Slashdot Mirror

What about the vast sums of money and vast numbers of AQ fighters arriving in Iraq - am I imagining them?

Err... seems to have stopped the euro-pricing that was about to happen, doesn't it? Pretty good for America that crude is only ever bought and sold in dollars.

And yet, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Osama is a Saudi prince by birth. Saudi charities were funding terrorism. Saudi Arabia makes their women wear hoods, teach and endorse radical fundamentalist Islamic religion, and have no problem with slavery. Afghanistan was just a terrorist camp ground. By the time we got there, the terrorists were gone and the Taliban was left holding the bag.

So where did we go after Afghanistan? That's right, Iraq. Who's next? Iran maybe? We aren't going to win the war on terrorism, because we keep invading the wrong countries.

And where did you get the idea that China is the worlds largest polluter - "common knowledge" is that it is the US by a long golden chalk.

I stand corrected, I was just wandering around trying to find a reference to to worlds worst polluter and had great difficulty finding it. This material just isn't that commonly available - people not interested in it?

After great effort, I found this which contains the phrase "China is the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases, after the United States".

This is also worth a read - containing the line:
Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population.

I strongly agree with jeffehobbs above though, progress is progress with or without the US, China (which I didn't realize to my own discredit) and India (apparently).

Bravo! Spoken as a true liberal (which your post history confirms)! Get real. "Roads" are NOT primarily paid through corporate income taxes. They are paid for through GASOLINE TAXES and Teachers, Police Officers and Firefighters are primarily paid through REAL ESTATE TAXES
Which leaves open the question of where income taxes are going. But you're argument is that Government should be given MORE money.
Fucking moron.
(I choose to post this anonymously because this post is antithetical to the democratic party. Therefore my Karma would be slammed hard.)

For Democrats, Greens are the party which champions what Democrats used to: support for working people and people of color and protection of the environment

Well, I don't know about *numerous* per se - but, I do know about two offhand:

quoted from: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-03-music -downloading_x.htm

"Among the RIAA's recent targets is retiree Ernest Brenot, 79, of Ridgefield, Wash., who wrote in a handwritten note to a federal judge that he does not own a computer nor can he operate one."

and then there was...

quoted from: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N38/38riaa.38n.html

"MIT answered a subpoena from the record industry last night, naming Claudiu A. Prisnel '06 in response to the industry association's request for the name of a network user who, on June 27 from a computer at Theta Delta Chi, allegedly offered hundreds of music recordings over the KaZaA file-trading system, according to Prisnel and James D. Bruce, the vice president for information systems."

. . .

"Between the dates of May 25, 2003 and August 25, 2003 I have been travelling in Europe," he wrote to MIT attorney Mark DiVincenzo in an Aug. 30 letter to protest the release of his name, according to a copy of the letter he provided The Tech. "In particular, on June 27, at the time of the alleged infringement, I was in Romania."

As far as whether or not they won or lost, I'll leave that bit of research for you :-)

Cheers,

Judging from today's news, I guess those people are now disappointed.

This document is not an obvious fake, but it has fake written all over it.

Too bad the EU and Airbus just hate it enough how Boeing used to subsidize its commercial aircraft development with its government contracts.

Used to? I think the problem Airbus has is that they do (present tense).

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporat enews/2004-08-26-boeing-contract_x.htm

But the EU has all sorts of other sweet deals with Airbus that, if Boeing tried to get from the US, Airbus would be crying stinking Grey Poupon foul in the WTO courts.

Aside from starting a sentence wih but, the other mistake you make in trying to construct an argument is simply supplying facts, you'll need to cite sources.

The truth is that the EU has infact said it will cut subsidies to Airbus IF the US cuts the indirect subsidies to Boeing through government contracts. Despite the retoric spewing forth at election time what the EU is doing, they are doing under a trade agreement with the US. They're also prohibited from providing subsidies for construction, but Boeing just got 3.2 BILLION from Washington state as an insentive to build a plant there. That sounds like construction.

Not to mention alegations about the government subsedies in Japan. Which arn't an American problem, but are a Boeing problem.

http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbol s=NYSE:BA&story=200408311926_APO_V2984

Sweet, now I can just set up a video camera in front of my TV and not have to worry about any IR goggle toting Cinema Managers bearing down on me. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2003-05-05-pir acy-usat_x.htm

I'll debate you on the facts.

