Slashdot Mirror

Bush was on leave to work on a political campaign in Alabama as equivilant service. Even during his "missing time", he accumulated more than enough points to stay in good standing.

Here's a more exhaustive explanation that I can give.

I'm sorry, but if the author couldn't do some basic background checking on someone's voting record why the heck should I trust their reporting on scientific matters? Especially when they've already shown a premeditated bias against what they're reporting on?

Come on, wake up and look at the facts...

About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success -- and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. Blunders were daily occurrences -- resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq...

The army soon learned that their light Sherman tanks were no match for Nazi Panthers and Tigers. Hundreds of their "Ronson-lighters" -- crews and all -- went up in smoke. Indeed, 60 percent of all lost Shermans were torched by single shots from enemy Panzers. In contrast, only one in three of the Americans' salvos even penetrated German armor...

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071604.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/hanson/hanson200407160827.asp

The alternatives to the mainstream media already exist, and people that want alternatives readily find them. Barriers to entry simply are not an issue with the media. Sure it may irritating to be bombarded by the Scott Peterson trial and all but thats why I read magazines like The Economist. If I was a right wing wackjob, I would get a subscription to National Review or watch Fox News listen to Rush on the air, and if I was a far left loon, I would be reading IndyMedia.

The local newsstand generally has all of these publications from all ends of the political spectrum. Hell, the Maoist international newspaper (which regularly denounces modern China as a far right regime that betrayed Mao's legacy) floats around where I live. While I do find sensationalism in the media irriating, I believe that this demonstrates that barriers to entry are simply not an issue. It might be different if you want to make a living, but frankly broadband will not help that.

Having said all that, assuming that I'm wrong and barriers to entry are an issue, why do you think that we will become more liberal? It seems that for every 60% tax ceiling universal healthcare type, you have a gun nut or a religious wacko.

Don't want to scare you even more, but did anyone read the recent NY times Op Ed piece by Bob Herbert?

Don't have a link because it is the NY Times, but here is the summary/introduction. The article was very scary, especially when you combine hanging chads, the Bush running the state, Floridia's "too close to call" status, and all of its electoral votes.

Voting While Black

By BOB HERBERT (NYT) Op-Ed
August 20, 2004, Friday
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 23 , Column 6

The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted...

Yes. I read it. You'll want to read this too:

What Bob Herbert Didnt Tell you

And
Herbert's Dishonest Jihad Continues

After that, you could find the following meme-killing article on the Florida elections interesting:

Florida Forever

If you're wondering, I tend to collect links that counter the prevailing winds in the media. Also I tend to distrust something I read in the NY Times unless I can find corroboration from trustworthy sources.

This speech by Michael Crichton is good reading too:

Why Speculate?

Have fun.

Don't need it. Bush looks bad enough to the world as it is.

This is the most laughable claim in your list. Protesters were "barely heard?" Are you freaking kidding me? Every channel on TV aired protester opinions, all the newspapers--even a feature film "documentary" that made $100 million. There are endless liberal smear books on the market right now. You're completely lying, and you know it.

The protesters aren't heard on the News. They are seen. That is a big difference. Few media outlets explained the protester's reasoning. The same thing happens during IFM/World Bank riots. Its about marginalizing the issues.

Most of the media is liberal, according to all the polls.

I bet so. If you count every employee, then of course news stations are liberal. The janitors are liberal. The beat writers are mostly liberal. Where it matters, though, the media organizations are very conservative. The marketing department (which sits on the editorial boards of some News Organizations )is conservative. And most importantly, most of the major media companies have conservative CEO's and owners. Disney, News Corp., Warner. All have conservative leadership. Sure there are some random Teds, but most of the liberal tycoons (especially Ted) have been marginalized the past couple years.

Yeah, it was dropped LAST YEAR. Moore was told about it way back in 2003. Gee, he brought it up right before Cannes as some sort of conspiracy, I wonder why?

Um, because that is when his movie started getting major media publicity. You know, when the most people are listening.

What the FUCK does this have to do with the left OR the right wing? It was done out of sensitivity for 2,000 people being lost in New York. It's not a right-wing conspiracy to wipe out the twin towers in an episode of Friends. Jesus H. Christ.

Do we erase freeways because tens of thousands of people die on them every year? No. Highway death is a gritty fact of life. So was 9/11. Dealing with something is one thing, erasing it is a whole different story.

"Honest and non-partisan way" = liberal or anti-American. PBS is well-known as a liberal station. You just demonstrated your bias, lol.

