Slashdot Mirror

The Bush administration is also manipulating the media: Bush Spent $1.6 Bil. on 'Spin'. The practice is illegal: Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal. The Bush administration believes that it can break laws: Bush challenges hundreds of laws. "Spinning" is an overly gentle word for lying. An October 24, 2006 Washington Post story, Spinning the Course explores a few of the lies which attempt to corrupt what the voters learn about their government.

That paragraph is from a summary of Bush administration corruption I wrote because I wanted to do more than just vote: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation. I hope other people will write their own summaries.

According to the WP, the FY 2007 bugdet for welfare is only about 600 billions, and being cut all the time, whereas defence and homeland security are being increased. In a few years they will be on par.

The North Koreans probably consider it just the cost of doing business. The Soviet Army used to routinely kill or injure a certain percentage of their soldiers while training with live chemical weapons. As it is, the North Koreans don't seem to be bothered by large numbers of their population starving to death or suffering severe malnutrition right now, just so long as they can keep spending their hard currency on moving their nuclear weapons and missile programs along. They know what they are doing since they conduct experiment on prisoners with lethal agents in their death camps. (They do both chemical and biological experiments.)

It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long. Drudge reported this morning that they're prepping another nuke test, and it's a well-known fact that they've been developing chem and bio weapons for years. A new Hitler has risen, and we are so busy looking elsewhere that we either haven't noticed or don't care.

Permanent, in the case of the PATRIOT Act, means "not set to expire". The PATRIOT Act is set to expire every few years. This means that a majority of congress is needed to extend it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/09/1534234.shtml ?tid=158&tid=103
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/11/AR2005071101359.html

There have been repeated attempts to make it permanent, or at least make many of the provisions of it permanent.

Yes a majority of congress is required to make that happen, but it IS their goal. The President is also taking the legally disputed position that his office has always had the ability to circumvent the FISA court and order warrant less wiretapping. Rather than try to get a new law passed (temporary or not), that position makes it something that is permanent (albeit illegal according to most experts).

Back to this case, the president is asserting that he is able to order the opening of any mail (and detain anyone, tap any phones, etc) because he is a wartime president and will only do so in emergencies. However we are engaged in a war that almost by definition cannot ever end, and we only have his word (no legal agreement) that he will not use these powers in non-emergency (or even non-terrorism related) reasons.

Finkployd

Finkployd

The problem with Bush's wiretapping program is that he never got warrants, and never had probable cause to get a search. His agents never went to the FISA court that was specifically designed for these cases and rarely ever rejects a warrant request. Because, like I said, warrants can be granted retroactively there is no argument based on urgency against getting a warrant, and it is important to be aware of this when defenders of this policy bring up emergency situations. The only reason not to get a warrant from FISA is because there was no Probable Cause basis for the search, FISA would therefore not have granted a warrant, and the search was unreasonable and hence un-Constitutional.

Actually, Bush did get warrants because of the wiretapping program. Remember the primary target is known enemies of the US making calls with people inside the US. Once the FBI wants to make the person inside the US a primary wiretap target, they must get a warrant. Note that FISA judges stated outright they would not grant FISA warrants to the FBI based solely on NSA leads:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html

"The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen."

It seems to me that this is a minor point. All the judges are saying is that the FBI must get some sort of evidence of suspicious activity beyond a NSA lead before they go after a FISA warrant. It seems to me that if the NSA catches enough phone activity to a primary tap target outside the US to get flagged, that would be enough to follow up.

Remember even with a normal wiretap, your call can be monitored if you call a target of a wiretap. This would not cause the police to also ask for a tap on your phone, unless they found that you were being complicit in a crime. At that point they would have to go back and get yet another warrant for you. This apparently is exactly how the NSA wiretaps work. The NSA does not need warrants for battlefield taps. Civil courts have no jurisdiction over anything that happens in the battlefield. This is what the WaPo article was about. It was showing that judges are granting warrants based on NSA taps and not the NSA taps themselves. The judges were speaking out and saying they would not grant the warrant solely on NSA intel alone.