First, we have not killed thousands of innocents. Sure, maybe during Vietnam or the Korean War or World War II, but not during the Iraq wars. I'd like to see your source. The reason we don't hear about it is because it hasn't happened. That's the same reason why you haven't heard about the six billion dollars I made selling lemonade.

If you would like to know who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, look to Saddam Hussein. Look at the mass graves. (link, link, and link) Look at the torture he has inflicted. (link, link, link)

I don't know how that even compares to the limited number of casualties that the US Forces caused. It doesn't even compare with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, America as a country is pursuing justice. Already, one of the perpetrators has been heavily sentenced. The others will be punished shortly. At least they get a fair trial.

Now, I know I won't sway you with my words or my evidence, because you have already seen the evidence. You are like the monkey who refuses to see and hear the atrocities committed against the people in Iraq. You then turn around and make a mountain out of a molehill, comparing the abuse that some prisoners suffered at the hand of American soldiers to the torture and suffering that Saddam caused.

I looked for accurate data on the number of civilians killed in Iraq by American soldiers. There is no such number reported anywhere. And the numbers of civilians killed isn't even accurate. Some say 25,000. Others say 6,000. Which one is right? Why are they so different? It's easy. They are not accurate. No one has done an actual body count. No one has done a count where civilians were distinguished from terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi military. Unfortunately, you can't ask the dead whether they were innocent or a terrorist. And you can't tell by what clothes they were wearing or even their age.

Your lies stop here.

Java is not dying, despite what a lot of people think.

The following is a very good explanation of the real reasons.

Explanation.

When even with the info lower level agents get ignored because "terrorist" actions are merely part of the plan? something like a "new pearl harbor" like event And which is it again, when you are "following orders", do you investigate, or shine it on because some "superior" individual has connections with those you are supposedly investigating, so vital information gets ignored on purpose? Why is it, when someone with the legal and law enforcement cred of David Schippers, successful impeacher of a freekin president, successful chicago area mob prosecutor, can't even get word to ashcroft (I'm sure you heard of that gent) about upcoming bad news scenarios despite repeated and exhaustive attempts? Why is that, an "unfortunate intelligence failure"? Or was it because it was ON PURPOSE. Ignored, avoided on purpose?

Sorry, I'll be way way WAY more impressed when some white guys in suits and uniforms get indicted by a grand jury for some charges up to and including murder and treason. You can talk about "additional powers" then, once you effectively use the ones you already have, and a LOT more of you come forward like the small handful of TRULY brave and honest agents have,and stop being chicken for your careers over the nations safety. Follow your oath, not your paycheck in other words. Use your brain for something more than to absorb "commands". You're an agent, they are supposed to QUESTION things, not just blindly follow orders, they are supposed to deal in data, not be part of a massive coverup that's destroying a nation and imperiling the entire planet.

Nuhremberg established the precedent, "following orders" is no excuse for helping along high crimes and misdemeanors, and being as it's the internet age and some decent info is available, there's no excuse for remaining so uninformed other than laziness and an uncaring attitude and blind obedience and brainwashing.

Oh, the links? There's hundreds more, THOUSANDS more,just use google, 9-11, government prior knowledge is a good start. I'm not going to do your work for you, and if you had been paying attention even just on slashdot you would have already seen quite a few of them dropped, in many articles and in many comments.

Educate thyself before wanting to make all the US people some "enemy" to "investigate". We have had enough of the surveil/command/CONTROL aspect of this and the recent past US "regimes" and their (mostly) *mercenaries*. Stop being a stooge for them killers and thieves.

Here, I'll give you an easy one. How did WTC building 7 manage to fall down? Here's another easy one, bush and company, including rice, swore to the 9-11 "investigative commission" that they had "no idea that planes could be used for hijacking and then used as weapons" and etc.. uh huh. How do you explain terrorist hijacking scenario drills, one being run the same day as the attacks then? A COINCIDENCE? You smelling a rat yet? I hope so, I really do.. we need more honest cops, less blind order followers. I hope you are one of the former.

USA Today story from Sept. 3

(tig)

I'll take you up.

