Slashdot Mirror

The 2008 crisis hacked them worse than the USA and Europe. Now, 4 years later, they are riding high, and Europe and the USA are still muddling through. How? Why?

For a country that four years ago plunged into a financial abyss so deep it all but shut down overnight, Iceland seems to be doing surprisingly well.

It has repaid, early, many of the international loans that kept it afloat. Unemployment is hovering around 6 percent, and falling. And while much of Europe is struggling to pull itself out of the recessionary swamp, Iceland’s economy is expected to grow by 2.8 percent this year. ...

But during the crisis, the country did many things different from its European counterparts. It let its three largest banks fail, instead of bailing them out. It ensured that domestic depositors got their money back and gave debt relief to struggling homeowners and to businesses facing bankruptcy.

“Taking down a company with positive cash flow but negative equity would in the given circumstances have a domino effect, causing otherwise sound companies to collapse,” said Thorolfur Matthiasson, an economics professor at the University of Iceland. “Forgiving debt under those circumstances can be profitable for the financial institutions and help the economy and reduce unemployment as well.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/world/europe/icelands-economy-is-mending-amid-europes-malaise.html?pagewanted=all

We, in Europe, and the USA, have much to learn from Iceland about how to survive a crippling financial crisis.

primary difference between liberal/conservative being whom you think its OK to steal from? And the only person they both agree its OK to steal from seems to be me.

I think it boils down to two different groups of people:

1. Those that have more than they need.
2. Those that need more than they have.

I am one of the first and I give to the second. In the six years since my wife died, I have given $50+ K to my friends in need and another $15+ K to charity - and I plan to keep on giving as needed. My conscience is clean.

Oh, and I don't hide money in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, like Mitt (potential Weasel in Chief) to avoid paying my fair share of taxes...

Dude, after the cornering and hairpins of the Cassini mission, 30,000 mph through a debris field 40 AU's away is a walk in the park for these guys.

And they're growing wine in England again:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/18/18climatewire-climate-change-seen-bringing-bonanza-for-engl-6578.html?pagewanted=all

This particular issue, no. However, Canada has other issues based on receding permafrost and other effects. Climate change is expected to cost the Government of Canada about $5 billion in direct costs by the end of the decade and between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050.

I expect the story is pretty much the same around the world, that countries are facing infrastructure costs related to the changing climate.

Well there is this, story carried by slashdot: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all and this in Australia: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/308218,govt-mulls-cloud-social-intercepts.aspx And recently Telstra was caught channeling all of their traffic via a US organisation for "checking", apparently to provide a service in the future where users can purchase the option to have their internet access filtered for nasties. Via the US.... where everything is legally able to be seized, requested, call it what you want, under the Patriot Act. I'm just saying...

I recently read an article in a international-edition newspaper (sorry - can't remember which) by an apologist writer for the Chinese government censorship. He claimed that the Chinese government doesn't have an issue with reporting corruption by local government officials - indeed they see this as a useful public service and a vent for the public - and so won't censor these stories, but he did say they will censor stupid rumours (sham cures for radiation) but primarily anything that might cause a public gathering to take place. (After all, that's how revolutions get started! ;-) This project will find a way to verify this, though what happened with T^2 and the blind dissident GC obviously doesn't fit his model.

But don't pretend for a moment we are any better. The news is heavily censored everywhere, even in liberal western democracies:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/google-getting-more-requests-from-democracies-to-censor/

Libel laws are a very effective way to cause self-censorship by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-libel-laws-are-stifling-free-speech-says-un-894519.html
http://overland.org.au/blogs/loudspeaker/2012/03/defamation-laws-the-real-threat/
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/archivedfactsheets/freespeechanddefamationpre2010.html
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/130/1/Defamation-and-Freedom-of-Speech/Page1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/opinion/self-censorship-at-cbs.html
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_LIBEL_LAW_AND_CORRUPTION.html

There's also soft self-censorship too even in the US: "Sure you can print that... if you are prepared for consequences... Ah wonderful. I knew we could find common ground."
http://rt.com/usa/news/editor-at-top-us-newspaper-resigns-over-censorship/
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/new-york-times-editor-confesses-to-censoring-information-about-black-crime/
http://usmediaandisrael.com/intimidation-at-the-new-york-times/
http://omnologos.com/watch-out-for-self-censorship-at-the-new-york-times/

"Tell the truth and run." - Yugoslav proverb

I recently read an article in a international-edition newspaper (sorry - can't remember which) by an apologist writer for the Chinese government censorship. He claimed that the Chinese government doesn't have an issue with reporting corruption by local government officials - indeed they see this as a useful public service and a vent for the public - and so won't censor these stories, but he did say they will censor stupid rumours (sham cures for radiation) but primarily anything that might cause a public gathering to take place. (After all, that's how revolutions get started! ;-) This project will find a way to verify this, though what happened with T^2 and the blind dissident GC obviously doesn't fit his model.

