Slashdot Mirror

[JOHN] DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers." They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. [...] they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics

I know I'm only supposed to ask one...but geesh...

First, I haven't seen the documentary. Saw it was on last night but didn't have the time to watch. I'll watch it on HBO On Demand this weekend.

Second, when I read things like manual overrides allow unlimited voting and votes automatically switched it scares the crap out of me. Why are politicians and elected officials sticking up for this garbage more often than not?

Third, what's so wrong about paper? Why is the government so gung ho over mediocre to outright horrible electronic voting equipment over paper ballots? And what's so bad about receipts?

And finally, do you think the government will ever mandate that the hardware and software of electronic voting equipment must be published for citizen review? If not, how can anybody actually trust this equipment?

I'm surprised I don't see a link to the original story yet, so here it is:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/24/122153/98

From the story:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl, --AZ-01: Rick Renzi, --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth, --CA-04: John Doolittle, --CA-11: Richard Pombo, --CA-50: Brian Bilbray, --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave, --CO-05: Doug Lamborn, --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell, --CT-04: Christopher Shays, --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan, --FL-16: Joe Negron, --FL-22: Clay Shaw, --ID-01: Bill Sali, --IL-06: Peter Roskam, --IL-10: Mark Kirk, --IL-14: Dennis Hastert, --IN-02: Chris Chocola, --IN-08: John Hostettler, --IA-01: Mike Whalen, --KS-02: Jim Ryun, --KY-03: Anne Northup, --KY-04: Geoff Davis, --MD-Sen: Michael Steele, --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht, --MN-06: Michele Bachmann, --MO-Sen: Jim Talent, --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns, --NV-03: Jon Porter, --NH-02: Charlie Bass, --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson, --NM-01: Heather Wilson, --NY-03: Peter King, --NY-20: John Sweeney, --NY-26: Tom Reynolds, --NY-29:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl --AZ-01: Rick Renzi --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth --CA-04: John Doolittle --CA-11: Richard Pombo --CA-50: Brian Bilbray --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave --CO-05: Doug Lamborn --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell --CT-04: Christopher Shays --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan --FL-16: Joe Negron --FL-22: Clay Shaw --ID-01: Bill Sali --IL-06: Peter Roskam --IL-10: Mark Kirk --IL-14: Dennis Hastert --IN-02: Chris Chocola --IN-08: John Hostettler --IA-01: Mike Whalen --KS-02: Jim Ryun --KY-03: Anne Northup --KY-04: Geoff Davis --MD-Sen: Michael Steele --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht --MN-06: Michele Bachmann --MO-Sen: Jim Talent --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns --NV-03: Jon Porter --NH-02: Charlie Bass --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson --NM-01: Heather Wilson --NY-03: Peter King --NY-20: John Sweeney --NY-26: Tom Reynolds --NY-29: Randy Kuhl --NC-08: Robin Hayes --NC-11: Charles Taylor --OH-01:

Some articles to think about in the upcoming election:

Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heather Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce

I understand why you might think that. It is clearly due to a failure of the media and Congress to hold our adminsitration accountable that you still believe that the intelligence at the time supported their case for going to war.

"Saying that he "lied about WMD's" for instance is nonsense, since all intel at the time indicated that they did indeed exist."

Therre was plenty of credible intelligence at the time that said that he didn't, too. This is called "cherrypicking" intelligence. The justification that Congress voted for the war based on the same intelligence is true only because Congress was only able to look at the same intelligence that Bush himself was "looking at" - i.e. the intelligence that the administration selected because it supported the hypothesis that there were WMDs in Iraq. People within the intelligence community who disagreed with this statement were actively smeared - read: Joseph Wilson, who investigated connections between Saddam Hussein . Meanwhile there werep lenty of other assertions that the administration made or insinuated at the time to justify an invasion that didn't even have evidence, namely that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda and was in some way direclty responsible for 9/11. See also: the Downing Street Memo, which proves that Bush was fixing intelligence around a decision that was made by neoconservatives as early as 1997 to remove Saddam Hussein from power once they had the chance. So I would call that deliberate lying. Just because it was done (at the time) with great dexterity and without leaving tracks doesn't mean it is less delibreate. Why don't you read this interview by PBS of Colonel Laurence Wilkerson. This man actually played in an integral part in *planning the war* and claims: "I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing."