Every organization has some sort of bias. What should he have named? I like the BBC for the same function personally.

She didn't. Another complete lie. This is why liberals are frowned upon by the majority of the folks. It's not about issues anymore, it's about personal vitriol toward people you actually HATE because you disagree with them.

Oh, and that's a lot freaking better than conservatives calling dissenters unpatriotic? I think its sick that conservatives are tearing apart Kerry's service anyway.

The only living man to actually see Kerry's actions has come out against the Swiftboat Group.

With conservatives is all "support your troops," unless one of them runs for president as a Democrat of course!

Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

Sure

I quote from the article she wrote:We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

_

_

Funny, since Comedy Central ran ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 an average of EVERY FIVE COMMERCIALS. John Stewart and Stephen Colbare are--you guessed it--self-proclaimed Democrats.

As a matter of fact, before every taping (as well as in interviews), Stewart always expresses his surprise that people view the Daily Show as a non-biased source of news analysis. It is not.

Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

Her book is called "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism"

As for the second part:

http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter09130 1.shtml

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Write it off as hyperbole, tongue-in-cheek, whatever, but she did say it.

This year is the 35th anniversary of the day in 1969 when Ted Kennedy left his rape victim Mary Jo Kopechne to drown alone in a ghastly staged "accident" on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy waited over 12 hours before reporting this "accident" so that he could verify that she was indeed dead. Ted Kennedy should have been given the electric chair.

Ted Kennedy is the terrorist's best friend. His legislation is responsible for the unscreened flooding of America with illiterate, lazy, third-world parasites eager to mooch off of America's welfare system, all the while plotting mass murder of innocents such as occurred on September 11, 2001.

Ted Kennedy should be in jail, not drunkenly flying around the country at taxpayers' expense.

Or how Moore can go and make film, books, etc that basically say Bush and Saudi Arabia conspired to kill 3000+ Americans because he wants some oil. He's now significantly richer and on the even shorter list for the shows.

I don't care who you put her up against, Anne Coulter can't appear sane. The woman has accused about half the country of a capital crime (treason), and said--without a trace of irony--that the proper reaction to 9/11 was to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." [source] She also said that the tenets of Islam were, "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed." [source]

She claims to abhor the meanspirited, unhealthy atmosphere of political debate in this country, but she has done as much to destroy honest debate as anybody I can think of. There is something seriously, psychologically wrong with this woman.

Thanks for the advice. I guess I have a few thoughts on the matter:

1. I trust the National Review the way I believe opinions become facts if you CAPITALIZE them.

Well, I don't know how much you have to trust National Review. But their website publishes a wide range of authors, and it seems to me that what really matters in this case is any individual author's command of the facts.

As it is, Adler's pieces are quite well informed and generally insightful. I don't know that it's necessary to "trust" him as much as it is to counter his facts with more relevant, pertinent facts of your own.

In fact, you might like to read a fascinating exchange Alder has with current environmental media-darling Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy had a hyperbolic, hyperventilating piece about Bush in Rolling Stone. Adler wrote a piece pointing out that many things in Kennedy's article were misleading or flat-out wrong. In response, Kennedy wrote a letter about it to National Review. Adler responded by noting that, in his letter, Kennedy didn't actually refute a single one of his (Adler's) points.

2. I don't know what sort of "environmental metric" you're talking about, whether measuring laws, executive actions, or physical attributes of the environment.

I was talking about the latter, but while we're on the subject, let's note the former as well. As Adler (and Easterbrook, FTM) note, Bush has made some decisions some environmentalists don't like. But as they also note, Bush is in a no-win situation, because he gets absolutely NO credit for other decisions that one would normally expect an environmentalist to applaud. Easterbrook, himself an environmentalist, has noted that this indiscriminate Bush-bashing is not only dishonorable, but an extremely unwise political strategy.

3. If the latter, note that the environment is an extreme lagging indicator.

I don't disagree with this. But then again, a few thoughts:

a) Does the "lagging indicator" theory get Bush any credit when applied to his pro-environment decisions? I mean, surely it works both ways?

b) On problem with this theory is that you can apply it to *anything*. All sorts of nonsensical enviromental predictions were made in the 1970s and 80s, for example (Paul Weyrich, I'm looking your way); can the now-discredit authors just say the environment is lagging, and is sure to catch up to their theories any day now?

4. If the former, perhaps you could provide a better citation? ... Bush's most egregious actions have been mostly internal to the Executive Branch ...

