Slashdot Mirror

Here's a column written by Neal Boortz (Libertarian talk show host) that talks about the same thing, including his thoughts and suggestions on how to keep people from throwing away a vote.

Nephilium
"But to say that the Bush administration is being hypocritical for not opting for war with Iran or North Korea because they are tyrannical states too is like saying you're a hypocrite for not buying the red Porsche and the red Mercedes because you bought the red Honda." -- Jonah Goldberg

What fraction of doctors are OBGYNs? Neurosurgeons?

Some medical specialties are more lawsuit-prone than others, because they--by their nature--perform procedures with a greater risk of negative outcome, or deal with patients who are more likely to receive large jury awards (new mothers and babies...), or both.

In the United States, a 2002 survey revealed that 76 percent of all obstetricians have been sued at least once. Forty percent have been sued three or more times. Does anyone seriously believe that nearly half of all obstetricians can be that incompetent?

Other risky specialties see similar problems. Unfortunately, malpractice lawsuits take place--and are often successful--in the event of any negative outcome, rather than one caused by actual incompetence or dereliction. About 1 in 5 suits are filed where there is no negative outcome whatsoever, but these are still settled for an average of nearly thirty thosuand dollars apiece (mostly legal bills.)

True--there are some problem doctors, but their numbers are decidedly few. As you say, the situation is not black and white.

I am voting for stem cells.

Sorry, but there aren't any running for President.

But if you mean you are voting based on some sort of policy regarding stem cells, there isn't much to choose from. Bush supports stem cell research, as does Kerry. The difference is that Bush's policy is to not use federal funds for what is widely regarded to be an unpromising research area, while still allowing private funding: for embryonic stem cell research. All of the existing cures and promising reasearch are with adult stem cells. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to fund it and is using the false promise of miracle cures to try to win votes. It seems to be a promise that works on the poorly informed.

I would wager that 90% of the voters in both camps fall into the above category.

In July, a Senate intelligence committee and an official British investigation both concluded that President Bush had been on firm ground when he spoke the famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union message (that the British had learned Saddam Hussein had sought to acquire uranium in Africa). When the 16 words appeared to be untrue, the press endlessly trumpeted them, often on the front page, but when Bush drew heavy support from the two investigations, you could hardly find the news with a magnifying glass. In the New York Times, the British report was carried way inside the paper and read like a muddled translation from classical Urdu. This seems to happen a lot when the Times is forced to report news it doesn't like. On July 25, the Washington Post press critic, Howard Kurtz, reported that his newspaper had carried 96 references to the issue when Bush appeared to be wrong and only two after the revelation that he looked to be right. The totals for the three major networks and three elite newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, were 302 before and nine after. According to Kurtz, CBS never did get around to mentioning that the investigations had supported the president.

I haven't been able to figure this one out. People just refuse to open their eyes. I liken it to the same sort of power religion has over some people, it's like the cult of Bush.


No, you are the insane one and you refuse to open your eyes.


The guy could start killing a baby a day until the election and people would still vote for him.


I repeat, you are insane. I suggest you treat your BDS ASAP.

Being a democrat doesn't exempt one from being a right-wing asshole. Zell Miller.

Agreed. How about our good friend Democrat Robert Byrd, former KKK recruiter ("kleagle" if you want to get technical), who was allowed to get away with using the term "white nigger" a few years back? Just figured I'd point out that Trent Lott didn't even approach that level of direct racism and was burned at the stake, while lots of folks still take what that fossil Byrd says as gospel.

The laws under discussion ( apparently AB 205 and AB 25 according to this GoogleNews listed source) would make gay partnerships legally recognized with all the same rights as a marriage, but a different name -- a rose by any other name and a nicely Solomonic decision, pissing off the Radical Gays who demand both name and substance, and Christian Zealots who would deny them both. A nice compromise, therefore. =)

Wait, so they wrote a law that defined two seperate concepts to be equal? Didn't we decide that this concept was illegal 50 years ago?

Why in the world shouldn't we be able to recall judges that are clearly working against the desires of the population they serve?

Article III, section 1, US Constitution:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Judges are not in the position to serve the electorate. In this specific case, attempting to recall the judges because they are out of touch with family values(thanks abb3w for the link) is not the same as recalling judges for bad Behaviour.

In the article the judge is quoted as saying that under the new law, a domestic partnership does not constitute a marriage, but is "inherently distinct." This is an interpretation of law, not of the will of the voters, and this is the responsible of a judge acting in good behaviour.