But don't pretend for a moment we are any better. The news is heavily censored everywhere, even in liberal western democracies:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/google-getting-more-requests-from-democracies-to-censor/

Libel laws are a very effective way to cause self-censorship by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-libel-laws-are-stifling-free-speech-says-un-894519.html
http://overland.org.au/blogs/loudspeaker/2012/03/defamation-laws-the-real-threat/
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/archivedfactsheets/freespeechanddefamationpre2010.html
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/130/1/Defamation-and-Freedom-of-Speech/Page1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/opinion/self-censorship-at-cbs.html
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_LIBEL_LAW_AND_CORRUPTION.html

There's also soft self-censorship too even in the US: "Sure you can print that... if you are prepared for consequences... Ah wonderful. I knew we could find common ground."
http://rt.com/usa/news/editor-at-top-us-newspaper-resigns-over-censorship/
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/new-york-times-editor-confesses-to-censoring-information-about-black-crime/
http://usmediaandisrael.com/intimidation-at-the-new-york-times/
http://omnologos.com/watch-out-for-self-censorship-at-the-new-york-times/

"Tell the truth and run." - Yugoslav proverb

Are you making that claim based on legal knowledge of the case or are you just talking out your ass? As I have read, the case is based on private emails of the indicted:

It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.

The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.

The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.

“The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”

And it hinges not on the evidence seized at the arrest in NZ but apparently on emails detailing the deliberate actions of the site's proprietors to make copyrighted content widely available not just to the customers who uploaded these files, but to any visitors to the site. If you read some discussion of real legal analysis, things don't look so rosy for fat old K. Dotcom.

As for the customers getting their files back, that's a different issue. It should be legal for me to store my music in the cloud.

I hope fat old K. Dotcom chokes on his bratwurst.

You don't like him because he's overweight?

Are you making that claim based on legal knowledge of the case or are you just talking out your ass? As I have read, the case is based on private emails of the indicted:

It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.

The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.

The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.

“The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”

And it hinges not on the evidence seized at the arrest in NZ but apparently on emails detailing the deliberate actions of the site's proprietors to make copyrighted content widely available not just to the customers who uploaded these files, but to any visitors to the site. If you read some discussion of real legal analysis, things don't look so rosy for fat old K. Dotcom.

As for the customers getting their files back, that's a different issue. It should be legal for me to store my music in the cloud.

I hope fat old K. Dotcom chokes on his bratwurst.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/q-and-a-the-higgs-boson-and-you.html

...

Q. Will the discovery affect everyday life?

A. Well, duhhh.

Q. Hey, I’m not a science-y person, O.K.?

A. Sorry. The answer is absolutely. Sort of. Well, yes and no.

Q. Can you be like a little more specific?

A. For starters, you’re going to be hearing the phrase “Higgs boson” about 800 trillion times. You’ll be at a cocktail party talking about the Kardashians and someone will say, “OMG, Higgs boson!” and you’ll go, “No, no, no — please, no more with the Higgs boson.” So there’s that. Plus this Halloween, every other trick-or-treater is going to be dressed as — guess what? — the Higgs boson. What else? Ten bucks says Al Gore claims he discovered it. Another 10 says Mitt Romney picks it as his running mate. Romney-Higgs boson. Dream ticket. So, yes, it’s going to affect your everyday life. My advice? Deal with it.

Don't even try to read the rest of it, unless you like wasting your time.

Based on this famous quote:

“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” -Eleanor Roosevelt

That would put this sort of annoying Higgs boson chatter squarely in the realm of average minds.

They can usually come up with something good to say about events most of us understand. But they can't understand the Higgs boson. Doesn't matter: the media is all about generating copy, this is the highest imperative. Making sense is secondary. And so not understanding doesn't prevent them from trying to say something. Nor should it, according to the logic of their profession, since the logic of their profession says the editorial has to be filed on time, the column must fit so many square inches of space, the front page must have timely links about today's news.