Sorry, but I don't see any of these actions -- even waves of bureaucrats "resigning in protest" -- crippling the environment. As Adler notes, federal laws governing clean air, water and so on remain in effect. The trends all continue to be positive; it just defies belief to think Bush could undermine that by reshuffling a few bureaucrats -- even if those bureaucrats are dedicated environmentalists.

And I actually provided a pretty good example of an issue constantly used to bash Bush -- the Kyoto accords. Bush has done the exact same thing Clinton did -- declined to submit it for ratfication -- but the difference is, Bush gets piloried for it.

5. Don't read what you like, read what you hate. You'll learn more.

a) First, assuming you know anything about my reading habits from a single Slashdot post is kid-level stuff. Come on.

b) Your last thought is a little hard to square with your first.

c) I would no doubt read The Nation and Mother Jones more often if they would stick to *legitimate* Bush-bashing, and not make me filter out all the *stupid* Bush-bashing.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter ...

- Alaska Jack

Thanks for the advice. I guess I have a few thoughts on the matter:

1. I trust the National Review the way I believe opinions become facts if you CAPITALIZE them.

Well, I don't know how much you have to trust National Review. But their website publishes a wide range of authors, and it seems to me that what really matters in this case is any individual author's command of the facts.

As it is, Adler's pieces are quite well informed and generally insightful. I don't know that it's necessary to "trust" him as much as it is to counter his facts with more relevant, pertinent facts of your own.

In fact, you might like to read a fascinating exchange Alder has with current environmental media-darling Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy had a hyperbolic, hyperventilating piece about Bush in Rolling Stone. Adler wrote a piece pointing out that many things in Kennedy's article were misleading or flat-out wrong. In response, Kennedy wrote a letter about it to National Review. Adler responded by noting that, in his letter, Kennedy didn't actually refute a single one of his (Adler's) points.

2. I don't know what sort of "environmental metric" you're talking about, whether measuring laws, executive actions, or physical attributes of the environment.

I was talking about the latter, but while we're on the subject, let's note the former as well. As Adler (and Easterbrook, FTM) note, Bush has made some decisions some environmentalists don't like. But as they also note, Bush is in a no-win situation, because he gets absolutely NO credit for other decisions that one would normally expect an environmentalist to applaud. Easterbrook, himself an environmentalist, has noted that this indiscriminate Bush-bashing is not only dishonorable, but an extremely unwise political strategy.

3. If the latter, note that the environment is an extreme lagging indicator.

I don't disagree with this. But then again, a few thoughts:

a) Does the "lagging indicator" theory get Bush any credit when applied to his pro-environment decisions? I mean, surely it works both ways?

b) On problem with this theory is that you can apply it to *anything*. All sorts of nonsensical enviromental predictions were made in the 1970s and 80s, for example (Paul Weyrich, I'm looking your way); can the now-discredit authors just say the environment is lagging, and is sure to catch up to their theories any day now?

4. If the former, perhaps you could provide a better citation? ... Bush's most egregious actions have been mostly internal to the Executive Branch ...

Sorry, but I don't see any of these actions -- even waves of bureaucrats "resigning in protest" -- crippling the environment. As Adler notes, federal laws governing clean air, water and so on remain in effect. The trends all continue to be positive; it just defies belief to think Bush could undermine that by reshuffling a few bureaucrats -- even if those bureaucrats are dedicated environmentalists.

And I actually provided a pretty good example of an issue constantly used to bash Bush -- the Kyoto accords. Bush has done the exact same thing Clinton did -- declined to submit it for ratfication -- but the difference is, Bush gets piloried for it.

5. Don't read what you like, read what you hate. You'll learn more.

a) First, assuming you know anything about my reading habits from a single Slashdot post is kid-level stuff. Come on.

b) Your last thought is a little hard to square with your first.

c) I would no doubt read The Nation and Mother Jones more often if they would stick to *legitimate* Bush-bashing, and not make me filter out all the *stupid* Bush-bashing.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter ...

- Alaska Jack

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

Actually there are only two reports of Kerry's departure from Vietnam that I can find anything about. If he had truly been sent home due to valor or injury or whatever, that documentation would absolutely be in the collection of military records that appears on Kerry's website. It's obvious to anyone who has served (I was in the Personnel Records business when I served) that the records on his site are not complete. He's just offered the flattering highlights.

The first theory is that the other officers in his unit requested that he be sent home after his third Purple Heart, mainly because of his attitude and the fact that he was a loose cannon. That medal was not considered a very honorable thing to have by the SWIFT boat guys, because it meant they had made a mistake. Most minor injuries were never turned into Purple Heart citations.

