Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps the weeks following a terrorist attack are not the best time to write legislation regarding what to do about terrorism.

"Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th"

[---]

"it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)"

link

East Indians comprise a good deal of labor for the Middle East I would guess they work hard to become merchants in the Middle East as well. - it's just a much harder road.
Many come as laborers through brokers and are exploited. A good deal of US support workers are hired this way and are exposed to very dangerous conditions in Iraq and are less defended than U.S. soldiers since they are cheap and don't count in the body count. http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/printer_101305LA .shtml

How about a court case instead of a study?. And before you start whining about it being a partisan website; truthout only reprinted this article from the Associated Press.

Another, much-noted accomplishment also has to do with civil liberties. In 2004, Roberts upheld the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who was handcuffed by transit police on the Washington Metro system for eating a single French fry. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," he wrote. Yet, he determined that the cops didn't violate the girl's rights under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches.

I know that there's a difference between unreasonable search and siezure and unreasonable punishment, but I think that the RIAA may be hoping that he will side with them if such a case were ever brought before the supreme court.

What makes you so sure they were not fighters? Source?

Good question. According to Channel 4 news, a doctor at a Fallujah hospital said they were fleeing civilians. The Pentagon at the time was said to be investigating. I would not trust the US military if they told me they were fighters, nor would I neccesarily trust the Local Iraqis. Again all we can really trust is the footage.

The footage was shot at night and I don't know of any civilians in their right mind who would rome around "mob style" in a KNOWN battle zone.

We'll I don't know if it was day or night. It's thermal and I can't make out any time in the footage, so it's difficult to tell. Actually, it makes more sense for anyone to try to move at night, civilians or otherwise. If your neighborhood was being bombed, you might not behave rationally either. I doubt any people in Fallujah were at all "in their right mind".

The pilot says "We have numerous individuals on the road. Do you want me to take those out?" to which the response is "Take'em out". It does not seem that the crowd has been positively identifed as fighters at all. I've seen plenty of footage of rebels and they tend not to wander around in groups like that in urban areas. For one thing, if you need to open fire, it's no good if you're all standing in front of each other. Fighters tend to spread out. Also in urban areas you stick to the walls rather than wandering down the middle of the street. If these people are fighters, they're pretty stupid. From the footage it's not possible to identify any weapons, and from that distance I doubt if the pilots could either. At no point does anyone ask whether they were armed or posing a threat, which is surely important in a civilian area.

There seems to be about 25-30 people in the footage, and there is nothing unique in scale about 30 people being killed by mistake. The US military have admitted killing similar quantities of civilians on a number of occasions, and not just in Iraq, but also Afghanistan.

Obviously mistakes will happen, but there really does seem to be a wanton disregard for civilians. It's a case of shoot first, ask questions later. It's these tactics that have resulted in the increased insurgency (or resistance depending on your viewpoint).

dude, what "global warming nutjob"s? Even *BUSH* admits it.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cb0c3b94-ee84-11d9-98e5-0 0000e2511c8.html
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/07/ 04/bush_makes_climate_change_concession.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050704/bushcli mate.html
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/070705EB.shtml
http://www.geopoliticalreview.com/archives/001076b ush_admits_global_warming.php
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/09/g8_global_ snoring/

Although I admit, it's better to say "climate change" because temps drop in some areas and raise in others so the "average" is misleading (even though it's going up), but that's really splitting hairs.

You know I am in Australia, just changed to 100% wind power from my utility, costs me $16 AUD extra per month. People aren't changing because they don't want to change, because they are lazy. It's easier to keep spending money on junk food, cigarettes etc.

What's needed in the short term is:
Quick move to pebble bed nuclear with serious money (actual money, put aside in an account that can't be touched, not empty promises of safety) invested in stable multi-thousand year storage. Change all older cars over to ethanol and biodiesl. Ban/Tax out of existence SUVs for non-farming/ultraremote citizens rather than give them tax breaks like americans do ("light truck" catergory so it isn't classified as a "car") . Solar water heaters. Carbon trading (put a real price on a commons and it will be worth money). Put money geosequestering remaining coal/fossil fuel plant pollution. And oh, I dunno, plant a tree for every one you cut down? Not an unreasonable proposition I think.

