Slashdot Mirror

Wow, you posted a link to a blog that just quotes another article. That sure is convincing. And then the second blog posts a false dilemma based pretty much on the first one. I'll see your blog of a story, and raise you an originally authored story that pretty much debunks the whole "racist newsletter" crap.

The funny thing is, though I'm a fairly libertarian person, I'm not even much of a Ron Paul supporter, or a "Rondroid" as you so cleverly put it. I view him as the least objectionable Republican, but it wasn't enough for me to register as one, as I am ambivalent about him as president as he's a bit too much of a social conservative for me and he maintains some troubling ideas about science (yes, I'm talking about creationism/ID) I just can't quite get past. I'd like to think he adheres to his libertarian principles enough that those things wouldn't matter, but I'm not sure I would trust myself in the office of president to not muck with things I shouldn't, so it's difficult for me to trust anyone else to behave either.

But it really pisses me off that, like calling someone a pedophile, it's so easy to smear someone with the "racist" label. It's pure fucking bullshit, and I'm calling it as such. All of this complete crap eventually comes from a single hit piece written by James Kirchick of The New Republic, which if you were wanting to smear Ron Paul is the actual article you should've quoted. It's right up there with the "Barack Obama is a closet fundamentalist Muslim who will institute Sharia law in America if elected!" bullshit that's been circulating. That little meme wouldn't have the traction it does if he didn't have a "funny" name. Likewise, it's really just too easy to take an old white social conservative guy from Texas and put a white hood on his head.

That people fall for this crap almost every goddamned time makes it extremely tempting to root for the candidate who will most fuck up this country because we're a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots and we deserve it.

FWIW, the minimum number now stands at seven for the period Dec 1999 to Oct 2002, as one newsletter cited turns out to be December 1990 (see "describes" link.)

Given that we're talking about a grand total of twenty five issues for the period above, at minimum seven of them being notably racist is hard for a regular reader to believably miss.

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

Ron Paul, an Angry White Man.

Meet the real Ron Paul, in his own words. It's not pretty.

Ron Paul is a racist, bigot, and homophobe. Have you seen this?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would be against it...

Of course but Ron Paul also is either incapable of supervising even a small group of his supporters or is against Blacks, Gays, and those damn Union Yankees. Neither of these alternatives inspires much confidence.

Actually, it seems YOU'RE the one out of the loop. The New Republic just released a story disproving that defense. Even better...they also released scans of several of the newsletters in question dating over a span of about twenty years.

One story, I can somewhat buy that it slipped under the radar. But two decades of frothing bigotry? Either he agreed with what was being written, or he had one hell of a long term lapse in judgment. Either way, it's pretty clear that he shouldn't be allowed near the levers of power.

Actually, it seems YOU'RE the one out of the loop. The New Republic just released a story disproving that defense. Even better...they also released scans of several of the newsletters in question dating over a span of about twenty years.

One story, I can somewhat buy that it slipped under the radar. But two decades of frothing bigotry? Either he agreed with what was being written, or he had one hell of a long term lapse in judgment. Either way, it's pretty clear that he shouldn't be allowed near the levers of power.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican.

Actually, I'd say he's a grade-A jerk running as a Libertarian.

Don't take my word for it, read the original material yourself.

Ron Paul's response is that the newsletters, which went out for over two decades under his name from organizations he funded or presided over, do not represent his views. Even if you believe him, is that the level of responsibility and oversight you want in a leader?

Like most /.ers, I've been enamored of Ron Paul...

Oh really? Not me! He's a kook running on the disillusionment of Republicans who've watched their party, with TOTAL control of our government (Senate, House, Presidency, Supreme Court 7/9) for 6 years, cshit the bed. I've been waiting for more information on his past to start leaking out into the general public's awareness. Lots of classic half-baked Libertarian ideas that don't stand up after you actually analyze the problem (like his Libertarian alternative to the Civil War). And, to quote the philosopher Jake Blues: I hate Illinois Nazis..

But the message is not getting our there.

Don't worry, the message is finally getting out. His support of David Duke, branding of Martin Luther King as a pedophile, claim that gays get AIDS because they "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick," etc. are finally reaching a national audience.

But the message is not getting our there.

Don't worry, the message is finally getting out. His support of David Duke, branding of Martin Luther King as a pedophile, claim that gays get AIDS because they "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick," etc. are finally reaching a national audience.

But the message is not getting our there.

Don't worry, the message is finally getting out. His support of David Duke, branding of Martin Luther King as a pedophile, claim that gays get AIDS because they "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick," etc. are finally reaching a national audience.

But the message is not getting our there.

