Slashdot Mirror

if you have not yet figured out that the ruling class and the corporations that they own and control .. own and control this planet and your sorry ass .. you are just not paying attention ..

after all they control 98% of all the wealth on earth .. and it is because they are smarter and more deserving than the rest of humanity .. the divine rights of royalty and all that crap.

big brother knows what is best for us and them ..

and besides better if i can hide my shortcomings from scrutiny .. so no one is aware that in fact we are not really all that much brighter just more ambitious cunning and greedy .. as that might lead the masses to start questioning whether the ruling class is really deserving of controlling 98% of everything .. although with the effectiveness of 50% +1 demonocracy .. mass brainwashing through public education and the media .. i doubt it ..

and we would not want a second french revolution .. or one like the 60's were the awakening of consciousness among the youth(the peacemakers .. the biblical children of god) being asked to die for them in one of their for profit WARs and a relatively open and free press almost beat them .. which is why they have retaken control of the educational institutions .. mass media .. and effectively outsourced 95%+ of the government and the militarily to their corporations since 1984 and reagen's second term election .. while the working class grunts are under the threat of losing their livelihood or even death for not fallowing the orders they are given ..

that part is quit cunning .. really nothing new though .. and if it were not for lewis f. powell who went on to become a supreme court judge and his manifesto .. http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21 .. WE THE PEOPLE might have fulfilled the true meaning of democracy and actually gained control over our own lives ..

what a perfect Catcha for the day .. indolent

The other point was more a vague feeling I got that the questions were pushing an agenda.

Of course they are. The sponsoring organization is a right-wing policy paper mill. Here's some background on ISI.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=177
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute
http://www.mediatransparency.org/conservativephilanthropy.php?conservativePhilanthropyPageID=11

The other point was more a vague feeling I got that the questions were pushing an agenda.

Of course they are. The sponsoring organization is a right-wing policy paper mill. Here's some background on ISI.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=177
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute
http://www.mediatransparency.org/conservativephilanthropy.php?conservativePhilanthropyPageID=11

I have to say that I think they may have gotten confused, what with high school teaching one semester of economics and one semester of government these days. Otherwise, why would I need to define "profit"?

Because this "test" is a bit of right-wing propaganda, which seeks to conflate conservative doctrine with actual facts about our government. (Or is there an answer to "Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning because:" or "International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?" hidden somewhere in the Constitution that I've missed?)

The "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" evolved out of William Bennett's Madison Center for Educational Affairs and Irving Kristol's Institute for Educational Affairs.

Compared to the 309 total US Nobel's in science from 1951-2000 it is but a small drop in the bucket.

no flame bait either .. but just as most always ..

i will most likely receive the flame bait .. troll label .. written off as paranoid etc.

that was the whole idea ..

"they" the ruling class have known for a long time that the vast majority of people will simply not believe that it could happen .. it's called denial .. their most reliable and important weapon ..

modern democracies .. such as america have been useful and necessary distractions .. to give the lower classes the illusion that they have some power over the system .. while their plans could unfold ..

if you still believe the official story of 9/11 events .. time to think again ..

google "false flag operations"

this really has been a private planet since the military was outsourced to the private sector read:the ruling class .. after the first world war .. the real beginning of the modern phase of the plan .. as it was the only realistic option for the ruling class after the industrial revolution .. that or lose their control of the planet .. and subjugation to the lower classes .. ie. being just like everyone else .. no privileges .. no power over others (the real aphrodisiac by the way)

they almost lost the war in the sixties with a relatively open and FREE press (their only real achilles heel) but they were able to gain control of the mass media .. game over .. end of story ..

there have been a lot of canaries in the mine .. but the majority have refused to take them seriously .. just as expected ..

just a few interesting links ..

once you really start looking .. you will be overwhelmed with information .. another thing working in their favor ..

this is a good place to begin as it was a modern pivotal event .. even if it appears a little insignificant ..

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21

most people thing the Nazis lost the war .. think again .. just a temporary setback ..

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html

and a few more to get you started ..

