Slashdot Mirror

You are conflating public and private spending. If you are an 'average' american, you would 'only' spend about $4200/year on healthcare - but part of the problem with the costs in the USA is that the government is also spending on average $4000/year. So our total per-person costs are about $8,200 per person/per year. In comparison, the total public & private costs are about $3400/year.

This means if we were able to wave a magic wand and instantly implement the NHS for the USA, we could both give everyone free healthcare and lower taxes.

(Numbers are all 2010 figures from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html)

Learning that my pacemaker runs Java?

Seriously though, here are some things I've heard:
- Software written by a bunch of graduate students was going to be used in surgery
- Windows NT used to control a ship
- Invalid software models used to "prove" that the foam that hit Columbia's wing didn't cause damage

Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is really pricy. They're full of dangerous things.

Which is why it makes sense to leave them where they are. Decommissioning is even more pricey.

And dealing with the decay that you let build up because you were too lazy to maintain them is more costly still. No, 'let them sit' is a stupid fucking idea. Far more cost effective and safe to reprocess them into reactor fuel.

The U.S. does *not* do reprocessing. It has not done reprocessing since 1977, in order to avoid creating additional weapons grade material, which might fall into terrorist hands and/or lead to nuclear proliferation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/us.html

They require LOTS of upkeep. You have to guard them. (They have the power to destroy the world after all) The infrastructure to maintain your active arsenal is massive and costs piles of money, which seems silly for something you hope to never use.

Most of the cost is military. Personally, I think guarding holes in the desert is a much finer jobs program than bombing people in the Middle East. Safer for the people who get the make-work jobs, too.

You should probably try becoming part of this century before telling us about nuclear stockpiles. We don't have nukes sitting in holes in the desert anymore,

Wrong. We have 450 land-based Minuteman III ICBMs with MIRV'ed warheads, meaning approximately 1440 warheads which are currently land based. Try doing a simple google search before you spout incorrect information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Land-based_ICBMs

which is why we don't need as many. We just launch them from subs that no one knows where they are so they can't be taken out.

Again, incorrect. Submarines are detectable, even at maximum depth, using space-based side looking synthetic aperture radar (SAR):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE13Ad01.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/detection.pdf

Everyone who we care about knowing knows about our subs, just as we know about theirs.

[...]

I would suggest you take a basic economics and a history course, then learn WHY TARP actually happened rather than what your friends told you. You first need to understand that the magical failed banks failed because laws were changed that suddenly ... on PAPER ... made them insolvable. They were never actually doing bad, they just suddenly became illegal to operate.

TARP was needed due to de-regulation, after which banks jumped into the market for creation of derivatives, and created a bunch of worthless derivatives and sold them for real money. These were primarily collateralized debt obligations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Purpose

The ability to create CDOs prior to the repeal of Glass–Steagall was based primarily on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/885/1034/144081/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Securitization.2C_CDOs.2C_and_.E2.80.9Csubprime.E2.80.9D_credit

[...Pu-239 uses...]

Or the operate on other things, which even

Mt. St. Helens did not affect weather because the blast was horizontal, if you remember the news there was a hole in the side of the volcano and later the whole north side colapsed. Also there was less sulphur dioxide expelled (1.5 million tons) versus 25 million tons of Pinatubo. (see below)

Now, Pinatubo did have a global effect. PBS writes: In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines produced ten times as much ash as Mount St. Helens and released more than 25 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The resulting cloud - which formed a wide band around the planet within about a month - resulted in an overall cooling of the global surface temperature by about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

As you point out, Toba did have a greater global effect, but because it coincided with other fenomena, such as a solar minimum and several previous volcanic eruptions not by sheer magnitude alone.

Now, let's try exploding several nuclear bombs in different parts of the world and see what the effects are... If taking some classes in physics was enough for us to accurately predict the effects, we would be Lords of the Universe and not meek, tree-climbing monkeys. So I vote we dismantle the damn things and to hell with experimenting...

That is really a pretty weak response, sad really. I assume that you didn't bother to watch so much as the first video since the time of your posting wouldn't have allowed that. It goes without saying the others must have been unwatched as well.

The My Lai Massacre is instructive. The massacre was not ordered by central political authority but was the result of low level soldiers engaging in misconduct. Although that misconduct was initially covered up by the lower levels of their chain of command, when word got out, the Army investigated. The Inspector General turned it over to the Army Criminal Investigation Division which pursued detailed investigation to prepare criminal charges. A number of people were charged, and some were tried. A complicating factor was the statue of limitations. Ultimately the officer in charge at the massacre, Lieutenant Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. Due to widespread protest and political pressure, including that instigated by Democratic Governor, later US President, Jimmy Carter, Calley's sentence was reduced. The only medals awarded were to a couple of soldiers that did what they could to stop the massacre. You can read more here.

This is a marked contrast with the Katyn massacre of the Polish officer corp. The Katyn massacre was ordered by the national government, and followed the Soviet aggression of invading Poland as part of a secret pact with Nazi Germany to invade and divide Poland between them. It was not treated as a criminal act. In fact medals were awarded to the killers for the massacre. There were probably 22,000 people killed as part of that massacre, versus 300-500 at My Lai. The Katyn massacre was not unusual behavior for the Soviets, My Lai was exceptionally unusual for the United States. You try to compare very atypical criminal behavior that was treated as such by the United States with common behavior that was rewarded (mass murder) by the Soviet government. My Lai was one or two nights work for the NKVD in just one limited area of the Soviet Union - and they were busy on many, many nights across the country.

As bad as My Lai was, it was by no means the worst massacre of the Vietnam war, not even close. The Dak Son Massacre (250+ dead, 400 missing, 1,300 refugees) is quite gruesome, although it is dwarfed by the Hue Massacre ( 2,800 to 6,000 killed). Both of those were massacres by Communist forces of innocent civilians. I doubt anyone was punished for those massacres.

