Slashdot Mirror

said one of Mr. Krugman's Princeton associates, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But now he's walking around like he's Jay-Z or something."

So... when is Hova gonna get the Nobel?

> I mean, really, do you think for a second that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are going to appoint someone like Lessig?

Bush, Cheney & Rove vanish next January. Even if they have time to appoint someone, that person would get replaced by the next administration. There's a virtual guarantee that the next President will be Obama and he's thinking about how to put together his cabinet right now.

So this would be a good time to suggest reasonable people to head this thing. It's going to pump out all sorts of piracy studies. The industry wants it to create more BS economic damage numbers that it can spin. That's why it's VERY important that it have an honest and competent leader, whoever it might be.

a wiki.

P.S.: Dear John McSame: I double dare.

Cordially,
Kilgore Trout

Perhaps though that's why i like Palin's bio as a cleaner of Alaska's Republican Augean stables and am frustrated by the one-sided coverage of her.

That's your problem. You have this image of her as a corruption fighter, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Like I said, she's just like Gingrich - she didn't take on corrupt figures because she wanted to clean out the system, but because she's a ladder climber who was looking to make a name for herself:

• She takes Bush's peonage appointments and turns it up to 11.
• She tried to ban books and tried to fire the Wasilla librarian when she rebuffed Palin's request for the third time.
• She fires officials that don't support her during elections.
• She requested earmarks that McCain specifically complained about as being wasteful spending.
• She fully supported the bridge to nowhere until Congress said it would have to be paid for with state money, yet took the federal funds anyway. Now she's lying by saying "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere."
• She illegally uses personal email accounts for state business.
• Abused her position by trying to have her ex-brother in law fired, and when the state commissioner refused, she fired him instead.
• And most dispicably, signed off on charging rape victims for examination kits.

I am SAYING that these are facts, and that reporting them is (of course) fair. My complaint is the failure to report other pertinent facts.

Like those Fox News talking heads that wished that the rest of the media would stop talking about all the bad things happening in Iraq - like bombings that would kill a hundred people at a time, roadside bombs killing our troops, and ethnic cleansing between Shiites and Sunnis - and focus on the positive things like construction of a new clinic inside the Green Zone. I'm sure the women of Iraq who would wear mourning robes for years at a time - another family member would be killed before it was time to take them off - would concur.

With all due respect there's a pretty big difference between being endorsed by a pastor and having someone BE your pastor for over 20 years.

With all due respect you're rationalizing a racist smear. If you watch more than "Goddamn America" soundbyte played on the media, he's speaking about how the United States kept slaves "in perpetuity", the "separate but equal" Dred Scott decision, Jim Crow, forced American Indians onto reservations, interned Japanese Americans during WWII, and the Tuskegee experiments on black men with syphilis. Funny how the media never mentioned that this Angry Black Man hated the United States sooo much he voluntarily gave up his student deferment and served two terms of duty as a Marine in Vietnam, and then re-enlisted as a medical corpsman and was so good he was the valedictorian of his class and was on LBJ's surgical team in 1966.

It is at least conceivable that McCain wasn't fully aware of

Perhaps though that's why i like Palin's bio as a cleaner of Alaska's Republican Augean stables and am frustrated by the one-sided coverage of her.

That's your problem. You have this image of her as a corruption fighter, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Like I said, she's just like Gingrich - she didn't take on corrupt figures because she wanted to clean out the system, but because she's a ladder climber who was looking to make a name for herself:

• She takes Bush's peonage appointments and turns it up to 11.
• She tried to ban books and tried to fire the Wasilla librarian when she rebuffed Palin's request for the third time.
• She fires officials that don't support her during elections.
• She requested earmarks that McCain specifically complained about as being wasteful spending.
• She fully supported the bridge to nowhere until Congress said it would have to be paid for with state money, yet took the federal funds anyway. Now she's lying by saying "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere."
• She illegally uses personal email accounts for state business.
• Abused her position by trying to have her ex-brother in law fired, and when the state commissioner refused, she fired him instead.
• And most dispicably, signed off on charging rape victims for examination kits.