1. Yet another reason to use encrypted email
2. Yet another reason to impeach him
3. Yet another reason to abolish presidential signing statements
4. Yet another reason to 'not trust the government'

Just think of what this guy could have done with a net connection -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/12/12/AR2006121201695.html

"But not always. In one Loudoun incident that has become infamous among area police departments, a man stole a bait vehicle and was able to drive it from Leesburg to Southeast Washington because of technical difficulties. Police eventually got the suspect, minutes after the camera caught him smoking crack and masturbating. He had spent part of his ride urinating in a soda can, then drinking his urine to try to quell a case of the hiccups. He also vomited twice."

Sure, we've all had the roommate who can't pay rent or bills on time, but always manages to find money for a sack of weed. But the people I'm talking about who are in debt or bankrupt are people who were doing everything right, living within their means, who had a sudden emergency, such as a firing, lay-off, or health situation, who have nothing to rely on.

Check out this article on how a job loss. Read this one on how sudden illnesses are bankrupting Americans. I understand that half of the bankruptcies occurring in the US are due to medical bills. There are some 40-50 million working Americans who have no health insurance.

These scapegoats such as welfare queens and people buying PSPs over paying rent do exist, but they are in the small minority. I'm not swallowing the bullshit anymore. Corporate greed is destroying the middle class. Corporations are reporting record profits, the economy is growing, and the stock market is doing well. Why isn't this rising tide lifting all boats? It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that it's because the people who decide where the money goes aren't sharing it with the rest of us.

I know the libertarian ideal is to keep downsizing your life until you don't have any debt. Move from a house to a condo, to an apartment, to a trailer home, to a cabin in the woods, to a mud hut. Hey, if everybody keeps downsizing in response to being paid less and getting laid off from their jobs, we will all be living in tent cities. How about we instead demand our fair share from corporations.

Some people can't just downsize their life at the snap of a finger. If you have three kids, you can't just get rid of one. If you have a house, you can't immediately sell it for what it's worth. If you have a car you owe a lot of money on, you still need it to find a new job while you might be trying to sell it and line up a new car at the same time. If you have a sick child who runs up a bunch of medical bills that you can't afford, I'll bet the libertarian answer is that he was too sick for his parents to take care of, and he should have died. Well, after you've already treated him and run up the bills, you can't just kill him and ask for a refund for all of the treatments that were performed.

It's a question of what kind of country do we want to have. Do we want to pay some taxes to support single mothers and children, or hopeless alcoholics, like they do in Europe? Or do we want to have homeless families living in the streets, with ghettos, shanty towns, and poor villages like they do in South America? I think most libertarians are comfortable with ghettos and shanty towns. I'm not.

There are so many social programs that have built America, such as rural electrification, the GI bill, the national highway system. We are a nation of entrepreneurial self-starters, but to pretend that this alone built the nation and that social programs only make people lazy is in direct contradiction of the facts. Take the example of Finland, Switzerland, and Sweden. They have socialized health care, education, and retirement, yet the World Economic Forum says those countries have the most competitive economies in the world.

I thought technology, industry, and education were supposed to make our lives better. We might be the first generation of Americans to have a lesser standard of living than our parents. Why should this be? Our parents and granparents were the first generation to have 40-hour work weeks with overtime, a retirement, and health insurance, all provided by unions. Before then, people worked 60 to 80 hour weeks in factories and on farms. When they were injured or became unhealthy, they were simply fired. No retirement. Some were even slaves! Are our parents and grandparents lazier than their predecessors? No, they

I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?

I'm not sure that I trust the FBI these days, but some of them have come forward with allegations of routine torture for people who are often released without charge. They may have been guilty of only being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and most are deemed safe for release, aka not dangerous. In Jose's case, it was to a US citizen.

What enemy? My country is defined by a Constitution and Bill of Rights, nothing more. The US can be any shape and size or hold any people, so long as they understand and obey the US constitution. Those who violate the Constitution are enemies of the US, regardless of party affiliation or anything else they might say. Wiretapping, torture, unreasonable search, and so on are un-American. Bandits who fly airplanes into buildings are unable to do real damage.

It appears in many studies that R&D costs and clinical studies are the main drivers of cost:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/12/19/AR2006121901510.html

A comprehensive look (and really interesting read) is here:

      http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/dimasi2003.pd f

Where it goes into great detail about drug development costs.

He was arrested in Florida in 1991 over a road-rage shooting incident and spent a year in a Florida jail.

He completed his probation for aggravated assault and firing a weapon in August 1993.