If you bothered to watch the first video, you might have an idea why Americans were averse to communism taking root in the United States. Mass executions, abuse, and government confiscation of food to create a famine resulting in the killing of millions of people will do that. And so you aren't confused about that point, there are several different communist parties in the United States. The CPUSA was shown to be taking orders from Moscow.

And bringing up Senator McCarthy is once again sad testimony to the imbalance here. He was a member of the senate, not in the executive branch. His power was very limited indeed. Trying to balance his limited actions for a relatively short time against the long period of Soviet mass murder and repression is ridiculous.

What you've really demonstrated isn't "cheap easy & lazy wins" so much as cheap and stupid. You really have no clue.

You mean like this? http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2010/05/programming-language-for-kids-banned-from-apple-app-store118

Ok lets see what a kid wanting to program on iOS needs to do.

1) Needs a relatively expensive Mac to even start. What chance is there that parents are going to buy one(if they don't have one) just because little Jimmy may want to dip their feet in programming, which may finally end up in nothing? Pretty close to zero. The cheapest Mac starts at $599 for a weak device on which Xcode lags.
2) Needs an Apple developer ID for which they need to be atleast 13 years ago and $99/yr subscription to test apps on their iOS device. Fat chance that many parents are going to get those for a kid who are known to get bored pretty quick.

You've gotten your steps wrong

Here's what a kid wanting to program on iOS needs to do:

1) Download codea on their iPad for ten bucks
2) write a program in LUA
3) run the program on their iPad
4) repeat as desired

http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/codify/id439571171?ls=1&mt=8

Easy peasy.

What's even better is that if they make something they is worthwhile then they can sign up to be an apple iOS developer and release their program on the App Store. Or they can just share their code for others to download and use.

This line of thinking is some of the absolute DUMBEST bullshit still floating around on the internet.

Only if you're a big Apple fanboy, as you're known to be, but let me give your arguments a fair shake anyway, despite your foulmouthed rant.

Pull your head out of your ass and recognize that iPads are used in a LOT of industries as incredibly viable tools that increase productivity.

Erm like what? Bonus points if those tasks cannot be performed on a PC, laptop or Android tablet. Further, as I said it's good for grandmas and other folks, just not kids.

Furthermore, do you think, maybe, possibly, some of these kids might get excited about programming and decide, just possibly, to learn more about programming for iOS because of the iPads.

You mean like this? http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2010/05/programming-language-for-kids-banned-from-apple-app-store118

Ok lets see what a kid wanting to program on iOS needs to do.

1) Needs a relatively expensive Mac to even start. What chance is there that parents are going to buy one(if they don't have one) just because little Jimmy may want to dip their feet in programming, which may finally end up in nothing? Pretty close to zero. The cheapest Mac starts at $599 for a weak device on which Xcode lags.
2) Needs an Apple developer ID for which they need to be atleast 13 years ago and $99/yr subscription to test apps on their iOS device. Fat chance that many parents are going to get those for a kid who are known to get bored pretty quick.

You know, sorta like how all the old time geeks learned programming because of their piece of crap computers at their schools.

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass.

Steps taken by old time geeks:

1) Install any one of the hundred IDEs and/or runtimes and start typing.

Who has their "head up their ass" posting "dumbest bullshit" just because they outright worship a company?

Oh, I forgot there is no use arguing with folks like you because:

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-a-religion-neuroscientists-find-it-triggers-the-same-reaction-in-your-brain-2011-5

I think this covers it pretty well.

Actually, I'm quite skeptical of constitutional literalism. I prefer Souter's view.

My own interpretation of Madison is that the the constitution invites conflict as a means of thwarting would be tyrants. If the constitution gave clear answers to every political dispute, it could be gamed.

Here's the Lawrence Tribe's syllabus for his constitutional law course I don't think it promises the clear cut, fundamentalist political values that a lot of people seem to seek out. But would be lawyers might find it to be of practical use.

This it? http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527/

Poor analogy. Responding to an act of war with a declaration of war is far different from responding to a non-government-sanctioned act by a handful of individuals with an undeclared war.

You've got that pretty much entirely wrong.

Al Qaida was both guest in Afghanistan, and integrated into its military forces and government. Al Qaida's jihadis were organized up to brigade level and fighting along side the Taliban. Al Qaida was churning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in their training camps, with many of the dispersing to raise havoc around the world. And Bin Laden did in fact issue a recognizable declaration of war as understood in his culture, and similarly understood in the West.

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

After repeated attacks killing thousands and wounding thousands more, the US responded with its own declaration.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress after 9-11-2001 is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well settled law.

Again, poor analogy. Normal law enforcement doesn't suck down half our federal budget (not counting trust funds). If we were spending half our country's income on arresting bank robbers or rapists, then the answer would be a resounding "yes"... well, not to stop it entirely, but certainly to scale it back by several orders of magnitude.

The poster I responded was essentially arguing that the US should not be engaged in military action to defend itself as long as disease killed more people. It was a nonsense argument whether you apply it to national defense or law enforcement, which is what I was demonstrating.

Social welfare spending is about twice what the defense budget is. Defense spending will be taking a disproportionate hit from sequestration. National defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government.

Umm.
No, they were unfounded.
The 'documents' you're referring to are the venona intercepts.
You can read them here. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/intercepts.html
It had nothing to do with undermining the entire U.S. Government as McCarthy was paranoid about.
It was about Our government trying to find soviet spys who were only here for one thing. To get information on the atomic bomb.
If you actually knew the history of the time, there was a short period where the united states was the only actor to have nuclear weaponry and everyone wanted it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/08/why-do-cars-have-fuel-doors-on.html

2 seconds to Google - do it yourself next time.

