Slashdot Mirror

For the real fun, you need something to blow up.

Like this?

"District lieutenant said the explosion ... appeared to have been a prank."

Ya think?

environmental puritans are often opposed to safe and effective means of disposal of nuclear waste

I would tend to parse those comments as demonstrating poor listening skills.

There's a certain kind of person who divides a debate into factions and then argues in terms of the silliest things said on either side. It's usually easy to spot the polarizers in any debate, they tend to lead with labels (e.g. "puritan").

I've discussed environmental issues with a hundred different people, all of whom had different opinions on the subject, and none as silly as the one you quote. I've overheard the kind of silliness you quote in a public hot tub on the other side of town. Disturbed me enough that I no longer visit that pool. I was waiting for their discussion of the environment to segue into Uri Geller, but I lacked the stomach to stick it out to collect on bet with self.

I don't know anyone on the green side of the debate who would concede that "safe and effective storage of nuclear waste" has yet been achieved. Nor do I know anyone on the hard science side of the debate who thinks that "safe storage" of nuclear waste is a slam dunk.

From http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Yucca_Mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html

The latest estimate puts the cost of research, construction and operation of the geologic repository over a 150 year period - from when work started in 1983 through to the facility's expected closure and decommissioning in 2133 - at $96.2 billion (in 2007 dollars).

Surprisingly similar time line to Duke Nukem Forever, but with public expense dialed up to 11.

From http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/26/nuclear-waste-yucca-mountains-scrapped-so-what-now/

The draft budget removes funding for the planned nuclear-waste storage facility in Nevada, which has been 20 years and more than $9 billion in the making. A Department of Energy spokeswoman told Bloomberg that President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu "have been emphatic that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period."

It's just the crazy puritans who are unconvinced by a $9 billion dollar dry hole? If you kick a straw man in the testicles, does he go "oooff"?

What's pretty clear about safe storage is that we don't yet have an option where the party who advocates the solution is still around to clean up the mess if the whole thing goes south after billions of dollars of mostly public money is spent. That should give any pragmatic person cause to pause and think.

In any debate there will be factions (on both sides) who make a point of pride of their ignorance and who become more invested in the drama of the debate than the merits of the final outcome. It's absolutely true that I wish upon these people that their obstreperousness boomerangs and smacks them in the face. There's nothing profound about it, it's just a way to deal with a disheartening reality while plugging away for something better.

Ebert said much the same thing, if you read between the lines.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507/COMMENTARY/70507001

"Ill bet you hated to change your mind," I was told. No, I was happy to. It is a hard and frustrating thing to make a movie, and credit must be given where due.

Your ode to pharmaceutical schadenfreude is way overstated.

Excellent post (although no need for personal attacks). Your points are spot on. I would add one: this specific bill is a horrible idea for two reasons:

a) It relies on the government allocating out to various industries the initial level of pollution permits. These permits could potentially be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Can you imagine the amount of corruption this will spawn when $90k/year government bureaucrats find themselves in control of said assets? To get a taste just read the Blagojevich wiretap and remember that the only thing that makes him different from thousands of other government employees is that he got caught.

b) It does not offset the increased government revenues in any way. The increased tax revenue will simply get lost in the huge budgetary black hole that we call Government.

To the extent to which reducing CO2 emissions and dependence on non-renewable energy sources is a good idea, the government should instate a flat tax on CO2 emissions, and then take the entirety of that revenue and distribute it uniformly across the population as a yearly rebate check. This way it is budget neutral for the country, and also it does not entirely crush the poor. In fact, it can become a source of revenue for those who are more flexible. If you sell one of your cars and start biking to work, you might become a net beneficiary. And if not, you should still be roughly flat once you adjust for the rebate check. This also dramatically limits opportunities for corruption.

Let's stop having these debates and giving the morons who will never understand a voice.
They are the same people who claimed that expressionism wasn't art, surrealism wasn't art, pop art wasn't art. They are a pox on humanity.

Problem is, they already have a voice.

Your behind the times...
[QUOTE]we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation[/QUOTE]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/obama_and_president_gul_of_tur.html

The alleged drunk driver refused a breathalyzer test at the time, which some people consider an admission of guilt.

Not to take away from your point, but according to the Chicago Sun-Times report, the driver requested a breathalyzer test on the scene, but the officer claimed he didn't have a breathalyzer device in his squad car. The driver only refused the test later, at the police station.