I am SAYING that these are facts, and that reporting them is (of course) fair. My complaint is the failure to report other pertinent facts.

Like those Fox News talking heads that wished that the rest of the media would stop talking about all the bad things happening in Iraq - like bombings that would kill a hundred people at a time, roadside bombs killing our troops, and ethnic cleansing between Shiites and Sunnis - and focus on the positive things like construction of a new clinic inside the Green Zone. I'm sure the women of Iraq who would wear mourning robes for years at a time - another family member would be killed before it was time to take them off - would concur.

With all due respect there's a pretty big difference between being endorsed by a pastor and having someone BE your pastor for over 20 years.

With all due respect you're rationalizing a racist smear. If you watch more than "Goddamn America" soundbyte played on the media, he's speaking about how the United States kept slaves "in perpetuity", the "separate but equal" Dred Scott decision, Jim Crow, forced American Indians onto reservations, interned Japanese Americans during WWII, and the Tuskegee experiments on black men with syphilis. Funny how the media never mentioned that this Angry Black Man hated the United States sooo much he voluntarily gave up his student deferment and served two terms of duty as a Marine in Vietnam, and then re-enlisted as a medical corpsman and was so good he was the valedictorian of his class and was on LBJ's surgical team in 1966.

It is at least conceivable that McCain wasn't fully aware of

Sorry, it's not that simple. Almost, but not quite.

Fortunately there is a flowchart to explain the algorithm.

But wait, the debt has grown insanely under every single Republican president in the last 40 years.

That's not quite accurate. Nixon/Ford actually reduced the debt. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul/some-facts-about-spending_b_132135.html. So we have to wait until 2015 for that to be true.

Lies. The previous Liberal government consistently operated under the largest budget surpluses in Canadaian history. It started in 1998. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/record-budget-surplus-in-_n_66271.html It is only in the last few years that the Conservative government has begun pissing that surplus away.

Check your own link. It was only $2,000. For a campaign of any kind that is nothing. So much nothing I would think he never even realized he got it.

I understand and agree with your dislike of him taking money from such a group but it's either Obama or McCain. Obama understands the issues and has been talking about them for a long time, He even had his own podcast for awhile. McCain Admits He Doesn't Know How To Use A Computer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-doesnt-k_n_106478.html(Video). Personally I found the choice fairly easy for tech issues.

Apparently, yes. I think it ends up being the difference between handing the keys to an old child VS a young adult.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/teen-driving-age-should-b_n_125010.html:
"Among other things, institute researchers have compiled decades worth of data from New Jersey, the only state that issues licenses at 17. Various studies have shown that the overall rate of teens killed in crashes in New Jersey has been consistently lower than in some nearby states."

If you want to go into guilt-by-association

Nice try, but the association of the candidates with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions was the first topic you opened as an example of liberal media bias. I only disproved what you said about that topic, with a few pertinent counterexamples.

Ah yes, the Gramm-Leach-Biley law, signed into law by Bill Clinton. Innuendo on your part does not prove any misdeeds on the part of either Gramm or McCain.

I will not take your "Bill Clinton" bait. Gramm-Leach-Biley was a bad bill, and everybody who supported it was wrong to do so, including the self-described "social liberal & fiscal conservative" who was too little of both for my liking. Now, back on-topic, what "innuendo"? Once you introduced the subject of associations of candidates for President with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions the cause of the current financial crisis is 100% apropos. If you have honestly had trouble understanding why my references to Gramm are rebuttal, not diversion, you are an utter moron. The press is right to highlight that scumbag's track record of prioritizing corporatist gluttony over citizens' liberty and the general welfare.

If you think I'm mistaken, that's one thing. If you think I'm deliberately misleading people, that would be a case of lying. You have demonstrated absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I'm lying.