You are so full of shit. Watch this.

[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.

Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.

Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.

Whereas I gave you the benefit of the doubt, (and provided a source to support my position,) you've somehow definitively assessed the reliability of fingerprinting, and conclusively determined that I've been misled. As such, I provide the following sources discussing the poor reliability of fingerprinting (in chronological order, 2001-2013) so that others can steer clear and avoid being misled like I was:

Fingerprinting's Reliability Draws Growing Court Challenges
Will Fingerprinting Stand Up in Court?
Investigation: Forensic evidence in the dock
The Real Crime: 1,000 Errors in Fingerprint Matching Every Year
Study questions reliability of fingerprint evidence
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific
Deeper into forensic bias
Fingerprint [Validity]

Its just that the numbering system was only intended to allow a computer sort of likely
candidates for manual inspection, but because manual inspection takes some time
and training, some jurisdictions will go just by the numeric analysis, and further
they will accept fewer and fewer actual features to match, especially when partial
prints are all they have.

It's "just that," hm? Sounds legit — though I fail to see how this demonstrates that fingerprinting is "far more reliable than [I've]have been led to believe."

Defense lawyers delight in bringing in their own fingerprint expert and showing up
the state, especially when its as easy as showing the jury two full sets of
prints. Things become very obvious very quickly.

What has this got to do with the reliability of fingerprinting? You wanna know what I'd delight in, is you providing some evidence that supports your claim that fingerprinting is far more reliable I've been led to believe.

[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.

Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.

Please see PBS's Frontline: The Real CSI for an overview of some of the terrible shit that happened (and is still happening) thanks for forensic "science" — to quote from Twelve Monkeys, "Science ain't an exact science with these clowns." I've provided links to the aforementioned documentary below:

https://video.pbs.org/video/2223977258
http://kickass.to/pbs-frontline-the-real-csi-2012-480p-hdtv-x264-karma-t6324747.html

Knowledge is power. The problem isn't spying, it's who has access to the information. I say: Spy on everyone, and let everyone have access to the information. It might even help with unjust censorship laws -- Like in the UK where they want to sensor porn by default... If we can look in the public spy data and show that everyone is looking at porn, but don't openly admit it, then we shouldn't enact such retarding laws.

Capturing such data could be huge tools for transparency but since the public isn't given access to the data, it's only useful for oppression. Right now the Free Syrian Army (which sprang forth from protests for democracy) is fighting against Syrian Soldiers who believe the rebels want a genocide because their dictator controls their information. If the two sides' soldiers were allowed to share information then it would be much harder for the dictator to convince soldiers to fight, and they could have peace talks and perhaps come to a compromise which would give the people more actual control of the government... Bashar al-Assad controls the information, and only through it can he wield and preserve his power.

Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought.
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We must Dissent"

Information, the first principle of warfare, must form the foundation of all your efforts. Know, of course, thine enemy. But in knowing him do not forget above all to know thyself. The commander who embraces this totality of battle shall win even with inferior force.
-- Spartan Battle Manual

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Everything I need to know I learned from Alpha Centauri

There might be an answer for that.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That document was issued after this series of events:

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - 224 dead, est. 4,000 injured, both embassies heavily damaged

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video USS Cole - 17 dead, 39 injured, major damage to destroyer

2001 9/11 attacks - 2,973 dead. Two skyscraper towers destroyed, heavy damage to Pentagon.
Estimated damage to US economy: ~ $100,000,000.

I know little that you couldn't, but apparently much that you don't. And that is sad, really. But you aren't alone. So, here is what I'm talking about to help you along.

Attacks against Americans that were attempted and not intercepted, or completed (this excludes war zones):

2013 Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.

2010 Attempted bombing of Times Square in New York City by the Taliban - Attack failed, car bomb could have been mass casualty event.

2009 The "Underwear" bomber - Attack failed, potentially could have brought down aircraft with death of all aboard

2009 Fort Hood massacre - 13 dead, 30 wounded

2001 9/11 attacks - 2,973 dead. Two skyscraper towers destroyed, heavy damage to Pentagon.
Estimated damage to US economy: ~ $100,000,000,000.

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video USS Cole - 17 dead, 39 wounded, major damage to US Navy destroyer

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - 224 dead, est. 4,000 wounded, both embassies heavily damaged

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

Small, limited sample, of other terrorism arrests and trials in the US:

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A

During the cold war the NSA was focused on the Soviet Union, which was an actual real threat to our national security. There is little evidence that the NSA was engaged in domestic spying during that time. Today the NSA, and all this surveillance, is focused on stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker full of gunpowder.

So you acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a threat to national security? Well, good, that's a first step. Now things get a bit more interesting. I recall that the Soviet Union shot down a number of surveillance planes during the Cold War, such as the famous U2 incident. I don't recall that they ever bombed or torpedoed any American warships. I also don't recall that they bombed any, let alone two, American embassies, killing large numbers of people. Nor do I recall that they ever attacked any American skyscrapers or military headquarters, killing thousands of people on American soil (2,973 ) - approximately as many as died in the war igniting attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor did they recruit any attackers to shoot dead American soldiers engaging in administrative processing at an American military base. And yet Al Qaida and company has done all these things, and they continue to attempt to recruit extremists to commit further attacks.

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - Text of the fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - 224 dead, est. 4,000 injured, both embassies heavily damaged

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video USS Cole - 17 dead, 39 injured, major damage to destroyer

2001 9/11 attacks - 2,973 dead. Two skyscraper towers destroyed, heavy damage to Pentagon.
Estimated damage to US economy: ~ $100,000,000.

