that Dick Cheney's lung capacity dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of normal lung capacity. Coming on the heels of a recent polls which plainly state that Dick Cheney has lost more popularity, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Dick Cheney is collapsing daily, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last month in the Vice Presidential debate.

You don't need to be a John Edward to predict Dick Cheney's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Dick Cheney faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Dick Cheney because Dick Cheney is dying. Things are looking very bad for Dick Cheney. As many of us are already aware, Dick Cheney continues to lose his life. His blood flows like a river of non-moving blood.

Fact: Dick Cheney is Dying

Fox News Article

"Microsoft could also be facing new competition. Rival Firefox is rolling out the full version of its Internet browser. Firefox has been stealing people away from Microsoft's Explorer."

1. Method of entering and recording votes.
2. Storage and delivery of votes for counting.

Voting with electronic storage of votes can be compromised in step 1 even if the local election staff is doing their job perfectly well. The e-voting machine could be compromised by the manufacturer and depending on their security level, by anyone else who has access to them including a monkey as well as in step 2 .

Voting by verified paper ballots can only be compromised in step 2, assuming any physical safeguards that may exist, such as seals on boxes containing the ballots and people in charge who may not agree with rigging the election, are somehow circumvented.

An ideal system may sign the paper ballots with a cryptographic signature so that it could only be compromised if both the manufacturer of the voting machines and the local election staff are.

Certainly there are better systems than unverifyable insecure DRE e-voting machines which have been plagued with bugs, hacked by a monkey and reportedly counted more than 100000 votes incorrectly and how-many-more due to more subtle and difficult to detect errors.

And you can blame Slashdot for being as bad as other journalists mentioned in this story for troll comments in the blurb like "Oh come on, what is there to worry about? " I'm sure other, respectable media outlets will jump on the chicken little bandwagon and maintain the status quo.

From the Fox News website

"Microsoft could also be facing new competition. Rival Firefox is rolling out the full version of its Internet browser. Firefox has been stealing people away from Microsoft's Explorer."

uhh, I believe that he was talking about the right wing commentator Bill OReilly

Hmm, at 200 thousand per-year, he'd run out of people pretty soon.

The problem is you are using bad numbers as you can see here and here.

You can start getting a better handle on the numbers here and here.

The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.

That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.

"We cannot compare the situation now with how it was before," Nouri Jaber al-Nouri, inspector general of the Interior Ministry, said recently. "Iraqis used to fear everything. ... But now, despite all that is happening, we feel safe."
--
In Baghdad, a city of about 5.6 million, 4,279 people were recorded killed in the 12 months through April 30, according to figures provided by Kais Hassan, director of statistics at Baghdad's Medicolegal Institute (search), which administers the city's morgues.
---
U.S. forces have records for the numbers of claims for compensation from Iraqis for personal injury, deaths of family members, or for property damage caused by U.S. military action in "non-combat" situations.

Some $3 million has been paid to about 5,000 claimants, American officials said last month. About 8,000 claims had been rejected and 3,000 were pending, they said.

The officials declined to provide a breakdown of the figures to show how many claims were for deaths. They also said a single incident involving U.S. forces could lead to multiple compensation claims.
---
The human rights organization Amnesty International (search), based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed "as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation."

"This figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings," the group said in a statement.

There are no precise estimates for deaths during last year's invasion.

The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians from March 20 to April 20, 2003.

That investigation, conducted last May and June, was based on a survey of about half of Iraq's hospitals, and counted only those deaths for which hospitals had good documentation. The report concluded the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.

10-20k killed seems likely. 30k - 40k, maybe. 100k? I doubt it.

The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.

Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.

I think so. Think of it. No more UN imposed sanctions. Saddam's mass murdering regime is no longer filling mass grave

The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.

That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.

"We cannot compare the situation now with how it was before," Nouri Jaber al-Nouri, inspector general of the Interior Ministry, said recently. "Iraqis used to fear everything. ... But now, despite all that is happening, we feel safe."
--
In Baghdad, a city of about 5.6 million, 4,279 people were recorded killed in the 12 months through April 30, according to figures provided by Kais Hassan, director of statistics at Baghdad's Medicolegal Institute (search), which administers the city's morgues.
---
U.S. forces have records for the numbers of claims for compensation from Iraqis for personal injury, deaths of family members, or for property damage caused by U.S. military action in "non-combat" situations.