Roger Ebert

Ebert also gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. His opinion isn't a guarantee of quality.

Roger Ebert

Ebert also gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. His opinion isn't a guarantee of quality.

Ebert, since his unfortunate brush with death, seems to have had an spiritual awakening and realized that every movie is beautiful in its own way.

Such a silly assertion, so easily refuted.

Roger Ebert

[citation needed]

You seem to be asserting things that are both misleading and factually incorrect.

First, just one year of Bush's wars required a 70 billion dollar act of congress in 20091. 2008 alone required 140 billion dollars in funding2, so your claim that the two wars only cost 100 billion is blatantly wrong.

My research3 shows that Bush increased the federal budget by 777 billion dollars, adjusted for inflation, and the federal debt by 2.7 trillion, adjusted for inflation. Bush's budgetted dollars account for annual spending on par with Obama's 2-year bailout plan, and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan weren't budgetted, until now, since Obama has them listed in HIS budget.

The challenge isn't this bailout, which wouldn't be a huge expense averaged out over 4 years, but the days after. If Obama is telling the truth and there are significant cuts to be made in 2011, then he could actually do what most of his democratic contemporaries have done, and outcut the Republicans.

One thing really bothers me. Look at my research. The Republicans have increased the federal budget at TWICE the inflation adjusted rate of the Democrats. They've increased the federal debt at TEN TIMES the inflation adjusted rate. Why is it that they're suddenly fiscal conservatives when they're not in power, but when they ARE in power, they spend and run up debt like a college kid with is parents visa? Why is it that they get away with acting like Democrats spend and debt more?

If you've ever watched the movie "Joyeux Noël", you would know that "fraternizing" is an extreme threat to the social order of warfare, and punished accordingly.

From Ebert

He is accurate, however, in depicting the aftermath: Officers and troops were punished for fraternizing with the enemy in wartime. A priest who celebrated mass in No Man's Land is savagely criticized by his bishop, who believes the patriotic task of the clergy is to urge the troops into battle and reconcile them to death.

Torture is a means of maintaining the required psychological boundaries which military duty entails.

Somewhere on the Michael Moore DVD, there is a scene of young American soldiers abusing an elderly Iraqi man, is tied up, has a black hood on his head, and appears to have some kind of injury. Would you let your own grandfather lie there in that condition? The troops resolve the cognitive dissonance by humiliating the man for his stress erection.

The men on both sides who failed to kill each other one Christmas night were dispatched on both sides to the bloodiest fronts in Europe. Who or what exactly was harmed by these men briefly failing to shoot at each other?

I suspect few of the men known to have fraternized survived the war. No army punishes its torturers as harshly. The actor who plays the drill sergeant in "Full Metal Jacket" was a real life drill sergeant. Under a psychological barrage of that intensity, not even the terminally obtuse fails to internalize the prevailing value system, and I'm not talking about the value system as portrayed in their recruiting pamphlets.

If patriotism was a rock band, torture would be one of the groupies.

Hello all,

Obama owns an iPod; see the Chicago Sun-Times.

As for your other point, I agree with you about this being something the Zune doesn't need. Two years ago, I saw the Zune and wasn't that impressed. As someone who has used various iPods and Creative's NOMAD, I'm not gloating. This could have happened to any device out there. To me this is just another MS goof in the worst way. Didn't they learn anything from Y2K?

And so it begins...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1321300,rod-blagojevich-illinois-governor-custody-120908.article

And where in my post did I say anyone was denied emergency treatment based upon their ability to pay. The person I helping could have paid for surgery in cash. But, the facility lacked a staff doctor capable of performing the surgery. (Actually given the size of the hospital it's more likely none of the staff physicians were willing to perform the surgery. Why? I don't know.) When we did find a specialist, the condition was treated at that facility.

What was the point of bringing it up in the way you did then? Obviously, both of you had sufficient medical coverage, you simply didn't have the facilities around. This has nothing to do with John McCain's plan or opinion of your coverage. In fact, it had nothing to do with your coverage at all if this really was the case.

That is true. And since she was not bleeding at a rate the would have killed her immediately, apparently the staff felt that, apart from a large amount of pain, she was capable of finding a specialist capable of treating her condition on her own.

