Slashdot Mirror

Here's a nice article with lots of facts for you to ignore on our godless consitution. It wasn't accidental it was intentional.

"In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history"

I stand corrected on Trichinella, thanks for the information. I did take note of the "If handled properly" qualifier in the original post. I didn't bother to respond to it because I agree with you that doing it all yourself, from field to plate, would be ideal way to make sure it is done correctly. But this is an unusual case for food preparation now. With some exceptions (sportsmen in particular), there is a prevailing desire in our culture for this work to be done by someone else. My point is that you currently can't trust that someone else to do it well enough to allow you to get away with eating raw hamburger meat.

...if you are ethically unable to butcher your own meat, you really shouldn't be eating it at all...

Ethics are an important factor and I agree that there should be consistency between people's ethical feelings on killing animals and their willingness to consume their flesh. Time, facilities, expertise, and interest are also limiting factors. Not everyone can raise chickens and pigs at home or have the ability to hunt their own meat due to these factors.

It's true that Deep Throat was initially an anonymous source, but later on Nixon and others had strong suspicions it was Woodward. Still they could do absolutely nothing about it, except sit and wonder if he'd reveal everything. For a great read checkout http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050704&s=go ldberg

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=4 246

Disclaimer: The Nation is a left-wing magazine. But at the bottom is a listing of rulings where O'Connor has been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision.

What is not talked about which is obvious is mechanization. It has not been talked about for centuries, really. When workers in England began to lose their jobs due to looms replacing them, Ned Ludd went into his workplace and smashed up his machine, and others followed them. Nowadays, those who own the machines we workers work on say that Ned Ludd was apocryphal, and say the people who smashed up those machines were Luddites, which means people who have an irrational fear of technology. But was it irrational? They lost their jobs after all, although that is never brought up, that aspect of the word Luddite has gone down the memory hole and the word is remembered from a boss's point of view now only, Luddites are crazy workers who have an irrational fear of machines for some reason.

Doug Henwood wrote a good (and short) article on this not long ago. With all those manufacturing jobs moving to China, there must be a lot more manufacturing jobs in China now, right? Henwood notes that actually, according to a study of twenty major economies done last fall by Joseph Carson, the chief economist at Alliance Capital, between 1995 and 2002 China lost 15 percent of it's manufacturing jobs.

Of course, if workers owned and had control over the machines they work with, mechanization would be a great thing, it would mean a choice of either shorter hours or a higher standard of living. But four out of five workers do not own or control the machines they work with, thus mechanization means higher unemployment, lower wages and so forth. Mechanization is only harmful due to the current socio-economic environment.

Reblicans trust The Free Republic but distrust The Nation.
Democrates are exactly the opposite. What should TrustRank do about that? I don't see any way to reconcile stuff like that.

Let Them lose on the infidels!

The pro-gay message in Spongebob isn't in the show -- it's in a pledge linked to by some Spongebob promo materials: basically, 'I won't be an ass to anyone just because they're a different race, religeon, or sexual orientation'

Take a look.

Madison County's elections supervisor, Linda Howell, had a peculiarly personal reason for distrusting the central voter file: She had received a letter saying that since she had committed a felony, she would not be allowed to vote.

• http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=327
• http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/08/ 04/florida/print.html
• http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040517 &s=palast
• http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2002-10-31/news/ news2.html

Lawsuit on same:

• http://www.naacp.org/news/2000/2000-11-28.html

What, no facts to back your opinion up? Here, I'll help:

Enron Democrats. (I hope The Nation is liberal enough for you to trust.)

Also, let it be noted that you think burglars, tax cheats, car theives, and embezzlers are not "oooo evil". Victimizing the innocent is certainly a fine way to prove your civic pride. Why, they must be fine citizens! Let's force the states to let them vote! States! Do Our Bidding or Lose Your Funding!

It's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between reading /. and http://www.thenation.com/

Yes, we failed to capture Bin Laden, but I think real good was done there.

Gates SR on Estate Taxes
Another article on gates and estate taxes

Food for thought--the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent $10.8 billion on marketing in 1998. I presume that figure has risen since.

$2 billion is one B-2 bomber.

$2 billion is less than two percent of an Iraq invasion. (And heading rapidly towards 1%.)

$2 billion sounds like a lot of money, but as far as government programs go it's pretty trifling. About four hundred thousand Americans have AIDS or HIV. Curing the disease would have significant direct economic and health benefits for a lot of Americans, even if you leave out the warm fuzzy feeling associated with saving the rest of the world.

Yeah, the French banks made all the money in the deal.

There are a few US companies that are just as dirty in this affair.