Some $3 million has been paid to about 5,000 claimants, American officials said last month. About 8,000 claims had been rejected and 3,000 were pending, they said.

The officials declined to provide a breakdown of the figures to show how many claims were for deaths. They also said a single incident involving U.S. forces could lead to multiple compensation claims.
---
The human rights organization Amnesty International (search), based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed "as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation."

"This figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings," the group said in a statement.

There are no precise estimates for deaths during last year's invasion.

The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians from March 20 to April 20, 2003.

That investigation, conducted last May and June, was based on a survey of about half of Iraq's hospitals, and counted only those deaths for which hospitals had good documentation. The report concluded the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.

10-20k killed seems likely. 30k - 40k, maybe. 100k? I doubt it.

The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.

Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.

I think so. Think of it. No more UN imposed sanctions. Saddam's mass murdering regime is no longer filling mass grave

Okay, turned on the news wondering what kind of spin CNN would have on this. Didn't come up. So I started doing searches....

CNN
Foxnews
BBC
CBC
Aljzeera's search engine is not working properly today; oh well.
Ohio News Now

Anyone care to tell me why this simply isn't being reported at all? I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch. Nor have I heard of the Washington Dispatch (one other place I've seen run the story).

Is it too new to be picked up?
Is it not considered newsworthy as just correcting a routine error?
Is it being censored? And if so then why by every news company including those outside of US juristiction?

Forgive me for being a bit skeptical on this story, but I do tend to assume that vote talliers can spot an order of magnitude error.

The government being in the business of marriage is the problem.

It's the right-wing that wants the government nosing into everyone's business, telling them who they can marry and who they can't. It the right-wing that wants the government to codify their evangelical Christian beliefs into law. It's the right-wing that wants to define who you are allowed to have sex with, what positions are legal, and that you can't exchange money for sex. They want government nosing into everyone's private lives.

Why does the government define a religious construct.

Because stupid, inbred, right-wing, evangelical Christians like Bush demand Constitutional amendments codifying their religious beliefs into the law of the land.

YOu pushed "regular Joes" too hard. You want big government

Since Bush has taken office, government has grown larger, more intrusive, and more expensive. Here's a Fox News story entitled "Federal Budget Grows Massively Under Bush." You want right-wing sources and you have one right there.

and you want a big government defining marriage.

It wasn't Democrats calling for Constitutional amendments defining marriage. It was the Republicans, because they got their panties in a twist when gay people started getting married. They wanted big government to define marriage.

But you had to try force the term marriage on scoiety for gays. Stupid.

The term "marriage" has existed for years and much of our legal system revolves around it. Most states don't accept the term "civil union" and, thus, it carries no legal weight. Everything from inheritance to taxes to health-insurance is affected by marital status.

The correct answer is: A government has no business definine marriage

President George W. Bush: "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife."

That's your boy. That's who you voted for.

You are:
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
And:
AMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANSAMERICA HATES LEFTIST TOTALITARIANS

That was, indeed, a compelling argument. ;-)

Nothing will change until we get out of a two party system mentality. Nothing. I don't understand why people don't see that it's just too fucking easy for a powerful group of people to buy BOTH parties, give the general population the bone every four years, and say "just be glad you have the right to vote!" When was the last presidential election where we actually had someone we really wanted to elect? 1992 :-/? 1980 :-)? 1960?

If the Internet is supposed to be this massive force of change, why can't an internet based "popular" party nominate someone through the Internet, and then everyone can vote for that person to do an end-around this fucked up two party system? You know, I can just see all the fat-assed geeks say "well, just think of the fraud from overseas voters, and blah blah blah." Well, instead of just sitting there on your big fat asses and criticize, why don't you use your supposed massive intellect and THINK of a way to do a national based internet nomination of a candidate... Our only other alternative is for everyone to choose another party such as this or this.