And so they all come up with this WHARRGARBL like the NY Times story above. Welcome to the media industry.

The original patents on multi-touch belonged to a company founded back in 1998 called Fingerworks. Fingerworks produced multi-touch keyboards and gesture pads for the Macintosh.

Here is an article from 2002 discussing one of their products in the NY Times.

Apple purchased Fingerworks a year before Jeff Han's now famous TED talk.

Whaddaya mean, coming soon?
Thomas Jefferson removed from Texas history standards

The reason they decided to de-emphasize Jefferson was that he coined the phrase "separation of church and state". They replaced him with St Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone.

Exactly.

If my friend commits a crime and I know about it and I don't turn them in, I can be considered an accessory.

When a police officer commits a crime, and the fellow officers don't turn them in, they too should be accessories. When the police cover up the crime, it should be considered a conspiracy.

Instead, do you know what we have? Whenever the DA does manage to prosecute cops for being bad - like the NYPD Ticket Fixing Scandal (1,600 criminal counts) - you have all those boys in blue coming to back up their buddies, saying it's their God-given right to fix tickets for their wife's uncle's cousin, that they were "Just Following Orders".

A cop who doesn't arrest other cops when they commit crimes is just as rotten as the criminal cop himself.

Proper Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all

> I can't comment on the NYPD's practice of
> conducting their stops, I'm not familiar with it.

And yet, you are commenting on it anyway.

The cops in NY are stopping people on the basis of trace. Almost exclusively blacks and Hispanics. And they're not doing pat-downs. They're doing invasive searches, typically looking for drugs or drug-paraphenalia so that they can make easy busts.

Here's a quote from the NY Times about the policy:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/stop_and_frisk/index.html

In May 2012, a federal judge said that the cityâ(TM)s own records showed that many of the stops did not meet the constitutional standards for searches. The law does not permit a search of pockets based simply on a police officerâ(TM)s hunch or performance quota; an officer may pat someone down if there is reason to believe that a person is carrying an illegal weapon. To conduct a search of the pockets, or to order someone to empty their pockets, requires yet a higher standard involving probable cause that a weapon is present. The judge found that officers often relied on impermissibly vague grounds such as âoefurtiveâ movements.

This is in no way shape or form anything related to a Terry stop. It's an illegal search performed on a whim. There is no "reasonable articulable suspicion."

There's just racial profiling and arrest-quotas.

It's criminal battery and it should be prosecuted.

This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.

Funny, and here I thought that the amended Community Reinvestment Act (as amended in 1991 and 1994, and heavily enforced by regulators beginning in 1994) forced banks to relax lending standards to such an extent that they had to find new and exciting (read: untested and dangerous) ways to get said loans off their books. I was under the impression that this began the rapidly snowballing practice of handing out loans to people who weren't the least bit qualified (from a strictly financial perspective) and that it was heavily encouraged by both President Clinton and (far moreso) by President George W. Bush via Housing and Urban Development.

Further, I kinda figured that several years of practically free money flowing from the quasi-government entity known as the Federal Reserve fueled all kinds of terrible investments (like a housing bubble?). And you know, I didn't think it was helpful that a pair of government-sponsored entities (who were under the direction of the US Congress, had the implicit backing of the Full Faith and Credit of the United States, and who've been taken into conservatorship by the US Federal government) kept prices and rates artificially low at great cost to the US taxpayer and who - together - account for about 60% of the US mortgage market. Doesn't that sort of thing usually spawn... a bubble?

Not really sure what led me to believe all of that stuff. Does the narrative even make sense? Congress changes an existing law and the President changes enforcement to pressure those who give mortgages to hand out more loans to the "economically disadvantaged" in their communities in the mid-1990s which causes lenders to put a ton of loans on their books that don't look very good? I mean, I guess the banks and such would already be lending to people who were qualified for loans; there's no reason not to, right? If you're qualified, the bank makes money through the life of the loan, you get a house, and everybody wins, yeah? So I suppose if Congress had to force banks to make a bunch of loans, it'd probably mean that those loans weren't so great. Now from what I know of banks, they've got to answer to the bean counters and stock holders and all sorts of other people who get fussy when the books start looking scary. I guess if that started to happen, "the government made me do it" probably wouldn't cut it for very long. So on the one side, you've got the government pressuring the lenders to create loans they wouldn't normally create, and on the other hand, you've got people who are like "hey, if you go out of business, I lose a lot of money, so don't do that!" After a little while of that and not seeing things get any better, I know I'd be looking for another way out. Which is interesting, because the US government invented a neat way to get loans off your books back in 1970 with what are called "Mortgage-backed securities" (courtesy of Ginnie Mae). More than half the mortgages in the US have been turned into those, (including $3 Trillion worth in 2003 alone in a $12 Trillion total market) so that's pretty neat.