The law says she can't get worse. It isn't enough to simply slow it down. They have to make an effort to stop it from getting worse. Bleeding out is getting worse, unless they were putting as much blood in at the rate it was going out, they weren't in compliance.

Yes, they are. But, provided you aren't going to die in the next hour or so, and are conscious, they apparently don't need to locate a facility or a treating physician for you. The staff members in California hospitals have learned not to waste time on activities that don't generate revenue. If the patient had wanted another $75 Tylenol, I'm sure the staff would have provided it.

Yes, they do have to locate the facility. The law states that if they can't handle the problem, they have to transfer you to somewhere that can. The law also states that you either have to be stable enough for the transportation or that the condition makes it necessary against being stabilized. If what your saying is true, they violated the law and this reflect nothing on either candidates positions or opinions of the health care system or coverage. What would you expect McCain to do, amend the law saying "we really mean it"? Anyways, if they violated the laws, they are subject to penalties as well as civil awards.

And don't think for a minute that the hospitals aren't gaming the system by making sure ambulance companies properly "judge" the location of the nearest "capable" emergency room based upon the "condition ($$$)" of the patient. When that doesn't work, hospitals will close emergency rooms to make sure that they don't have one near the patients in "severe condition". Those patients need to go to the county hospital.

Hospitals get special tax breaks for treating the poor. They are allowed to charge up to 4 or 5 times what they would charge an insured person and then deduct the entire amount as a loss. This is something that happened at the hospital that Barack Obama's wife worked at where she got a promotion and huge salary increase after he got elected to the state senate and pushed a grant for the hospital through. Although this is illegal and actually closing an emergency room is grounds for a lawsuit. I think your relying too much on TV hyperbole but I did find a recent study citing 75 California hospitals to have been in violation of the EMTALA laws. You do understand that no matter what laws are made, if someone breaks the law, it isn't a reflection of any of the current political candidates views.

ACORN in Las Vegas being raided in voter fraud probe. Also it has been noted that ACORN/Project Vote is targeting states Obama needs. Oddly, Obama recently paid ACORN for specific services...and when questioned the reason for the payment changed; if it was a payment for services then why change the reason for the payment?

Joke:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html

YHBT by Roger Ebert himself. See his blog post about the article and its reaction.

I'm not sure if that was a joke or a troll, but he really does say they are 10,000 years old

Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm

Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.

Although I'll admit that breaking into someone's Yahoo account is a breach of privacy, I think that in this case I condone it.

Ok ... so you would then support breaking into Barack Obama's private Yahoo account as well?

And if you found emails from the convicted felon Tony Rezko about Obama's home land deal .. that's fair game? Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

And emails from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... about the contributions to his campaign? ... that's cool too ... right? Barack Obama largest recipient of political funds from mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

Yeah, I can see how one would like to see private emails concerning their politicians of choice.

Try telling Tom Cruise that Scientology is a crock. I'd imagine he'd scream incoherently at the top of his lungs, jump up and down then rip your face off.

Matt Damon or Lindsey Lohan would do the same to you, if you tell them, Obama is a crock... With Barbara Streisand singing a notch lauder to drown your screams...

Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens — above only prostitutes... They weren't even allowed to serve in the regular army units.

Did Tony Rezko receive special compensation or win a major bid from a government branch because of any action Obama directly took?

Obama wrote a letter in support of a Rezko project.

Obama used his own money to purchase some land from Rezko, above market price, with the intent to help fund his legal fees, but instead of giving or loaning him money, he purchased land, which lowered Rezko's land value, and which certainly would have to be repaid or purchased back from Obama in order to be of salable value. (it was a way of securing a legal loan to an old law friend).

Well now, you're inferring more than Obama has said on the matter. Obama stated he just wanted to expand his yard. Are you saying you don't believe Obama is being honest?

No coordination between the seller, Rezko, the realtors, or Obama are known

Obama informed Rezko of the deal: "To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it. [...] The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Also, the letter was written BEFORE the RFP went out, let alone the open public bid.

Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. [...] New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district.

"I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

There are few that are activley fighting that corruption, and Obama is their champion.

McCain has a history of fighting against pork and fighting for campaign finance reform, often at odds with his own party, though he's no saint either when it comes to taking money.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you are too blinded by your dedication to the republican party to take a deep look into those you support.

Who do I support? Am I a dedicated Republican? Answer: I actually prefer Obama over McCain this election. I'm an independent. You mistake critique for partisanship.