And it's not anti-US hate as much as it is pointing out the fact that the emperor has no goddamn clothes.

Sounds dangerous to me. While I can imagine the Bush government being corrupt or stupid enough to go along with this, there is still the possibility that it will lead to a landslide in public opinion towards an anti-corporation party. Which might result in a more or less communist government.

hrmm... that already happened in Cuba.

That is part of the reason, perhaps all of the reason, Bush (and every American government in the last 40 years) has had such a hard on for crushing Castro. Any success in Cuba might inspire other latin american populations to revolt against their corporate controlled governments.

There is nothing close to a backlash against corporations in the united states. People are far to busy hating the government to notice the government is only doing what corporations pay it to do.

I disagree that any anti-corporate party is necessarily communist.

The Corporation is not the natural evolution of capitalism. There is NOTHING in capitalism which mandates "limited liability".

You can have a free market with full liability.

Taking responsibility for your actions is not "communist". It would make capitalism a morally viable economic system.

If you try to explain limited liability to any child I suspect they will think you are fibbing. It sounds like a scam. And it is just as much of a scam as it sounds.

There is nothing wrong with groups of people working together to achieve a common goal. But they are all jointly responsible for the outcome. Allowing corporations to evade liability for their screw ups simply is another form of public subsidy. Ultimately someone has to pay when corporations screw up. And that someone (thanks to limited liability) is not the shareholders. It is the PUBLIC (or other innocent bystanders.. i.e. creditors)

In exchange for limited liability, you would think that corporations would perhaps have to pay exhoribitant tax rates... but you would be wrong.

Corporations should follow the rules of capitalism and succeed or die trying. But in fact the PUBLIC will often step in to save a corporation rather than let it die.

Does the public then OWN a fair share of that corporation? (no. It is considered to be immoral for the public to own anything which makes profit because that would be COMMUNISM).

I suggest people read the book: The Soul of Capitalism by William Greider.

You can also find an article by the same author published online here.

There is an interesting article in The Nation about how American companies must nowadays take account what is decided in Brussels. It's a long, but pretty illuminating view about the change of focus in American corporate interests.

The Bush administration has emasculated environmental laws, and government oversight of industry.

Check out Robert F. Kennedy's book Crimes Against Nature for a shocking appraisal of the current administration. Another book summary.

They pervert science to meet the needs of the big business/polluters.

The end result is that we are at risk. Rates of childhood asthma are way up, carcinogens in the air and water are increasing. They do this under the guise of small government, and deregulation. But, what it really amounts to is a ticket for their big contributors to bypass any responsibility to the people and the environment.. essentially a backdoor tax on you and me - someone eventually needs to deal with the problems they create. Either in cleaning up the messes, cleaning polluted resources like water and air, or paying medical costs resulting from their contaminants. That financial burden gets passed to the tax payers, since Bush/Cheney have given industry a free pass, rolled back regulations, eliminated oversight, and killed any enforcements.

If you think the way they came in and dismissed the problems with Microsoft was bad, you should look into what they did with companies the Clinton administration was prosecuting for environmental issues. They are ten times more egregious.. Companies that cause billions in damage in environmental accidents get most charges dropped, and fines of less than $10,000.

The official reason he's resigning is for health reasons. The un-official reason is that he's a horrible screw-up.

Before 9/11, Ashcroft's top priority was targetting pornography. Since 9/11, he has been embarassingly ineffective in capturing terrorists.

And by your logic, printing something in their publication isn't the same as them actually believing it will happen.

By "will happen" do you mean "should happen"?

And who is the "they" to whom you're referring? The editorial board of {The Guardian,National Review}? The owners/publishers of {The Guardian,National Review}? In either case, I suspect that, by his logic, the fact that an article that appears to advocate X is printed in a publication is, indeed, not the same as the editorial board, or owners, believing X should happen. Good grief, the November 8th issue of The Nation had an article by David Corn "Why I'm for Kerry" and an article by Christopher Hitchens "Why I'm (Slightly) for Bush" - by any logic that proceeds from "an article advocating X is printed in a publication" to "the {owners,editorial board} of that publication believe X should happen", The Nation believed both Kerry and Bush should be elected.

And by your logic, printing something in their publication isn't the same as them actually believing it will happen.

By "will happen" do you mean "should happen"?

And who is the "they" to whom you're referring? The editorial board of {The Guardian,National Review}? The owners/publishers of {The Guardian,National Review}? In either case, I suspect that, by his logic, the fact that an article that appears to advocate X is printed in a publication is, indeed, not the same as the editorial board, or owners, believing X should happen. Good grief, the November 8th issue of The Nation had an article by David Corn "Why I'm for Kerry" and an article by Christopher Hitchens "Why I'm (Slightly) for Bush" - by any logic that proceeds from "an article advocating X is printed in a publication" to "the {owners,editorial board} of that publication believe X should happen", The Nation believed both Kerry and Bush should be elected.