Hellooooo, 9/11, non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. This guy is basically saying that since Bush didn't want to invade before he had a good reason, he should not have wanted to after he got a good reason (9/11 and Saddam's non-compliance giving us sufficient reason to believe he was a threat being the good reasons).

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as the United States invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. The two were not related at all, as numerous bipartisan investigations have confirmed. That lie, more than anything else, is why Bush adminstration is despised. We can not trust this administration with the power of war.

On September 12, 2001, the administration was already drawing up invasion plans for Iraq; even though we were attacked from Afghanistan. It just doesn't make any sense. Their initial reaction wasn't to strike back at those who attacked us, but rather carry out their wet dream of converting the middle east to democracy at the barrel of a gun. As their report said, they would need "a cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to carry this out.

Now with the non-complience with resolutions:

The truth is, as Wolfowitz admitted, Iraq's WMD was just a convient excuse. An excuse that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless. The bogus "intellegence" we were being fed about Iraq was coming from dubious sources. Furthermore, during the rush to war, the intellegence was not vetted. Instead it shoved directly to Doug Feith and the ominously named "Office of Special Plans". But it wasn't simply all the intellegence about Iraq. It was sifted first. Anything that supported a reason to invade, was good. Anything that didn't was disregarded.

I can hear you now. "But EVERYONE thought he had WMD!". Not exactly. As subsequent investigations have determined, the western world's intellegence apparatus is an echo chamber. Chalabi had been telling the US whatever he thought would get the US to invade Iraq, so he could be setup as the new strongman. His reports were considered by many in the CIA to range from interesting to fanciful.

However there was one group that bought everything Chalabi said. The neocons. This group was still upset that Bush I didn't "finish the job" by invading Iraq back in 1991. (Bush I said in his memoirs that he didn't because the coallition of 100+ nations would fall apart if he did, and he was afraid of what would happen in Iraq after the invasion.) Chalabi enjoyed his new patrons. They gave him money, and he in return told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He hoped that one day they would take control of the White House, and the invasion would be on. He was right.

The neocons would ask the CIA what they knew about Chalabi's claims. Not having many sources in Iraq, the CIA would ask the countries we formerly considered allies (i.e. Europe), if they could check in to it. The allies, not having sources in Iraq either, would ask each other what they knew. The allies would then tell each other that they too had heard these reports from secret sources too. Of course, their secret source was us. The nations-formerly-known-as-allies would then say "Yeah, we've heard these reports from secret sources too." Q.E.D.

The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

As far as "etc." I have no idea what your "etc." could refer to, and I suspect you don't either.

"If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and w

Quit saying you can't vote for whatever candidate that you want, and just do it.

The issue isn't whether or not it's physically possible to mark a ballot for a third party. Such thinking is a deceitful red herring.

For chrissakes, fifty years ago Maurice Duverger showed that elections conducted by"first-past-the-post" principles tend -- by their very mechanics -- toward a political system that's perpetually dominated by two political parties.

Alternatives exist, to be sure. But it's more than disingenuous to suggest that malcontent against an artificial two-party state is somehow attributable purely to apathy and not also to what's nearly a mathematical certainty.

The system is rigged. (And not just for this reason and in this way.) What motivation have the present set of players to change it of their own volution?

It's strange, though. About 85% of the land area of Illinois contains primarily republicans, but it's really just the vote of Chicago that matters.

Pull up the county-by-county red-blue map from the 2000 Presidential election from here. It is clear that, with some small exceptions, we are becoming a country polarized along urban/rural lines. California, one of the bluest of states, is in reality blue only along the coast -- the much larger interior appears to be solidly red. While many such maps like to point out how many more square miles the red counties occupy, I prefer the estimate (without link at hand, darn it) that says over 60% of GDP is produced in the blue counties.

It's illegal in all 50 states (I'm assuming you're in the US). It often falls under the Peeping Tom laws but, there are also more stringent and specific laws in many places. In many states the person will become a registered sex offender, as they should be.

Here's a case from 2002. This story, dated August 2004, sounds very much like yours.

I think it would help just not to give all the electorate votes of a state to majority in that state, but instead split it up, like Colorado intends to, and Nebraska and Maine already do. Because let's face it, under the winner-take-all scheme, if your vote was not for the majority, it is effectively not counted.

No. The nonsense about widespread election problems is not grounded in facts and logic. Many groups have reported there were no problems and yet this is still brought up. Don't expect this (very politicaly useful) charge to go away just because some Europeans say it isn't true.