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=73328
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/aliensindenver.htm
http://www.trufax.org/
http://www-bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/archive/users/warneke-brett/SmartDust/
http://www.freezone.org/mc/swfqw.htm
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/ST.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/raisethefist/
http://www.alpha-education.co.uk/

this one is even fun ..
http://www.theyrule.net/

you can find more "truthful" information out there than you probably want to know .. as "they" do not believe that it posses a t

Do you honestly believe they aren't already doing exactly that?

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=159

First you need to realize that there are two broad types of libertarians, the personal liberty type and the economic liberty type.

The personal liberty type (I can do whatever I want as long as I'm not harming others) are utopians who only look at those aspects of communal living (that is modern society) which they disapprove of. If they don't like drug laws then they claim there should be none. If they don't like seat belt laws than risk should be borne by the driver. The oversimplify and refuse to examine the fact that there are no consequence-free choices. Doing something that the majority in a democratic society has decided shouldn't be done has negative effects on others.

The economic liberty type (It's my property, or earnings or wealth) is actually a shill (or unwitting shill) for the super wealthy. This model only considers the rights of the possessor of property and ignores the social cost that was incurred when they obtained their property. They also claim to believe in personal liberty except that they want a strong police/military/legal system in place to protect their property rights.

This group would not have the presence that it does if it weren't supported by a small group of super weathy families which provide the money to the "think tanks" that give the intellectual veneer to what is, essentially, greed.

The best place to start is to study the actions of Charles Koch and his support of such places as the Cato Institute.

Here's a good link to begin with.

Media Transparency

Many people think we are engaged in a battle over ideas, but the wealthy are just in it for the money. They buy the intellectuals they need (and the politicians too). Until people realize the real power of this small core of super wealthy conservatives they will continue to tilt at windmills.

>Really? So the thousands of computers he donated to libraries and schools all across the country is actually Microsoft stock?

You mean the ones where the charities had to pay for windows, right? For the life of the machine in some cases. I just want to be sure what we're talking about here, because, you know, I have a car to give away, but you have to buy the tires from me for the life of the vehicle and they're a bargain at only $1,000 each.

>If you want to bag on him, there are far better things to do it on than his charity work.

On the contrary, I actually think it's one of the better things to bag him on, since he can't even be honest when it comes to that. If you can't donate to charity without expecting a profit, just don't.

>How many schools has Sam Walton started??

Oh, he's even more giving than Bill Gates. And he likes to teach a political lesson at the same time. Or didn't you know about this? It's in Wikipedia, man.

In 1985, Sam Walton began a program designed to stem the 'tide of communism' in Central America by promoting capitalism and privatization. His efforts included funding scholarship programs to bring Central American students to Christian universities in the United States, hoping that exposure to American capitalist and Protestant Christian values would dissuade them from becoming involved in communist movements.

Funny thing is, even if it's for the wrong reasons, he's still way more of an honest man than Bill G. Bill G surreptitiously tries to use his charitable donations to make money, until he's found out and (sometimes) backpedals. Sam Walton says his intentions loud and clear, and at least he's not doing it with a business angle.

Some other things that make Sam Walton a "great" man (at least according to your way of thinking, which is if you donate enough to charity, you're a great guy):

Walton supported various charitable causes, including those of his church, the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Sam and Helen R. Walton Award was created in 1991 when the Waltons made a gift of six million dollars which included an endowment in the amount of three million dollars to provide annual awards to new church developments that are working in creative ways to share the Christian faith in local communities.

Sam Walton's family has also donated more to the University of Arkansas than anyone else, ever.

There's the $85 million to the children's scholarship fund, $41 million to Children's Educational Opportunity (CEO) Foundation America, and $12 million to San Diego Society of Natural History Balboa Park, $11 million for John Brown University, etc, etc. In fact, with the $1/2 billion they've donated, I dare say Sam Walton's family more generous and benevolent to society than Bill Gates!

Sucks to eat your own words, doesn't it?

and you are a 40-something corporate wage slave .. who knows the harsh realities of the rEAL wORLD .. right?

wrong ..

it is all corporations that are fundamentally evil ..