The other theory about his departure from Vietnam is that he used the "three-and-out" policy. There was an informal Navy "instruction", numbered 1300.39, that allowed an officer to request transfer out of Vietnam after 3 injuries. He apparently requested this transfer on March 17, 1969. It's interesting that this request is missing from his military records on his website, since his request to go to Vietnam is included, you would think his request to return home, or especially orders to return home if he did not request it, would be included. Interestingly, there is no mention of his departure from Vietnam in the records posted.

You should read this recollection from the doctor who treated Kerry the day after he was "wounded". His injuries were not severe enough to be treated by a medic or evacuated by helicopter, by the way... he showed up the next day at sick call and the shrapnel, which apparently did not come from enemy fire, was removed without anesthesia and the "wound" was covered with a band-aid.

I heard part of the decoration citation for his Silver Star medal on TV last night, and the question posed was something along the lines of "why would the Navy write such a thing if it wasn't true?". Well that answer is obvious to anybody who was ever in the military. Most officers write their own citations and they get rubber-stamped by their chain of command. Most decorations are just things you get to enhance your career. When I was in the Air Force, for example, if you didn't have an Achievement Medal by the time you had been in about 2 years and a Commendation Medal by the time you had been in about 5 years, you had pissed somebody off. And the Meritorious Service Medal was the traditional award for a Senior NCO either retiring or transferring to another duty station.

Purple Hearts and the various Star medals require combat action, which is the only reason they're not handed out in the same way, and the only things which keep them from being just as worthless as the medals I mentioned before.

I also knew of a guy at my duty station who had gotten a Bronze Star for service he had rendered during an action (excuse the vagueness... the situation was so weird that I would give away who it was to some with ANY more detail), and everybody who knew anything about the incident knew it was BS. He had gotten cut or scraped or something, which qualified it as a "wound" during non-flight enemy engagement.

Don't get me wrong -- as a veteran, I have the highest respect for those who have served, particular those who have been in the line of fire, as Kerry was. But when people read citations and take them as something exceptional when they happen all the time and they're usually written by the recipient, I have to respond.

RP

Trade restrictions; massively increased funding for education & labour; massive prescription drug benefit; created a whole new cabinet-level department; signed an unconstitutional campaign finance bill; and worse. Jonah Goldberg goes into far more detail.

If I understand him (and I am NOT saying I agree with him, because I don't) I think you would apply it like this: say there's a scene where a man walks in on his wife cheating. If he shoots her, then at least the scene is teaching that adultery is bad. If he gets turned on and joins in, then it's teaching that there's nothing wrong with it. Make sense?

Ah, so this is a police state? I must say, I like it. Lots to talks about, open dialog about disagreements, utter maniacs like George Soroes getting lots of influence -- not bad.

So, beyond the misapplication of terms, you do raise a good point, why would the world care about domestic politics in the US? They haven't gone over the UN's impotent head in almost a year now! Nope... no reason to keep an eye on the US... or France... or Britian... and as an American I sure don't care a lick about what goes on in Canada! I mean, who cares what our largest trading parter does!

Further more, given how unbiased and accurate the NY Times has become, I'm sure it's a great source to consult! Just consider the accurate, fair, balanced, and just visionary reporting they NY Times has brouth us over the years! Mark Levin has an excellent article on this quality publication.

I keep hearing this inane banter from the right day after day. Put up or shut up.

My my. Hostile, aren't we?

What evidence or analysis do you have that backs up your statement?

What statement in particular are you talking about? If you're referring to my statement about the corrupt French, Russians, or Chinese, please do us all a favor and read up on the fabled U.N. Oil For Food program. This is what we can look forward to if we abdicate our national responsibility to the U.N. as Kerry would have us do.

Senator Kerry has 3 purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star.

Please remind me, is this war hero of yours, John Kerry, the same guy who can't decide if he's for the war on Iraq or against it? I quote: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Bush can't even account for his days at the Texas Air National Refuge for Rich Boys.

This is a non-issue, pathetic really. How about important issues?

Bush has since reversed himself and is in a much weaker negotiating position than Clinton left him with.

On Korea, I can't believe you would try to claim that Clinton's Korea policies were working. The minute after Clinton's administration made the agreement with the North Koreans, they started cheating on the agreement. We lost all credibility and face by this misguided attempt to appease the Kim regime.