2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.

It all depends on which end of the process you are talking about. I would be stunned if there were more than a couple of instances of election problems at the polling places, on election day. Its all the work of purging the election rolls of "undesirables" (i.e., Democrats) that occurs months before the election that is the problem that is most often brought up. There is story after story about those problems, especially in Florida.

Sure, here's the New York Post's article.

Or did you want a legitimate source? Try USA Today.

Are you in Colorado? Then fight like hell to pass the referendum allowing electoral college votes to be assigned proportional to
the popular vote. Not in CO? Then fight for a similar ballot referendum in your state. This could be the beginning of the rise of
the Third Parties.

More info.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

"called for the vietnam vets for truth, (a public entity unconnected with GOP re-election campeign funding and thus out of 'Bush's command'"

except for the fact that their legal advisor worked on Bush's campaign until a few weeks ago, and only left the campaign because of pressure from media exposure.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ion/president/2004-08-25-bush-lawyer_x.htm

The controversy over funding is just the tip of the iceburg wrt the NCLB.

Actually, President Clinton DID sign the Kyoto protocol... he just did not bother submitting it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew that it would never pass. Even leading Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wrote President Clinton urging him NOT to sign the protocol, and noting that signing it would be contrary to the terms of a Senate resolution passed by a vote of 95-0. After leaving office, a number of Clinton aides spoke out against the protocol, acknowledging that it would be both more difficult and more expensive to comply with than they thought when they were in office. And the Democratic Party has dropped support for the Kyoto protocol from their party platform this year.

Why is it that when President Bush obtains the advice and consent of Congress to go to war he is criticized and ridiculed, but when President Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol in defiance of a unanimous Senate who tells him it will not consent to the treaty, he is praised?

The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery.

That's true... but did you mean to say so?

So why hasn't any hard evidence appeared over the past three and a half years?

The standard of evidence required by the NSA to demonstrate your place of residence at certain time is an interview with someone who knew you then. Cancelled rent checks won't cover it. They consider it inconcievable that someone could live/work somewhere for 6+ months without interacting with SOMEBODY who will remember him. In a closely-interactive group like a military unit, it's even less plausible that a person could have been present with nobody recalling him.

(There are many other problem's with Bush's service record then. His moving to Alabama well in advance of having a transfer approved, and his skipping of 3 physicals, each of which was absolutely mandatory for all Guardsmen)

Anyone with half a brain could successfully campaign against Bush on the issues alone.

Only if the voters have enough of a brain to care about the issues. And as broad interviews across the swing states have shown, the most popular reason to support Bush is "He stood firm against terrorism", while the typical pro-Kerry motivation is "Bush is a stupid-head".

There's a growing body of documentation about how voter apathy goes far beyond deciding to vote or not, and a distressing majority of those polled at the polls are entirely unaware of the issues at stake. (For example, less than 50% of USA voters can correctly answer "Which of the major parties is considered more conservative?") Why do they bother voting then? Entertainment value, actually- the same reason one plays the lottery, or roots for the home team even in a boring game. They want the chance to be on the winning side.

So few voters care about issues that the three most effective paths for a campaign are to push the opposition as either stupid, dishonest, or just unpleasant. Think back a bit- Reagan won on pleasant, Dukasis lost on unpleasant (tank-riding) and stupid (furlough), Bush lost on stupid (economy down) and dishonest ("Read my lips"), then Dole lost on unpleasant (he's a zombie), and finally Gore lost with unpleasant (he's a robot). So the trend is that looks & charm is the dominant "issue". All indications are that Bush will win this year, because he's got pleasantness sewn up, and he's managed to not only neutralize the stupidity area, but actually transform it into a boost to his perceived honesty ("Bush wasn't lying about Iraq- that Saddam tricked him is all")

(Rarely, they can squeeze in a "checkbook" issue if it seems to impact personal finance, but the irony there is that presidents really have little influence on jobs or growth)

This writeup describes the types of conditions you're likely to find in one of these prisons. Could be worse, could be better especially if you compare it to house arrest.

A.) Doubt it, eh? There are tons of stats about SUV safety, do a search.