100-150 years ago the corporations had virtually no power to speak of .. through steady political influence and legal influence .. they have achieve an insurmountable advantage over the individuals of the world ..

they almost lost in the late sixties early seventies .. but they have made a calculated and spectacular comeback ..

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID =21

and so we will all one day work for The Corp .. like it or not .. or be killed .. mark of the beast and all ..

The Corp and it owners has achieved a Win Win position ..

the power and advantage of the group .. as well as limited social and legal liability ..

Were as the individual has been given a Lose Lose situation ..

the disadvantage of having to do everything for themselves .. why do you think animals become social int the first place .. as well as full social and legal liability .. and in the course of time .. a no win situation ..

an all but inevitable fate .. people that will accept this reality .. are asking for .. and some would say even deserve their fate .. to live their life in service to The Corp and it's owners ..

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/silentweaponsquietw arsmay79.shtml

total slavery .. as long as it's not called slavery and it does not look like slavery .. as long as there is no discrimination .. almost everyone is included .. except for the oWNERS (rulers) .. as long as i get a wage to pay for my keep .. i can believe .. can call my self free ..

after all .. deep down we all know how much it would really cost us .. to be a true individuals .. the corporate ace in the hole .. it's much easier to submit ..

a bRAVE nEW wORLD ..

"Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Washington, DC"

Excepting Oracle is one of the leading companies advocating development of massive all seeing, all powerful databases by the government to make us all "safe". They obviously have a conflict of interest because they make money from most of the big databases that are used to collect information about us and violate our privacy. They have been circling like sharks since 9/11 pushing agencies like Homeland Security to create national security databases using Oracle software.

"James W. Harper, Editor/Executive Director, Privacilla.org & Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC"

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian group which you might think is a plus for a data privacy committee but its main goal is to eliminate all barriers to profitability for big corporations. If there is profit in it they will see your data privacy down the river in a heartbeat. Its founder Charles Koch own Koch oil, a very big but somewhat obscure oil company with close ties to Bush/Cheney (like all big oil companies), and a notorious pollution record. They were facing massive pollution fines in the Clinton era but they all miraculously disappeared when Bush siezed power in 2000.

"Tara Lemmey, Chief Executive Officer, Lens Ventures, San Francisco, CA"

Don't know anything about this one but her mission statement is a trippy exercise in babbling buzzwords, but note especially "From information as property to information as profit" which sounds kind of bad idea for a data privacy committee. She was President of EFF at one time but it kind of sounds like she saw the light and is pursuing profit over freedom at this point:

"LENS brings you passionate, knowledgeable, insightful voices that weave context for the conversation of change. From the latest announcements in biotech to the current zeitgeist in national security. From information as property to information as profit. From the changing architectures of our urban landscape to the changing architectures of our global networks. Leaders from government, science, academia and industry converge and cross-pollinate a broad range of topics and disciplines to bring your audience a full spectrum view unlike any other."

"Paul Samuel Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC"

Heritage Foundation is another right wing think tank, and major Bush backer. If you want to see one reason the right is kicking the left's ass its all these very well heeled right wing think tanks that specialize in telling politicians and the media how to think.

"Joseph Leo, Vice President, SAIC, Vienna, VA"

They've starred several times on Slashdot recently. Someone stole a poorly secured computer with social security number for pretty much every employee who ever bought stock in the company.

They were also a key player in the FBI's trilogy project, to computerize the FBI's case files, which after $170 million dollars is most probably going to be scrapped because it was apparently useless.

All in all they are just a big government contractor and they do massive amounts of work for the Pentagon and intelligence agencies and as such probably tread on your privacy as much as Gator, and probably more insidiously.

Think they are a playe rin electronic voting too.

My point exactly. Andy has been in Linux flamewars since the beginning (probably even the first one!). Remember, also, that Kenneth Brown of AdTI wanted to claim that Linus 'stole' Linux from Andy's MINIX and how Andy refuted that at the time. Hence the careful choice of words ...