And by your logic, printing something in their publication isn't the same as them actually believing it will happen.

By "will happen" do you mean "should happen"?

And who is the "they" to whom you're referring? The editorial board of {The Guardian,National Review}? The owners/publishers of {The Guardian,National Review}? In either case, I suspect that, by his logic, the fact that an article that appears to advocate X is printed in a publication is, indeed, not the same as the editorial board, or owners, believing X should happen. Good grief, the November 8th issue of The Nation had an article by David Corn "Why I'm for Kerry" and an article by Christopher Hitchens "Why I'm (Slightly) for Bush" - by any logic that proceeds from "an article advocating X is printed in a publication" to "the {owners,editorial board} of that publication believe X should happen", The Nation believed both Kerry and Bush should be elected.

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio
Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they'll respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
http://www.cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

It is not arguable that there are many things wrong with the direction the country has been going. Do you disagree with any of the 100 reasons in this article? 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.

You gave a very angry response, but you did not answer the question: Did you read the books about the Bush Administration? Did you read even one? If you didn't, then you cannot be informed.

If you don't like the theory presented, and it is not proven, for sure, then advance a theory of your own.

The problem is that there are two cultures, exactly as you demonstrate in your comment. ALL the politicians belong to the urban culture. The people who live in the rural areas live in the rural culture. People from the rural culture do not detect when people of the urban culture are lying. Karl Rove has found a method of manipulation that is not detected by people from the rural culture. He and George Bush are chronic liars, and people from the rural culture think they are Christians!

Your problem, however, is not with my comment. Your problem is with the urban culture. There is a cultural breakdown happening in the United States, and, if you will investigate, the people who are discriminating against you are probably not getting along with other people, either. Their complaints against you are just an excuse.

How to understand the presidential election results.

If you haven't read any books about U.S. politics, then you probably don't know much about the activities of the U.S. government.

You cannot rely for information on TV or newspapers, or any advertising-supported media. Advertising-supported media exists to make money, not to inform. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another.

It's a fact that Bush supporters often have a poor understanding of his actions rather than what he wants people to believe. One example of support for this is the following article: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions.

The U.S. government is corrupted by extreme conflict of interest. Please don't moderate this down just because you disagree. I can support my position with links to 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

For a quicker overview, see this article: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.

The county-by-county results showing not only who won, but the number, are extremely interesting. So is the USA Today result map. They show what might be expected. Those who live in rural counties vote for Bush. In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.

Those who don't read are fooled by Karl Rove's lies. Here are books about Karl Rove's methods:

Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

Part of the secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Lies that are extreme and unrelenting enough are accepted.

President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of Mr. Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. Mr. Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.

Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon

One of the Amazon reviews quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy

There are two kinds of programs, basically. There are those that implement some programming or mathematical algorithm. If you have the assembly language, it is not very difficult to discover the algorithim.

Most Java, however, doesn't deal with protocols or fundamental algorithms. Most Java implements business rules. Each rule is not worth much, but the entire manner of operation of Amazon's web site, for example (which may not be written in Java), contains literally thousands of business rules which would be very valuable for a competitor to know. As a practical matter, it is very difficult to turn thousands of anything in assembly language back into higher level code.

--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

I checked your crummy website. Its about as conservative as ted kennedy. Here is what i found in about 13 seconds. A cover of thier magazine with Reagan and Bush saying "Can we stop presidents from lying" Did you know that the only president who ever was charged with perjury didnt even make it to the cover? How can you call yourself conservative and bash bush and reagan. Dont be afraid of being called a liberal, just dont be one. Here is a link to that cover

Slashdot is slashdotted, so I can't tell if this was posted correctly before:

Facts you should know before you vote:

If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

See The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.

Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that discuss the corruption of the Bush administration: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Bush's education improvements were at least partly fraud.

I recommend a new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Don't expect any author to be perfect. However, this book is an excellent overview of the Bush family, and the best book by this author. Here is a quote which shows just one more fact about the chronic lying of George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush: "The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."

Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?

15 of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Is Bush drinking NOW?

George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values? Neil Bush is different from other relatives of presidents like Billy Carter; he is heavily involved with government corruption and he does his corruption with the help of his family.

The U.S. government has fought 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Facts you should know before you vote:

If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

See The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and other Arabs in the techniques of terrorism.

Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that discuss the corruption of the Bush administration: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Bush's education improvements were at least partly fraud.