Ok, so the lenders have a good way move the bad loans off their books, and by all accounts, they start doing just that. By 2002, President Bush was

Did you notice the first link in the post (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-over-apple-s-gay-policy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)? It was Apple sticking up for its gay employees back in 1993.

Apple also recently elevated a talented, gay employee to the most powerful position in the entire company. Tim Cook is probably the most powerful gay man in the entire world.

> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient."

Gorman is the president of KeyBank in Cleveland.

With the EU and China not growing, and the US able to grow worker productivity as fast as the economy there just isn't a need to hire.

What would change this is an increase in demand. But we are in the middle of a credit retrenchment (housing crash) so even near zero interest rates will do squat, and China and Europe demand is declining.

The Republicans are in for a rude shock if they think that they have the ability to change this. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to increase demand.

Just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean they are not being attacked. Girls have had acid thrown in their faces repeatedly. And when you're face is scared for life, there's no dispute that it happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/world/asia/14kandahar.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14iht-kandahar.1.17822365.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-4631708.html

Just because the WHO says the girls haven't been poisoned doesn't mean they are not being attacked. Girls have had acid thrown in their faces repeatedly. And when you're face is scared for life, there's no dispute that it happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/world/asia/14kandahar.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14iht-kandahar.1.17822365.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-224_162-4631708.html

1. Ensure that registered voters have unrestricted access to their polling place.

You have already missed an important step - ensuring that nefarious groups aren't preventing eligible voters from being allowed to register [1], and that they aren't caged [2], or summarily invalidated from being registered [3] (the main problem with this is that people are prevented from getting IDs in the first place by virtue of being homeless, etc).

Let's not forget the time honored tradition of just jailing your political opponents or threatening their death if they stand for election is yet another way for the formalities of democracy to be observed while gaming the end-result. You can have completely "clean" elections but still have a thoroughly corrupt output.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/restrictions-on-voter-registration-in-florida-have-groups-opting-out.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppression)
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57467195-503544/stringent-voter-id-law-in-pa-could-prevent-750000-from-voting/

See here for how our austerity has hurt employment:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/american-austerity/

And here's Obama's spending compared to the last several presidents:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

I think where we can agree is that giveaways to too-big-to-fail banks wasn't and isn't the best use of our limited resources.

OK, so we make murder illegal. And kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, etc. It's no longer a free market. But I don't think anyone minds.

I'm so sick and tired of seeing the Somalia "anarchy" bullshit trotted out as if it's in any way indicative of libertarianism. By the same logic, minimum wage increases is Socialism and Communism of the worst kind!

Solyndra is no big deal

No, Solyndra is in fact the EXACT example of where government has no business involving itself. Or do you think it was a good use of taxpayer dollars investing in a market that generates solar panels when there is an ever-increasing glut of said panels?

https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/06/06greenwire-solyndra-bankruptcy-reveals-dark-clouds-in-sol-45598.html?pagewanted=all

A corporate entity would and has cut back on production in response to cost pressures bourne by excess supply. The government, however? Not so much. Full steam ahead. Though in the grand scheme, Solyndra was a drop in the bucket from a deficit perspective -- but it IS evidence of the kind of issues indicative in government overreach.

you clearly werent in Kansas during the 90s, when the suicide bombers blowing up abortion clinics were all the rage.

There was a clear and present vandetta against Dr Tiller. It only stopped when they shot him in the face.

Look it up.

Fundies are more scary-dangerous than you realize.

khipu laid out plenty of facts and 2 minutes crawling the net would confirm everything he says.