Microsoft in the past has supplied funding for the institution, which has published anti-open-source papers. In an eWEEK.com interview, senior fellow Gregory Fossedal refused to say who, if anyone, is sponsoring the institution's Linux project. "We don't discuss our funding," he said.

But we really don't need a Microsoft link to demonstrate the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's grotesque ideological bias. While the think-tank positions itself as an independent, libertarian research group designed to "study, promote, and extend the principles of classical liberalism: political equality, civil liberty, and economic freedom," they function, more often than not, as a shill for Big Business and the far political right.

AdTI is a fellow-traveler of neoconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and shadowy groups like the "Defenders of Property Rights," with whom they are aligned as part of an anti-Clean Air Act hit squad ironically misnamed the Cooler Heads Coalition. These are the folks who have been grinding out the industrialist propaganda which has allowed the Bush Administration to roll back environmental laws a couple of decades.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute can always be counted upon for a convenient white paper discounting the risks of tobacco smoking or in favor of vastly expensive weapons programs of dubious utility.

It's tough to source the funding of private institutes, but the folks at Media Transparency have taken a stab at AdTI. Big sugar daddies include the Bradley Foundation, which gives away millions each year to attack social programs and support the privatization of government services. There's also the John M. Olin Foundation, which has lavishly funded a host of robber baron nonprofits over the years.

So it's no surprise that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institiute -- which seems to exist to provide a moral compass for the richest and most powerful interests in the West -- should be seen to carry water for anti-Open Source reactionaries. What's bad for big business must be bad for the nation. Linux must be discredited before it causes more distress for the market planners at Microsoft.

The only freedom being defended by groups like AdTI is the feedom to buy what the Establishment is selling. And at a price they decide.

But we really don't need a Microsoft link to demonstrate the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's grotesque ideological bias. While the think-tank positions itself as an independent, libertarian research group designed to "study, promote, and extend the principles of classical liberalism: political equality, civil liberty, and economic freedom," they function, more often than not, as a shill for Big Business and the far political right.

AdTI is a fellow-traveler of neoconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and shadowy groups like the "Defenders of Property Rights," with whom they are aligned as part of an anti-Clean Air Act hit squad ironically misnamed the Cooler Heads Coalition. These are the folks who have been grinding out the industrialist propaganda which has allowed the Bush Administration to roll back environmental laws a couple of decades.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute can always be counted upon for a convenient white paper discounting the risks of tobacco smoking or in favor of vastly expensive weapons programs of dubious utility.

It's tough to source the funding of private institutes, but the folks at Media Transparency have taken a stab at AdTI. Big sugar daddies include the Bradley Foundation, which gives away millions each year to attack social programs and support the privatization of government services. There's also the John M. Olin Foundation, which has lavishly funded a host of robber baron nonprofits over the years.

So it's no surprise that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institiute -- which seems to exist to provide a moral compass for the richest and most powerful interests in the West -- should be seen to carry water for anti-Open Source reactionaries. What's bad for big business must be bad for the nation. Linux must be discredited before it causes more distress for the market planners at Microsoft.

The only freedom being defended by groups like AdTI is the feedom to buy what the Establishment is selling. And at a price they decide.

But we really don't need a Microsoft link to demonstrate the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's grotesque ideological bias. While the think-tank positions itself as an independent, libertarian research group designed to "study, promote, and extend the principles of classical liberalism: political equality, civil liberty, and economic freedom," they function, more often than not, as a shill for Big Business and the far political right.

AdTI is a fellow-traveler of neoconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and shadowy groups like the "Defenders of Property Rights," with whom they are aligned as part of an anti-Clean Air Act hit squad ironically misnamed the Cooler Heads Coalition. These are the folks who have been grinding out the industrialist propaganda which has allowed the Bush Administration to roll back environmental laws a couple of decades.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute can always be counted upon for a convenient white paper discounting the risks of tobacco smoking or in favor of vastly expensive weapons programs of dubious utility.

It's tough to source the funding of private institutes, but the folks at Media Transparency have taken a stab at AdTI. Big sugar daddies include the Bradley Foundation, which gives away millions each year to attack social programs and support the privatization of government services. There's also the John M. Olin Foundation, which has lavishly funded a host of robber baron nonprofits over the years.