Long term projects:
Public Transport, money put into getting wind and solar up to 40% of power provision in a decade and develop ways to manage their flutuating supply. Serious money into hydrogen and battery tech. Control population growth - why should there be infinite population growth on a finite planet? Sure you can increase the population when you terraform mars, but there should be a cap on earth's population, there is nothing morally good about having more people, it just means we all get a thinner slice of the pie. We passed six billion in 1999 we are almost at 6.5 billion in 2005, totally unsustainable rate of growth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

There is massive evidence of fraud in Ohio. See Rep. Conyers' report: http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

That's a great article...too bad you couldn't be bothered to credit the author, Joe Conason.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091105B. shtml

oops, sorry. You're right, I am a dumbass, but it WAS all over the American news. Certainly on CNN. Here's a few references:
http://tinyurl.com/7odh9
http://tinyurl.com/8x2n5
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090905D.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060805I.shtml

          Climate: Doubt Is Lifted

          The academies of science of all the G-8 countries, as well as those of the three largest oil consumers among developing countries - China, India, and Brazil, made an unprecedented political gesture yesterday when they signed a common declaration in London asserting that the doubt entertained by certain people with regard to climate change does not justify inaction, and that, on the contrary, a planetary action plan to conjure this global threat away must be embarked upon immediately.

          The declaration by the best scientists of the most important countries of the planet, whose spokesperson did not hesitate to stigmatize the
United States' inaction, was immediately followed by a declaration from the American president, George W. Bush, in Washington...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml
By Marjorie Cohn Wednesday 24 August 2005
Interview with former General Janis Karpinski

Karpinski says she did not know about the torture occurring in Cellblocks 1-A and 1-B at Abu Ghraib because it took place at night. She didn't live at Abu Ghraib, and nobody was permitted to travel at night due to the dangerous road conditions. The first she heard about the torture was on January 12, 2004. She was never allowed to speak to the people who had worked on the night shift. She "was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren't assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them."

When Karpinski inquired, "What's this about photographs?" the sergeant replied, "Ma'am, we've heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma'am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking." When Karpinski asked to see the log books, the sergeant told her that the Criminal Investigation Division had taken everything except for something on a pole outside the little office they were using.

"It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things," Karpinski said. "And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld's. And it said, 'Make sure this happens' with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing they had. Everything else had been confiscated."

Karpinski tried to get information, but "nobody knew anything, nobody - at least, that's what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it," Karpinski said. But in a later plea bargain he entered into after the Taguba Report came out, "Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees."

The first time Karpinski got any clarification about the photographs was January 23, 2004. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into Karpinski's office and showed her the pictures. "When I saw the pictures I was floored," Karpinski said. "Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn't imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs." ....
Karpinski said, however, "The truth has been uncovered, but it's been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation." She added, "McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there've been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld's fist."

Really, your argument is so stupid. Google is a business. Even if they want to change Chinese politics (they don't have to), there is *no way* to do it that doesn't require them to cooperate -- at first

First off, neither your post nor mine was a troll, nor did either deserve a downmod. We just disagree. I wish that was tolerated more by slashdot moderators. That said, you were being a jerk about it.

The reason I expect Google to try to change Chinese politics is (a) because China's government is evil. Really, really evil. Google has an explicit "don't be evil" policy, and, even if they didn't, there is precedent for punishing companies that cooperate with evil regimes.

Part of the problem is Google's arrogance. They think that they're so great that the harm done to the Chinese people by not having access to Google would exceed any potential political benefit. The other argument being made here is the opposite--Google is nothing special and could just as well be replaced by a Chinese government-run search engine. Both of these arguments are wrong. As the best search engine around, Google has some leverage, but it's not like Chinese peasants will die if they can't check their Gmail accounts. If building a Google-quality search engine was easy, then their US competitors would have done so.

US corporations can make a difference in China's policy, by making it clear that they won't cooperate with human rights abuses. It won't always work, but it will help.

The ethical justification for allowing a free trade relationship with a repressive regime is to promote positive change. That will only happen if we grow a backbone.