How much data do you need? If you need everything referencing, here's about 5 minutes worth:

Healthcare cop-out:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Pushed for a 5 year prison term for Charles Lynch, the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary, legal under California law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Warmonger:

Sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm

Successfully protected Bush officials from prosecution for torture
http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line

Proposed a three year freeze on domestic spending, exempting cuts from the Pentagon and Homeland Security
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-allies-struggle-to_n_436996.html

Argued that the widespread use of Predator drones is a justifiable form of self-defense
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/drone-attacks-legit-self-defense-says-administration-lawyer/

Revived "Prompt Global Strike" weapons system, considered too controversial by Bush Administration
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/

Backed off on his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Cronyism:

Violated his own ban on lobbyists working for the administration
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Sided with utility companies in lawsuit to stop greenhouse gas emissions
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/26/obama-stance-on-climate-suit-stuns-allies/

Gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

Appointed Lawrence Summers as his top economic advise

khipu laid out plenty of facts and 2 minutes crawling the net would confirm everything he says.

How much data do you need? If you need everything referencing, here's about 5 minutes worth:

Healthcare cop-out:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Pushed for a 5 year prison term for Charles Lynch, the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary, legal under California law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Warmonger:

Sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm

Successfully protected Bush officials from prosecution for torture
http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line

Proposed a three year freeze on domestic spending, exempting cuts from the Pentagon and Homeland Security
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-allies-struggle-to_n_436996.html

Argued that the widespread use of Predator drones is a justifiable form of self-defense
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/drone-attacks-legit-self-defense-says-administration-lawyer/

Revived "Prompt Global Strike" weapons system, considered too controversial by Bush Administration
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/

Backed off on his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Cronyism:

Violated his own ban on lobbyists working for the administration
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Sided with utility companies in lawsuit to stop greenhouse gas emissions
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/26/obama-stance-on-climate-suit-stuns-allies/

Gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

Appointed Lawrence Summers as his top economic advise

khipu put plenty of facts forward, and 2 minutes on google would confirm everything he says.

Here you go, some facts with references:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html

Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html

About 6 minute's worth

Funny that you mention this.

I just bought a Ford made in Cologne, Germany.

But Ford has software technology made in the USA by Microsoft, doesn't that count for something?

Whoops my bad. No one would want to mention that about Ford.

Microsoft is the reason Ford just fell in JD Power reliability rankings because the Microsoft Ford custom multi media center user experience was so unreliable.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/ford-continues-to-slide-in-jd-power-survey-on-automaker-quality/

I just bought a new 2012 family car a couple of weeks ago. I was intrigued by new 2012/2013 technology from Ford but I clearly did not want my wife to be alone and suffer the Ford equivalent of the infamous 'Blue Screen of Death'. I bought a Toyota Hybrid Camry XLS which was manufactured in Kentucky a few days after my order and delivered a week later.

Marietta Toyota called the morning it was delivered and my wife drove it home that afternoon with less than five miles on the odometer.

BTW she just had her first free OTA software update from Toyota which added new features.

Who cares where it is built today? The proven high technology that you are getting today is a lot of where your satisfaction is in a global economy. NOTE: The 2012 THC has forty two computers managing all aspects of your ride.

Apple also has banned Pulitzer-prize winning artists from their store as well.

A decision that was reversed on its merits as noted here... and now you know the rest of the story.

So, prior to any response, it's not a trade war; China can shut down rare earth exports and that's just fine. Only if there is a response may we invoke the `trade war' boogeyman. Interesting.

The truth is we're already in a trade war and we're getting our asses kicked. Strange new phenomena have appeared as the consequences of China's mercantilism have tripped up political agendas. Domestic interests have begun to fight back.

This particular pendulum has gone as far as it can to one side. It will now swing back and China will never again be able to take the US market for granted. This will occur despite your bleating `trade war.'

Most of the commenters here will twist this story into how the US is somehow evil, and drone on (pun intended) about how the US and West governments and/or corporations and/or political systems are what's wrong with the world, when in reality, people are suffering and dying under actual tyranny and oppression.

Like in Syria.

It's about time Wikileaks lived up to its initial stated mission of "exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," instead of becoming an anti-US pulpit for a self-righteous egomaniac who has openly said if he was asked to choose between "advocate"/"activist" and "journalist", he would choose "advocate", and who answered "I'm too busy ending two wars," in response to a reporter asking for clarity on an issue.

(And no, this doesn't mean the US and West are all-perfect or all-wise — what it means is that people need to get out of their bizarro world and get some perspective on things. A clue wouldn't hurt, either.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/business/in-shift-federal-prosecutors-are-lenient-as-companies-break-the-law.html
http://corporatecrimereporter.com/deferredreport.htm

Because in reality, the people composing a corporation are charged in cases of gross criminal conduct.