So it's no surprise that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institiute -- which seems to exist to provide a moral compass for the richest and most powerful interests in the West -- should be seen to carry water for anti-Open Source reactionaries. What's bad for big business must be bad for the nation. Linux must be discredited before it causes more distress for the market planners at Microsoft.

The only freedom being defended by groups like AdTI is the feedom to buy what the Establishment is selling. And at a price they decide.

Oddly, the word "misdirection" is all I can think of just now. For
those who do not know, it is a fundamental principle of illusionists to
misdirection with flashes and loud noises so that you will miss where the slight
of hand is actually going on. By managing the attention of the crowd, focusing
it on something noisy and exciting, one misdirects them so that they are
surprised when the magic happens.

It was Enderle who gave me this idea, of all people. You may remember him, for
all his claims about "Linux terrorists" and then trying even to
provoke Linux vs. BSD flamewars in a snotty aside at the end of one of his
articles.

You see, it should be obvious to anyone that this is all designed as flamebait.
One would expect people to react vociferously, as is the nature of flamebait.
But what is its use? For our "analysts" in the institute here, it
means money, either in donations from the like-minded, or even hype for their
book. Even those who hate it might be tempted to read it, simply to find out
what they say in it.

As for Microsoft, what do they gain from negative PR, you might ask? I suspect
they want to make themselves out to be a victim. Oh, of course, we certainly
won't buy it, but if voices like Enderle's prevail... well, that's another
matter. The general public, and thus many of Microsoft's customers, probably
won't hear about all this, but they might hear the news Microsoft helps put out,
say on MSNBC or other channels...

How might they become a "victim" you ask? By portraying us as
"reactionary" (even when there may be no "us" to speak of)
and trumping up those who come up with the crazy conspiracy theories to
discredit those who can envision more plausible scenarios. I suspect that they
would simply say that their funding of this group was innocent and incidental,
then some up with some wildly inaccurate conspiracy theory from some random
person on the internet, and use that to discredit all those who see any
significant involvement between the two.

Worse, if (God forbid) anyone got upset enough to do something illegal, we would
all be maligned for it. In such a hostile environment, they may blame even
unrelated misfortunes (such as one's server crashing, or random hardware
failures) on unknown "hackers" ...

So don't get distracted by patent nonsense. Refute it, yes, but always with a
level head, knowing that there are "journalists" like Daniel Lyons of
Forbes who will even stoop to quoting random anonymous comments off the internet
to make it look as though everyone with a differing opinion is a moron, while
SCO has invented fake protesters with fake signs claiming to support communism,
among other things.

So remember, they're not trying to convince us of anything. They're trying to
convince those who know little about these issues and who haven't taken sides
yet.

Fact: AdTI employs James Kilpatrick as a senior fellow. Kilpatrick made a career defending segregation and apartheid.

Fact: AdTI employs John Norquist, the not-so-big-time younger brother of big-time conservative activist Grover Norquist.

Fact: AdTI president Ken Brown's sole research qualification is a BA in English from George Mason. He has built a career out of milking shady publications, agent-of-foreign-power lobby groups, and dubious business-academica-government incest groups.

Half of the links from the AdTI front page are broken. The other half send you to repositories of op-eds and recorded radio shows.

This is not a research institute. Not even a bad research institute. This is a demi-journalistic hack shop where goldbricking bottomfeeders of right-wing policy studies and editorial-writing filch cash from gullible corporations in return for hastily-written hokum.

Please do not post any more from these con artists. I'm sure they get paid by the hit.

Richard K. Miller,
President,
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

This is a school that is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is one of the largest funders of anti-labor causes in the US. The Olin's are multi-millionaires and fund to the tune of millions a year causes that are the most strident in screwing workers and helping millionaires and billionaires. There are not many wealthy American families on the front lines of what they must perceive as a class war as them. The only other ones I can think of are the Coors family, and to some extent Richard Mellon Scaife.