"Some say that these lies have directly resulted in as many as half a million deaths." Talk about "misleading public statements". Some people say the moon landing was faked. Doesn't mean it's true.

A very reputable pollster recently showed with (according to him) 95% certainty that up to 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the war began, far exceeding the "official" body count.
So I include myself among those people who believe that the real body count far exceeds the official one, which stands right now at 48,000 - a lower number indeed, but one that should still offend you.

Which is why the setup that does the scanning is all open-source, with the standardized code set published with hashes so that observers can confirm the code is the "legit stuff" that 10,000+ geek eyeballs have looked at.

OK. Lemme 'splain something here. Speed MATTERS when we're talking about congressional races.

There have been two recent court decisions in California (the recent CD50 case in San Diego) and Nevada in which state court judges have ruled that each house of congress has the right to approve new members based on EARLY, uncertified, unofficial election results. And in the CD50 case that I know of, this "stamp of approval" on a GOP candidate by the GOP house leadership happened before the final canvass and before the 1% hand recount spotcheck mandated by state law.

That's right, folks. According to these courts, somehody like Hastert can deep-six any state election protection law that state passes and "annoint" candidates.

If this demented thinking holds, then we don't just need to find fraud or screwups, we've got to do so FAST. Hand recounting of all the paper (or even a random selection!) will take too long. We need to throw known-good code at trustworthy data in a hurry.

For those not aware of the San Diego fiasco:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3353

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Court_rules_agai nst_votersupervised_elections_attorney_0906.html

Jim March

Damn right.

Good thing we did not try to establish checks and balances by electing those Democrats. Now, with the single Party in charge of the House, Senate, White House, and the Supreme Court, we have done so much better.

We have budget surplus!
We caught Bin Laden and prevented Al Qaeda recruitment (e.g. in Iraq)
We destroyed nuclear ambitions of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea!
We have outlawed abortion!
We have reduced the government!
We defended our Constitution and Habeas Corpus.
Our small busnesses are growing and
We stopped the outsourcing!

See how much we accomplished with the "true conservatives" at the wheel...

Difference between US and the rest of the world

This goes both ways, of course. 'War on Terror'?

Here is what they see in China: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/sit e/newsweek/
Here is what we see in America: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14964292/site/newsweek /

> then the other guys who wanted to come onboard with liquid explosives

Yes, the guys who didn't have passports and tickets yet and who haven't been charged with anything yet.
Well, they planned to use some strange "liquid explosives", I personally have at least some knowlegde in chemistry and don't believe this.
But let's hear what others say (taken from http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sources_August_T error_Plot_Fiction_Underscoring_0918.html ) :
---
"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.
---

However, science doesn't matter anymore and this story sounds very made up by Bliar's and Bush's regimes.

And I might add - most of the TV-Specials on German TV were even less accurate on the chemistry of explosives as they usually are on IT related stuff.

k2r

So believe the borehole measurements where contemporary instruments examine ground temperatures from the past. Or compare the size of the error bars to the size of the effects. Wikipedia has some charts that show both.

>all scientists agree to in order to receive more funding

The way to get funding would be to have a major disagreement to compel more research.

>right-wing common sense

"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. " -- George W. Bush, June 2001.
"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem." -- George W. Bush, June 2006

If you don't believe scientists, isn't it right-wing common sense to believe someone who speaks for God?

Today is apparently the day for the word "funner," which also showed up in this story about the new movie, "Jesus Camp."

Said one of the campers, "We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."

Thank you for reinforcing the vapid California stereotype.