Just a thought--China actively violates a vast array of US internet and intellectual-property related laws (think spam, widespread commercial piracy, hacking attacks, etc.). Why don't we try to actively subvert their "Great Firewall"? Imagine what the geniuses at Google could do if they put their minds and hearts into it...

It's more complicated than just the price of crude oil...witness:

Your breakdown doesn't in any way refute my point. Instead of making personal attacks please concetrate on refuting my claim...I was honestly hoping for some information.

-the fact that oil refineries generally are working at capacity, and the "left" won't let any more be built

Are you suggesting that demand has increased almost 300% in 5 years?

-the fact that only a fraction of the crude oil used by the US is made into gasoline...the rest goes into plastics, heating oil, jet fuel, steel, asphalt, tar, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, cosmetics, etc.

gasoline prices are an indicator of oil prices, we're talking about oil here. Regardless of how it is used, the oil people are making the profit.

-the fact that 31% of the cost of gas is TAXES

Basic math, if you increase the price of the thing you're taxing the other 68% of the 'cost of gas' is still going directly into the coffers of those selling the product. I.e., higher cost==more money.

-the fact that refineries are forced by environmentalists to make many different kinds of gasoline for the canadians, the midwesterners, the east coast-ers, etc.

And this is relevant to this discussion how?

-the fact that plenty of idiots drive huge vehicles with huge engines...BY THEMSELVES, WITH NO PASSENGERS OR CARGO!

This was also true in 1998 when regular gas was $0.86 a gallon in Georgia, 6 years later it's now $2.25 a gallon. Driving habits haven't changed, and are not in any way responsible for the price increase.

And how is ANY of this Bush's fault?

None of what you brought up is Bush's fault, but that's because you brought up completely irrelevant issues. My post was about who is making money from high oil prices.

This is not the only case. The same 'Rumsfeld processing' happened in Sweden, Italy and some other countries. The NYtimes had an article on these practices a while back: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/053105Y.shtml

Probably this is just a trick by a Merrill Lynch publicist, who found a way to get free publicity. Or, maybe it is a way to distract people from some fraud involving the Taiwanese firm and Merrill Lynch.

Otherwise the story just doesn't make sense. To believe the story, Fubon cuts loss to NT$50 mil. in NT$8 bil. mistake, as it was written, you have to believe that the Taiwan firm hires inexperienced people, gives them little training, and does not review their large trades.

Do you really believe that a low-level employee spent a quarter billion dollars because of a keystroke error? In any case, the people who should know don't believe the story. Shares of "Fubon Securities' parent firm Fubon Financial Holding rose by 0.47%".

According to the U.S. government's SEC department, corruption of the media is not the only corruption from Merrill Lynch: SEC Charges Merrill Lynch, Four Merrill Lynch Executives with Aiding and Abetting Enron Accounting Fraud.

The U.S. government's Justice Department says, Three Top Former Merrill Lynch Executives Charged With Conspiracy, Obstruction Of Justice, Perjury In Enron Investigation.

There is general agreement that there has been no serious change in the U.S. government and big corporations like Merrill Lynch and Citibank. Apparently the only change is that they will be more careful in the future when they engage in deceptive practices. For an example of what has been written about this, see Iraq Could Produce Another Enron, by Nomi Prins. Ms. Prins wrote an excellent book about corporate and government corruption in the U.S., Other People's Money. At Powell's: Other People's Money.

Apparently most of what is written about the financial markets is fradulent in some way. Generally it fits into the category of "What we want you to think so that we can make more money". Employees and investors in the U.S. have lost billions of dollars due to fraud in the last few years.

The corruption is extremely widespread. Here are short reviews of 35 books and 3 movies about conflict of interest in the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. (To those who think there is little or no corruption: If you can't give any example of a book or article you have read that supports your view, please consider not commenting this time.)

Kunstler's book about the long decline down the tail of Hubbert's peak agrees with you.

Rather than an abrupt panic, he predicts a "Long Emergency".

While I agree with much of Kunstler's pessimism, I believe he dismisses the propects of technological innovations too quickly. Not that such innovations will be a panacea and enable everyone in the world to increase their per capita energy consumption to the exhorbitant levels of the American average, but that innovations will cushion what would otherwise be a very jarring hard landing.