Don't worry, the message is finally getting out. His support of David Duke, branding of Martin Luther King as a pedophile, claim that gays get AIDS because they "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick," etc. are finally reaching a national audience.

But the message is not getting our there.

Don't worry, the message is finally getting out. His support of David Duke, branding of Martin Luther King as a pedophile, claim that gays get AIDS because they "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick," etc. are finally reaching a national audience.

the three performed similar experiments to illustrate how awareness of death could provoke worldview defense. They showed that what they now called "mortality salience" affected people's view of other races, religions, and nations. When they had students at a Christian college evaluate essays by what they were told were a Christian and a Jewish author, the group that did the mortality exercises expressed a far more negative view of the essay by the Jew- ish author than the control group did. (German psychologists would find a similar reaction among German subjects toward Turks.) They also conducted numerous experiments to show that mortality exercises evoked patriotic responses. The subjects who did the exercises took a far more negative view of an essay critical of the United States than the control group did and also expressed greater veneration for cultural icons like the flag. The three even devised an experiment to show that, after doing the mortality exercises, conser- vatives took a much harsher view of liberals, and vice versa. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082 707

Of course the Pacific Institute has its own bias, but your criticisms of their analysis are pretty baseless. For example, you say

"Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time."

At first glance, this seems to be a valid point. But if you had read the report thoroughly, you would notice that choosing any other year as a base of analysis would give just the opposite results - Europe performed 'better' than the US.

You also criticize the report for downplaying the effect of CO2 vis a vis other greenhouse gases. Just because they refuse to ignore other greenhouse gases doesn't mean that they are downplaying the effects of CO2, they are merely illuminating a very important point - that only by concentrating on CO2 exclusively, and given that only within a very specific time period, can the White House and Horner make the claims that they are making. Even focusing specifically on CO2 emissions, this claim is only partially true within that 'hunted' time period.

I think a more valid criticism can be made of this report. The wording seems to allude to the fact that Europe is doing a good job with greenhouse emissions. Compared to the U.S. this is certainly true, and the report backs that up with solid data. But what ever happened to global context?

Even with full implementation of all Kyoto protocols, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would only be reduced 1% by 2050. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-accountable organization, current emissions have to be reduced by 60-80% to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Furthermore, there is a lag time between emission of greenhouse gases and the resultant maximum climate change. The estimates of how long this lag time actually is vary from 30 to 50 years, but it means that the climate changes we are seeing now are a result of emissions in the past. It also means that even if we cut greenhouse gas emission to 0 right now, we will still be facing 30-50 years of the harshest climate change we have seen yet. What we need to be concentrating on is not who is doing 'better' by some slim fraction, but what measures we can take to effectively prepare for climate change.

I seriously doubt that he didn't realize Obama might run some day. From the moment this guy showed up on the political radar in Washington, D.C., people have been saying he's got the makings of a President. If not, no one would have ever heard of him. And now this guy, for better or worse, is trying to get his piece of the pie. Frankly, Obama should just pay the money and get it over with, before this becomes some kind of distraction or worse, heavily over-hyped media incident that hurts the campaign (remember Howard Dean's war whoop?!?).

What I do not enjoy, however, is his political commentary. The same can be said for Orson Scott Card [ornery.org]. Why is it that authors, singers, actors, etc feel the need to get political?

It's somewhat inherent in writing, especially in genre fiction, and particularly in SF. In writing SF, the author is tasked with imagining a future with varying levels of similarities and differences with our own. Crichton writes commercial fiction, but he borders on near-term sci-fi. When doing this, you have to come up with a timeline and the rammifications of what has happened. It's difficult to make one's political ideology *not* show through. If you think that nuclear power is going to be the downfall of society, and you have to imagine a future time, do you really expect that what happens nuclear power won't play at least into the creation of your universe? What about if you're a believer that world peace is achievable if only people wanted it enough -- do you think that would play in? Pretty much any political view you might hold, you can play it out optimistically or pessimistically, but it's going to have a rammification on what you write in SF.

Of course, there's an altoghether better reason not to criticize Crichton: he might write you into his next story as a baby rapist with a small penis. Perhaps his next book should be about an irresponsible writer who slanders his critics.

That has a tendency to lead to things like this: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060925&s=lizza0925 06

You never, ever dare the press (or hackers) to do something unless you can live with the consequences. In recent memory we have Presidential hopefuls Garry Hart and George 'Macacawitz' Allen, saying things like, "I dare you to find a single instance of me using the n-word."

That has a tendency to lead to things like this: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060925&s=lizza0925 06

So either it means Bill's a PR dunce like his dancing monkey of a CEO, Steve 'Who's the man?' Ballmer, or he just doesn't give a shit. Considering how many M$ patchcows there are out there, I bet it's the latter.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them....