Incorrect. You first asserted that the relatively brief press scrutiny of Barack Obama's associations with the two peripheral [to the Obama campaign] supporters, former adviser Johnson, and supporter-of-no-proven-status-whatsoever-in-the-campaign Raines, demonstrate the tired old GOP gripe of a "liberal media bias" in comparison to the relatively long intervals of press scrutiny of McCain's ongoing employment of Rick Davis as his campaign manager while "Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, also received monthly payments of $15,000 from Freddie Mac as recently as August." Unequal treatment of similar cases would indicate bias, but as I have already explained, and you have not disputed, the unequal scrutiny of the two candidates' associations with "corrupt former CEOs" of federally-subsidized lobbying/lending institutions is due to dissimilarity, not to bias. Now pay attention. I did not waste my time on your tangents about media commentary about racism in McCain's ad about Raines nor about the sex ed program to include "age appropriate" instruction in avoiding pedophilic predators. I went straight to the crux of your whining, "that Obama had 2 corrupt former CEOs of Fannie as economic advisors, one of which was [briefly] the head of his VP search committee. We didn't hear about that until McCain ran ads about it. And then, did the media focus on the story?" Obama promptly severed those two ties, to Raines and Johnson, as I have already explained. McCain was more scrutinized, true, but not because of media bias. He continues to be suspect as a result of his continuing employment of Rick Davis, as vivid summary of McCain's 26-year-long record of unwavering support of voodoo economics: the superstition that in high finance, rule of law equals government abuse of the rights of the wealthy, when in fact it is the valid purpose of the United States government as set forth in its charter documents, protection of the rights of the individual against tyranny, whether by government itself or powerful private parties. To Gramm and McCain and their ilk, "unregulated free markets" are the euphemism for anarchy, dominance by the powerful and lazy, financially elite

Sure, there are the log cabin republicans http://www.logcabin.org/
but for the most part, the issue is seen this way: The Gay Republican: Oxymoron, or Just Moron?
Besides, it isn't my opinion, I was trolling. In my opinion, anyone who says "I know where you are coming from and I hope you fuck off and die" has made an open invitation to trolling and I accepted. I wasn't trying to be informative, I was being antagonistic. You're not supposed to feed the trolls right? I guess that makes you the dipshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-schildgen/evs-vs-gas-powered-cars-n_b_123672.html

Read the whole article to answer your question. Here's a relevant section:

Cost-wise, however, there's also no comparison. EVs win handily for the simple reason that energy sources used to make electricity are presently a lot cheaper than gasoline, which now costs about six times as much per unit of energy as coal. EV enthusiasts like to boast about how little it costs them to get around, and they've got good reason. At $4 a gallon for gas, even a 50-mpg car costs eight cents a mile for fuel. With electricity at 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, the EV can go that same distance for a piddling 2 to 3 cents a mile.

Because more patents are not necessarily better.

Additionally, certain patent acquirement strategies significantly increasethe risk of being the target of patent lawsuits, because they paint a bullseye on your company's strategic development, enabling patent trolls to predict it, patent "alongside" your development and sue you based on that.

And then there's still this whole patent bubble that's still forming, fairly similar to how the whole credit crisis came to be. In time, the value of patents is going to come crashing down just as spectacularly, regardless of how many times you repeat the holy yet hollow mantra "but our intellectual property must be protected!"

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and Democrats are the party of freedom!

Oh, wait...

Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.

John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.

Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.

Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.

And if you think you will get *any* change from an old man who has been in Office 30 years...

In the past two years, Senator and Mrs. McCain have contributed $340,323 to charitable causes, according to their tax returns (they file separately). Senator McCain's giving constituted about 28 percent of his income for each of those two years.

From 2000 through 2004, Senator Obama and his wife contributed less than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings (they were paying off student loans according to their spokesman). In 2006, however, that total jumped to to $60,307 (6.1 percent) and to $240,370 (5.8 percent) in 2007. (Sorry, couldn't find their tax returns on his website - anybody got that link?)