I also think it's time for all the Democrat and Republican Koolaid drinkers to wake up from their coma and realize these two choices are actually more alike than different. They are in agreement with military issues, immigration, and other misc. topics. So what does that leave, abortion? Great, that's leaves a whole lot for me to pick from...

Until then, don't be surprised for another round of pick the worst of the two in 2008...

As I recall, Hitler and Stalin were also men of action. So is bin Laden. I must part company with you on respecting people simply for being men of action.

Bush is no Hitler, Stalin, or bin Laden, but his action is making the world safer for terrorists. That's why Al Qaeda endorsed Bush and why Iran's parliament just voted unanimously to go full steam ahead with their bomb project. Because Bush doesn't have what it takes to stop them.

In the 1940s, it took FDR and Truman three years to lead America to victory Germany, Italy, and Japan, bring order and stability to those countries, and make the world safer. In three years, Bush has managed to defeat the much less imposing armies of Saddam and the Taliban, but hasn't stopped bin Laden or al Zawahiri and hasn't brought order or stability to either defeated country.

As to removing dictators from power, Bush supports dictators, such as Musharraf of Pakistan, the Sauds of Saudi Arabia, or President Hu of China, when they suit his purposes, and supports pardons for those like A.Q. Khan, who sell nukes to terrorist states.

If Bush had the balls of a Churchill or even Maggie Thatcher, he'd take on major totalitarian states, such as China, or fight Putin's coup d'état in Russia, instad of farting around with pipsqueak nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here. Or, here if that's the way you swing.

Bill O'Reilly was instrumental in defeating Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Thanks, Bill!

A woman has sued state election officials on behalf of voters who claim they did not receive their absentee ballots on time.

The woman sued Tuesday in federal court in Toledo with the help of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, a San Francisco-based group. A closed hearing took place Tuesday morning.

Here is the LCCR link. At first glance they look to be a social justice group not directly affiliated with either the Reds or the Blues.

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit. But just for the record, I think smoking is a vile nasty habbit.

That's true, but Google News also considers Faux News Channel to be news. That's much worse than Xinhua or PRAVDA.

For cryin out loud, must we turn every post into a political weenie roast? Ignoring the fact that certain other nations have their own political cloak and daggery, it would seem he could cooperate pretty well with other nations.

I mean, feel free to explain it away, but I seriously doubt the situation is even as remotely dire as you portray it when it comes to the current administration. Hell, I'm even one to say they haven't done done a stellar job on the deficit, but I'm thinking it's a tad over the top to say he'll neglect the country. Hell, for neglecting the country, he put a post 9/11 economy back onto it's feet and into something that's currently thriving. How much so, you can debate with yourself all day long, but the trend is definitely in the positive. I won't entirely agree with his fiscal policy, but it's not something you point to and yell "NEGLECT!!" all day long.

I see positives for the space program all the way around on his re-election. 2nd term Presidents have nothing to loose and if one thing has been made obvious and for better or worse, he's not afraid to spend money. Another thing you can count on from his past performance is that he'll stay commited to the project long term. And that's the most you can ask for in a Space program, right there-- The will to spend the money, do the work and resolve to stay the course.

"Supported a policy of letting each state decide how to approach gay marriage rather than embed social engineering into the U.S. Constitution."

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference.

Or Fox reporting him saying

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The Fox News Channel (FNC) is available overseas in select countries: Italy, Australia, Japan, etc. In Australia, you will definitely want to investigate the following broadcast stations.

1. Austar
2. Foxtel

This site is worthless and obviously partisan

Because Zogby is so biased towards the left that even Fox News uses him. I'd provide a direct link but it's a stupid Javascript link -- go to the main page and click on the "Fox Swing States".

Zogby has publicly said that he expects Kerry to win

And he's basing that on the record number of new voters (that will likely break for Kerry) and the historical fact that most undecided voters break for the challenger. I suspect that Kerry will win for exactly the same reason. If he doesn't then I guess we'll both have egg on our face.

oops... that article talks only about partial use in 2002, This one talkes about full use in 2004. It also seems Georgia followed suit. So much for being the only idiots come november 3rd.