2009 Fort Hood massacre - 13 dead, 30 injured

2010 Attempted bombing of Times Square in New York City by the Taliban - Attack failed

You dismiss intelligence efforts to halt attacks like this as "stopping some hermits in Afghanistan from talking to a few guys with a pressure cooker". You don't think those sorts of attacks need to be stopped? I'm curious, what sort of body count or damage will it take for you to realize you're wrong?

Prior to the US invasion in 2001, Al Qaida was turning out thousands of trained terrorists per year in Afghanistan. That pretty much stopped after the invasion.

Meanwhile, our diplomatic relations with China and Russia have deteriorated, and we have very little idea what is going on in Iran or North Korea.

There should be no surprises there.

From Warren Christopher to John Kerry — Slow learners about weak horses in the Middle East

Remember last month, when the Chinese Red Army was identified as actively behind cyber-spying? It was some gumshoes working for a private company that tracked it to a specific building in Shanghai.

You aren't suggesting either that the NSA had no idea, or that they make regular press announcements

Sorry but power won't generate itself and NIMBYs have made damned sure we ain't building any nuclear power plants so what else can you do?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not support current nuclear power systems anywhere on the planet, but I will support nuclear power anywhere on the planet if we start reprocessing waste. As long as the waste is a problem we're just deferring to our descendants, it is unacceptable. So what can we do? Start reprocessing waste. It's the only rational way to handle our nuclear waste, and it's the only kind of reactor that will see any green support. How "odd" that it's the one kind of reactor we won't build.

"On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead."

Technically, this policy was push by the environmental lobby:

"Environmental groups saw the breeder as a danger. An unlimited source of energy, they feared, would mean more energy use and waste, leading to more global environmental degradation and also opening new risks for proliferation of nuclear weapons."

See the whole story here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html

So many questionable assumptions in your post... If you are referring to US American history around the time of the American Revolution, quite a bit of the Colonial population fled to Canada to remain under the rule of the British Crown (as "Loyalists"). Canada got rid of slavery about 40 years sooner than the USA, never had a terrible Civil War, treat their indigenous people better, and now have universal health care. In many ways, the British were more socially advanced than the rough colonists. See also:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

Of those people who stayed in the American Colonies, at least one of his own officers (Colonel Lewis Nicola) asked George Washington to become their new King, but he refused.
http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/rule_of_law2.html

The major reason for the Colonies' revolt was banking policy -- that the British wanted to prevent American colonies from issuing their own currency, which caused an economic depression in the Colonies. so, a bad economy and high unemployment caused the revolt more than anything else. The reason the British wanted to do this was to collect more revenue to pay back debts incurred for the recent war with France over western territories. So, the end result was that the American colonists got the French territories without having to pay for the war that took them from France (and the natives). Both Britain and France were destabilized by such war debts, although France was worse off, leading towards the French Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/economic_perspectives/1981/ep_mar_apr1981_part4_wood.cfm
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm

As for US interventions abroad since, most were just to ensure profits to specific wealthy investors, according to Marine Major General Smedley Butler:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

On the partisan politics of this disclosure and the Verizon one. Conservatives now are blaming Obama and Progressives. Liberals blame Bush and Republicans. Congress says it has been going on for seven years, so why worry now? What a mess. Somehow I don't feel much is going to change from this revelation though, because, to anyone paying attention, it is not that unexpected. Carnivore and Echelon did similar things over a decade ago, plus they are supposedly arrangements by US agencies to exchange data with other countries that can spy on US citizens without issues.

As is suggested here, gradual changes are rarely resisted:
"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in

For some people nothing says "appeal to emotion" like FBI arrest reports I guess.

Here are some great resources for anyone confused by information at "911truth.org" and would like more information.

'Debunking 9/11 Myths': Nano-thermite dust found near Ground Zero (Photos)
Debunking 9/11 Myths: conspiracy plots are sheer fantasy

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
World Trade Center Disaster Study

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Debunking 9/11 Bomb Theories

The Truthers Are Out There

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

Debunking Conspiracy Theories In 'Voodoo Histories'

that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree.

For it is the doom of men that they forget. -- Merlin, Excalibur

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

By their deeds you shall know them.

1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi

1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya

2000 Photo: USS Cole - Video: 2000: USS Cole Attack in Yemen

2001 9-11

2002 Bali terror attack

2004 Madrid train attacks

2005 London 7/7 Terrorist Attacks

2009 Now classified as "workplace violence" - Nidal Hasan Admitted Jihadist Motive, Ft. Hood Victims’ Attorneys Say

2013 Boston Marathon Bombing

Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia betwe

And to inform everyone who hates my views and thinks I'm one of those hated right-wingers:

I don't hate your views based on their political flavor. I hate them because of their gross stupidity. You're trying to give credit to Bush for the boom of a bubble while withholding the blame for the inevitable collapse.

It wasn't just Bush, of course, since the policy of lax oversight of the financial derivatives market started under Clinton with a "let the good times roll" attitude. If you really aren't partisan and are interested in "facts" besides "less taxes good", then you should find this interesting: The Warning.

It appears to have been started in 2006

that's one heckuva scoop by Cringely.

Productivity of the average American worker went through the roof since 1979:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-worker-productivity-rising-faster-wage-growth-1114871

Did your inflation-adjusted paycheck? Oh hell no, you're (the average American ) treading water.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6

and have been for decades... DECADES

OK then. All this cost savings is pocketed by billionaires , not passed on to you. The ONLY form in which it's ever passed on to ordinary people is at their own expense, e.g. Walmart prices and Walmart

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213437/-What-Walmart-Costs-Taxpayers

http://www.walmarteffectbook.com/

So if you want to realize what any of the productivity gains / cost savings you've worked for and created, start a company, force everyone who works for you be to be part time, steal the benefits of THEIR increase in productivity, lobby your congresspig for tax breaks for the wealthy..... oh and shop at Walmart.