All Schwarznazi's ballot initiatives go down in flames, except the one putting the state into a lot more debt. Not only do you ignore how all his other policies were rejected. You also ignore how he lied about fixing the budget, got elected by lying about how giant the debt is, then "fixed" it by creating a lot more debt. And your fellow Californians sucked it right down.

Next up, you pretend Californians don't vote for Schwarznazi because he's a Hollywood star. You justify this by saying that Davis wasn't Hollywood - but he got thrown out, you clown. Somehow voting for nonstars other times means you skindeepers didn't vote for actors in Reagan and Schwarznazi. You cite two other potential candidates whose resume consists of... being Hollywood stars, though not big enough to be as popular as Schwarznazi. Ringing the "duh" bell as hard as you can.

Schwarznazi campaigned for Bush, even outside California, which he said he wouldn't do, because Bush was so unpopular in California, though popular elsewhere. You're a gang of liars, you California Schwarznazi boosters. Like the lie you're trying that I said Bush is unpopular because of his deficits. Which I didn't say - I just said he's as unpopular as his deficits are high. Worth noting because not only are Schwarznazi's deficits high, including that new debt you're crowing about, but Bush's debt is is somewhere between 45 and 65 $TRILLION, so high the country can't pay it back. Which also figures into his unpopularity, along with Iraq, among people who can count that high. You can't - 45 is clearly out of your reach. But about a quarter of voters surveyed last month said the economy was more important than even Iraq. Your boys are blowing both, and worshippers like you don't even care.

Sure, you're not a Republican. Noone's a Republican anymore, right? You're an "independent", of course. So you vote for Republicans, and pretend you don't. And if you believe that Hollywood is "liberal", you're wearing a mouse suit in Disneyland.

I might have thought up the nickname "Schwarznazi", but I'm not unique. He's a nazi, just like he said, no matter what other arguments about Schwarznazi you want to lose with me. All my points are meaningful, backed by facts. I don't need some Lalaland liar like you to call me clever. Or spew lies while calling me on the facts.

Now turn your glowing eyeballs back to your TV. I'm sure there's something good on, like a California Republican pretending they're got the state's trains running on time, if only those damn secular Hollywood liberals would just lie down on the tracks, or at least get into the cattlecars.

You should note that our president set that example 30 times. I know it's old news but if the DoJ tries to prosecute HP, maybe Bush will ask for it to be thrown out?

You really ought to learn about Islam and get to know some Muslims. You can start by realizing that most of the propaganda you hear in America about Muslims is not true about the vast majority of the 1.3B people who follow the religion. There are radical fundamentalists in every religion, even Christians.

It might require you to leave TX though, even if just in ideology.

That's a good question. A company that produces faulty machines with all sorts of blunders and glitches in the past and present - since this is a free market surely market pressure should eradicate this company. Yet it seems the government that should look into such irregularities (especially since free market is (supposed to be) one of the pillars of the GOP) apparently has no interest in doing so.. Could it be because Diebold not only supported the Bush campaign financially, but not only had the ability, but also the intention to to deliver the victory to their crony buddies? - Noo, that would be too outlandish and could never happen; the vigilant public would easily find out about it.

The Romans had a saying: Bis peccare in bello non licet. To blunder twice is not allowed in war. Thank god big business isn't warfare or after all these blunders heads would be a'rollin (and piling up).

Of course, now US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is being attacked, being accused of failing to recuse herself in spite of a conflict of interest .

How about this, from an affidavit?

What with all the drug and gang activity why would people not be flocking to the site? Its a good thing our government is a step ahead of us in protecting our children.

If you're referring to the cache Hoekstra and Santorum have been parading in front of the news services, they were known about and listed on intelligence reports back in 2003. They were degraded beyond the possibility of use even back then.
rawstory

In 1924, a teenager in Charlottesville, Virginia, Carrie Buck, was chosen as the first person to be sterilized under the state's newly adopted eugenics law. Ms. Buck, whose mother resided in an asylum for the epileptic and feebleminded, was accused of having a child out of wedlock. She was diagnosed as promiscuous and the probable parent of "socially inadequate offspring."