Here's your assertion. Back it up. And no, providing two examples of it happening does not indicate happening in all cases, as you assert.

And I notice you're still avoiding the main issue. Nit-picking much?

No, we didn't know that and the reason because it's BULLSHIT.
When will you RightWingNutBars stop FUCKING LYING??

http://www.quora.com/How-close-was-the-vote-to-cancel-the-Superconducting-Super-Collider

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1993-book1/pdf/PPP-1993-book1-doc-pg864.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/us/stating-regret-clinton-signs-bill-that-kills-supercollider.html?src=pm

I guess the answer is never because if you weren't telling lies, you'd have nothing to say.

What the fuck do you all have against Clinton? So he got his cock sucked while in office; it happens.
Hilary got over it and so should you.

should have said "God Particle" in the proposal.

Eleventy billion dollar grant.

Make that a God Particle Gun instead of "Superconducting Super Collider" and you're golden.

Ah, the stupid Texans hate science thing. You do know that it was the Congress... controlled by mostly non-Southern Democrats... that killed the Supercollider, right? With the full support of then-President Bill Clinton. Most Republicans tried to save it as a matter of national prestige.

Don't be an idiot. Anyone with remote awareness of American politics knows that it's the Republicans who stoked the fires of austerity in the early 90s. A little google searching shows that, at-worst, the votes were bi-partisan, and President Clinton's hand was forced in signing the bill that killed the Supercollider:

house-kills-the-supercollider-and-now-it-might-stay-dead

If you're going to look at this through political lens, blame the Republicans for cutting the national budget to put the government into debt crisis (Starve_the_beast) in a long term strategy to destroy the middle class.

Nature's God can mean a lot of things, not just the clockwork Deistic interpretation. It can also be a reference to the Spinozan agnostic view where God is simply a metaphor for Nature. Jefferson was certainly aware and influenced by these ideas. He CERTAINLY would not feel that his choice of words meant that the reader would be obligated to adopt his personal views on the topic. Ultimately freedom of religion meant freedom of conscience to Jefferson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/opinion/29goldstein.html?pagewanted=print

As far as separation of church and state, this is merely vernacular shorthand for the First Amendment derived from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

If you haven't already I suggest you take a look at "The First Liberty: America's Foundation in Religious Freedom" by Andrew Miller. You might like it - it is pretty exhaustive on both the origins of the ideas of religious freedom and the the more modern legal history that you have alluded to. It's obviously much more authoritative than any Wikipedia article.

obviously

invest in infrastructure and business thrives

now explain that to tea party dimwits who say otherwise

you have to understand: bike lanes, public transportation and intelligent civil planning in general is a UN plot to destroy America (people actually believe this, spurred on by the paranoid schizophrenia broadcast on Faux News)... welcome to USA, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html

Rim is not doing a 'death spiral' says ceo http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/no-death-spiral-for-rim-chief-executive-says/

And for the record, it is true that Lubbock and Amarillo are filled with capitalist heroes

Yes, Capitalist Heroes who survive on massive welfare subsidies from the government. Left to the vagaries of the market, they'd be gone in a heartbeat.

The New York Times: "HARVESTING POVERTY; The Fabric of Lubbock's Life"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/opinion/harvesting-poverty-the-fabric-of-lubbock-s-life.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"Lubbock is a rock-solid, conservative kind of place, located where northwest Texas meets the southernmost part of the great American plains. Its citizens like to think of themselves as self-reliant straight talkers. It seems strange, then, to think of this region as a sprawling welfare case.

But the cotton farms that give Lubbock much of its identity thrive from huge government subsidies that drain the federal treasury and shelter the industry from the discipline of the market. ...."

It's like listening to people who survive on Medicare rail against the evils of "socialized medicine..."

Koch Bros.?

Those are the evil task-masters that are controlling the world energy markets?

Let's compare federal government subsidies for solar and wind power to the entire revenue stream of Koch Bros... Which is greater?

How can little-old Koch Bros. control the world oil/energy market? They have near zero influence over the President/Senate...

According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Koch Brothers have poured about $100 MIllion over the past 30 years into supporting organizations, politicians, and think tanks that they agree with - the US Gov't poured $528 Million down the drain at Solyndra in just under two years.