Here's the numbers for last year:

McCain earned $396,527, paid $118,660 (30.7%) in taxes,and gave $105,467 (27.3%) to charity.
Obama earned $4,139,965, paid $1,396,772 (33.7%) in taxes, and gave $240,370 (5.8%) to charity

I'm not criticizing either candidate here, just pointing out the facts.

Correction: She did NOT support the bridge to nowhere.

Yes she did.

That just depends on which liberties you're watching.

You must be watching the right of billionaires to privatize profit, and socialize risk.

> Here's an article from 2000 [forbes.com]; ctrl-f "Vietnam" to jump to the relevant paragraph.

Aside from the fact that it's not true, I find it interesting that you merely have to search for something about his POW days to find his excuse for everything.

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years, and is a staunch supporter of civil liberties. Beyond that, he just seems like a pretty reasonable, thoughtful person.

I've heard a lot of outcry, particularly on slashdot, that he voted for telecom immunity. But as the grandparent noted, that bill was a FISA ammendment, and Obama has since voted twice, on 2/12 and 7/09, to revoke telecom immunity. I don't completely agree with his stance on this, but he did say that he supported the ammendment because it put the power back in the hands of legislation, as opposed to the president's.

Also, as others are noting, Obama's plans tend towards ensuring accountability in the government through the use of technologies which make their actions visible. Specifically, he wants to create publicly accessable databases and websites to display this information. I don't have the same kind of confidence in McCain's ability or desire to do something concrete about this.

Personally, I just think Obama is smart enough to pick the battles that he can win. From what I've read, seen and heard, it's pretty clear to me what his goals are, and I have to say this is the first time I've ever found myself trusting, liking, or agreeing with a politician to any significant degree. I think Obama will do a fine job as president.

First Moveon.org er ah Anonymous did Fake Sarah Palin quotes and many of those quotes are in the fake emails.

Then The Daily Kos er ah Anonymous did a Photoshop of Sarah Palin in a bikini holding a gun.

Then IWETHEY and Kuro5hin er ah Anonymous did fake Twitter and chat logs pretending to be Sarah Palin

Now all of the Anonymous groups tag teamed and joined up to create a fake Yahoo account and spam some of Sarah Palin's real friends and family members to think it was her new email address and then wrote fake emails as well to make it look real. They got her friends and family and trolled them with the fake Yahoo account.

I know because I used to be a member of those groups when I worked for a law firm and they told me to do those things or get fired. When I refused to do those things anymore they did whatever they could to stress me out and make me quit. When that didn't work they fired me for being sick from all of the stress they put on me.

So the only retard is you and others who think all of that is real and not faked by Anonymous.

Anonymous got Bush elected in 2000 and 2004 by doing the same pranks for lulz, now they will get McCain elected in 2008 by doing the same thing. If they don't want that to happen, they'd better quit right now and let Obama speak for himself on the issues. Because of the campaign sticks to the issues, Obama will win hands down. If more smear tactics and fake accounts are used, McCain and Palin will look like the victims of the Obama/Biden campaign that is up to ditry tricks again like Slick Willy and Moveon.org use as well as Hollywood phonies like Michael Moore, etc.

I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there.

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? Have you seen the tape of McCain talking - or rather, not talking - about health insurance and birth control?

Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick).

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? You know McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" cliche about a Hillary Clinton proposal, right?

The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves.

Are you talking about McCain, or Obama? The media's loved McCain since the 2000 campaign. Do you think that if any other candidate had used a racial slur ("I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.") it wouldn't have dominated the news cycle for weeks to the point where the candidate had to retire in shame? When McCain recently made a major gaffe by saying our economy is fundamentally strong, ABC news failed to mention it. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews put it, "The press loves McCain. We're his base."

The "the media loved Obama and gives him special treatment" meme is just another incarnation of the "liberal media" myth that has served the GOP so well since the Atwater days.

I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't.

Raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they were during the Reagan years is not going to have some "cascading effect" that will ruin the rest of us. Rolling back the Bush II tax cuts doesn't take us into unexplored territory, it returns policy back to what it was in a sounder era. (Of course, generating fiscal policy by rolling polyhedral dice would result in more sound policy than what we have now...)

Her abuse of public powers belongs in the public domain.
Palin promised cooperation with the investigation, before "Keating 5" McCain found out she's just as "maverick" as he is.

Her abuse of public powers belongs in the public domain.
Palin promised cooperation with the investigation, before "Keating 5" McCain found out she's just as "maverick" as he is.

It's good to know uncle Sam finally protects our eyes from horrible images that may damage the warm and cozy feeling that this pasteurized life gives us. So we don't have to see ever again what the world really looks like outside this beautifull bubble we like to call America.

Corporate US is the new Nazi Germany. Get over it.

10 steps to close down an open society. Long but it's worth it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

I was always hoping to hear about this once, that life was fully created in a laboratory repeating natural processes that started it in the first place. This is closest yet to my hopes coming true.

My other hope is that people stop electing politicians into the office who deny such natural occurrences and base their policies on their religions and other superstitions.

Well one can hope.

I rewatched it, and it still doesn't sound like an intentional dig at the town's name. Watch his face, he doesn't crack a little smirk like McCain does whenever he's getting a meaningless dig in on Obama.

Maybe it was intentional. It would be out of character with how he's conducted his campaign to date if it was.

But let's assume that it was (which I am not at all convinced of), even in that case, here you have Obama making one very tiny dig, then going on to support his point with figures and discussion. McCain's campaign - and I have to compare McCain more than Palin since her presence has been so far so short-lived and the GOP is deciding to keep her sequestered away from the press to avoid any gaffes - has made silly and absurd dig after silly and absurd dig at Obama's campaign.

I don't think the fact that he's been briefed on Palin makes his statement a prepared one. I also don't suspect Anderson Cooper send the questions to Obama in advance. Heck, if it was a prepared statement as you suggest, why would he have had the um's and uh's in there (which of course every GOP die hard dutifully transcribes).

If you want to call Obama out on something like that, you have to call McCain out on the hundreds of petty, meaningless digs he gets in against Obama on a regular basis. Things which have nothing to do with issues, policy, or suitability to be president (such as every time they quote Obama, they transcribe the "uh" and such filler sounds). Things that are outright lies (such as repeatedly claiming that Obama's tax plan is to raise taxes for middle class Americans - which is not currently nor has it ever been true unless you include people who make over $250,000 as middle class).

McCain has been running a dirty, dirty campaign. Obama has been refusing to drop to that same level, which interestingly almost seems to make McCain get all the dirtier, perhaps out of desperation.

I agree with Obama that it's more challenging to run a campaign that has 50 times the number of staffers, and 36 times the budget. I can't say whether he addresses her gubernatorial experience since the video cuts off w/ no indication that he was done answering the question except that he was finishing a point. I even had to re-watch to have heard the "and as governer" in the question which was just kind of thrown in there.

Anyway all of this is again a meaningless distraction from the real issues. Maybe he didn't address a question during a live interview that well. Big freaking whoop. The media gives McCain a pass every time he completely changes his policy week to week. Let's get back to what matters.

Obama has concrete thought out and well defended plans for many major issues. He has run a respectable campaign in the face of repeated meaningless insults. He has a strong foreign policy. He has exhibited consistency and clarity of intention throughout. He rarely has had to change his stance, and when he has done so, he has explained in clear terms why he made that change.

McCain doesn't have cogent policy, he changes his stated policy depending on what will get the best response from the crowd he's currently talking to. He has flip flopped on dozens and dozens of major issues (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

First, Obama and Hillary had 21 debates, including four one-on-one debates. I believe it set a record for debates during the primaries.

Second, McCain and Obama just recently finished making the schedule for debates, on August 21st. Three debates and a VP debate is pretty much standard.