America is a nation of by and for billionaires, who fund our elections, occupy our political offices, write our laws and own our media. They do this for their own benefit and anything which does not effect their personal lives is not *real* and doesn't matter.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2296684923/

So no- it's not for you.

Now get back to work.

Texas murder it's own citizens? Weren't you just complaining about tin foil hat nonsense a few post up?

Yes, they do. And yes, (The War on Christmas, The 'Birthers', New World Order Conspiracy, Fema Concentration Camps, Clinton's Body Count Conspiracy, The Jewish were Behind 9/11, Global Warming is a Fraud), I regularly do.

Oh, let's see:

IRS Apologizes For Singling Out Conservative Groups
Justice Department Seized AP Phone Records to Track Government Leaks
Women shot by cops were just delivering papers
Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House
Student Photojournalist Beaten and Arrested While Taking Photos of Police in Public

Neil deGrasse Tyson will be an excellent show host. I'm looking forward to it, although it will be hard to beat The Elegant Universe series offered on PBS.

Too bad this is getting downvoted as it is correct. Trees consume very little of the CO2 we produce from fossil fuels, in part because trees themselves produce enormous amounts of CO2 every night, which they then re-absorb during the day.

The vast majority of CO2 fixing occurs in the ocean, not the forest.

NARRATOR: So dense is the Amazon jungle that it has a dramatic impact on the air above it. It starts in the trillions of leaves far below.

We can use animation to show what this invisible process, known as photosynthesis, might look like. During the day, the leaf takes up carbon dioxide from the air, seen here in orange. It converts the carbon into sugar and releases the gas that allows us to burn our fuel, oxygen, seen in blue.

Each one of these trees will release hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of oxygen in the course of its life. And as for the Amazon as a whole, a fifth of the world's oxygen is produced here. But here's the surprise: we will breathe almost none of it. Satellite data and ground measurements reveal that almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed into the forest at night.

PIERS SELLERS: With the advantage of the satellites, we can now see that the Amazon basically uses all its own oxygen and uses all its own carbon dioxide. It is, as far as we can tell, almost a closed system, in and of itself, almost.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html

And this is why people oppose nuclear power

Let's assume this is true for a moment. We have an existing stockpile of high-level nuclear waste that's going to be radioactive for the next 300,000 years. We can see that burying it in the ground fails after 50 years or less, yet that's what many propose we continue to do.

In the meantime, we have the technology to convert it into 600-year low-level waste and generate all the world's power needs for the next century without emitting any new CO2 beyond the construction machinery of the first few power plants. This compares well to solar panels, which are only barely net-CO2-negative as of last year (they're just trivially better than coal at this point).

Cleaning up the existing waste and reducing atmospheric CO2 is what people who "oppose nuclear power" are actually opposing in the 21st Century.

The simpsons greedy bastard running a nuke plant isn't a fiction.

Yet due to the reliance on existing, outdated and obsolete plants, the anti-progress people are enforcing the status quo, instead of allowing these plants to be replaced with safer technology.

Did you actually watch IBM's "Watson" beat the snot out of the best Jepordy champions humanity could muster?

I remember my congressman outscoring Watson.

A roster of game show contestants was hardly "the best humanity could muster."

You're still confusing a "product" vs. a "brand". A product is a salable good of a particular kind, such as milk. A brand is a product from a specific manufacturer, such as Borden milk. When an entity is competing against other producers, it's worth the effort to promote a brand. On the other hand, when an entity stands to gain more from promoting the whole industry, it's cheaper and easier to just advertise the product in general, saving the hassle of fighting with other brands. As is common in the food-supply industry, multiple suppliers of a single product can band together in associations like the "California Milk Processor Board" to jointly purchase advertising.

This is somewhat orthogonal to the distinction of a "commodity". A commodity is a good that has no product differentiation. One manufacturer's car is wildly different from another manufacturer's, but one mine's gold is not different from another's. Diamond is somewhat odd in this regard, as the minor or even intangible differences in diamonds from different mines are magnified in the price and legality. Being lab-grown or natural also is a major difference in demand.

De Beers is not really marketing a brand to the public at large. They're advertising a rock, promoting its image to create a market. That turns the industrial good into something far more salable - and that makes a product. Since they control most of the world's diamond production, it's easier for them to advertise diamonds in general, even if it helps their competitors. By increasing the public demand for diamonds, they increase the demand from distributors. They'll then advertise their brand to those distributors, who have to keep up their own supply.

It is a commodity, and is advertized as such on financial markets. It is not advertized to the general population on MTV.

It's also advertised in magazines, newspapers, and everywhere else there are people looking for investments. Since the gold fanatics profit most from driving up gold prices, they're promoting gold as a whole, rather than any particular brand of gold-investment strategy.

Although you can Google it, we don't know who the threats came from, so it is irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant and unfounded, but you brought it up. It's a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

The stated reason why Apollo Diamond was trying to grow large artificial diamonds was not to undercut De Beers, but to be able to manufacture a CPU on a 1x1 inch diamond wafer.

Such wafers already exist from other manufacturers for other purposes. Apollo just made improvements to the technology, but still failed at the business. Perhaps it's because, as mentioned in my last post, we still can't make reliable diamond transistors because our technology is immature, but they were focusing on making wafers for full CPUs. Perhaps in 50 years, they'll have a market.

Clearly a diamond powder does not cut it.