I was replying to your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about how government should operate and how Obama would fix it: "If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption."

Obama's relationship with Rezko is exactly the kind of influence peddling that goes on. Often there's no smoking gun. Bush has ties with big oil. Cheney has ties with defense industries. But can you nail them with direct evidence of corruption? Do those same charges apply to Obama? If Obama was a Republican, I don't think you'd be so willing to dismiss corruption charges.

Did Tony Rezko receive special compensation or win a major bid from a government branch because of any action Obama directly took?

Obama wrote a letter in support of a Rezko project.

Obama used his own money to purchase some land from Rezko, above market price, with the intent to help fund his legal fees, but instead of giving or loaning him money, he purchased land, which lowered Rezko's land value, and which certainly would have to be repaid or purchased back from Obama in order to be of salable value. (it was a way of securing a legal loan to an old law friend).

Well now, you're inferring more than Obama has said on the matter. Obama stated he just wanted to expand his yard. Are you saying you don't believe Obama is being honest?

No coordination between the seller, Rezko, the realtors, or Obama are known

Obama informed Rezko of the deal: "To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it. [...] The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Also, the letter was written BEFORE the RFP went out, let alone the open public bid.

Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. [...] New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district.

"I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

There are few that are activley fighting that corruption, and Obama is their champion.

McCain has a history of fighting against pork and fighting for campaign finance reform, often at odds with his own party, though he's no saint either when it comes to taking money.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you are too blinded by your dedication to the republican party to take a deep look into those you support.

Who do I support? Am I a dedicated Republican? Answer: I actually prefer Obama over McCain this election. I'm an independent. You mistake critique for partisanship.

I was replying to your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about how government should operate and how Obama would fix it: "If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption."

Obama's relationship with Rezko is exactly the kind of influence peddling that goes on. Often there's no smoking gun. Bush has ties with big oil. Cheney has ties with defense industries. But can you nail them with direct evidence of corruption? Do those same charges apply to Obama? If Obama was a Republican, I don't think you'd be so willing to dismiss corruption charges.

Ah, so you're a PUMA then?

No, but since Obama supporters like you are now making him the candidate of "if you point out any error or inconsistency, my supporters will ignorantly accuse you of being an enemy operative", maybe it's not such a bad idea.

No, that's a lie. Obama never committed to public financing.

The hell he didn't. He's the one who brought it up as an issue. He made it a point of contention with Hillary Clinton, and then turned it on the Republicans. He made the proposal in response to the other candidates hedging on the issue--only to hedge himself, and flat out walk away from his own proposal. He allowed the media to talk about his pledge, his plan, and his commitment while it suited him and was working in his favor. Then he lied about his reason for not taking the money.

Since the option he took has even fewer restrictions and no need for loopholes, he can't complain about a "broken" public fund. It's not broken, except that you can bypass the requirements and limitations by opting out. Since that's exactly what he did, though, it's no protest.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

"I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election." He made the proposal. HE was the one who made the issue into a campaign issue. He walked away, paying little more than lip service to the idea.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/obama-blurs-his-pledge-on-public-financing/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1014824,public061908.article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

And now you're saying that a pledge and a commitment isn't a promise. Where is this candidate of change and new politics, exactly? He looks exactly like all the other ones.

Tapper, an Obama supporter, summed it up perfectly: "Declaring independence from a "broken system" by breaking a promise. Obama hopes you'll care more about the former than the latter."

As a liberal, it's the latter that matters, especially when the former is largely a lie. A liberal who tolerates this is no liberal at all, but rather an ideologue trapped by a cult of personality, and unfortunately the Democrats are joining the Republicans in that growing population.

Uh, no. He purchased a strip of land at higher than appraised value, in order to enlarge his side yard, from someone who was under investigation at the time. Rezko wasn't even indicted until nine months after the purchase.

Ask anyone if they would rather they purchase their home with the help of a convicted felon,(Tony Rezko)

I have heard this accusation a lot lately. Eventually, I went and actually looked up what happened. I have come to the conclusion that your accusation is dishonest. A simple google for "obama" and "rezko" turns up thousands of stories, but here is a representative one.