I recommend a new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Don't expect any author to be perfect. However, this book is an excellent overview of the Bush family, and the best book by this author. Here is a quote which shows just one more fact about the chronic lying of George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush: "The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."

Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?

15 of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Many don't like the U.S. Gov. influence on their country.

Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"? Since it was Saudis who attacked on 9/11, why did Bush invade Iraq? Was it a smokescreen to get attention away from the Saudis?

Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values? Neil Bush is different from other relatives of presidents like Billy Carter; he is heavily involved with government corruption and he does his corruption with the help of his family.

The U.S. government has fought 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?bid=4Bunch of links

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but just in case, here's my case for Why I'm Voting for Kerry. In the interests of keeping it brief and easy to skim it's mostly a bullet list of points.

If you want something longer, I think "100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration" by Judd Legum at The Nation is quite a good summary. Again, it's an easy to skim list.

They are not just painting political graffiti with light. They are against Bush.

It's unprecedented: There are 44 well-funded groups against Bush. There are more than 3 movies and more than 35 books about Bush Administration corruption.

Magazines like The Nation are against Bush: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

There are hundreds of web sites like Dubya Speak, that talk about some negative aspect of Bush's personality. Dubya Speak quotes Bush: "It's only fair if other countries treat us the way they treat them." If he meant, "It's only fair if other countries treat us the way we treat them", that is something important about which George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden agree.

Foreign leaders and politicians call Bush a "moron" and an "idiot".

George W. Bush is certainly the most disliked U.S. president in history.

If I remember correctly, there were, in the early years, four major books published about Clinton. They said Cliton was having sex with slutty women. They tried to find something wrong with his small losing investment called Whitewater. They said he may have, at some time during his being governor of Arkansas, associated with people who later turned out to be involved in questionable activities. Someone in his adminstration committed suicide. The books were interesting, but a little lame.

The books about Bush are different. The books about Bush are about major governmental corruption.


--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion.

Also see this article: World trembles as Bush shapes up for four more years.

Here is a quote: One can only imagine what the reaction of the American public would be if the government was to employ at home the same tactics it uses in other countries.

Another quote: The Osama bin Laden tapes, the one aired this weekend and those before, demonstrate in the clearest possible fashion that these people the target of the War on Terror are incensed by the U.S. relationship with Israel where there are no boundaries to U.S. support. Israel ironically harbors weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, and accounts to no-one. Israel has not complied with scores of UN resolutions, has invaded several countries (carried out bombings and assassinations), and has illegally occupied the West Bank since 1967.

--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

We have good luck with drives. The reason appears to be that we install them with their own fans, so each is individually cooled.

--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Here's a simple program that would benefit the whole world:

Make a program that shows what parts of a huge folder fit on individual CDs or DVDs. The output of the program would say, for example, that all the files from sub-folders A to Information would fit on the first CD, and all the files from sub-folders Installers to Netgear would fit on the second CD, and so on.

It is necessary to store backup sub-folders in alphabetical order on the backup CDs or DVDs because then they can be found easily.

Right now there is no good way to decide how to apportion the data. Breaking any file into two pieces just causes problems later, so the Easy CD Creator method does not work well.

Later, it would be excellent if the program made .ISO files, of course, and even more excellent if the program asked the user to insert a CD or DVD, and burned the media.

--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

I agree with this.

U.S. government policies have made it more likely that Jews will suffer.

--
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Quoting the parent comment: "Typical Republican response: Sure, I'm a fuck-up, but so and so is too!"

More like, "Sure, I'm an evil person influenced only by selfish stupidity, but Saddam is worse." And, "That gives us superior people the moral authority to kill thousands of other people. Violence is the answer to violence."

It takes a guy like Saddam to make Republicans look good. That's why he is so important to them.

Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating should read this: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.

In addition, during this fear driven propaganda-fest, free speech is confused with anti-Americanism. And everything else that has made the US a great place to live has ground to a halt. Even the ill-conceived 'freedom zones' are getting further and further away from this war-happy candidate as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while listening to mouth-breathers spouting Republican talking points, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Republican machine that has run faster from the truth, all the while tossing 'loyalty pledges' and cease and desist orders at anyone who may disagree, despite the millions of people who share the need to be rid of this administration. My Tandy 102 with 32k of RAM demonstrates more resolve and better judgment than Bush most times. From a leadership standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Bush is a superior candidate for president.

Bush addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to vote for Bush over other more truthful, reasoned, smarter and stable candidates.

while I would say I'm leaning towards the GB way...I'm not set in stone on that. I'm still listening

So what would it take to convince you that you really, really don't want to vote for George W. Bush? What kinds of arguments would it take? Would any of these get the point across?