A lawsuit challenging the sterilisation was filed on Ms. Buck's behalf. Harry Laughlin, having never met Ms. Buck, wrote a deposition condemning her and her 7-month old child, Vivian. Scientists from the ERO attended the trial to testify to Vivian's "backwardness." In the end, the judge ruled in the state's favor.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Buck v. Bell (1927), ruled 8-1 to uphold the sterilisation of Ms. Buck on the grounds she was a "deficient" mother. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an adherent of eugenics, declared "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

According to University of Virginia historian Paul Lombardo, evidence was later revealed that supports the claim that Carrie Buck's child was not the result of promiscuity; Ms. Buck had been raped by the nephew of her foster parents. School records also indicate her daughter Vivian was a solid student and had made the honor roll at age 7. A year later, Vivian died of an intestinal illness.

Then, the zealots' hobbyhorse was eugenics. Today the politicians keep the people worked up by riding the hobbyhorses of "the war against terrorists" and "homosexual marriage". But Big Government has demonstrated time and time again that there are things with which it cannot be trusted. Our genetic codes are clearly one of those things that Government will eventually misuse. Our only defense is to prevent Government from getting it

Yes, we agree on many points. And I'm glad we managed to keep this civil. The points we disagree on are rather big though:

I do not believe that the death of tens of thousands of civilians can be justified by claiming to be bringing democracy.

I do not believe that you can force democracy on a country. All you can achive that way is a pseudo colony with a pseudo democracy. The kind of situation leading to the current state of Africa.

I do not believe that Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, nor that Iraq was closely tied to Al Quaeda, nor that Iraq was any kind of threat to the US.
I do believe that the "intelligence failures" were 100% intentional.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/12995512.htm

I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This count is most likely closer to the truth:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 674.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/12/wirq12.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2162249, 00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 186519,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArti cle.asp?articleID=8218

The list is endless but I'll stop here.

I believe that Bush does and will continue to do exactly whatever he feels will benefit him, with no concern what so ever for how many dies for his gain. Not that you actually need anything but his actions and his statements to prove this, but here are more links:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-Ho ustonChron-Herskowitz/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12 885.htm

I believe that Bush is now planning his next war of aggression.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20 060511&hn=33036
http://www.rense.com/general71/tdarg.htm
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/ us-feverishly-works-to-frame-iran_13.html
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839133.sh tml
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513 _265252.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_ admits_she_responded_to_0509.html

I am the leaker.

Remember: F$ck Bush.

Sincerely,
K. Trout, Infidel

The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.

If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.

The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):

House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.

With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p

Raw Story is in danger. Your right to read news stories and writing that disrupt the government/Big Media symbiosis is under attack. And you probably don't even know it.

There has been so much going on lately, what with plans to nuke Iran and the rolling mutiny among the top brass that you may well have missed another growing menace to all that we have built here.

The Internet phenomenon - the dizzying evolution from Netscape to Yahoo to Google to the new world of blogs and wikis - is the result of an essential structural attribute of the medium: the content-neutrality of the pipes we use to connect to it. It is the natural tendency of the powerful to silence and hinder anything that threatens their dominance, but the phone companies could not stop AOL, AOL could not stop Yahoo, and Yahoo could not stop Google, because the folks who owned the pipes used to carry all those ones and zeroes to and from your computer were not permitted to discriminate against bits they didn't like. (The concept of the "common carrier" dates back at least to the earliest regulation of railroads more than a hundred years ago.) That level field has also resulted in the current flowering of our participatory democracy. But that flower is about to pruned or even torn out by the roots.