I didn't actually hear what you think we should do about N. Korea...do you have a plan? I haven't heard one from Kerry either. Funny how that works.

Your inability to refute facts and analysis with any of your own just proves that you are as foolish as he is.

Again, why so hostile? And what's with the personal attacks? You don't even know me. Do you make it a habit to personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view?

Parroting the Faux News party line doesn't prove anything!

I don't watch Fox News. But as for you, parroting the NPR/NY Times party line doesn't prove anything to me, either!

Strange thing is I was a Republican...right up the Max Clelan incident.

You mean this Max Cleland incident? Apparently you were a "Republican" in the same sense that John Kerry is a Republican.

For example, it was a blog that first broke the story that MoveOn.org was Astroturfing on behalf of Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 . Likewise, I read about it first on a metablog, National Review Online's The Corner. I haven't seen any of the major media pick up this story yet (though many have already been fooled by Astroturfed letters).

Though an immature medium, it will be interesting to see where Blogs go next.

• a huge number of voters were improperly excluded by K. Harris's office (50,000 to 100,000),
• and thousands of cast votes were spoiled by the idiotic design of the "butterfly ballot" .

The parent was written by Rich Lowry, an op/ed writer for the National Review magazine. The original article, published 22 Sep 03. Lowry appears several times on Spinsanity.

To be fair, I should mention that the National Review is not on my list of trusted news sources. But then, so are a lot of sources. Meh.

Locus , the professional news and reviews monthly of written science fiction.

Asimov's Science Fiction , the science fiction's premiere fiction magazine (also where I've sold most of my stories). F&SF would be the runner-up.

I used to read The Weekly Standard as well as National Review, but let my subscription lapse when I found myself falling rurther and further behind. Reason is also worth looking at.

As others have mentioned, The Atlantic is a bright spot on the American media landscape. It's impressive in that it shows a lot of the deeper trends, and it isn't afraid to explore ideas. Instead of focusing on controversy, the articles tend to be more about getting past the shrill argument and down to the real matter at hand. William Langeweische and James Fallows write brilliantly. It's worth noting that the Atlantic has offered perhaps the best overall coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath of any American magazine.

For those who complain about supporting advertising, check out The New Republic. It gets right down to business. The pages don't have much advertising. Excellent coverage of a wide variety of topics make it a worthy suppliment to the Economist, and proof that not all American publishers underestimate the average American's brain power.

It can be very worthwhile to read The New Republic and then read The National Review. Also not aimed at children, the National Review is solidly right-wing Catholic. The experience of reading both magazines one after another can be incredibly jarring. But for me it reveals a lot about why American politics is dominated by polarization and controversy. It also forces me to confront a world-view that overlaps with my own only infrequently.

The way that Bush/Cheney are giving your tax dollars to Halliburtion is disgusting.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. 5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. 102.168(8) (2000). Bush v. Gore

3. THE MYTH THAT GORE WOULD HAVE WON IF RECOUNT HAD ONLY BEEN ALLOWED

There were two news consortiums conducting massive recounts of Florida's ballots. One group was headed by USA Today and the Miami Herald. The other one was headed by eight newsgroups including the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Surprisingly, the two groups came to very similar conclusions. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001) on different recounts:

- Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten the manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush.

- Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards.

- Who would have won if all disputed ballots ? including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president ? had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used.

Of course, Florida law provided no mechanism to ask for a statewide recount a la the last option, only county-by-county recounts. And of course neither Gore's campaign nor the Florida Supreme Court ever asked for such a recount.

1. Arms for Hostages: wasn't this the deal that let American hostages be released?
2. The Contras were no worse than the Sandinistas. And, as far as '[pyschotics] that rape women and children, mutilate men, women, and children, and just generally turn the country into a bloodbath,' interestingly it's people like you who supported Saddam Hussein, who was every one of those things.
3. Reagan didn't ignore AIDS. Reagan didn't hate gays.
4. Deficits are sometimes necessary. When you buy a house, you go into massive debt--that's not a bad thing.

Here is some interesting reading. Just Google for it. It's funny how you don't hear much about this on the nightly news. If it's not bad enough that the UN is a sprawling bureaucracy that burns through billions of dollars a year and can always be counted on to sit on its ass while tens of millions of civilians are murdered by their own governments, it still maintains a petina of legitimacy among those who like to maintain their comfortable illusions. Just listen to how dogmatically its apologists defend it. "It must be good... because it must be." It's only real contribution to the world is to provide a meeting place for representatives from around the world to talk. But surely a tables and chairs can be had for less than the UN's annual budget.