Nuclear power will be an important ingredient to our energy future, but implementing it safely with a well-thought out plan for waste holding will require leadership with a strong record of credibility. An irrational debate between emotional extremists on both sides of the issue is going to be too costly for all of us.

Yup. Adam Cohen laid the smackdown on this bit of conservative hypocrisy. Republicans, just like Democrats, like the decisions they like and hate the decisions they hate - but at least the Democrats aren't two faced hypocrites about it.

Oh, and forgot the obvious one: be prepared to keep your data secure from police officers (both real ones and fake ones, especially on the phone) - be sure your setup is raid-proof, and find out about the relevant laws before you need to quote them.

(Naturally, that will make your setup one step more secure than completely clueless operators such as Rackspace -- does anyone actually knew who they gave their customers' servers to, other than that they claimed to be FBI? )

Don't worry about it until it actually happens -- which just might be never.

FCS's failure seemed likely to me years ago, and that impression has only been reinforced with time.

Let's just focus on doing constructive things, ourselves.

-- TTK

I hear ya. I would like to be told when something is an advertisement or actual reporting. All Media should be required to disclose if the producers of the content were paid to write it. In a blog it doesn't really make as much of a difference though, because there are many fact checkers to call BS when a reporting agency is lying. Still a good law to have though, provided it can be consistant with the first ammendment.

Goldman Sachs was right; a super-spike in oil prices to over US$100 bbl was not ony was possible but it has had far-reaching consequences for the economy and our culture.

After they signed an agreement with OnStar and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Google can now track private vehicles willing to be part of a car pool in this era of $5 gal gasoline. Registered users can offer or receive rides and collect or provide instantaneous electronic payments for their cost of the ride, minus a few percent for the new consortium.

Maximum Pain is Aim of New U.S. Weapon

So, when can I have my cellphone equipped with one of these?

I want a beam-gun with my cellphone!!

And yet there was a constitutional basis for doing so in the 14th amendment. I wasn't trying to argue states should have absolute soverignty. I have no problem, for example with Brown v Board of Education. What I was arguing against was the distortions the judiciary has introduced, like inventing rights that aren't there (as in Roe), widening the commerce clause to include any possible whim of Congress, and completely ignoring the 10th amendment.

You make some good arguments. But the way the law works is not on your side

I agree the law isn't on my side. But I think the Constitution is. We may have to disagree on that.

I'm just as offended by the constant barrage of abuse coming towards me and my liberal compatriots from such folks as Bob Jones, Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. It's been completely uncalled for, savagely divisive, and not helpful to the national discourse. Furthermore, just as it has with the left of today, it's going to come back and bite the right savagely in the ass a few years from now.

Those people don't speak for me. I was talking about the discussion on slashdot. I was talking about people who accuse other people of being trolls because they have a difference of opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by slandering your party. The point I was trying to make is the people at the top don't seem to have a grasp of what mainstream Christians believe. Until they do the party's doomed to being a regional party. As to Moyers specifically, how can a rational person write this? Moyers is hardly a fringe player, and his article isn't full of invective as much as just plain ignorance.

If he's really a loudmouth who can't keep it together, then the party leadership needs to get the message out.

This being said, science in the public domain is one of those areas where the 'adjusting' of facts can be especially pernicious. As a society, we need to make the smartest choices we can. In order to do this, we should base our inferences on the best evidence available. It is in this respect that this report is especially troubling.

What is perhaps worse is that the manipulation of truth seems to be a common strategy by the current administration. This is decidedly Orwellian. The site truthout.org continues to raise excamples. What worries me the most is that there is some evidence that the entire democratic process may have been under attack in the recent elections. I did some research myself on this issue, and was horrified by the conclusions (see http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~isb9112/election/). I may not be an American, but I am a scientist. When it is so easy to smell a rat, it amazes me that so many normal people and folks in the (allegedly 'liberal') media can swallow the utter rubbish they are told. Hopefully, the folks at /. are smart enough and well educated enough to see how dangerous these trends are.