Quite the contrary... Diamond powder is one of the very few things that can cut a diamond wafer!

diamonds is not a product, it's a mineral (aka raw material, commodity)

Diamond is indeed a mineral, with many industrial uses. Most of the diamonds mined, though, aren't used or marketed as an exclusive product. More on this in a minute.

and what is the difference between "rare" and "uncommon"?

Something "rare" is hard to find, even if you have the resources to acquire it. Something "uncommon" is just something that's not commonplace. It might also be rare, but in this case (as with Apple products) the price is kept just high enough that not everybody that wants one will have the resources to get one. They're readily available, but for some reason, it's still remarkable to see one.

To use the venerable car analogy, a DeLorean is rare, because there's so few of them in existence. A brand-new Mercedes Benz is uncommon, because it's unlikely for the average person to buy one.

...it is a status symbol because De Beers adverised it... as a brand!...

Less of a brand (because diamonds don't carry a big label saying "De Beers"), but more of a specific product. The symbolism of a diamond standing for love and commitment is purely a De Beers invention. Want to impress your wife? Give her a new Mercedes. Love her forever? Give her a diamond!

A car is just a chunk of metal, and a diamond is just a rock. A chunk of metal with the promise of reliable transportation and the luxury of comfort is a product. A rock with the symbolism of love and promise of durability is also a product.

Have you ever seen anybody advertising a commodity before? "Gold is Forever", anybody?

Every. Goddamned. Day.

I work in finance, so I watch a lot of finance-oriented television. Yes, there are many companies touting their gold-related investment strategies, which basically boil down to "buy gold and make the price go up so my pre-existing gold holdings are worth more". In a way, it's similar: They're shifting the public perception of a mundane item into a valuable product.

Excepts this product is needed practically everywhere in technology, if not for De Beers having a chock-hold on the market and inflating prices.

There are many other manufacturers of synthetic diamonds, perfect for industrial use. Until recently, though, the diamonds they could easily produce were all colored, which aren't as suitable for jewelry. Now Gemesis, Scio, and others can produce gem-quality colorless diamonds.

These guys produces a flawless artificial diamond for use in technology, and got death threats over it.

[citation needed]

If the price went down it could revolutionize semiconductors industry.

The price is currently a few dollars per carat, in powder form. One carat is a huge amount compared to the size of existing transistors, so it's rather ridiculous to blame the price for the lack of diamond semiconductors. Instead, it's likely the immaturity of diamond semiconductor technology that holds up back:

The combinations of the extreme properties of diamond ... suggest that diamond should out-perform nearly every other semiconducting material system for electronic applications. IN PRINCIPLE! The reality is that there are many other factors involved in developing and implementing a technology: cost, manufacturing infrastructure, investment, and knowledge base. I think it is fair to say that diamond materials need a lot more research, knowledge, and technology development before they can be considered a mature semiconducting material.

...that technology is going to be squashed by De Beers, much like the electric ca

Here is Klein's statement.

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_klein_decl.pdf

The splitter sent the internet traffic to a secure room.

And another interview with Klein:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html

It's pretty obvious that room contained a Narus DPI. End of story.

There was a Frontline a while back about this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/.
The EFF notes similar here: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
Neither stated that the government is recording _everything_, though.

As I recall from the Frontline documentary, the NSA argues that sweeping up and recording emails and conversations does not require a warrant if they do not actually read or listen to the recorded information. They say they would need a warrant for wire tapping if they want to open up a record and examine it.

So there was no hacking involved. Simply someone handing out a password to a database to someone else who was not authorized.

It's called social engineering, and it is a well recognized hacking technique used in some infamous cases.

Since someone in the US Army or someone the Army authorized handed over the credentials you can hardly call it an act of war.

War, no. But it is still espionage apparently conducted by one of the last countries controlled by a Communist government whose officials periodically make public statements about attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.

The nature of the information they sought access to, and apparently obtained, isn't benign.

Dam - Sensitive Army database of U.S. dams compromised

. . . The database categorizes U.S. dams by the number of people that would be killed if a dam fails. They include “significant” and “high” hazard levels. . .

“In the wrong hands, the Army Corps of Engineers’ database could be a cyber attack roadmap for a hostile state or terrorist group to disrupt power grids or target dams in this country,” Van Cleave said in an email.

Gen. Keith Alexander, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, warned in a 2011 speech that cyber attacks were escalating from causing disruptions to actual destructive strikes, including cyber attacks on hydroelectric dams.

Alexander provided what he said were indirect examples of two types of anticipated cyber attacks. . . The second involved the catastrophic destruction of a water-driven electrical generator at Russia’s Sayano-Shushenskaya dam, near the far eastern city of Cheremushki, in August 2009. One of the dam’s 10 650-megawatt hydro turbine generators, weighing more than 1,000 tons, was mistakenly started by a computer operator 500 miles away.

As a result, the generator began spinning, rose 50 feet in the air, and exploded, killing 75 people and destroying eight of the remaining nine turbines at the dam. . . more

Are you saying that because the UN agreed to it, that automatically means that Bush 1 wasn't pursuing the war for his own purposes?

I don't see how you can be following what I wrote and not already get the gist of what I'm saying. When you originally stated, "Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason [..]", it's completely bullshit to ignore the actual good reasons there were for intervening. Whether Bush personally cared or not is besides the point, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself.

(1) that Bush's efforts were a near-complete success

You're right, that wasn't clear in the link. That's mostly from memory of watching documentaries. There was one in particular that talked about how Aidid's son was in the Marines providing relief, and that the operation was largely a success.

However, I have found corresponding evidence from the Operation Restore Hope page, such as this quote from a cited page: "By March 1993, mass starvation had been overcome, and security was much improved."

I also found a chronology that completely invalidates your initial claim that Bush "was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election":

"With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach."

He had already lost the election by that point.