Martyr's mother: Compared to others, what I sacrificed is nothing. It's true I sacrificed a son, but others have sacrificed two or three. I hope more of my sons will become martyrs.

Martyr's mother: Allah be praised. I thank Allah for all the good He has bestowed upon us. He has blessed us with martyrdom. Allah willing, we too will be martyred, just as they did.

Tiny detail? You go on about economic impoverishment- in various wordings- for 6 paragraphs. I actually agree with you in the sense that they are not insane- the fact that relatively "normal" Muslims commit so many atrocities is just evidence of how sick and evil their culture is. Islamic civilization is based on hate: hate of the infidel who must be killed, enslaved, or subjugated, and hate of the heretical Muslim who must be slaughtered or blown up. All this results in a culture which turns out average people who are absolutely sociopathic. A 15 year old girl was beheaded in Baghdad and a dog's head sewn to her torso- but blame it on the foreign occupiers, and those foreign oil corporations which have transferred $10 trillion in unearned wealth to OPEC. Ignore the fact that Islam has transformed the cradle of civilization into a seething orc's nest.

As The New Republic has revealed, I use hydrogen in my 1972 Dodge Charger and 1996 Jeep Cherokee. Check the link in my .sig :)

oops, bloodiest war in US history and of the 19th century (in terms of US lives lost)....

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=hahn0206 06

And while they enter their new pursuit of reading - perhaps they might review what is awaiting others who have little to no options left.

Vote with your wallet, if money is all they understand, ask everyone you
know to close their accounts BofA and move them elsewhere.

If enough ppl do it, it will have an impact.

This is not the first time this has happened with Bank of America.

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_052103.htm

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=risen0909 03

This has been going on with them for years.

Only money will make them change their mind, as this person killing
himself in their parking lot over it did little but make them laugh.

So as I and other members of my immediate and extended family have done,
ask them all close their bank of america accounts. Then tell them
to pass the word on to all the ppl they know.

Ex-MislTech

No, it doesn't raise any of your thoughts. You already had the thoughts in question beforehand, and you feel whatever correlation you have in mind justifies you in what you've believed all along. That's very different.

Now, there are facts you could seek out that would seriously support or disconfirm your expectations. You could actually look for real statistics correlating the incidence of various diseases with factors such as ethnicity, gender, social class, population density, and so on. However, you clearly do not care to do so, because you are only interested in "evidence" that merely sounds as if it might confirm what you want to believe.

Meanwhile, in actual public health circles, there is a discussion going on about what has been called the "Latino Health Paradox." This is a collection of facts that a number of people have measured, indicating that Mexican immigrants to the USA, overall, tend to be in better health that the American population at large. Here's, for example, a New Republic article on the phenomenon.

What does your claim tell us? That you don't care to look at actual facts. You have your set of preconceptions, and are on the lookout for facts that confirm it.

In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton warned that, in presenting nominations to the Senate, a president "would be both ashamed and afraid" to nominate cronies--or, as Hamilton called them, "obsequious instruments of his pleasure." Maybe politics was different back in the 1780s, but we have watched Bush appoint many obsequious instruments of his pleasure. It may be his legacy: George W. Bush--he took the shame and fear out of cronyism.

This link gets you directly to the article without needing to register.

According to his official biography, Stewart Simonson is the Health and Human Services Department's point man "on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies." Hopefully, he has taken crash courses on smallpox and avian flu, because, prior to joining HHS in 2001, Simonson's background was not in public health, but ... public transit. He'd previously been a top official at the delay-plagued, money-hemorrhaging passenger rail company Amtrak.

Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?

A few minutes with Google provides more than enough citations, even after excluding those from lefty publications:

CBS News says "Mr. Bush appreciates loyalty above all."

In Military Week, Lt. Col (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski lays it on the line: "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney habitually reward cowardice and incompetence. They continually place political loyalty above ethics and loyalty to country."

The British Guardian quotes Michael O'Hanlon saying "I certainly think Bush values loyalty above all else."

Time Magazine says "For a President known to prize loyalty above most else..."

The Washington Post says: "But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy."

The St. Cloud Times says: "George W. Bush's particular brand of immoderation lies in the premium he places on trust and loyalty". It goes on to cite Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes and Don Evans as examples. Of course we can add Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown to that list.

In a Newsday story, James Klurfield writes "What's going on here, folks, is that loyalty to the president is being rewarded above all other values, including competent performance."

The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article called Loyalty as Foreign Policy

The New Republic says "...Moreover, both Johnson and Bush have been known to place a high premium on personal loyalty."