The Orwellian "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006," sponsored by Congressman Joe Barton (R, Texas), will, if it becomes law, allow your Internet provider to charge you extra to read this column. It will allow your provider to block this column entirely. Congressman Ed Markey (D, Mass), who sponsored a defeated amendment that would have explicitly preserved neutrality, explains:

The Joe Barton (R-TX) sponsored telecommunications bill that is moving through the Energy & Commerce Committee in the House would fundamentally change the way the Internet works. ... In short, the Barton bill opens the door for the Bells and other ISPs to throw out a key principle of net neutrality and enact a new era of telecom taxes and tolls, roadblocks that would shut down the avenues of innovation that have allowed the Internet to become what it is today.

That bill took a big step toward being enacted into law last week.

A House subcommittee handed phone companies a victory Wednesday by voting 27-4 to advance a bill that would make it easier for them to deliver television service over the Internet and clearing the way for all Internet carriers to charge more for speedier delivery. ...

Earlier in the day, the subcommittee voted 23-8 to reject an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would have inserted specific language designed to enforce network neutrality and prevent the feared creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet.

"Members from both sides of the aisle endorsed a plan which will permit cable and phone companies to construct 'pay as you surf, pay as you post' toll booths for the Internet" said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington.

But Sonia Arrison, director of technology studies for the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, dismissed concerns that the proposed bill would lead to a two-tiered Internet.

"There's plenty of competition," Arrison said. "The market will

Levelling the Internet

Why can't you just
Get it through your head
It's over, it's over now
Yes, you heard me clearly now
I said it's over, it's over now

I'm not really over you
You might say that
I can't take it
I can't take it
Lord, I swear I just
Can't take it no more

(Go away) go away
(Far away) so far away
It's too late to turn back now
And it don't matter anyhow

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_report_on_ US_military_secrets_0414.html

So it's not exactly a Faux News scoop as mentioned.

The Raw Story: After Democrats and Republicans sparred over the amount of time allotted to debate and scheduled for the vote, Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President George W. Bush for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Feingold_introduces_ resolution_to_censure_President_0313.html

Feingold reads constitution on Senate floor

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Feingold_reads_const itution_on_Senate_floor_0301.html

We already know what George Bush thinks about the constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/art icle_7779.shtml), we already know that he doesn't care if weather We The People want him to do what he is doing (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Controversial_data_ mining_program_continues_after_0224.html) and we also know that Mr. Bush is making preparations for martial law. After he retired, Tommy Franks toured the country announcing that after the next terror attack we will have to go to a military form of government (http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/franks.htm). This was unfortunate, he said, but necessary -- the people would demand it. He insisted that he was just a concerned citizen expressing his opinion -- but it turns out that he was payed over $400,000 by the White House to express this opinion.

Please get informed about what your government is doing.

Do you mean this speech?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_ 0116.html

This is no more outrageous than some other stuff that's happened... in general the DHS operates like... well... every federal agencies every time it's revealed they're going impressively outside their jurisdiction (which seems to happen every other week these days). They shrug, stonewall, and wait for the public outrage to die down before quietly burying the story.

So registered charities with 81% overhead are ethical, or the registered ubercharity diverting 50% of a targeted donation for 9/11 victims is ethical, but this unregistered charity was deemed in advance to be unethical? PayPal decided where you could (or could not) spend your money for you - and that's ethical?

It's been a while since we last disagreed in a Slashdot thread. I was concerned that this time would be just a battle - but you have the dignity to care more about the serious facts than argument. I respect that.

If we're going to look at a "next level", there's no evidence to direct our gaze laterally to Democrats - though there are certainly partisan reasons to try. We need to look deeper - at the officials Abramoff bribed, who are guilty of more serious crimes than Abramoff. Although Abramoff's crimes apparently do include complicity in the murder of a casino business associate, with Abramoff's partner directly implicated. But one of Abramoff's bribed officials, David Safavian, was arrested for obstructing justice while impeding an Abramoff investigation. Safavian oversaw $300B in procurement, and further implicates Ohio Republican Congressmember Ney. These are the people we should be examining - the criminals associated with Abramoff and each other, who sell out our country for golf trips and other bribes yet to be uncovered.

You and I have our differences, but our mutual interest in uncovering these criminal gangs rotting our country is clearly more important.