The first link off of google for felon vote is here An excert from it is :
Forty-eight states currently have some form of restriction on the right of felons to vote. The exceptions are Maine and Vermont, which even permit inmates to vote. Thirty-three states disenfranchise felons who are on parole. Eight states deny felons the right to vote for life.

I had thought most states allowed felons to vote and only a few still denied it. Guess I was wrong.

There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief. Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there.

Take note of Al-Zarqawi. You can read some of what he has to say about the war in Iraq in my next response.

Iraq also sheltered Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious terrorists of the 70s and 80s who appears to have links to 9/11. Oddly enough, Nidal committed "suicide" by shooting himself multiple times, in the head IIRC, not long before the war.

and now we're handing it over to Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda doesn't feel that way. Here is what their leader in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, has to saw about their fighters and efforts there only a few months ago:

1. Most of them have little expertise or experience, especially in organized collective work. Doubtlessly, they are the result of a repressive regime that militarized the country, spread dismay, propagated fear and dread, and destroyed confidence among the people. For this reason, most of the groups are working in isolation, with no political horizon, farsightedness, or preparation to inherit the land. Yes, the idea has begun to ripen, and a light whisper has arisen to become noisy talk about the need to band together and unite under one banner. But matters are still in their initial stages. With God?s praise, we are trying to ripen them quickly.

2. Jihad here unfortunately [takes the form

Actually, during recent times of divided government, the Democrats have blocked more judicial nominees than Republicans.

I suppose that you have some theory as to why we took over Iraq (a secular non-terrorist country) in response to Osama and some other Saudis attacked us?

You proceed from false assumptions. Iraq may well have been a secular country, but it was hardly "non-terrorist." Would a "non-terrorist" country provide safe harbor to terrorists such as Abu Abbas (matermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking) and Abu Nidal (a Palestinian terrorist with a lengthy rap sheet)? Would a "non-terrorist" country have its intelligence agents communicating and coordinating with 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta? Would the leader of a "non-terrorist" country ante up $25k for each family of each Palestinian homicide bomber who carried out his mission of murder? Read this and this and get your facts straight.

Of course, that ignores the fact that all of the major news services are either extremist right wing

Again, you're assuming "facts" not in evidence. Since when is Fox News the only game in town? (Even that assumes that Fox News is "extremist right wing," which you would realize is false if you had ever watched it. Making the same claim for CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, etc. is even more absurd. You would have to be to the left of Lenin to conjure up a claim like that.)

If all you're going to do is waste my (and others') time with logical fallacy after logical fallacy, then I see no point in continuing this discussion. Arguing with someone who substitutes errors, omissions, distortions, and lies for truth is pointless.

you won't read a headline about "Lunatic who killed five year old with boobytrap convicted, jailed", you'll hear about "Tresspassing vandal killed by homeowner -- homeowner loses house." As a result, you'll think of a broken court system, when the system actually worked, and worked well.

You know, lots of people need to be paid more. But the average teacher's salary in 2002 was $44,367. Meanwhile, the median household income in 2002 was $42,409. Further, you have to, as the previous post stated, put this into the context of the number of days per year actually worked. This yields an adjusted salary of about $60,000 (via a back of the envelope calculation).

I'm not saying that this isn't commensurate with their value to society. Money is a horrible indicator for actual value. What I am saying is that based on the job, it's really not horrible money. Read more here.

• America is actually a net benificiary of outsourced jobs (i.e., more money comes in from foreign countries outsourcing jobs to the U.S. than are lost outsourcing jobs from the U.S. to foreign contries). "In 2002, U.S. companies exported $14.8 billion worth of computer, data-processing, research, development, construction, archicetural, engineering and other IT services. During that same year, America imported $3.9 billion of those same kinds of services. So for every dollar Americans sent abroad for outsourcing, the world sent more than three dollars to the US. for 'insourcing.'"
• According to a 2003 study by the McKinsey Global Institue, every $1 spent on foreign outspurcing creates $1.12 to $1.14 of additional economic activity in the U.S.
• The vast majority of job losses due to outsourcing have been for lower skill jobs. Between 1999 and 2002, IT jobs went from 6.24 million to 5.95 million. However, during the same period of time, those requiring a relatively high level of training (i.e., an associates degree or higher) actually increased, from 3.43 million to 3.51 million.
• If you use the saner baseline of 1998 rather than the peak of the dotcom bubble, things look better still. Current IT employment levels are equal to those of 1998.
• "Domestic software, computer, and communications services accounted for a combined 4621 billion in 2003, up from $510 billion in 1999."
• Far more people loose their jobs to technology or domestic competition than outsourcing.
• The total outsourcing between 2000 and 2015 is only projected (by Forrester Research) to be 3.3 million jobs, or about 220,000 a year. This is a fairly miniscule number for an economy that employees 137 million, where an average of 350,000 million people file for unemployment every week even in strong economies, and which creates and average of 32.8 million news jobs (while eliminating 31 million, for a net annual gain of 1.8 million jobs) every year.
• Outsourced jobs tend to go to countries that emulate the United States with low taxes and deregulated economies, and the foreign companies jobs are outsourced to tend to buy American equipment and services to do the job.