You can look at the whole of a Knight Ridder wire article entitled Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment.

The British newspaper The Telegraph says "...Mr Tenet, who, like President Bush, prizes loyalty above most other virtues..."

I think I've made my point. You can find more for yourself with minimal effort if you care to.

I am most certainly against the use of sports ability as a determinitive factor in the admission of students. While interest in sports may lead to a different viewpoint (and thus contribute to diversity of ideas) just as being poor or of an ethnic minority, it is by no means definite. As such, I think it is an extremely poor choice for inclusion in admissions decisions.

Involvement in high school sports was originally used as a tool to keep Jews from getting into American universities. Funny how the law of unintended consequences works, isn't it?

And so the pattern of admission to elite institutions was set in the 1920s. It consisted in a limitation of numbers (there was none before the 1920s, when colleges competed for larger numbers); an admissions office that required pictures, interviews, and other means to determine the identities of those to be excluded; a strong preference for athletes and alumni children; and an effective sidelining of the faculty, which, when it made its views known, generally called for higher academic standards. The admissions offices generally looked for the "all-American boys," and a well-rounded class that included a sufficient number of happy academic mediocrities from the upper social strata.

When colleges were paid for primarily by the student or private funds, you KNEW what type of college you were attending. The best schools even had professors who still worked in the industry "Those who can't do, teach" was not really an accurate cliche.

When was this? Oh, right. Back in the 1930s, when only a small fraction of the population attended college, before World War II and the GI Bill. You knew what you were getting alright. You were getting an elitist preserve of WASP men that excluded virtually everyone else.

Now we have primarily public funding in college. What do you expect but State-loving socialists instead of true masters of academia? Is college even necessary [lewrockwell.com] if you're to go on to a non-science profession?

The humanities in academia are obviously dominated by liberal Democrats, which is probably not good for academic discourse. As to whether the cause is public funding can be debated, particularly in the absence of proof. If public funding automatically leads to socialism, then the military ought to be populated by Lefties. As to whether a college education is necessary for non-science people, that seems to be an obvious expression of bias: The sciences require learning and rigorous thinking, but the humanities do not.

One of the few professors I still admire is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who had something to say [lewrockwell.com] about the system and the garbage bin it has fallen into. I'm not sure we'll see any real changes until we remove the federal funding of education from all education, especially the college grants and loans that the government seems to happy to dole out.

That would certainly make changes. Things could go back to the way they were back in the halcyon days before the GI Bill and the democratization of higher education, when Jews could be excluded by policies crafted specifically to deny them entrance into top schools. I suppose that doesn't matter if you're a white male, but a lot of other people out there might not be so excited about the society without democracy that Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates. He goes far beyond the question of public funding of higher education, and into the realm misty-eyed libertarianism, where unimpeded commerce rids us of all social ills:

In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally 'challenged' through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals, including the victims of crime, to pay for the imprisonment of criminals (rather than making criminals compensate their victims and pay the full cost of their own apprehension and incarceration), crime will increase. By forcing businessmen, through 'affirmative action' ('non-discrimination') programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other 'minorities' than they would like to, there will be more employed minorities, and fewer employers and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment. By compelling private land owners to subsidize ('protect') 'endangered species' residing on their land through environmental legislation, there will be more and better-off animals, and fewer and worse-off humans.

Do you suppose the good Professor would have wanted to fight to free slaves in the days leading up to the American Civil War? Would he have fought for a woman's right to vote? He obviously would not have wanted the government to stop "businessmen" from employing 10-year old children. But hey, economic efficiency invariably leads to nirvana for white males, who cares if the scum have to suffer?

As for the old c

Oh, I don't necessarily think you are a moron or a fool. You may just be ignorant. Fortunately, the latter condition is treatable.

I don't think containment applies in a 1 to 1 relationship between the Cold War and the fight against Islamic fundamentalists, but even with that said, your questions make a lot of sense. However, since this is as much a conflic of ideas as a military conflict, containing the acceptance of radical Islamic ideas is the real goal. The Soviets pushed their ideas through their standing military, and as you point out, radical Islam has no such center of gravity. But even though the Soviets had a center of gravity, we never were directly engaged there. It was always on the periphery. In the case of radical Islam, I would argue that the periphery is on the street in societies where Muslims make up a substantial percentage of the population. Give those people an alternative to radicalism, and the core radicals will not be able to spread their message. As they die off, nobody will replace them.

The notion that containment could serve as a viable strategy in fighting radical Islamic terrorists makes sense to me and to a lot of people who are smarter than me, but it also has its critics. This piece argues that containment failed and it was really "rollback" that finished off the USSR, which would mean that containment would be innefectual in the current situation as well.