I read through this article and what is he saying? Nothing but a lot of bullshit. But other people here have mentioned that so I'll just throw up a red flag about who he's connected to (and paid by).

I should also mention that if there's a "problem" they'll always say it is American workers versus Indian workers. As if we're in a race and have to compete - working longer hours for the same amount of money, improving our skills so we generate more profit for the bosses and so forth. What is not mentioned is overwork, that if American workers and Indian workers got overtime pay, unemployment would fall (as people would be cut down to 40 hours work per week), and wages would rise, since supply of IT labor hours would shrink, increasing the price.

I am really tired of hearing the bullshit. The problem is not with the IT workers, we can administrate and program just as well as we could five years ago, if not better. The problem is with the people who control the capital, and their broken-down economic system which has the sole purpose of making profit for them. The only way to fix anything of this for ourselves is to talk to other IT workers who are of a similar mind (which there are many of), organize together and do something together. The sum is greater than the total of all of the parts. There are already nascent efforts out there working towards this, we just have to join up with them and push them along.

The Heartland Institute of course being wholly free of any right wing leanings or funding.

The ELC's main funding comes from the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation.

The Scaife Foundations are financed by the Mellon family fortune (from industrial, oil, and banking business):

At one time, its largest single holding was stock in Gulf Oil Corporation. It was estimated some years ago to be a $200 million foundation. It became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Since then, Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. He controls not one -- but three (the Scaife, Carthage, and Allegheny) -- conservative family foundations. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top four conservative foundations.

The John M. Olin Foundation grew out of a family chemical and munitions manufacturing business, and funds right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

So if you want a source that's biased to industry and to the right wing, the ELC would be a good choice.

The bias is well and subtly crafted; for example, they state "A number of environmental problems are attributed to our reliance on fossil fuels, yet increased use of energy is a primary signal that a country is developing a higher standard of living" - the unspoken connotation being that conservation and efficency is a reduction in living standards.

The ELC's main funding comes from the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation.

The Scaife Foundations are financed by the Mellon family fortune (from industrial, oil, and banking business):

At one time, its largest single holding was stock in Gulf Oil Corporation. It was estimated some years ago to be a $200 million foundation. It became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Since then, Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes. He controls not one -- but three (the Scaife, Carthage, and Allegheny) -- conservative family foundations. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is considered to be one of the top four conservative foundations.

The John M. Olin Foundation grew out of a family chemical and munitions manufacturing business, and funds right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

So if you want a source that's biased to industry and to the right wing, the ELC would be a good choice.

The bias is well and subtly crafted; for example, they state "A number of environmental problems are attributed to our reliance on fossil fuels, yet increased use of energy is a primary signal that a country is developing a higher standard of living" - the unspoken connotation being that conservation and efficency is a reduction in living standards.

I believe those issues are more politely called "Social Security privatization" and the "Southern strategy."

Next week: "Smoking is good for your health" by the R.J. Reynolds Institute.

Yeah George Bush is a big leftist commie. *rolling eyes*

Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

Okay, since this is slashdot, I'll start with CEI Blasts Open Source Software. Just to put it in local context.
Also, you are right, I was wrong and I should have done the research. I ASSUMED that, as usual, a right-wing group was putting forward a PR flack and, as always true with assuming more then once, I made an ass of me and only me. Nonetheless, instead they front with a geologist (hmmm, that's relevant-NOT!) who then calls such a background one in "the natural sciences". Yeah, sure, pull the other one.
But, as for CEI and how they are funded (were they "bribed"?), let's move on to this, which shows that since 1985 the CEI has been funded almost entirely by large polluting corporations and folks like Scaife, Olin, and McKenna on the very hard right. These are the folks that people like Gingrich had to ask to moderate their public statements because they were too hard-line right wing for *him*.
Now, as for funding, CEI has gotten funding from (among others):
* Amoco Foundation, Inc.
* Coca-Cola Company
* CSX Corporation
* Ford Motor Company Fund
* Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
* Pfizer Inc.
* Precision Valve Corporation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation
* Texaco, Inc.
* Texaco Foundation * American Petroleum Institute
* ARCO Foundation
* Burlington Northern Railroad Co.
* Cigna Corporation
* Detroit Farming Inc.
* Dow Chemical
* EBCO Corp.
* General Motors
Now, I could write this all up for you, but I believe that this report does just fine, starting out with "CEI calls itself 'a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.' . . .In fact, it is an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business."