Now the civil, respectable, truly patriotic and constitutional response to such a judgment would not be FUD, but instead ONLY "We will appeal and seek justice for California voters and the sacred institution of marriage" WITHOUT the threat.

The problem is that most people don't understand, and politicizing a judges decision based on law for ones own advantage is an incredible misuse and abuse of the system. The CCF needs to act and talk responsibly and learn a little bit about tolerance and values.

Correct, so far as you go, but you also might also desire to get your facts straight, or perhaps read more carefully. The laws under discussion (apparently AB 205 and AB 25 according to this GoogleNews listed source) would make gay partnerships legally recognized with all the same rights as a marriage, but a different name -- a rose by any other name and a nicely Solomonic decision, pissing off the Radical Gays who demand both name and substance, and Christian Zealots who would deny them both. A nice compromise, therefore. =)

When macrealist refered to the law, he refered to it as "same sex unions", which seems a semantically accurate description of gay partnerships. The later reference was "What ever you think of same sex marriages"... which, macrealist's bad grammar aside, indicates only that this is part of the same spectrum of debate; and most people, whatever their position on the benefit or harm of it, would agree that gay marriage, domestic partnership rights, and "civil unions" are all part of the same debate, while disagreeing where the line should be drawn.

Anne Coulter is the one who gave us things like "McCarthyism was a myth created by the liberals", compares Howard Dean to a war criminal, and "Liberals don't care about the environment."

Zell Miller is the Democrat who gave an angry keynote speech at the Republican Convention. (on a side note, these speeches are usually positive and lay out an agenda for the party- and are not angry rants). In his speech, Miller said that anyone who referred to our troops in Iraq as "occupiers" instead of "liberators" was an insult to our country and our armed forces. Perhaps Miller did not watch President Bush's prime time news conference earlier this year, when he referred several times to our action in Iraq as "occupation," and said something like "Of course I'd be unhappy if I was occupied too." After some hard questions from Chris Matthews on "Hardball," Miller said he would like to live in an era when he could challenge someone to a duel, and ended the interview (source)

So with all the insane things coming out of their mouths, I'm supposed to believe them over Moore? Not likely.

One slight problem with that theory- we don't make anything in the United States anymore, we're a POST-industrialized nation.

Of course this is totally false. You made the assumption that since we have fewer jobs as a percentage of the workface in manufacturing that we don't produce as much as we used to. This also is making the assumption that American workers are not more effecient than they used to be. Try reading about it here, or Here. Both show that our manufacturing ability has pretty constantly increased. Even if we employ fewer people to make the products. I like it when fewer people can produce more good. That is what grows the economy. That is why my house is over twice the size of the one my Grand Parents had. That is why I have this nice cheap computer. That is what drives moore's law.

It is amazing how many people here on ./ either have never had an economics class, or their class was tought by a communist.

As for that, I haven't heard that argument from any conservatives

That's strange, because I can't think of a single conservative mouthpiece or media source who has not said something similar to the grandparent's posting. The following comes up in the first few pages of a Google search:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=6317
The Hate America Left
Ben Johnson, columnist, FrontPageMagazine.com

http://anncoulter.com/columns/2002/070302.htm
Liberalism And Terrorism: Different Stages Of Same Disease
Ann Coulter, AnnCoulter.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/080 904_081304/content/what_would_happen_if.guest.html
"For every eye that has to police the protesters, that's one eye less watching for terrorists. Do they care? No... You hate the president. You hate the country."
Rush Limbaugh Transcript, 8/12/2004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26 /124459.shtml
'Hate-America Leftists' Lead the Appeasement Movement
Wes Vernon, columnist NewsMax.com

http://www.americandaily.com/article/917
"People who hate America... these are John Kerry's constituents"
JB Williams, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.americandaily.com/article/2390
The Hate-America Crowd Speaks Its Mind
Doug Patton, columnist, The American Daily

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/04/loc_br onson4.html
Hate-America crowd has its own picnic
Cincinati Inquierer, columnist, Peter Bronson

http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2028797
"Why are people who hate America still living here?"

Bill Carthcart, WTOC 11, Savannah Georgia
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp 20040706.shtml

Michael Moore and the problem of American self-hatred
Dennis Prager, Townhall.com

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=14125
Hate-America Advocates
Jean Pearce, Frontpage Magazine

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2159
American Academics Who Hate America
Daniel Pipes, Capitalism Magazine

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArti cle.asp?ID=9298
A Hate-America Superhero
Joshua Elder, FrontPageMagazine.com

He's one of my favorites, along with

Thomas Sowell and Dick Morris

Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.

Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?

Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".

The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".

Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.

Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?

Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".

The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".

I don't care who you put her up against, Anne Coulter can't appear sane. The woman has accused about half the country of a capital crime (treason), and said--without a trace of irony--that the proper reaction to 9/11 was to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." [source] She also said that the tenets of Islam were, "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed." [source]

She claims to abhor the meanspirited, unhealthy atmosphere of political debate in this country, but she has done as much to destroy honest debate as anybody I can think of. There is something seriously, psychologically wrong with this woman.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

Either that, or you have a hobby horse of your own that you like to ride.

That post isn't funny, it's a troll. Very few contracts are handed out on a no-bid basis, and that's only for certain emergency services where there is no time for a 3-4 month bidding process.

Halliburton, for instance, won their current no-bid contract years ago during the Clinton administration. Read more here: The Halliburton smear

To begin with, the FBI cannot request any documents or records without first getting judicial permission. That permission must come in the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a federal court specializing in counterterrorism and international intelligence that was created by Congress during the Carter administration. No judge on that court is going to authorize government agents to spy on a citizen merely because of his reading or web-surfing habits. Why not? Because the law forbids it. Which law? Why, the Patriot Act.

If you really want to know the truth, it is out there...

She called for the extermination of 700 million followers of Islam.

That is one hell of a fatwa.

Our form of democracy is not designed so that the many can impose their will on the few. In fact, the judiciary exists to avoid exactly that result.

Actually our democracy is designed so that the many can impose their will, even on the few. That is what democracy is about: the majority makes the rules, or imposes their will, as it were, within limits. If we want to remain a democracy the few should not be able to impose their will on the many, except in some very limited circumstances. This isn't one of them.

As long as marriages are "sanctified" by the government in the form of licenses, divorce law and the like, no legal definition of marriage should exclude any citizen of legal age from marrying another citizem of legal age, whatever their respective anatomies.

Marriages aren't "sanctified" by government, they are regulated. I must say that I find it peculiar that you arbitrarily toss off one restriction, but leave so many others in place. If anatomy doesn't matter, why should the number of people matter? There is much better precedent for throwing off that restriction than ignoring sex. Or what about age? Citizenship status? Your choice seems arbitrary, which generally is not a strong position under the law.

I would finally note that calling for a constitutional amendment in order to strictly define marriage is idiocy. Neither our nation's existence nor the rights of heterosexuals are threatened by two men or two women getting married. I can therefore only assume that people in favor of such an amendment (or similar laws) are bigots.

I find the openness of your chauvinism refreshing, in a peculiar sort of way. Most people try to make at least some minimal effort to obscure narrow, bigoted views behind some sort of facade, but you expose yours to the world. The millennia of moral teachings, social experience with the existing institution of marriage across many societies, the effects on children, and contemporary social science apparently make no impression upon you. The legal claims made in furthering the case are contrary to previous established law. The only thing that matters is your two tests? Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot?

I will note, since I'm posting again anyway, that marriage licenses are being given to homosexuals in my own city and, despite my heterosexuality, this has so far had no negative effect on my life.

Your narcissism aside, this isn't about your life. It is about the institution of marriage, and the roles it plays in society.

This issue is being driven mainly by extreme activists. Most gay people are not behind it. Sadly there are likely to be many unintended consequences that flow from this, very few of which are likely to be good for either gay people or society.

Yesterday, Linda Chavez bemoaned DAT as liberal activism run amok in Hollywood (she also complained that Shrek2 has a pro-gay agenda). I would usually dismiss her ranting outright, except that last week I got emails from pro-environment maillists urging their readers to go see DAT as a "movie the White House doesn't want you to see". Huh? If Karl Rove says it's a bad movie, well, even a broken clock . . .

There's a surfeit of frightening facts about climate change (et al). Our biosphere is probably in massive danger, but it'll take 100ish years to get there, not 2 days. Propagandist lies are a tool of the dark side.

Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. ...

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. ...

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." ...

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ...

Dr. S. Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist who served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation; deputy assistant administrator for policy in the Environmental Protection Agency; and deputy assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior. He wrote the books "Global Climate Change," "The Greenhouse Debate Continued," and "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate."

He was asked the following question:
Tell me about global warming. Is there a consensus? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Is it clearly damaging the environment?