Put another way, over the last thirty years the Koch Brothers have (in your mind) controlled the Repubican Party and hence the controlled the country while Senator Obama spent nearly 8 times as much on his campaign to become President in 2007-2008.

I get the impression Metformin is more of a block slowing up sugar uptake which reduces the amount of insulin needed to cope with the sugars and carbs.

I take a more interesting drug which stimulates a hormone which makes my body produce more insulin when it is needed. (byetta) I've been on a new version for the last few months which is a time release version (may still not be available in the USA yet) this is a once a week injection as opposed to twice a day and also doesn't cause any nausea. I think the nausea tends to be associated with rapid adjustment of blood sugar levels and spikes.

The weekly injection seems to control the blood sugar much closer to the ideal levels and also both forms help protect the insulin producing cells keeping them from dying off. Metformin doesn't stop this so a type 2 diabetic eventually becomes a type 1 as insulin is no longer produced naturally and insulin injections become necessary.

Insulin injections seem to be largely guess work trying to inject an appropriate amount of insulin and can be easy to get wrong, insulin injections also tend to be associated with weight gain probably since more sugar is usable by the body. I've not had any personal use of Insulin injections so I am just repeating hearsay.

With byetta and byduron, the main side effect seems to be belching and farting my conjecture is that since the drug causes a slowing of the digestive system gut bacteria get to work on your food producing gas as a side effect. To be honest this is a result of over eating and if your sensible with what you eat it doesn't happen. It kind of feels like the effect you get after drinking 2 litres of fizzy water. Your stomach balloons up and the slightest movement will cause you to belch Initially I had intense stomach pain a couple of days after starting the weekly injection. This was due to over eating. I soon adjusted my food intake and havent had another episode. Now I have good sugar levels and am losing weight steadily.

Ideally I would be better off 50 pounds lighter but I have made slow but steady progress just by eating less, I am rarely all that hungry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/health/bydureon-a-diabetes-drug-from-amylin-wins-fda-approval.html
just done a little googling and bydureon is fda approved since January that link sounds a little scary but so far I seem to be fine. An increased risk is only that an increased risk and is not a certainty.

I should have died 3 years ago but for the treatments that now exist to treat heart attacks so it is all bonus to me. I have pretty good health these days all things considered but would I be posting this today if I was an American?
   

Here's the full story on how they figured it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?_r=4&hp&pagewanted=all
Quite interesting (and a little scary), actually.

"The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

and http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

"A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc."

You can sue for anything (in the US at least). Winning.... Whole different matter.

I was shocked as well when one of my friends mentioned using AOL in Germany in the 90s. There's a brief mention of it in their history too. Pretty wild, now that I think about it I almost miss the mailers which made great give away CD holders. One of their properties (ICQ) is pretty big in Europe (mostly eastern and Russia) to this day.

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/19toys.html?pagewanted=all
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-18/us/chinese.drywall_1_chinese-made-drywall-homeowners-appliances?_s=PM:US

These are just the stories I remember off the top of my head.

This is one story. It was on slashdot as well a while back.

A few problems with your argument..

First, BILLS WON'T GO DOWN. Sorry, but according to my own insurance company (BCBS), and the government's own projections(GAO) the bills will increase 6-8% every year. The "collapse" of healthcare in unavoidable unless the fed's nationalize it (UK), regulate it (Japan) or tax the hell out of citizens (France).

http://www.progressnownm.org/blog/2012/05/health-insurance-rate-hike-on-poor-rural-nm-go-into-effect-while-insurer-hoards-billions-in-profits.html

Secondly, the AHA does not lower the cost of providing care - it hugely increases the number of billing codes (simple laceration instead of chicken strike, check peck, accident while playing a brass instrument, etc) and creates more paperwork. It does nothing to curb the HIGHEST GROWING COST in medical care - which is administration! Highest in the world I might add.

Huge administrative costs.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/

GAO reports premium increases related to ACA:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322337.html

The government already knows how to run a good healthcare system - the VA. It used to be awful 30 years ago, but now it is a well run system. They also run medicare/medicaid which has always been terrible. They choose a medicare system over a VA system? That makes no sense...

If they wanted to use the interstate commerce clause, they could have easily regulated the COST of healthcare ala Japan. They can regulate the price of grain, how is that different from bandaids? Japan regulates every procedure just like a state PUC regulates the price of electricity. The PUC is politically responsible, and the state can be held responsible by the voters for high costs. Under Obamacare there is little political responsibility or accountability for healthcare cost. Only the ability to limit increases to 10%.. How is this responsible? At 10% rates can double every 10 years! Plainly, you can't vote for a cheaper rate EVER, only lower increases.