B.) That's quite obvious, which is why I never said that. Here's a tidbit about the personality of your average SUV driver, however. There are MANY more articles like this, and you can be sure that it's for a reason. I didn't say all SUV drivers drive like assholes, but I (and a whole lot of others, whether you like it or not) would say a disproportinate and noticable amount are, which is dangerous when coupled with A)

C.) This is a product of you thinking that because I'm against SUVs that I'm a greenie and on top of that I'm trying to decide "what other people need." Although I think one of the reasons SUVs are obnoxious is the amount of crap they put out in the air which isn't necessary, that's just one piece of the whole. The reason you think that is because you're trying to over-simplify things to something you can contend with, IE we're all just tree-hugging hippies that are looking to take your freedom of choice away or something more or less dramatic.

I got rear ended by a Toyota one time, does that make all Toyota drivers simpletons?

You told me I should press my case, I gave them to you, and now you try to turn it around? Although this may sound redundant, the implication was never made that ALL SUV drivers are simple assholes, so it's sort of silly to make that sound as if that was my argument.

Are all drivers of four banger rice burners assholes?

Obviously no, but they're another category where the ration of assholes to non-assholes is disproportionate. Your contempt at "four bangers" is rather amusing and insightful. Many of them undoubtedly will out-perform an SUVs acceleration and top speed, ironically.

So at the risk of repeating myself, making Sierra Club class envy propaganda...

You didn't answer my question, and are indeed repeating yourself. I'll ask again - what is there to envy about an SUV? Performance? No. Cost-effectiveness? No. Safety? No. The fact that they cost so much? No, anyone who knows anything about SUVs know that the profit margin SUV manufacturers make is the highest in the mainstream industry, so if anything an SUV makes you look you've been had. Besides, SUVs are all over the roads. They are FAR from rare. It would also be wrong to state that in order to own an SUV, you must be rich, and thus non-SUV drivers might be envious of the money, but they can be seen quite regularly driving past high school and college parking lots, owned by kids.

Is it possible to you that people hate SUVs not because they're jealous or "greenies?" Hell, look at wikipedia's listing of "SUV." Half of the entry is about the opposition to it. This isn't the case of insane greenies or envy you are apparently convinced that it is. You're either ignorant, uninformed, or naive if you think the opposition exists because of envy or "greenies." And once again, if this were a class envy thing, then you would be hearing LOUDER opposition about actual performance/sports cars that are actually good performers and look sleek. That's something to envy, however the opposition isn't there. How do you account for that?

Speaking of "greenies," it's a bit ironic and bewildering that you criticized my argument because somehow you figured I was saying all SUV drivers are assholes, yet you've made it clear that you think the opposition is nothing but "greenies" and (chuckle) envious folks. Interesting.

...into a government program is incompatible with a free country.

It would probably be enough if the government would classify SUVs as they should be, which is NOT as light trucks. It would also be nice to see the correct perception of safety in an SUV in the public. Make them illegal? Can't say I'd miss them,

According to the Fortune 500 list, M$ and Apple are resp. :

46. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., 47, $32.187
301. Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, Calif., 300, $6.207

billon dollar businesses. - Now according to Steve Jobs himself (from WWDC2004) the ipod's have a +50% market share (mesured by units!).

- - -

Ok, now let's do some *simple* math! :).

$58 Billions * 0.50+ = $APPLE.MP3.PROFITS+

${APPLE.MP3.PROFITS}+ + 6.207 = $35.207+ Billions

- - -

say, if M$ has to compete with the 'Linux Desktop' for markes share(s), which *let's assume will* hamper them from further increasing *much* ... APPLE would by 2008 at least catch up to them ... simply by not competing for the 'Desktop' :-)

Or those who distract their airspace watch from airplanes crashing into buildings by ordering up full-scale airplane-crashing-into-building studies. "[I thought,] is this part of the exercise?" -- Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold of Tyndall AFB to ABC News (Incidentally, Uncle Prescott Bush Jr has longstanding business interests in China. He went on a major business trip there right after Tiananmen. "There are big opportunities in China, and Americans can't afford to be shut out." (qv) Herbert the Pervert followed 10 days later. Prescott met with Aoki Corp, later deemed by the Senate Foreign Relations C'tee to have bribed Noriega ~M$4. You want something to condemn, look at the hedge. Lastly: We may not have been given an accurate Tiananmen story at the time.)