Never has my signature been more appropriate...

Just for starters, you might want to look at these for two of your claims.

Rove Investigation Still ongoing

Army Recruitment Crisis

(I'd stop to refute more, but the constant beeping has given me a headache...)

We are in the times in which the people have to protect each other. And we all are the people, and the ones that are against the people are the powerful that will not take into consideration peoples rights.

What NSA is doing is an abuse, but the people that communicate through the internet are very vulnerable to abuse, not only by the governments, but also by mafias and groups of a diversity of allied criminals, some of them acting with white gloves.

Internet is today the field for criminal activities. In the last few days I have been receiving an enormous amount of emails which were fake from ebay, pay pal, the Netherlands Lotto etc... trying to get from me my password to this accounts. And some of them looked so good that could be mistaken by the real thing, but users of the internet that engage in criminal activities disguise themselves in anonymity that internet provides.

Our communications throuh the internet are surveiled since time immemorial by NSA, and a wealth of information about us can be collected and may be collected. And this is a great danger to the people, and no law protects us these days.

What about an internet between authenticated and identified users... so that the majority of internet users that don't mind to be identified because they live in a free country and at the same time, not being engaged in fraudulent activity or criminal activity don't mind to inter-communicate with other identified and authenticated members of the net. Why should anyone want to be anonymous if not engaged in criminal activity?

This is my point. We should suport the institutions, companies and private people that support the target to bring privacy and security within identified users when using the internet to communicate This is the case of a company called Amteus.

Now, once in communication with an identified user, which is properly authenticated, then you provide privacy, so... unless you want to make it public, nobody can access your communication because it is properly secured and encrypted. i.e. it travels in a closed envelope and it is unlawful to open it, and it is being between identified and authenticated users that trust each other. Otherwise, not only the governments with their NSAs involved in their own practices will snoop on us, but gangs of gangsters will easily intercept our communications, phishing like the email I have received will only be the beginning. I am starting a website to support this kind of approach.

This requires legislation, but also requires technology. Like the one developed by Amteus. But there are many other.

I hope that the people with vision that have given to the internet a view that will promote freedom and cleanliness, like John Perry Barlow will help this company to succeed in a very honorable project.

It is very distressing these days what is going on with the Internet. Hopefully companies like Amteus Plc that are bringing a technology to overcome this problem of snooping, spam, phishing etc.. will survive attacks from those that hide behind anonimity.

Ramon Leonato

Never forget that the first action that allowed Hitler to take dictatorial powers "above the law" was the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 that was blamed on Communist terrorists, but perpetrated by the Nazi party. History has a way of repeating itself.

The Reichstag Fire Decree read: "Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." Sound familiar?

This is breaking news in the Baltimore area this morning (and last night). For those of you are are defending Bush for ignoring the courts and ignoring the Constitution, based on the premise that the NSA is "only looking for terrorists" you may be surprised...

From NSA SPIES ON BALTIMORE QUAKERS
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned. According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.

The actual court documents are online
And here's an interview with one of the primaries.

Granted, they didn't through them into Gitmo or anything (yet), but it's interesting because it's in zip code 21212, my own back yard ! (it's true what they say).

I don't know... he's doing pretty well in my eyes.

for a full year before they published it and they have admitted to witholding certain elements of the story from publication.

Details @ http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_admit s_it_held_1215.html

What is the US Secret Service doing?

It is supposedly their responsibility to see that election fraud doesn't happen, yet the evidence of fraud is clear as a day.

Why? Are americans happy with this?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__all eges_company_plagued_1206.html

Shortly before the election, ten days to two weeks, we were told that the date in the machine was malfunctioning, the source recalled. So we were told 'Apply this patch in a big rush. Later, the Diebold insider learned that the patches were never certified by the state of Georgia, as required by law.

Also, the clock inside the system was not fixed, said the insider. Its legendary how strange the outcome was; they ended up having the first Republican governor in who knows when and also strange outcomes in other races. I can say that the counties I worked in were heavily Democratic and elected a Republican. ...