His answer:
I think the simplest way to talk about it is to look at it, ask questions: Is the climate actually warming? And then you have to look at the data. And the data that I'm most familiar with, and I think the best data that we have, come from weather satellites because they make observations of the whole globe every day and they're good instruments. They tell us the climate is not warming significantly. So this is not a problem. To attack a non-problem with a measure that would really damage our economy, I think would just be completely irresponsible.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20 040422.shtml

So here we have a definite expert telling us everything is alright. Who to believe?

A new report from the Commerce Department shows that the U.S. runs a large trade surplus in information technology (IT) services. This is precisely the area where most of the job loss from outsourcing is supposed to be taking place. In 2002, the U.S. exported $3 billion worth of computer and data processing services and $2.4 billion in database and other information services, while importing just $1 billion of the former and $200 million of the latter.

There are also far more jobs using software than producing software. Using outsourcing to reduce software production costs will create more jobs in software use (most of IT) than are lost in software production.

We can and do need to compete better. We still need to improve our math and technical education, as Alan Greenspan says to keep a positive trade balance in IT services.

the best way for Congress to help Americans get and keep good-paying jobs is to improve their math and technical skills so companies won't be tempted to outsource to better-trained workers in China and India.

...if India was dumping cheap steel ... you can be we'd slap a tariff on it...

Uh, no we wouldn't, and we didn't.

Well, no, not really - freedom of speech no matter how loony. It's not like these people are in government .

Don't get me started on the "your kind" quote. Keep in mind that it's not about hating America, it's about indifference (why not? economy is doing better here, large minority populations in a tolerant society actually reduce the risk of an attack on civilians due to the potential of hitting 'their own', as important as the US is for trade that can be maintained with the minimum of effort put into a half-arsed anti-terrorist approach).

A new report from the Commerce Department shows that the U.S. runs a large trade surplus in information technology (IT) services. This is precisely the area where most of the job loss from outsourcing is supposed to be taking place. In 2002, the U.S. exported $3 billion worth of computer and data processing services and $2.4 billion in database and other information services, while importing just $1 billion of the former and $200 million of the latter.

Open source software is nothing but massively outsourced labor. And remember from the open source debate that most of the money is made from using software, not writing software. Both outsourcing and open source makes software cheaper so that more people can make more money using software. This adds significantly to both the US and the world economy.

You know I was just checking the headlines and I see: this piece. Dumbfounded and perplexed, I research this bill. I find that the title of the bill is "To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court."

WTF?! LINK

Sorry to be offtopic or to spam this but it is just plum crazy.

This is a mixed economy with all sorts of government intervention being exerted by all sorts of goverments. Calling this free trade is wrong.

I came across a columnist with an unconventional view, Paul Craig Roberts. In his June 18, 2002 column, titled, Importing people, exporting jobs, he points out the following:

"It is a mistake to see the loss of jobs and income as the workings of free trade. The downward pressure on incomes does not result from an exchange of goods. Something different is occurring. Middle class incomes are being traded away in order to gain larger bonuses for top management, and politicians are pandering to the immigrant vote at the expense of lower income native-born citizens.

The longer this process continues, the more explosive it becomes, both socially and politically."

I don't think I can say it any better. Like Paul Craig Roberts, I believe the US is heading for 3rd world status.

but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Something a friend pointed out to me, from Thomas Sowell.

To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife.

That's another reason why I can never agree that it's "fair" to tax the rich more. Having capital (money) increases productivity. Capital represents previous work spent acquiring it. Building on previous hard work enables one to be more productive with the same amount of work than building without that foundation.

Since capital represents time working, and all men are created equal, how can we legitimately say that gov't can take 20 minutes of this man's hour, but only 10 minutes of this man's hour? If men are equal, and they own themselves (and therefore their time), then we cannot lay claim to any more of one man's time than any other's. (Further, I would say we cannot rightfully claim any amount of any man's time; it is his time - we cannot steal from him. And that's what laying "first dibs" to a portion of a man's income, the fruit of his labor, is - theft.) Of course, some men are more talented than others, and have giftings and abilities that others don't, that make them more productive than others with what they have...but the inherent value of the man himself is equal to any other. Would you rob 20% of what the crippled leper has? Then why would you rob 20% of what the rich athlete has? These men are equal. To look at them only in terms of their earning capacity is denigrating their fundamental value as human beings.