What I figured had happened (closer to your latter scenario than the former) now turns out to have been precisely what did happen, and that's precisely what I meant by "coordinated". If you want to further quibble with my usage, so be it.

Note that there's no scandal in your second scenario -- that's how the news business works. No scandal until your big story turns out to based on a forgery, at which point all involved parties owe us a bit of candor.

Home video sales now account for nearly 60 percent of Hollywood's revenue. DVD sales are not only the fastest growing part of the movie business, they're changing the way Hollywood does business.
He says DVD sales can save a film like "Dark Blue," which pulled in a modest $9 million in theaters. "It actually did more revenues in DVD than it did at the box office," says McGurk, because the DVD market is a man's world.
Blockbuster films now often sell more than 10 million DVDs in the U.S. alone. And that's at $20 a pop. And with DVD players still in only half of American homes, Hollywood believes those soaring sales will just get hotter still.

Finding Nemo grossed $320 million from DVD sales in 2003. "Consumers spend more money on the DVD version of almost every movie than they do on that same movie in theaters, including blockbusters such as The Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean" (USA Today). CNN/Money reports that the movie studios "pocket roughly 80 cents of every dollar on each DVD sold, a take well above the 50 cents for each dollar at the box office" and The Hollywood Reporter says that "studios are earning about 60% more upon initial release from video sales of theatrical feature films than they did during the VHS-only era". So, not only are video sales up overall, DVDs are more profitable for the media companies than VHS or the box office.

And the future looks rosy as well. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has a sample chapter of their Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2004-2008 report online which says:

We project filmed entertainment spending in the United States, EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa), Asia/Pacific, Latin America, and Canada will rise at a 7.5 percent compound annual rate, reaching $108 billion in 2008 from $75.3 billion in 2003. EMEA will be the fastest-growing region, rising by 10.3 percent compounded annually to $36.9 billion in 2008 compared with $22.6 billion in 2003. The U.S. market will expand at a 6.3 percent rate, from $34.3 billion in 2003 to $46.6 billion in 2008. Spending in Asia/Pacific will increase from $13.3 billion to $17.3 billion in the five-year period, growing at a 5.4 percent compound annual rate. Filmed entertainment in Latin America will total $1.6 billion in 2008, up from $1.3 billion in 2003, representing a 4.6 percent gain compounded annually. Spending in Canada will rise from $3.9 billion in 2003 to $5.6 billion in 2008, 7.7 percent compounded annually.

This is anything BUT piracy eating into sales. Mr. Lucas, would you like to change your answer?

WASHINGTON - CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

WASHINGTON - CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

and yet, we're still trudging around Iraq, looking for the Nukes that don't exist.

Oh?

Suggestion: extract head from ass, open eyes, look around.

lie:
"From: Bill Gates
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Microsoft and Subsidiaries: All FTE
Subject: Trustworthy computing

when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security."

truth:
Windows Viruses up Sharply in 2004

And for good measure:
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." - President Bush, 3/16/03

vs.

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994" - David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector 3/22/04

Those are the simple facts. Some of us are human enough to get emotional about these lies about security, and the catastrophes we accept when we accept the lies. What kind of emotions keep *you* perpetuating them?

No no. It would be the Beatles that would sue her.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2004-09-19-beatles_x.htm

...or make sacrifices so you can afford to live downtown somewhere with everything packed together.

Microsoft does everything it can to offer the best possible value for customers' software investments. We believe that the product's features and functionality, along with continuous improvements, are more than enough to justify its price.

Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel?" I can contribute to that!

How do you feel about the fact that Bush's education improvements in Texas were at least partly Fraud?

How do you feel about George W. Bush holding hands in public with Saudi Arabia's "Prince Bandar", especially since al Qaeda's prime complaint is that the U.S. government is interfering with Saudi politics, and the U.S. government is, in fact, doing that, partly through this man the Bush family calls "Bandar Bush"? (See the network TV footage shown in the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the hand holding.)

How do you feel about the fact that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2? The U.S. government seems to create fear to get support from the people, so rich people can profit from violence.

How do you feel about the fact that Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. leaders in history? Bush says he has been arrested 3 times, once for the very serious crime of driving while drunk. Cheney has been arrested at least twice, both times for driving while drunk:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder.