I can't find the email message now because I'm supposed to be working, but Vint Cerf told me that, before Al Gore, the ARPANET was a private utility. Al Gore decided it should be a public service, and provided considerable support from the U.S. Congress to turn the ARPANET into the Internet.

Many people did the work. Many people should have some of the credit. But, according to Vint Cerf, Al Gore was the first public official to decide that there should be a public utility called the Internet.

It shocks me how little people know about the activities of their government. It shocks me that, after all this time, people are still believing the disinformation written by Republican marketing writers.

Don't believe the sound bites, read books. No one who read the more than 35 books about the Bush administration would vote for George W. Bush, that is clear.

Even those who read magazines would know more than most U.S. citizens. For example:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.

Anyone who uses the words "liberal" and "conservative" shows that he or she is not thinking deeply. Those words are used in so many ways that they have lost their meaning, except as epithets.

Programmers and those who administer complicated computer systems must be logical. If they aren't, they cannot write a working program or troubleshoot problems. If logical people read enough books and gather enough facts, they must come to the conclusion that Bush should not be re-elected.

I could give hundreds of pages of support for this view. For 100 facts, see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Many Republicans and some Democrats maintain power by selling the government to the rich and powerful: Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.

This is my letter to the Bush relatives:
_______

Bush Relatives,

The three movies and 35 recently published books reviewed in the article linked below describe U.S. government corruption:

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.

Also see this well-documented article from The Nation magazine:

100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Michael Jennings
Futurepower Publishing

P.S.: I learned about your site from a front-page story on Slashdot.org.

_______

In past elections, there has been a reason to vote for the other side. I didn't choose Bob Dole, but if he had been elected, the nation would have been okay, because Bob Dole is a decent man.

This election is different. It is not a matter of preference. The Bush Administration is extremely corrupt. Those who vote for Bush are not well-informed.

An old DEC manual for technical writers said that only 2% of Americans read non-fiction books not connected with work. That seems correct to me. I have found that even Slashdot readers, who are more intelligent than most people, have little knowledge of the activities of their government. Instead, some of them have picked up and believe Bush campaign lies like "Bush is Christian" and "Bush will protect us in the war against terrorism".

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

Out of these 5000, only 1 has actually had his day in court. He was convicted, but that conviction was later overturned when it became clear that Asscroft and company had fabricated and withheld evidence in order to gain their sole terror conviction. story here.

Of course, we are talking about an administration who has shown nothing but disrespect for the bill of rights from day one.

Getting a piece of the oil field action was a big part of it, but there's also another aspect: Poland feels threatened by Russia, and it needs alliances, both economic and military, to help defend itself. Going into Iraq proved to be a bad strategic move, since it managed to get most of Europe pissed at Poland, without getting anything tangible from the US.

And Bush's chummy comments about his buddy "Vladimir" were definitely not reassuring to his Polish allies.

On a related note, here's a report from Warsaw by an old professor of mine:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041004 &s=ost

Push Polling
Intimidation
Harrassment
Purging the rolls of minorities

These are the reasons that our elections are being monitored. This is not about hanging chads.

However, these problems are a result of people making poor decisions in one state. The other states had no problems and the voting was done fairly and properly. Trying to show the similarities of problems in America and Iraq when it was run by Saddam is irresponsible. That was a country where people's voted did not count. In our country, people after the fact sat down and counted each vote by hand. If it was clear who the person voted for, that candidate got the vote. If it was unclear who they voted for, then the ballot had to be discounted. This is fair! If you can't determine who someone voted for, then they don't get the vote.

Not in the slightest did anything like that happen. First of all, other states have experienced problems with voting. Michigan is already having problems. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy.

Again, this is a slap in the face of America to make it look like we have a dictator in office like Iraq had and many other countries still have. That is not the case at all. If you think it is and you hate Bush, then Clinton would have had the same "dictatorship" because he got in office under the same rules. I don't think anyone would consider Clinton a dictator. And I don't think Bush is capable of rising to such a high power. I don't think he's smart enough to do it.

Clinton's clear vicotry and Bush's selection by the Supreme Court are not exactly "under the same rules". There was never any question about Clinton's victory. The process worked the way it was supposed to. Bush's selection was not ordinary and was not played by the same rules at all.

leftist bias in the "mainstream" media (CBS, ABS, NBC, NYT, LAT, etc.).

Only NYT in your list even comes close to publishing liberal perspectives (not exclusivly). If you want good liberal perspectives visit: salon.com or The Nation or The Progressive necessary if you want a counterpoint to the right-wing perspectives that dominate.