Clinton undermined by doing something Bush would not have done

I never said that. I don't even fault Clinton's decision, as I probably would have done the same thing. I just said he owns his decision, as it was his to make as Commander in Chief.

(3) means the entire situation becomes 100% Clinton's fault.

It's not 100%, but easily 80%.

You would have to at least specifically prove that Clinton mishandled the situation in a way that led to Blackhawk Down

No, it isn't about mishandled, it's about making decisions that lead US soldiers to die. You claimed no such military actions were initiated by Clinton. Per the chronology link: "While Clinton supported this expansion of the UN's mandate, he simultaneously ordered the number of US troops in Somalia to be reduced and replaced by UN troops."

I left the bit in the end about his reducing troops lest you think I was being selective, but it doesn't change the fact that the mission changed and Clinton was making decisions that led to American deaths.

The point of this is that those of us with no engineering background whatever can be relied on to do something weird when first confronted with it.

There's an episode of "Independent Lens" about women soldering parts for solar panels..

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/solar-mamas/

Rafea has never left her tiny village of tents in Jordan. Now she is traveling to India to become a solar-energy engineer, in hopes she can return and help her village to become sustainable and self-sufficient.

Just a pointer to someone trying to quantify the gains due to interventions.

I am not qualified to say if this approach is correct or not, but when I read I thought it was very interesting and such a shame on our society that kids, who could be happy and productive when adults, are left by the side of the road to rot.

None of the Massachusetts delegation voted on the bill. Here is the roll call.

Why didn't any of the 9 representatives from the state vote? Because the President was in Massachusetts following a terrorist bombing earlier in the week.

The bill has been in Congress in some form since 2011. If the sponsors and supporters of the bill truly believe that this bill is necessary to enable "integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from" threats to security, wouldn't it make sense to schedule a vote on passage of the bill for a day when at least some representatives of the state most recently victimized by a terrorist attack could vote? Is there any opportunism at work here, given that the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill the last time it was up for passage?

It's worth reading the full text of the bill. It contains statements such as "The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

As a strong financial and moral supporter of PBS, I am simultaneously appreciative of PBS's even-handed coverage of the Aereo story and disappointed by their participation in the suit.

There's much to dislike about Aereo's business model. The company's technical and legal maneuverings allow them to excessively monetize an otherwise low-cost service. Like so many water bottling companies, they provide a small convenience, and they should be allowed to, but there are good philosophical and financial reasons not to buy what they're peddling.

The larger story is that the trajectory for all broadcast media is obvious: consumers will always push for free, accessible content. Aereo's service is just a stopgap and will ultimately fizzle out along with Viacom, News Corporation, and their peers.

That's what makes PBS's position in this all the more troubling. PBS actually has one of the only viable and worthwhile models: viewer-supported broadcasting. Given that PBS survives on the generosity and goodwill of its viewers and that its viewers clearly want accessibility, they should focus on delivering what viewers want - open, free, accessible content - directly to their audience. They've made huge inroads over the past few years with their online services but come on, go for broke and put everything that you can online. That's the best way to cut out the middlemen, outpace the hamstrung big medias, deliver uncompromised programming, and win the hearts, minds, and support of the public.

As a strong financial and moral supporter of PBS, I am simultaneously appreciative of PBS's even-handed coverage of the Aereo story and disappointed by their participation in the suit.

There's much to dislike about Aereo's business model. The company's technical and legal maneuverings allow them to excessively monetize an otherwise low-cost service. Like so many water bottling companies, they provide a small convenience, and they should be allowed to, but there are good philosophical and financial reasons not to buy what they're peddling.

The larger story is that the trajectory for all broadcast media is obvious: consumers will always push for free, accessible content. Aereo's service is just a stopgap and will ultimately fizzle out along with Viacom, News Corporation, and their peers.

That's what makes PBS's position in this all the more troubling. PBS actually has one of the only viable and worthwhile models: viewer-supported broadcasting. Given that PBS survives on the generosity and goodwill of its viewers and that its viewers clearly want accessibility, they should focus on delivering what viewers want - open, free, accessible content - directly to their audience. They've made huge inroads over the past few years with their online services but come on, go for broke and put everything that you can online. That's the best way to cut out the middlemen, outpace the hamstrung big medias, deliver uncompromised programming, and win the hearts, minds, and support of the public.

For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.

That's not true. Maybe you didn't know it was a lie, and are just stating what you honestly believe to be fact, but it's a lie all the same. I blame Romney for creating this ridiculous talking point in the debates last year.

You can review PBS's financial statements for yourself. They lost ~$30 million in the past year, and a similar amount the year before -- page 5, "Change in net assets" row, "Total" columns for both 2012 and 2011.

They've got enough money that they could last for a while without public funding, but not forever. Cutting executive pay wouldn't make a difference. Also, I find it funny that banks need to pay millions of dollars of tax payer bailout dollars as bonuses to retain "top talent", but it's outrageous when PBS or schools want to spend a fraction of that to keep their top employees.

And really, it's a trivial cost for tax payers to bear (something like $1 per person per year), and provides our kids with educational programming that doesn't smother them with ads or ADHD-inducing hyperactive crap.

When I read your column, I remembered this post from Robert X Cringely back in 2001 where he solved a similar problem:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2001/pulpit_20010628_000421.html

Not sure if this would help, but it's certainly an idea!

I encourage anyone who has 20 minutes to spare to watch this short Frontline documentary on E-waste:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html

I bet lots of companies throwing out old hardware who are worried about data leakage could actually find use for their old drives in-house. Hell, just keep them in a closet somewhere until one of your in-use drives go bad (and they will).