For those who, like me, tend not to follow all the political scandals, here is a summary. Rezko and Obama bought adjacent parcels of land. Obama's parcel had a house on it; Rezko's was undeveloped. These two parcels had previously belonged to the same person, who had decided to split their property and sell it in two parts. Some time later, Obama wanted to expand his property, so he bought a slice of Rezko's land. I have not seen any indications that Obama bought the land for anything less than a fair price; in fact, I read an article showing that Rezko made a decent profit on the land but I can't find that article right now.

Quote from the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper article: "In the study, 321 patients were given one of three doses of Rember or dummy capsules three times a day. The capsules containing the highest dose had a flaw in formulation that kept them from working, and the lowest dose was too weak to keep the disease from worsening, Wischik said. However, the middle dose helped, as measured by a widely used score of mental performance. 'The people on placebo lost an average of 7 percent of their brain function over six months whereas those on treatment didn't decline at all,' he said."

This seems to say that two-thirds of the results of the study of 321 people were thrown away, with excuses, and the one-third of the study that produced only 7 percent results was kept. How many people were in the one-third of the trial that produced 7 percent results? That's the true size of the trial.

Quote from the Sun-Times article: " 'This is suggestive data,' not proof, Wischik warned. The company is raising money now for another test of the drug to start next year." So, this is another Slashdot story that is in fact an investment opportunity.

Perhaps Obama hiring a political director whos is under investigation for hiring felons to Get Out The Vote? During which time those felons were charged with collecting private data, including SoSec numbers of voters.

http://politickeroh.com/republicans-take-new-obama-political-director-task-04-efforts-ohio

Or perhaps Barack's funny deal with Tony Rezko to buy property that Barack could not buy on his own?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/opinion/main3994002.shtml

Or perhaps Obama calling off his visit to troops based on the fact that he couldn't use them as a political backdrop?
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/obama-landstuhl.html

More of the whole story with Bill Ayers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_election_controversy

I am sure there are several things that I have missed. From what I understand Barack was a typical Chicago politician, which means more than a little soiled.

I would have never voted for Obama anyway, so it's not a big loss, but the things I think he's got going against him:

1. Politically expedient religious ties. He makes political hay in Chicago by attending the right churches, even though those same churches supposedly conflict with his personal goals. (Racial harmony, equality regardless of sexual orientation. The church Obama attended has published a great deal of anti-gay material)

2. Questionable dealings with questionable people: Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, et al

3. Blatant two-facedness. Please refer to many of his statements over the last few weeks.

4. Hubris. The observations are many, from the "guns and religion" comment to the logical matriculation to avoid saying that a troop surge and change in tactics have created an atmosphere of success when reviewed by generals and local political and religious leaders.

5. Everybody loves me! I am not concerned with Europeans regard for our leader. I am more concerned with taxation, gov't subsidies, and energy policy.

Mmm. Well, first, the bit about "borderline illegal" tactics by Obama is just kinda bullshit. From the linked article:

Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

"He came from Chicago politics," Stewart said. "Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you're pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that's what was necessary at the time, that's what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not."

So, by "borderline illegal," you mean, "a completely legal application of the electoral rules of Chicago that sounds fairly well in keeping with the political climate in the city?"

As for the Rezko thing, here's a better article (same author, more recent):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

So, there's the $300k under asking price sale from a doctor in Kenwood, not Rezko. The next door purchase of the vacant lot seems odd, but then of course, Obama did buy a bit of land for $104,500.

So your assertion that they gave Obama a deal on the house is merely untrue. That the gave him another deal on the plot of land next door is inaccurate - they bought it for ~600k, but he only bought a chunk of it. The most you could say is that the Rezkos somehow bought the land at full price to buy off the doctor to get him to sell Obama the house more cheaply, but that's at best a circumstantial argument.

Further, one thing I didn't see is any allegation of quid pro quo for the supposed payoff.

I've lived an hour from Obama's house. Trust me when I say I know him from the days before he went on this big campaign: the man is dirtier than a Lousiana mayor.

I fail to see why I or anyone else should take you at your word about Obama's supposed dirtiness. I see one bullshitty allegation, and one allegation that may be shady or may just be a stupid move that's relatively innocent.

For starters, his corrupt close relationship with a slumlord who's now in prison for bribery of Illinois officials, who just "happened" to then give Obama a $300,000 "deal" on a house and later another $600,000 "deal" on a plot of land next door to expand Obama's yard space.