Or get rid of CAFE.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

In order to meet these goals set by the Feds, car manufacturers, among other things, have to cut mass. That means, in an accident, the proportion of the crash absorbed by you, compared to your vehicle, increases. That's admittedly a simplistic way to look at it, but look here for more information.

One or two of your points is worth it's weight, the rest is statist, the government-is-the-new-god bullshit. See the other replies, I won't bother to repeat them.

Perhaps he was talking about himself---the person who presided over raising the national debt from less than one trillon, when he took office, to more than 2.6 trillion eight years later. And lest anyone blame the Democratic Congress, it's worth noting that Regan frequently proposed budgets with larger deficits than Congress was willing to pass.

Reagan's appetite was for defeating the Soviet Union, and his expensive arms race succeeded beautifully at this---something his liberal critics do not give him adequate credit for---but just like the baby in his metaphor, he showed no sense of fiscal responsibility in cutting other sorts of spending to balance his military spending.

It's also worth noting that Reagan did raise taxes significantly every year of his presidency except 1988. According to the National Review, the Reagan tax increases totalled 2.6 percent of the GDP---the equivalent of almost $300 billion per year in today's economy.

But this does not tell the whole picture. By spending even more than his tax increases could bring in, Reagan assured that future presidents would have to increae taxes further to pay for the debt they would inherit from him.

It's worth considering Reagan in this light because Government, after all, is not some foreign creature. It's just what the people of the United States want it to be.

Under Reagan, people were happy to have large tax increases and larger deficits and they overwhelmingly re-elected the man who made these things happen. Bill Clinton raised taxes even more, although he temporarily brought the deficits under control, and he enjoyed similar popularity.

If the people wanted to change the federal tax structure, all they would have to do is to vote for candidates who support the kinds of tax laws they want.

State taxes are even easier---from California to Massachusetts, voters have chosen the tax systems they want through plebiscites.

So before complaining about the taxes we pay, ask yourself whether the benefits of living in a democracy make it worth submitting to the taxes chosen by the people.

I doubt things would be any faster with the UN taking over, slower maybe, but not faster.

This really isn't a fair criticism, as the UN has often been quick and highly efficienty when it counts. For instance, when the UN administered the Iraqi Oil for Food program, it oversaw a highly successful program for redirecting money intended for starving children and judiciously placed it into the bank accounts of UN officials, international leaders who helped prop up UN policies, critics of US and British administrations and even terrorist institutions. Annon's own son, Kojo Annon, helped implement and oversee the program and made sure no worthless Iraqi children would gobble up funds that would be better spent on new limos, jets, castles and other critically important rewards for the UN officials and their friends.

Likewise, UN weapons inspectors were ruthlessly effective at avoiding the embarassing weapon discoveries in their host nation of Iraq (this is appropriate protocol, mind you) and were exceptionally diligent in advising their hosts with sufficient notice to permit them to relocate the embarrassing items prior to inspection.

Yes, I'm sure Internet domain administration and oversight will be well served. Innovative new registration practices will be enacted, such as domain quotas and scoring (requiring a U.S. firm pay 1000x what a Nigerian firm would to renew the domain, and giving the Nigerian firm a head start to reduce the world's inequities). Imagine the joys of receiving spam from pepsi.com. Wouldn't you like to see a McDonalds-branded spam for penis enlargement? The UN would certainly provide equal opportunity for third world nations to have a try at established US, European and Asian trademarks (oh, expect for the French ones, of course. But that's just a matter of cultural protection, just like how it's not bigotry of the French to prohibit the wearing of religious attire, but try that in Britain or the States and you'd have the ambulance chasers from the world court after you).

Not long after 2001-09-11 attrocities, I saw the words 'NUKE 'EM' scrawled in the grime on the back of a semi truck trailer traveling down the highway.