Third, McCain invited Obama to town halls to debate questions from normal folks, and Obama never showed up. But wait... turns out that the "town hall" was actually invite-only, and filled with only Republican supporters. (link) I wouldn't exactly trust any town hall that was set up by McCain's camp.

No, of course I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about the offer from Hillary that he never took her up on, the unscheduled 1h un-moderated debates where the real issues could have been presented and we would have found out exactly where they stand and what they know, and they would have had to argue to the bone on their stuff. Those would have been the most interesting, but would have required Obama to be on his feet, which frankly he's not without his speechwriters.

And secondly, why does going to a town hall with republicans matter? Let your words speak for themselves, if indeed they are truth. I think he feared he wouldn't have had as much support for his usual change, hope, and change for America speech that we've been hearing since A WHOLE YEAR AGO.

First, Obama and Hillary had 21 debates, including four one-on-one debates. I believe it set a record for debates during the primaries.

Second, McCain and Obama just recently finished making the schedule for debates, on August 21st. Three debates and a VP debate is pretty much standard.

Third, McCain invited Obama to town halls to debate questions from normal folks, and Obama never showed up. But wait... turns out that the "town hall" was actually invite-only, and filled with only Republican supporters. (link) I wouldn't exactly trust any town hall that was set up by McCain's camp.

Why bother with a graph when they just flip flop on the issues depending on whatever political gain they think they can get?

For example : As recently as Oct of 07 Obama was against telecom immunity in the FISA bill "Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

Then in June Obama supports telecom immunity

Or McCain ignoring New Orleans last time a hurricane hit, and this time he's in a nearby command center. They're both politicians, they do whatever they think will get them the most politican gain, regardless of past or future viewpoints.

We are not communicating on at least a couple levels. I promise I'm not completely stupid - just dense sometimes.

I'm certainly willing to posit both points; thus my willingness to continue the discussion.

But go somewhere like little green footballs or huffpo and tell me that there is a lot of discussion going on that encompasses a wide range of view points.

Give me a sec...

By "huffpo" I assume you mean huffingtonpost.com (or at least Google thinks so). The top story a few minutes ago on both were basically about Palin, LGF solidly for and Huffpo against but contained a scattering of comments such as this, which so far as I could see were not getting slamed or shot down in any way:

Kudos to Palin
Worked hard for her community while raising five kids.
Whats more deserving that?

She might not be a gifted verbal diaretic but at least she's trying.

Even though the LGF site did seem monoculturally pro-Palin, that may be because they rapidly drifted semi-off-topic into a discussion about evolution and creationism in which a fair variety of positions were expressed and, so far as I could tell, respected.

I go to church. Sure - there are certain things we hold in common, but politics is one place where there a very wide array of positions and they are all respected. There are places like that on-line, there are places that are not like that. People who belong to the places that don't allow true discussion and the representation of lots of ideas are full of people who think 'everyone' thinks like them. And once again, I don't know real world places like that.

The next time you're in church, try preaching a little of the Gospel of Satan and see how far you get. Or go to your local vegan restaurant and order a steak. Be sure to make it clear you don't want some tofu steak-a-like. Ask for it still bleeding.

The fact that you can have friendly, unheated discussions about politics at your church is no different than the occasional football talk that occurs from time to time on most politics sites.

Go to the Jawa report and have a nice discussion on why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq or socialized medicine.

No need, google turned this one up for me as the top link.

--MarkusQ

And sure, she is hot

She was a beauty queen in her town (although not in Alaska) and an athlete — the captain of her basketball team. Not that Huffington Post would have anything nice to say about that, of course.

25 years and 5 children later, she is still quite good looking.

What the hell do you think HTML, XML, news stories, book descriptions, and reviews are? Are they not text?

Yahoo Shopping was written in Lisp. It was later rewritten, in sections at least, by a mixture of C++ and Perl. They wrote a Lisp interpreter in C++ to facilitate this.

Yahoo would have never happened without Perl.