Some people have physical/mental talents that make them more productive with their time. Others start out with financial/material assets that have the same basic result of greater productivity. Should we handicap the athletes, the scholars, the artists...for the sake of those that don't have those benefits starting out? The two things are equivalent, and if you favor handicapping the rich, why not handicap the talented? (Beginning to sound like Harrison Bergeron, which also had a warped idea of "equality for all".) Everyone hopes to pass on the benefits of their hard work (or dumb luck) to their children. Whether it's money on genetics. If we're going to handicap those that happened to have rich parents and "didn't work for what they have" should we also filter chromosomes to make sure nobody starts out with too large a head start over his peers? They didn't "work for it" either.

Redistributing money equally means you are not distributing human dignity equally. It means you value those you take more away from less than those you take less away from. Making some people more enslaved to government than others is not freedom, nor is it justice.

Secret arrests, supposed "terrorists" being held indefinitely without trial, widespead wiretap priviledges.. the list goes on. Is this what you call a "breeze rustling the trees?"

The Patriot Act is already being abused to prosecute all manner of crimes that have nothing to do with its original intent. If there were any checks and balances in the act itself, this wouldn't be happening.

If you want to see balanced criticism of the Patriot Act based on what it actually says, read this series in Slate.

About the Patriot Act,

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported [to] me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and they had none." Similarly, an investigation this month ((1/27/94)) by the Department of Justice's Inspector General - a Democrat appointed by President Clinton -- found exactly zero civil liberties abuses under the Patriot Act.

If you're going to karma whore by plagiarizing someone, it only works if you don't post anonymously.

India's tech is booming

The U.S. still imports way more jobs than it imports, and India's tech is booming based solely on the fact that it is low cost. Try reading some alternative viewpoints on the outsourcing subject.

Japan has all the cutting edge electronics and techonologies
And those Japanese companies also create a lot of jobs in the U.S., and the Japanese economy isn't doing so hot. Your point?

China is destined to be the next super power
With no economic freedom and the vast majority of it's citizens living in horrid poverty, I doubt it.

Korea is trying to get nukes
NORTH Korea already has them.

The USA has mad cow disease, a puppet for a president, a huge debt, a slow economy and we're spending billions more on rebuilding a country that we destroyed while looking for weapons that didn't exist.

Slow economy? I'm seeing growth right now, what are you talking about? It was slow a year ago, times are changing... mad cow disease gets a big "so what" from me, it's more paranoia than reality, it does more damage to the beef industry than the general population. And a puppet for a President? Watch this "puppet" obliterate John Kerry in the next election.

It's really lame his editorializing was so lacking in any substance, and yet modded up as insightful.

However, this seeming benefit comes at a hidden cost - The "consumers" of these products can no longer afford to buy them.

*Some* will be worse off when their jobs are outsourced. But the vastly larger number of people who didn't lose their jobs can now buy those products cheaper, leaving them with more to spend on other things. Thus there will be an increase in demand for workers to produce whatever the "other things" are.

In the long run, this pushes down the price of the product, and introduces serious disruptions to the economy as a whole.

Lower prices are generally good, and "disruptions" aren't necessarily bad (electricity, cars, microprocessors, etc).

I say this as a developer, aware that my salary will probably be lower in 5 years than it is today. But fighting the market just doesn't work. For example, the (recently rescinded) steel tariffs caused far more jobs to be lost than they "saved".

His understanding may not be as iron-clad as it seems:

Black Gold in the Gulf

I'm keeping an eye on both that and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerizat ion

If either one is totally proven, or especially if combined, it could be the end of the world oil problem.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

(Quoted from your article:)
By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand.

So, Wal-Mart demonstrates that Vlasic pickles aren't worth quite as much as Vlasic claims, and we're supposed to pity Vlasic and their investment in marketing, and scold Wal-Mart for acting in self-interest? Now that's laughable.

I really don't care whether it's a news site or a message board. It's fine with me if they all post their opinions. But, I also think it's okay for people to point out their hypocrisy. It's not slamming anybody.

When it comes to states' rights (see the 10th Amendment), you're either for or against. You can't claim states' rights in one case and deny them in another. The Constitution is written in rather plain language that most anybody should be able to understand.

Please read Thomas Sowell

Stop spreading urban legends that are known to be false.

Hi, taxes and the market are not the only things that effect property values. There are many other bad governmental polices that have an effect in this area. It is clear you need a refresher on them and on property rights in general I suggest starting with this article by Thomas Sowell.

This should keep you busy for awhile.