That the USA didn't rain down instant death and destruction on the homeland(s) of those perceived responsible for the attacks shows a commendable measure of restraint on the USA's behalf not to 'replay' Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In a ghoulish(?) coincidence, the death toll at Pearl Harbor (1941-12-07) is about the same as that of '9/11'. Is it no wonder that the events of 2001-09-11 are now inextricably linked to the date 'which will live in infamy': 1941-12-07?

What a day '9/11' was....

The attacks were vivid, simple, and brutal.

THEY GOT THE WHOLE WORLD TO TAKE NOTICE--the hallmark of such activites.

As an 'encore' of sorts, we now have the terrible events of '3/11' in Madrid, Spain (2004-03-11).

How does one defend against such attacks by using 'the right tool for the right job' without the 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' results one would get using nukes in retaliation against the homeland(s) of the perpetrators of such attacks? Take a look at what happened in the past:

Pearl Harbor: 2,403 dead. Source.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki: 350,000 dead. Source.

Take a look at what is happening now in Iraq:

US soldiers killed: 544 Source.

Iraqi civillians killed: 8,700-10,000+ Source.

The punishment(s) doesn't seem to fit the crime to me....

here's hoping they get this judge.
and remember, you could put an eye out!

Maybe if you think drones are their enemy deploying young children as suicide bombers.

This is what kind of war Israel is facing.

Sen. Leahy thinks that using Windows Explorer to browse around a shared Windows file server and read publically shared documents is hacking. At least, it is when those documents are highly embarrassing to the Democratic Party. In all fairness, his Republican counterpart (Sen. Hatch) is just as clueless, though at least Hatch means well. Leahy's vicious.

I really don't think the politicians are going to be of much help here. Keep them out of the loop and keep them from making RFID countermeasures illegal.

Maybe he was referring to the excessive FDA regulations. One of the reasons drugs cost so much is because of all the hoops you have to jump through to get a new drug approved. Average time from start to finish to get a new drug from molecule to FDA approval is 15 years.

Why would they use a pen when they can use crayons?

Point of Order, transferring all Arabs out of Palestine is an extreme option, and unfair to the millions of Palestinians. If that happened, terrorism would skyrocket. What would stop people then from more attacks? They already lost their homes and livelihoods, and probably some family members in that transfer.

If you think this war was mandatory, then you are the only person I know of who believes that. And the facts are looking less in your favor daily. Didn't Bush make these plans since the day he was inaugerated, according to ex-White House officials? Didn't Cheney and Rumsfeld create such a scenario in a think-tank in the 90's?

There are millions of Palestinians, are you going to say that none want peace? So are you going to be so blind as to say Israel wants peace, but Palestinians don't? That's an awfully big generalization, and an incorrect one considering the PA backed the Road Map, and Palestinians helped author the newer Geneva Accords.

I'm not comfortable with your perception of Arabs as this 'warrior civilization.' That pushes aside centuries of history and progress that they have. I know it's common to call your opponent stupid and claim that they are good for nothing, but that isn't right. Palestinians have the highest number of PhDs per capita in the world. The ones I have seen are nice people, they do want peace and don't support the terrorists.

Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.

You should also remember all those rich kids that used their connections so that they did not need to serve their country, people like Bush, Cheney, Delay, etc etc

While we may not be perfect, we're the best thing going

You mean Tenth best thing.

• He was and is respected by his squadron mates
• He was considered quite intelligent
• A former instructor puts him in the top 5% intellectuallu
• He's the first US President with an MBA
• He got better grades than Gore

Now, I actually disagree with many of his policies: he's been more of a socialist than Clinton, increasing social spending beyond belief (labour, education &c.). But the man's not an idiot.

The federal government can't do something like that because of a little idea called federalism. There's a good article that explains what it is and what it means to you here.

But under a federal system, each state can establish its own rules, within reason, for how it wants to live. Mormons makeup a minority of Americans, but they are a huge majority of Utahans, and so Utah is more friendly to Mormon values than Vermont is.

The idea that liberal society requires a certain amount of censorship (e.g., of child pornography, of pornography in general, of terror manuals) is of pretty recent vintage.

Um, no, actually, that ideas been around since the Constitutional convention.

All of which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Reading, Writing, or Arithmetic.

Be great for the hax0rs who want better access to confidential student records, though.

And let's be honest with ourselves: Unless you're downloading Java or C# SDKs, there just ain't all that much on the internet that's worth diddly squat in the first place.