You admitted he was briefed about it. You don't have any evidence that he didn't care

When did I say he didn't care? I said George W. Bush as a person is not someone who bothers with details. It has been his way for many years. If you don't believe me, this is what Karen Hughes, Bush Communications Director says about presenting for then governor, George Bush.

I've seen a lot of people come in with the big, thick briefing books, and they sit them on the table and try to open it up and flip through and read him the pages. You know, "Chart number one says- chart number two shows-" And usually, about three pages into this, the governor will say, "Can I stop you a minute? Let me let you close the book, and you tell me what you think is the most important thing I need to know to make this decision."

It's just as damning as the video of him being notified of the 9/11 attacks and not immediately "doing something", as if there was anything immediate he could do.

The video is simply proof that he was briefed which his administration cannot deny. But the larger question which still remains unresolved is what did he do a day before a hurricane. Did he mobilize the National Guard (somewhat common in these circumstances).? No. That was not until 4 days until after the storm when it was evident how bad the problem was.

As for after 9/11, I don't have issues with his behavior nor did I bring it up. If there was a recording of him being briefed about an impending terrorist attack on NYC and he did nothing, would you absolve him of any responsibility too?

The fact is, he had nothing to do until the state governments asked, and despite your claim to the contrary, they did not ask.

Where do you get your information? This is my source:

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: You know, I asked for help, whatever help you can give me. If somebody asks me for help, and— I'll say, "OK, well, I can do this, this, this and this. What do you need?" But nobody ever told me the kinds of things that they could give me.

[CNN interview] My first conversation with President Bush was asking for all federal firepower. I mean, I meant everything. Just send it. Give me planes, give me boats, give me people.

MARTIN SMITH: You've been criticized for not asking for help in the right way, that you didn't understand the system—

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: When you say, "Help, help," just, you know—

MARTIN SMITH: Well, did you ask for troops?

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: I wanted, you know, more help. I wanted whatever assets they had.

NARRATOR: Mayor Nagin was asking the same questions of the governor.

MARTIN SMITH: What were you asking for?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: We need help. We need troops. We need resources. We need food. We need water. You name it, we need it.

MARTIN SMITH: And what did she say to you?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: She said she was going to help.

MARTIN SMITH: And then?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: Then time went on.

MICHAEL BROWN: With all due respect to them, I think they were just truly overwhelmed.

MARTIN SMITH: Well, as I understand it, when local officials are overwhelmed, that's why we have FEMA.

MICHAEL BROWN: That's correct. But FEMA does that based upon the priorities of what the state establishes. The state is still in control. We don't come in and take over. We don't have the resources to take over.

NARRATOR: And Brown claims that he couldn't really help Louisiana because officials didn't tell him what they wanted.

"Asking in the right way" is part of the process and they have people whose job it is to know how to do that and

You admitted he was briefed about it. You don't have any evidence that he didn't care

When did I say he didn't care? I said George W. Bush as a person is not someone who bothers with details. It has been his way for many years. If you don't believe me, this is what Karen Hughes, Bush Communications Director says about presenting for then governor, George Bush.

I've seen a lot of people come in with the big, thick briefing books, and they sit them on the table and try to open it up and flip through and read him the pages. You know, "Chart number one says- chart number two shows-" And usually, about three pages into this, the governor will say, "Can I stop you a minute? Let me let you close the book, and you tell me what you think is the most important thing I need to know to make this decision."

It's just as damning as the video of him being notified of the 9/11 attacks and not immediately "doing something", as if there was anything immediate he could do.

The video is simply proof that he was briefed which his administration cannot deny. But the larger question which still remains unresolved is what did he do a day before a hurricane. Did he mobilize the National Guard (somewhat common in these circumstances).? No. That was not until 4 days until after the storm when it was evident how bad the problem was.

As for after 9/11, I don't have issues with his behavior nor did I bring it up. If there was a recording of him being briefed about an impending terrorist attack on NYC and he did nothing, would you absolve him of any responsibility too?

The fact is, he had nothing to do until the state governments asked, and despite your claim to the contrary, they did not ask.

Where do you get your information? This is my source:

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: You know, I asked for help, whatever help you can give me. If somebody asks me for help, and— I'll say, "OK, well, I can do this, this, this and this. What do you need?" But nobody ever told me the kinds of things that they could give me.

[CNN interview] My first conversation with President Bush was asking for all federal firepower. I mean, I meant everything. Just send it. Give me planes, give me boats, give me people.

MARTIN SMITH: You've been criticized for not asking for help in the right way, that you didn't understand the system—

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: When you say, "Help, help," just, you know—

MARTIN SMITH: Well, did you ask for troops?

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: I wanted, you know, more help. I wanted whatever assets they had.

NARRATOR: Mayor Nagin was asking the same questions of the governor.

MARTIN SMITH: What were you asking for?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: We need help. We need troops. We need resources. We need food. We need water. You name it, we need it.

MARTIN SMITH: And what did she say to you?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: She said she was going to help.

MARTIN SMITH: And then?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: Then time went on.

MICHAEL BROWN: With all due respect to them, I think they were just truly overwhelmed.

MARTIN SMITH: Well, as I understand it, when local officials are overwhelmed, that's why we have FEMA.

MICHAEL BROWN: That's correct. But FEMA does that based upon the priorities of what the state establishes. The state is still in control. We don't come in and take over. We don't have the resources to take over.

NARRATOR: And Brown claims that he couldn't really help Louisiana because officials didn't tell him what they wanted.

"Asking in the right way" is part of the process and they have people whose job it is to know how to do that and

President Nixon began decreasing troop levels in 1969:
Bill Moyer's Journal Vietnam Timeline.

The renewed focus on Nixon looks like more "operation change the subject" to deflect news stories related to Hillary Clinton's leaked emails.