Can anyone tell me why it's ok for the US to increase funding for bunker busting nuclear weapons but it isn't ok for other countries to research similar technologies.

when is the last time any arguement against his plan was a valid informed arguement instead of partisan, chicken Little sound-bites?

Check out Paul Krugman's latest NYT column (linked to truthout.org to avoid reg.) Do you have a valid information arguement against what he's saying? I would be curious to see if anyone has a projection that proves him wrong.

The DoD has been doing it for many many years and they will withold payment if somoene messes up

Not really, though.

Check out the Failure to Withhold Funds section of this document.

It's not a myth. Or is it that you can't bring yourself to question your worldview that perhaps the US government isn't as benevolent as you'd hoped? As it stands today, the US is unable to support itself with domestic oil alone. That means that in order to support its war machine, it needs foreign oil and gas to keep functioning. Do you think it's coincidence that Pakistan enjoys impunity over its KNOWN nuclear black market while Iran is vilified for even ATTEMPTING to gain nuclear know how?

Wake up and realise you no longer live in a nation built on free and fair values, but rather on global hegemony designed to ensure its supply of resources to maintain living standards at present levels at the expense of everyone else. Democracy and freedom don't factor into the equation. They are merely platitudes to keep the populace uneducated. Why not read a few other sites for a different viewpoint:

Counterpunch

Truthout

Information Clearing House

Cryptome

And no, the Democrats aren't any better. They're still fucking afraid to grow a pair and actually stand up for what's right.

Troll rate me, my bitches, see if I care! I use a Mac, too, so you can rate me for that also!

-FL

*sigh* ... WAKE UP!

What's the argument for treason?

Your question is badly phrased, but I will respond to what I believe the spirit of it to be...

The argument is a legal one, and resides under the Law. IANAL, but I do consider Samuel Adams to be "pretty decent for a domestic beer" so I'll try to hit the high points. Remember: You asked.

The argument for treason is that these corporations have been and continue to systematically engage in activities designed to destroy the Federal Government of the United States of America.

These behaviours are not patriotic (they go against the fundation of the Republic) or revolutionary (they don't fight to overthrow oppression), therefore, such actions against the state can only be treason.

The actions of these corporation are widespread and insidious, some of them taking place covertly at the State and Municiple level. Nevertheless, the pattern of effect is clear: while such actions and activities may support individual participants in the governmental process - they are as a whole determintal to the structure and operation of the government as an entity. and destructive to both the letter and the spirit of the Law.

(which government must be defined by the founding documents of the country - specificly the Constitution of the United States of America), and is particularly detrimental to the well-being of the population of the country, standing as they do to withhold or otherwise abrogate the fundamental Rights of the citizenry - Life, Liberty, etc as definned in the Constitution, etc etc...)

Your attempt to ask what verification of their actions exist is both disingenous and badly couched, as well ...

Diebold had machines involved in an election wherein the candidate of your choice did not win.

Diebold has been systematicly undermining democracy in the US for years. Look it up. Your implication that I may have supported a candidate in some "election" is spurious and beside the point.

Halliburton is a contractor involved in a military operation of which you do not approve.

Halliburton has been using their relationship with a US head of state to rob the US treasury and (further) endanger the lives of US citizens. You implication concerning my personal support for any given military operations is ill-concieved and not germaine to the issues surrounding Halliburton.

If you want to talk about my positions on the given points of own agenda, please be more direct. AC trolling makes you look like a girly man. Responding to it is poor form on my part.

But what is your evidence that treason has been committed, and what is your argument?

Well, the evidence is everywhere you look, but it is is not "mine", and I didn't claim to have it. I simply said it is "arguable" - which it is. Get your head out fo the boob toob and take a look around.

Diebold

Tthe Diebold issue is not (just) in California (the only part of it that CNN seems to be willing to report on - Fox doesn't appear to be covering it at all), it's nationwide (although it's being fought in Ohio, right now).

See also: http://www.nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

And as if that were not enough for an indictment (I've seen cases were far less was considered sufficient):

• blackboxvoting.org
• http://www.independentmediasource.com/
• Proof of Ohio Election Fraud Exposed
• http://www.everyweek.co

US Presidential Election's "Ohio Vote Apparently Hacked" http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121704Z.shtml

It is obvious that Bush actually lost. I wonder what the electorial college will do.