Slashdot already ran a story about the BBC making a Rails-like framework for Perl because they liked Rails but prefer Perl as a language. The article at that second link says they're pretty dedicated to Perl for their whole Web infrastructure.

Amazon use Perl as a major component gluing the front end order-entry system to a back-end database, and also for part of their document authoring chain.

Amazon (for Amazon.com's own site) uses Mason (a Perl website templating system) as their official web development template system, and they're hiring for people with that skill set. They do use a lot of Java, too, apparently, but Perl is an important part of the site.

IMDb uses Linux, Apache, Perl and mod_perl to run pretty much the whole site, and is part of Amazon.

Google is using quite a bit of server-side JavaScript -- on the JVM as a replacement for Java in many cases.

Google uses C++, Python, and Java for most public-facing sites, and much of the management of the systems is done with Python.

This Google job (for a software engineer) lists C++ as a must and Python as a plus. This other job (for a software engineer) requires both one or more of C, C+, or Java and one or more of shell, Perl, PHP, or Python.

The nation of Scotland used Perl to migrate millions of land records between systems, which certainly is data munging, but a pretty important bit of it.

It was way back in 1999, but Agilent used Perl to build their big customer-facing e-commerce site.

Booking.com (part of Priceline) uses primarily Perl to run their site.

This PowerPoint presentation says Morgan Stanley in 2004 was using Perl written by over 500 developers on over 9000 (no, that's not a /b/ ism) systems to keep their network running smoothly, for a web front end development language, to develop middleware, and to develop backend applications.

ValueClick and TicketMaster make much use of Perl, too. That's along with the content management system -- Bricolage -- used by the Dean for President campaign, ETOnline, and the World Health Organization being written in Perl. You may have also heard of MovableType, which is a serious CMS from Six Apart. Or maybe you've heard of a site that runs it, called The Huffington Post, who right now is looking for someone to work on it?

At least he knows how to use a computer.

Although CEO pay seems inversely proportional to performance.

The percentage of the top 100 paid CEO that work for companies losing money is almost always disproportionately high compared to the S&P 500. (some like AMAT have had years where the only reason they lost millions was paying the CEO)

Some of the more profitable companies have some of the lower paid CEOs. For example, Bill Gates never cleared seven figures as CEO of Microsoft. Well run companies don't pay super star salaries. Hence the investor revolts by CALPERS and many hedge funds.

In a democracy great disparity in wealth can become a real problem if those at the top of the wealth ladder are allowed to fully utilize their wealth to influence public policy as they are able to effectively overcome their one vote issue. George Sorros and Move On are a prime example of one person doing much more than he should be able to in influencing our public policy.

PS households making about 70k generally pay the highest tax rates, as the deductions that happen as a part of life as you have more assets generally decrease the tax rates at the upper income levels.

PPS. Obama has taken money from ADM which has been convicted under RICO, voted for FISA, proposed coal to diesel followed by putting that diesel in the strategic petroleum reserves because Americans won't by diesel, and is generally as bad as McCain. So, please bash the man on his merits, as their is no need to lie and exaggerate about the man's history, even if it doesn't help because a lot of things can be said about McCain (Who probably lost the entire Hillary/feminist vote by calling his wife a cunt.)

PPPS. Vote Green, Constitution, Libertarian, or Nader.

look at the history of Olympic and World Championship women's gymnastics victories since the first age limit was introduced in 1980 and you will see that the vast majority of medals went to older gymnasts and not to 14- and 16-year-olds. As it turns out, what matters is not the width of athlete's hips but skills and consistency in their performances. And consistency comes with psychological maturity.

How do you know any of the reported ages are correct? Age falsification is not new:

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

Here is another article on the topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-francis/female-gymnastics-is-alwa_b_119067.html

I happen to lean left myself and I've read Newstrust daily almost since it came out; it's an excellent resource. But I think it's clear that the selection of articles leans left:

* For example, see this list of the most highly rated posts. You see the NY Times, Wash. Post, NPR, Huffington Post, The Nation, Alternet, FAIR, which range from moderate to liberal. What is missing is right-leaning publications, like the Weekly Standard, National Review Online, OpinionJournal, etc.