As I said, industry flacks.
Rustin

You twirp! How dare you call her Ms. Coulter. Its Mr. Ann Coulter to you, Max Vlast. Mr. Coulter recieved her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School; which I doubt if any slashdot reader has a Doctorate. You can read more about Dr. Ann Coulter from her biography [SlutsGoneInsane.com].

As to your question, I doubt that Mr. Coulter is the promiscuous type. She is a conservative and therefore she is Right. She would never gave premarital sex, unlike most leftists who can't recognize morals even if it smacked them upside the head.

She/He is a LANKY SKANKY NUTTY SLUTTY IGNORANT WHORE with one wasted existence to pass himself/herself off as a woman. She/He reminds me of those reptile people on the TV series "V". Cold-blooded and always spitting venom.

Nice Adam's Apple for a "woman"?
What about this one? Nice "Crazy Eyes" there Mr./Mrs. LANKY SKANKY.

Ann "LANKY SKANKY" Coulter is a perfect example of the "Seduction of the Ignorant" crowd that fuels the rancid Criminal Republican Criminal Party Criminals and their twisted anti-American spew which regularly is vomited up on one of their many televised "happy to be retarded" love-fests. I see every Ann "LANKY SKANKY" Coulter appearance as yet another parade of a gaunt shemale which titillates the Rancid Criminal Republican Party while ENRON, WORLDCOM, & CHOICEPOINT robs those empty-dittoheads and their suffering children (suffering the torment of ignorant worthless parents who cheer Criminal Traitor Fraud President George Worthless Bush on while he robs them blind. These perverse demented Criminal Republican Criminals ought to be charged with child abuse for forcing these unfortunate children born to mentally defective washouts while they masturbate frantically to images of a shemale viper.

She/He says the National Review only paid him/her $5 a month for her column. The National Review was ripped off by the spindly stupid slut for his/her constant bimbo-burps she claims to fame.

Frankly I consider the LANKY SKANKY random word vomiter as most likely too scary for even Charles Manson (though those "Crazy Eyes" show even Squeaky Frome is a tame nutball compared to LANKY SKANKY).

FYI, there are 2 Olin Foundations out there which some slashdotters may be familar with -- The FW Olin Foundation, which appears primarily concerned with furthering higher education in science, engineering, and business, and the more conservative John M Olin Foundation, which seems to specialize in throwing money at various right wing pundits.

FW Olin Foundation blurb: (scroll down to #8)
http://www.capitalresearch.org/publications/a ltern atives/1998/june.htm

John M Olin Foundation:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/fund ers/john_m_ol in_foundation.htm

Anybody remember who finally fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was investigating Nixon?

Turns out, it was a 25-year-old named...Robert Bork, who was famously rejected for supreme court in 1987 and hired by Netscape in 1998 to lobby their case!

See a Dr. Dobbs Journal reprint from 1998 for geek-friendly history.

I'm sorry to be a party-pooper, but where's the evidence that they take money from Microsoft? The ZDNet article says nothing about that, and the talkback comments (at least the few dozen that I read) provide no evidence along those lines, either. The Register says that Richard Smith says that they take money from Microsoft, though they present no evidence along those lines. Smith's a cool guy and all, and he's got a good track record, but I'm going to need a little more than a second-hand non-credited reference to believe this.

I did a little poking around and a little Googling, but was unable to come up with any evidence on my own.

So, please, could somebody enlighten me?

-Waldo Jaquith

Those "facts" come from the "National Center for Policy Analysis," which is described here as a 'a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems.' In summary, this seems to be a rather conservative group.

In this case, as is often the case, there are very few objective 'facts'; one can find studies that say pretty much whatever you want. Please, give opinions, but do not try to pass them off as some objective truth.