Having trouble finding exact bills- but got loads of press about it in the last few days:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?co ntentid=2727
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/BushRe cord.cfm
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000223.p hp
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-99 537
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120604G.shtml
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story .jsp?story=589884
http://bobwhitson.typepad.com/howlings/2004/12/bus h_sets_out_p.html

Curtis will be interviewed and information about what he says in front of the House Judicial Committee will be blogged at:

http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml

The buzz is he is going to be one of the people testifying at the Conyers hearing in D.C. This will be blogged here:

http://www.truthout.org/cblog.shtml

Everyone has been speculating like wild over whether this is true and what the implications are. The affidavit also provides backup evidence to anecdotal accounts that police patrols may have been placed in spots intended to suppress the Black vote in Florida, for instance. It's really about intent, more than means.

Has your organization dealt with this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111904W.shtml I'm curious as to the results of any research regarding these anamolies. Thanks.

There is also the statistical anamoly that was found by a group in Berkeley http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111904W.shtml that I think combined with a politician "asking" for a prototype of a vote fraud program are by themselves scenarios that make me uncomfortable...absolute power corrupts abosuletly, right?

There are some sites out there dedicated to watching out for election and general improper government issues: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/, http://www.buzzflash.com/, http://www.stolenvote.org/, http://www.truthout.org/

Ah... the Help America Vote peeps have just made things worse...

"Four years later, and none of the Florida problems were fixed. In fact, by all appearances, they spread from Florida to Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan and elsewhere. Worse, these problems only scratch the surface of what appears to have happened in Tuesday's election. The fix that was put in place to solve these problems - the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002 after the Florida debacle - appears to have gone a long way towards making things worse by orders of magnitude, for it was the Help America Vote Act which introduced paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines to millions of voters across the country."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804A.shtml

Sure, it's hard to track Delay's crimes without a scorecard. This particular abuse included not only DHS, but various other police and even antiWMD agencies, unacceptably drafted into a Texas parliamentary procedure. How Delay can stay afloat with all that baggage, and that autosatirical name, is testament mainly to the wisdom of the Texan electorate.

This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:

"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml

The original source document (PDF):
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Press.pdf

While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.

Funny you should mention talk radio. When Reagan took away the Fairness Doctrine, AM radio became a right-wing hatefest and continues to stay that way. Limbaugh, Savage, et al. AM used to be the cheap way to get ears, but now its partisan as all get out. Previous to Reagan's decision, AM (all broadcast media for that matter) had to present both sides of the issue in a serious manner. We are reaping the loss of the FD today with today's uber-consolidated corporate media. Just look at Sinclair which is going to air a ridiculous "documentary" on John Kerry on the 21st in a shameless attempt to alter the election. That ain't information, that's disinformation. Meanwhile Michal Moore lost his PPV F911 spot.

Double standard? You're soaking in it.

The fairness doctrine actually gave us Fair and Balanced coverage. Today, Fair and Balanced is a smartass tagline of the most biased network on television.

Thank you for holding Pudge to account. I have emailed him a copy of Krugman's column on the topic.

The Sydny Morning Herald ran a story a while back detailing accusations that Allawi, in his capacity of Prime Minister of Iraq, gunned down prisoners in cold blood. This story never made it over to the US, but I've never seen any specific refutations of it.

It is true that no one forced the Dems to act this way, but I didn't specifically criticize the Republicans. I mentioned the Bush team, and they are the ones who really scare me. Traditional conservative Republicans with their "small government" mantra are fine by me. The Bush team is not. So to answer you question, if the Democrats held the power the Republicans did, would they have rolled out a similar bill? No, a bill, but not one quite like this. For that matter, I don't think if conservative Republicans had been in power it would have been like this either. It's the neo-cons with their odd world view that is pushing the police state.

Communism and Fascism are natural political enemies. It was Communists that went off to the gas chambers along with the Jews, Gypsies and Gays systematically. Communists in the US during the rise of Hitler wrote that American Fascism, if it were to rise, would have a theocratic form of nationalism. The GOP certainly has been running for the theocratic vote.