The voting machines that were tested post election consistantly made "mistakes" in favor of republicans... and now there's a Diebold insider that confirms those reports.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28174
http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19/172 7222&tid=172&tid=103&tid=219
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__all eges_company_plagued_1206.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_h arris/index_np.html

Anything else I can do for you?

Just because the NY Times, CNN, the LA Times, and the Washington Post dare to print something other than Undying Praise for the Fatherland does not make them left-leaning. It makes them journalists doing their jobs. I think the non-U.S. news coverage of the same events is more aggressive, such as the CBC, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and the BBC. I take the truth as an average of these sources, along with some help from FAIR and the Columbia Journalism Review.

If I want left-leaning, I can go to the Independent Media Center, the Alternative News Network, The Raw Story, or the Fifth Estate.

Someone should point out that the U.S. hardly seems like a country and culture that champions free speech.

Protesters are placed in "free speech zones" (nice euphemism!) where they will not be seen on TV
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeec h/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

A high-school student who made a political poster got a visit from the secret service (they confiscated the poster)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/170992_prosser 28.html

Police, FBI, and Homeland security frequently target and harrass protesters
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_sues_Homeland_S ecurity_for_arresting_spying_on_vegans_who_protest ed_0922.html
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc1021a04.htm l

The FBI defines peace groups as "terrorists"
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_reveals_FBI_lab eled_peace_affirmative_action_group_terrori_0829.h tml

An Ohio paper did not print some story for fear of being jailed.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic le_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000976374

The government has misrepresented and altered the conclusions of scientific panels on global warming and other issues.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html

Officials how have an unpopular (but true) message are fired (numerous), their wives are targeted (Plame), etc.

The BBC says the "embedded journalist" restrictions on the Iraq calls into question the credibility of Americas media
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/ 20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4

People were excluded from church for being of the wrong party.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/church_politics

Airline passengers who ask questions are targeted
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&u=/ ap/20040317/ap_on_go_coairline_passenger_screening _3&printer=1

The US has a history of killing non-US journalists in Iraq...so many times that it's getting hard to believe it's not intentional.

People wearing anti-Bush T-shirts arrested
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/21/heckler.fir ed.ap/index.html

Teachers Evicted From Bush Event for Wearing 'Protect Our Civil Liberties' T-Shirts.
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc101604.htm

Someone wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt was kicked off a Southwest plane.

and so on...

Certainly, America is not as bad off as Saudi Arabia, but that's not saying much.
This is not a country we can trust to safeguard free speech on the internet.

I think Americans only u

Someone should point out that the U.S. hardly seems like a country and culture that champions free speech.

Protesters are placed in "free speech zones" (nice euphemism!) where they will not be seen on TV
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeec h/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

A high-school student who made a political poster got a visit from the secret service (they confiscated the poster)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/170992_prosser 28.html

Police, FBI, and Homeland security frequently target and harrass protesters
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_sues_Homeland_S ecurity_for_arresting_spying_on_vegans_who_protest ed_0922.html
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc1021a04.htm l

The FBI defines peace groups as "terrorists"
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_reveals_FBI_lab eled_peace_affirmative_action_group_terrori_0829.h tml

An Ohio paper did not print some story for fear of being jailed.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic le_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000976374

The government has misrepresented and altered the conclusions of scientific panels on global warming and other issues.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html

Officials how have an unpopular (but true) message are fired (numerous), their wives are targeted (Plame), etc.

The BBC says the "embedded journalist" restrictions on the Iraq calls into question the credibility of Americas media
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/ 20030425/media_nm/iraq_media_bbc_dc_4

People were excluded from church for being of the wrong party.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/church_politics

Airline passengers who ask questions are targeted
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&u=/ ap/20040317/ap_on_go_coairline_passenger_screening _3&printer=1

The US has a history of killing non-US journalists in Iraq...so many times that it's getting hard to believe it's not intentional.