How do you feel about the fact that family life is so stressful in the U.S. that children turn to drugs to try to cope:

"The daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested... ... while allegedly trying to buy the anti-anxiety drug Xanax." (Jeb Bush is George W. Bush's brother.) Noelle Bush was arrested and charged with fraud, not for trying to buy marijuana, but for trying to buy an anti-anxiety drug. Why was she willing to break the law to buy a drug to become less anxious? Because living in her family is very anxiety-producing?

George W. Bush's daughters seem to be imitating their alcoholic father. The BBC article, Alcohol sentence for Bush daughter, says that "Barbara and Jenna Bush were both charged." Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.

I'll let you have my presidential vote this November if you pay my federal taxes for this year. Maybe I should sell my vote on E-Bay.
Or maybe not.

Don't drink six beers at one time? Brilliant!

The tech industry crash might not have been caused by Clinton, but it started on his watch.

I'll agree with you on this point. But there are smart things you can do, as president, to minimize the impact of such a crash, and then there are dumb things you can do that will only exacerbate the situation.

My brother (who works for IBM) recently sent me an article on USA Today about the system IBM and Honda have developed for speech-interface with a GPS-enabled navigation computer. Really cool stuff.

For those of you who haven't read it, check out The Unfinished Revolution by Michael Dertouzos. I don't agree with all of his analysis (he was a little lacking in pragmatism on some points), but overall this book was very insightful. This book, along with Weaving the Web by Tim Berners-Lee, caused a big paradigm shift in my thinking about computer technology.

It turns out that USA Today has "copies" of the same documents. Except they aren't the same.

USA Today's Versions

And

CBS's versions

Look them over c arefully. One of the memos which is reproduced is REDACTED to hide an address, the other is not at all. Also notice that you can see through the redaction, which means the redaction was done AT THE POINT OF SCANNING because I have NEVER seen a photocopy which had enough resolution to show through a black marker.

Face it. The whole thing is a very clumsy forgery.

Someone else already pointed out that NK has not signed the non proliferation treaty

Delivering broadband access to "underserved" areas will not be complete as long as there are politically connected telecom companies. This is what I'm talking about.

See the article in the Boston Globe: Authenticity backed on Bush documents. I think I did quite well, considering I am not a full-time document investigator.

Denial is thinking George W. Bush is not a recovered alcoholic, and that he is able to be fully mentally engaged in being a leader. Don't you see the puzzled look on his face as he reads things that are written for him?

Have you ever seen the "presidential moments" on the Late Show with David Letterman? These are network footage of George W. Bush doing something really inappropriate. According to Letterman, and a lot of people, George W. Bush doesn't really want to be there. That seems right to me. Bill Clinton, a child of severe alcoholics and severely affected by it, but not an alcoholic himself, at least has an interest in government. To me it seems that GWB has no real interest.

Look at the recent presidents:

Richard Nixon: Twenty-four of the top officials in his administration went to jail for extremely serious crimes. He himself was pardoned.

Jimmy Carter: A good man, but far too inexperienced at running large organizations to be president.

Ronald Reagan: An ACOA, Adult Child of Alcoholics. His father was a severe drunk, and very abusive. Reagan exhibited a lot of the characteristics of ACOAs.

George H. W. Bush: Raised an alcoholic. His grandchildren have severe problems with drugs. Life in the Bush family is so stressful that the children turn to drugs to try to cope:

"The daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested... ... while allegedly trying to buy the anti-anxiety drug Xanax." (Jeb Bush is George W. Bush's brother.) Noelle Bush was arrested and charged with fraud, not for trying to buy marijuana, but for trying to buy an anti-anxiety drug. Why was she willing to break the law to buy a drug to become less anxious? Because living in her family is very anxiety-producing?

George W. Bush's daughters seem to be imitating their alcoholic father. The BBC article, Alcohol sentence for Bush daughter, says that "Barbara and Jenna Bush were both charged." Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?

Bill Clinton: Severely affected by the fact that both of this parents were violent alcoholics. President Clinton would often seem like he was lying even when he wasn't.

George W. Bush: A recovered alcoholic. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder.

According to his wife Laura Bush and George W. Bush himself, she threatened to leave him because of his drinking.

Denial is thinking that all of this doesn't matter. Denial is thinking that the U.S. does not have a leadership problem.