Remember that the fascists tried to get General Butler to execute a coup d'etat against Roosevelt in the 30's. The also campaigned to leave Hitler alone. Many wealthy people, including Edward VIII of England, were personal friends of Hitler. These were the people who believed in things like Social Darwinism.

Most of the descendents of these people are now in the GOP. They tend to trend more libertarian except for Corporate Welfare, they believe that by vitue of their wealth, they are better people than the rest of us slobs. They see the theocrats as a tool to be used for their rise to power.

Anyway, here are some articles:

Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis
Neo-fascism and the religious right
The Danger of American Fascism
Facts and Fascism by George Seldes

As wrong as communists are, they're right about one thing, Fascists.

" but I think it's sleezy on Moore's part to imply it was an intentional act on the part of Bush to win the election."

Why? Cos the republicans are too ethical to try and surpress voting by african americans?.

IF they can call in death threats to stop vote counting they can erase voters of the lists.

>> Done.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to be arguing with someone who knows nothing and certainly doesn't know they're humiliating themselves with a startling amount of stupidity? This, perhaps, goes beyond your inability to comprehend the mass question regarding DU ordinance. Where in that link does Hans Blix say anything about Iraqis not experiencing freedoms and opportunities? Your link suggests the exact opposite! When Blix said, "It's positive that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone" what exactly do you think he was talking about? Presumably the fact that the Iraqi people now have access to freedoms they haven't experienced in decades.

Clearly you must be the brightest bulb in your family. There are two possibilities here. Perhaps you simply lacked the intellectual capacity to understand that the issue was whether or not you were a first class moron for saying that the Iraqi people are experiencing new freedoms and opportunities, not whether the war was the "right" or "good" thing to do. I explicitly stated that I wasn't addressing that question because it is too early to judge. What I challenged was your incalculably stupid suggestion that the Iraqis are not experiencing new freedoms and opportunities. You can't find a single person who agrees with you on that precisely because it is one of the dumbest things any human has ever said in the history of the world.


>> Oh?

Ok, I can see where that article might have misled someone as simple-minded as you are, but Senator Clinton didn't actually say that women were better off under Saddam. Look at the pdf file of the full transcript of that speech at the Brookings Institution. The portion in question is on page 19. Here is the relevant text:

"We also have to do more on women's rights and roles. And I have been deeply troubled by what I hear coming out of Iraq. When I was there and met with women members of the governing councils and local--of the national governing councils and local governing councils in Baghdad and Kirkuk, they were starting to express concerns about some of the pullbacks in the rights that they were given under Saddam Hussein. He was an equal opportunity oppressor, but on paper women had rights; they went to school; they participated in the professions; they participated in government; and business and, as long as they stayed out of his way, they had considerable freedom of movement.

Now, what we see happening in Iraq is the governing council attempting to shift large parts of civil law into religious jurisdiction. This would be a horrific mistake and especially for it to happen on our watch. And I have spoken to the White House about this on several occasions. I appreciated Ambassador Bremer speaking out about the need to involve women. But we must go much further. I would like to see a statement from the President. I would like to see a much greater emphasis that we will not have become the vehicle by which women's rights in Iraq are turned back."

Notice the following things if you have the mental capacity to understand them:

#1) She spoke with women on local and national governing councils, councils that didn't even exist under Saddam. Therefore those women obviously have not only gained access to freedoms and opportunities they didn't have before, they are exercising them.

#2) Senator Clinton is talking about Iraqi women's concern about what might happen in the future, based on worries about implementation of sharia in places like Afghanistan under the Taliban. That hasn't happened yet, and presumably won't. The very fact that women are on the governing councils strongly suggests that to be a flight of fancy given that any anti-female attitudes necessary for

Show me any link that shows any of those people saying that Iraqis haven't seen an increase in freedoms and opportunities

Senator Clinton not only didn't say what you claim she said

under 200,000 U.S. troops were involved with Iraq this time around....

You have no idea what you are talking about

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one skeptical enough to actually look up the numbers myself.

Ha ha.