* Also, a few months ago, NewsTrust formed a partnership with a partisan liberal publication, The Huffington Post to find new about John McCain. Not surprisingly, the articles that were posted leaned very heavily left.

What can NewsTrust do to address these issues?

Please describe how pointing out that one particular group in politics is intolerant, hypocritical and has ridiculous arguments is either hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous in itself?

BTW, I'm no democrat either, but the right wing take the cake in this arena.

First, your idea that the right is "hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous" is soundly disproved by the fact that only the Democratic Party has a former KKK member within its ranks. It doesn't help that he is considered a "respected member" of the party.

Let's see, "ridiculous arguments"... Well, "The Surge is a Failure" comes to mind. More recently, "Drilling for oil won't help for 10 years" is another doozie. Instead, they prefer alternative energy which won't help for 30 years. We send kids to school every year that won't graduate for 13. Besides, that is exactly what they said 10 years ago.

Intolerant? How many times to you see people on the right celebrating when someone opposite the aisle gets cancer? I can't find anyone who is happy that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. Take a look for yourself for a find example of the tolerance of the left. Then, of course, there was the rioters throwing snow balls at Bush's motorcade on his way to his first Inauguration. How many of these people apologized when it was proven that he actually won the election? If you need more examples, they are easy to find. Check out The Daily KOS, Huffington Post or Democratic Underground.

Finally, Nancy Pelosi, who promised, "We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship." Is that what she meant when she turned the lights out on them? Maybe she was referring to her quote, "The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans." when she refused a vote to allow offshore drilling. How about her saying, "Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way." and then saying that Bush is a "Total Failure"?

Hypocritical? There John Edwards winning "Father of the Year". Also, what did Milosovich do that Saddam Hussein didn't? Why was it OK to overthrow the government in Bosnia, but the Senate approved and funded war in Iraq is somehow "illegal"?

Now look, I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but don't ignore the sins of one party in order to bash the other for doing the exact same thing!

I looked at donation records for my area in the last two elections, and to my surprise the people giving money to Republicans maxed out their donations at $2000 per person. The Democrats were way more numerous, but vanishingly few gave more than $100 each. This year the Democrats are averaging $300 each, with more $2000 donations. The Republicans aren't all maxing their donations, but a lot more of them are going to Ron Paul and a handful of non-McCain candidates. It doesn't track corporate donations or 'soft-money', but I'd imagine those tend to go Republican anyway, and besides, which corporations are going to donate more to a Republican candidate because they saw them on Colbert?

This is why Colbert 'bumps' donations to Democrats and not Republicans--individual Democrats appear to have more money to spend on donations this year.

I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.

You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.

If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.

Oil is not a long-term solution.

Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.

Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.

Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.

Because we need energy NOW.

Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.

Falcon

I think you're on to something. It's called McCommunism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein/the-olympics-unveiling-po_b_117403.html

So, to you, stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion zealots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111400720.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/sekulow_recalls.html

and going after porn with a vengeance by increasing Justice Department prosecutions and devoting FBI resources to porn DURING A TIME OF TERRORISM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bushs-war-on-porn-perve_b_7704.html

and viciously pushing to remove porn's sources of funding

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

and levying huge fines on outspoken media opponents for talking about innocuous things

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0408043fcc1.html

or for showing a tit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/entertainment/main626925.shtml

or using swear words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article390108.ece

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/epps

isn't doing much to push the religious agenda?

How much more does it take to convince you that Bush, especially during the time he had no Congressional opposition, was actively doing things to help the religious zealots? Are you sure that YOU haven't been living on Mars the last seven years?

CHANGE MY ASS ===) **** Obama (D-IL) **** (=== CHANGE MY ASS

Clinton to her credit abstained

Actually Clinton voted No.

Here's a link