The best writing I've encountered on the subject is this article by John Lewis Gaddis which argues that we can learn much from the containment policy first laid out by George Kennan, but that we must be flexible and not attempt to simply apply the same template to the war against radical Islam.

There's no reason to panic.

They've probably already sold all that information to third parties anyway.

Either that, or used it for contacts in their "Exciting Business Opportunity" multi-level marketing scam.

Not to mention that this is one of the worst governed companies in the world.

And I am taking bets on how fast before Nikon's Land Sharks start uttering the four letter D-M-C-A...

If this encryption is supposed to be a Technical Protection Measure to trigger the Anti-Circumvention Prohibitions of the DMCA... then what could Nikon claim copyright in: the respective measurement describing parameters of the digital photograph taken by their customer?
If you think this is copyrightable (let alone to Nikon rather than to the photographer), then please let us know under which provision...

I haven't read the book myself, but Posner's somewhat scathing review doesn't keep me from wanting to read the book. It does, however, make me want to read it with a critical eye.

One of your country's oldest allies is hestitant about giving you carte blanche to invade other sovereign states and all of a sudden it's open season on France?

Which country's foreign minister poses as champion of international law, yet is really a degenerate Napoleonic power worshipper who still thinks warfare is glorious- as long as it's France that's kicking butts?

Which country was actually going to participate in the invasion of Iraq, thinking it would be a good military training excerise for its troops?

Which country flies into senseless, destructive tantrums every time its national "honor" is threatened, yet has no shame in turning around and begging the help of anti-Western, Izlamic terrorist grous like Hezbollah, pointing out that France is the Izlamicists' most useful dhimmi stooge?

France- always eager to abase itself before power, always ready with a knife in the back for friends.

This from a magazine that prides itself in being the in-flight magazine of Air Force One.

I appreciate your eloquent insights, but perhaps you should read up on Kerry's history in the Senate and his approach to fighting terrorism. Foreign policy is about more than just "defense". I don't agree with every aspect of the Kerry approach, but your generalizations are uninformed:

How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank describes how Senator Kerry dealt a huge blow to terrorist financing in the 1990s.

Kerry Would Fight Terrorism Better delineates the approach Kerry would take to try and not only fight terrorists but stop them from sprouting up in the first place.

Kerry Faces the World discusses how Kerry's foreign policy approach is very similar to that of the first President Bush.

On the one hand (and on the other) gives The Economist's view of Kerry's foreign policy approach.

Bluster and determination are not enough to fight terrorists. You have to be smarter and more flexible than they are. And you have to believe that a free and open society is inherently stronger than a society run by a closed, secretive government. In my opinion Bush believes that only by severely curtailing the very freedoms we are fighting to preserve and insisting on blind obedience can we beat terrorists. To me, that is playing right into their hands.

My favorite quote on this perspective is by Michael Kinsley:

"The purpose of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you're trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory."
-- Washington Post, January 8, 1990 [Emphasis mine].

It should be noted, for the record, that Michael Kinsley is NOT part of the gun fanatic crowd-- quite the opposite. Anyone who doubts this can simply check out The New Republic Online website to get the gist of their political perspective. As for my own perspective, I am a gun ownership advocate, though casting me as a fanatic might be stretching it a bit.

In defense of the perspective you claim invalid (and in support of Mickey Kaus' statement indirectly quoted above) I present the following argument. If you really believe the literalist perspective that you stated, then you must also agree that all legal decisions derived from the "right to privacy" should be null and void. This is obvious, as the word "privacy", along with all of its synonyms, appears nowhere in the Constitution. While obviously true, it is not so likely that you are willing to jump on this bandwagon, as many of the decisions based on this nonexistent right tend to align with the philosophy of those who wield the phrase "gun fanatic" as a diatribe.

As for the legal know-nothings on the Supreme Court, I would hazard this is not the case. I would also hazard that you are referring to UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled that possession of the shotgun you described could not be construed as protected because such a weapon would not fulfill the definition of providing for a well armed militia. The problem is that they also defined what a well armed militia was, and I don't think you are going to like their answer:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
--- UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) [Emphasis mine]

As a physically capable male, I appreciate the insight these know-nothings had into the definition of a Militia. While I myself am in possession of nothing more than a small handgun for self-defense, I can still appreciate the wisdom of our forefathers, and our Supreme Court justices, in providing for, and maintaining, this fundamental right.

Finally, as for the access to good hacking code, I agree completely. This is important, because I have found it is better to end on an agreeable note-- it cuts down on continued conversational clutter.