And then there's the borderline illegal tactics Obama used to get into political office in the first place by preventing his opponents' names from being on the ballot, while Rezko was bankrolling his first campaign...

I've lived an hour from Obama's house. Trust me when I say I know him from the days before he went on this big campaign: the man is dirtier than a Lousiana mayor.

This drug is in the second of three phases which are required prior to FDA approval.

Phase 1: safety at various dosages
Phase 2: small test of efficacy and determining proper dosage
Phase 3: larger test of efficacy

It is still years away from the market. There was a screw-up in the formulation of the highest dose in this study, and the lowest dose had no effect, so only the middle of three doses tried had any effect. I found that out here

Who pays sales tax anymore? Especially since the invention of the internet. Here in Chicago, the lack of sales tax more than covers the cost of shipping.

Rezko. Blagojevich (The Illinois governor who will end up in jail, too)

http://blogs.suntimes.com/rezko/2008/04/obama_bomb_dropped.html
Three cheers for the slumlord presidential candidate.

How is Obama's good friend and Mentor Tony Rezko doing? You know the man who helped him buy his house. Has the Jury returned a verdict on him yet?

Ebert has me sold.

"I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you."

To clarify, I'm talking about his written reviews:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

He hasn't reviewed Beerfest there, as far as I can tell.

I don't think I even have access to the TV show.

Don't buy the media echo-chamber effect, especially when the thing being echoed is a fanboy "review" off AICN. Almost everyone who reads /. already knows if they are going to see the new Indy Jones movie or not (I am), so why bother?

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know... For what it's worth, Ebert agrees with me.

Small music venues are being targeted in Chicago; it appears that the city wants to make sure the only live music shows are in large arenas. Who benefits? Let's see. No more opportunities for independent artists to perform. Hmmm, guess the only way to hear live music is to go to a huge arena to see some crappy pop act produced by riaa minions. So are laws like this being proposed in other cities? Is Chicago just the start? Is this the next step in music industry dominance?

There are 11 digits, but one is always mysteriously covered by a foreground object Search for the feature called "Austinpowerism".

Well, if it's any consolation, Roger Ebert has it on his own personal greatest movies list http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19970327%2FREVIEWS08%2F401010362%2F1023

I've seen him in other places talk about it, and it's pretty clear that Ebert considers it one of the finest films ever made, and considering Ebert's pre-eminence in the world of movie criticism, I'd take a list of his over damned near anybody else's.

Last year Roger Ebert responded to Clive Barker's comments on Ebert not considering video games art:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001

There are some good thoughts in there even though Ebert is definitely in "Get off my lawn" territory.

I love the Half-Life series. I think there's a lot of wit and intelligence and creativity there that you don't see in a lot of other games. But every time I sit down to play a new episode I inevitably think: "It's just a First Person Shooter." Portal gets even higher marks for creativity. The way they develop the GLaDOS character and the use of plot twists and the out-of-left-field use of music is brilliant. But is it art?

I guess I tend to think of video games being "artful" rather than "art".

I've been going through as many of Roger Ebert's Greatest Movies as I can find. Finally watched The Seven Samurai and the Rules of the Game this week. These movies are so damned good they put just about everything Hollywood does right now to shame. Kurosawa, in particular, is my new favorite director. What a genius.

I imagine that many people who need these boxes don't have internet access and will never see the phone number displayed anywhere, except the internet

Believe it or not, many web sites like this one and this one have paper editions of their sites, and almost everyone without web access gets it delivered to their home daily!

Wierd, huh?

These sites are all giving out the phone number.

-mcgrew

In 1980, film critic Roger Ebert http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ rated "The Whole Shootin' Match" three stars. In 2007, after the indy film's creator Eagle Pennell had died of being a drunk, Ebert added a star. The film was the inspiration for Robert Redford's sundance festival and for Richard Linklater's (dazed and confused, slacker) becoming a filmmaker.

In 1980, film critic Roger Ebert http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ rated "The Whole Shootin' Match" three stars. In 2007, after the indy film's creator Eagle Pennell had died of being a drunk, Ebert added a star. The film was the inspiration for Robert Redford's sundance festival and for Richard Linklater's (dazed and confused, slacker) becoming a filmmaker.

"Now how many want to bet that some idiot will commit a crime just to get on the billboard?"

Like:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/712808,CST-NWS-tvcrash26.article