Honestly - this is political lobbying turning public insurance into a PROFIT. I predict that 15 million middle class families will DROP insurance and pay the tax, while 30 million lower-class families will gain insurance so relatively expensive - that when necessary - won't cover squat when they need it most.

Duke on the "quality" of lower-class insurance.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2371/

It will do nothing to curb the number of bankruptcies caused by medical bills - which is the greatest cause of bankruptcy. In fact, by requiring insurance, it may cause even more bankruptcies. Following the model in Massachusetts, bankruptcies did increase, even after controlling for economic and market fluctuations.

http://healthcarecompact.org/blog/2012-04-02/lessons-massachusetts-bankruptcy

So tell me again, HOW, HOW is this going to help anybody? How is this not PROFITEERING on the public?

I've read every page of the bill, I've talked to insurance agents and doctors. I've written my congressmen. THIS IS NOT A SOCIAL GOOD. I don't care if you're liberal of conservative - unless you own a hospital, drug company, or collection agency this bill is utter profiteering.

Because they did get the facts wrong. He's facing four years prison.

. Assange only did something in one country and it carries a maximum 750 Euro fine.

One of the many lies about the Assange case. He's facing up to four years in prison.

These are not trivial charges. He's accused of pinning someone down sexually until she consented to sex with a condom to avoid sex without the condom, then deliberately breaking the condom, then continually making sexual advances on the person later, and with another woman, having sex with her while she slept, in violation of the terms of consent she had had when awake (usage of a condom) (not that a sleeping person can consent in *any* circumstances). Two British courts have found the charges against him credible.

Yes, the use of Interpol is of course selective. But that's what Interpol is used for, going after high-profile cases and especially cases deemed to be high risk of international flight. Assange fits the typical Interpol target to a tee.

I don't know why you bring up Irish tax laws, it is not analogous to the situation I describe at all. Ireland is an independant country and can set whatever taxes they like.

That's just the point. They are not an independent country as they're part of the EU. France, Germany, et. al. have been screaming for many years that Ireland's low tax rates are unfair and must be raised and yet they are able to keep their tax rates as they want them, regardless of this pressure.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0119/breaking7.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/frances-bottom-line-increase-corporate-tax-or-we-wont-cut-your-bailout-rate-150942-Jun2011/
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/global/26tax.html?pagewanted=all

This isn't at all the same thing as the EU passing legislation and requiring all states to implement some form of it or face penalties. Which the 3 strikes law is a perfect example of.

It's not the same thing but it is applicable to the argument. Ireland is able to do what it wants even though it is part of the EU.

Your main argument for the EU being satisfactorily democratic is the EP.

Not only the EP (which is democratically elected) but also the council (whose members are democratically elected by each state in question) and the president of the council (who is democratically elected by those who have been democratically elected).

The EP cannot proposes legislation, only amendments. Think about that for a second. The commission holds a lot of power, yet you cannot vote for it's members.

Not directly, agreed. The commission is not directly elected but is selected by those who have been democratically elected. You can vote for those who then select the members of the commission.

To claim the people have a say in everything is bullshit. There are basically no countries where the people have a say in everything....it isn't workable with a representative democracy. Having a say on significant issues is a minimum, and something the EU misses out on. Could the people in the EU vote for or against ACTA?

I have to disagree on the basis that there is nothing stopping people from making themselves heard. When the French minority youths rioted because they had poor employment possibilities, they demonstrated (rioted really but nonetheless made themselves heard) which resulted in the French government putting in place legislation to enable short term contract firing possibilities to try and reduce unemployment in that segment of the population. To further the point, a larger (ie non-minority) segment of the French populace decided that they didn't like the new legislation and went out in the streets to demonstrate (minus the riots) in their millions. Something like ten percent of the population this time, resulting in a very quick killing of the new legislation.

Did they have a direct say? No, not at all.

Did they make themselves heard? Yes, absolutely.

The democratic deficit in the EU has been acknowledged and discussed since the 70's. That the EP is democratically elected does not make the problem go away.

As I said, it's not perfect. No system is perfect. I maintain that it is far from a joke, though, and is arguably one of the most democratic systems in place in the world today.