People wearing anti-Bush T-shirts arrested
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/21/heckler.fir ed.ap/index.html

Teachers Evicted From Bush Event for Wearing 'Protect Our Civil Liberties' T-Shirts.
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc101604.htm

Someone wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt was kicked off a Southwest plane.

and so on...

Certainly, America is not as bad off as Saudi Arabia, but that's not saying much.
This is not a country we can trust to safeguard free speech on the internet.

I think Americans only u

We agree that DNS should change to get out from any government control. Probably because we also agree that the US government is headed by a guy who "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution" (when we all agree with George Will, if for different reasons, the government must really be broken). We also agree about freedom and the unacceptability of bureaucratic limits on it.

So it's only to be clear that we don't have to agree on everything to agree on how to change DNS that I correct your downplaying the US use of force to keep DNS under its control. The US is not defending its control of DNS on the basis of consensus of the other, international, parties to the DNS system. It's not defending its control on the basis of effective operations. It's defending its control, supported by many American voices in this thread, on the basis of "you can't take it from us, regardless of who's right". Backed by American political, economic and military force. Sure, we've got technology and personnel on our side, too, but that's not what we're defending our control with. The fact that others in the UN are using international politics and UN rules to make a change amounts to "force", of a kind, also. But it's not the kind of force the US is using to keep control. Because their complaints are legitimate - the US has earned their concern. And even Americans ought to be concerned that our government, or a subsequent one (in the continuous decay of principled organizations common to all epochs). When the Secret Service confiscates a highschool student's mild Bush protest poster preparatory to preparing an indictment, we all have to ensure government, even our own, doesn't destroy the institutions upon which we depend for daily life. Including, but not limited to, the Internet. In those cases, we're all in the same boat as the "international community", and face the same unjustifiable, but backed by force, enemy of our rights. The difference is that we Americans are responsible for maintaining that risk.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

You could at least toss a nod of acknowledgement at reality while racing past it.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning the perjury of a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. The fact that the witness had polished the presidential knob was a detail of the offense (being one thing lied about), but not the basis of any of the charges (there were four articles of impeachment, two of which passed).

I would prefer that he had been impeached for serial rape, but justice is such a gauzy notion. No one on the committee voted on the substance of the charges anyway (1st article 3rd article). Direct and unequivocal admissions of guilt are apparently not enough to convince some people

On the other hand, teeming hordes of frothing moonbats have yet to produce any substance behind the charge that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They just like it because it makes people get mad without thinking. So no, there's really no comparison.

plus he's nominating his own personal lawyer with NO experience as a judge

It was mainly Dems who appealed to Bush to nominate someone to the court from outside of the system in the first place. Meirs was recommended by Harry Reid himself, and he's endorsed her nomination. After the Roberts process somehow resulted in 22 votes against, I don't think Bush had any choice but to select someone with no judicial record.

... that some of that money is going to go towards securing the system. :-\

Like we have a great supply of here?

Germany has their share of corporate scandals that hurt the average person.

http://www.neue-einheit.com/english/is/is2001/is20 01-19e.htm

And I don't believe private pensions (i.e. employee benefits) are as big in Germany because the government pays a lot bigger pension (like our Social Security) of course they pay for it with higher taxes. The government cut this pension quite a bit 2-3 years ago, which surely hurt pensioners.

Finally, you'd be more likely to drive a VW. Of course, VW is another of those totally angelic German companies you speak about http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bribery_Scandal_Engu lfs_Vol_0706.html.

Here's a fairly complete story I found on the "Jeff Gannon" (a pseudonym, real name is James Guckert) affair. Some interesting tidbits from the article:

Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass...

On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out...

Others who have covered the White House say not checking in or out with the Secret Service is unusual, especially in the wake of Sept. 11. The Secret Service declined to comment...

Investigative bloggers at Daily Kos and AmericaBlog.org discovered that Guckert owned male escort sites, and was himself a male prostitute.

Pretty damning stuff, if you ask me.