Prior to that, Mr Padilla, a US citizen of Puerto Rican origin, had a number of gang-related encounters with police in Chicago -

Norma Leon, the Padilla family's former landlady, told the Chicago Sun-Times that Mr Padilla's mother was worried because her son had left the country and become a member of a cult.

"She was scared for him," Ms Leon told the newspaper.

In 2001, officials said, he made contact with Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaeda commander [Osama bin Laden's operations chief--me] who is in American custody and apparently co-operating with the FBI.

And of course, the US court system has backed up the Prez on this case:

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

Yeah, I don't think this guy is all that innocent. Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?

In the US, it's easier to smear and blacklist your political or economic enemies than it is to jail them. It's called "economic assassination." Domestic spying programs are used to make the blacklists.

You mean how the Prez uses the FBI to investigate his political enemies? Or how the IRS suddenly does an anal probe audit of those who have turned against you. I remember that, except it was the Clintons, no the Bushes doing it. I guess it's OK when it's not Republican abusing power.
From here:

Shortly after Bill Clinton and his gang took over the White House, the FBI was coerced into conducting investigations that were anything but thorough. The quality of background investigations of White House personnel was downgraded dramatically due to the scheming of "Clinton's clan." That's not all. A few examples were the inappropriate criminal investigations of career White House employees because they might be in the way of an ambitious first "lady;" the turning over of more than 900 confidential FBI summary reports on former Reagan and Bush political appointees.

and here

Bill Clinton used the FBI to compile dossiers on critics like Conservative Congressman Bob Barr and legal gadfly Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch

Of course, if Bush is using federal power to shut down his political adversaries, he's done a crappy job. It seems to me that everyone is being investigated in Washington from Tom Delay and Mark Foley to William Jefferson, but you only really hear about the Republican investigations. Can you tell me who William Jefferson is without looking it up? If the Prez can't dig up dirt on Barak

I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.

No, get rid of taxpayer financed healthcare. I realize it's an impracticality now but I don't support and in fact am against the federal government paying for healthcare, with few exceptions such as those in the military or are otherwise fulltime government employees.

"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"

That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing.

I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).

Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government. As for whether states tax income, that's a matter for the residents of the state to decide. Apply it to bonds as well.

Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.

The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced. Even if it's not there's still a federal tax on fuel and not just state taxes. And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million.

You'll notice it reads just as well if you assume a group instead of a single person.

Except that a group needs to communicate within itself. So yes, you can pronounce the words, but it doesn't make logical sense.

Exactly what classified material did the Watergate scandal involve?

Please read a little more on this subject. Classified information and "executive priveledge" were key issues in the Watergate debacle.

Speaking of just TSP, you'll remember that there's a not insignificant amount of support from people in all three branches of the government for the "legality" of at least some of it.

If you simply look at the objective reality of what they did, it very obviously violates the law. Just as there was "not [an] insignificant amount of support" for Nixon, so is there for Bush. This does not make their actions any less criminal.


I suppose this is my point:
Your post included these words:
If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it. Calling it "classified" would just draw attention to it.

I VERY strongly disagree. I believe you're making faulty assumptions here.
For one, conspirators must communicate and underlings must be ordered around and kept silent.
Additionally, the claim that classifying something draws attention is silly. Draws WHO's attenion? The gov't deliberately minimizes the dissemination of classified information. That's the entire point of calling something a secret in the first place: to limit who gets told about it.

Was that Superior Jursidiction Al Gore?

(Al Gore is the head of the Special Committee that reported this "exoneration")

After all, there is no Controlling Legal Authority over Al Gore and his integrity in financial matters.

see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/spec ial/campfin/stories/op030797.htm

for those who aren't familiar with or have forgotten what that phrase means...

Jobs accused of recieving stock options through fraud

no new large discoveries...

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

yep, pretty close, he's been my fav for nailing the future. Look at major cities, areas akin to the AAs, abandoned areas, offset by guarded gated compounds or "communities". Look at the war in iraq, there are now almost as many "private security contractors"-mercenaries- as there are official US government military people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311_pf.html

And we saw what happend in NOLA after katrina, it got infested with rifle totin Blackwater goons immediately, while non-corporate regular plain vanilla citizens got their self protection tools confiscated, just when they needed them the most.

Yep, I'd say corporate fascism is taking over quite rapidly. Our so called vote is now all privately run where it really counts. They may stick their voting boxes in a public building, but after that point it's for-profit corporate closed source voting. And the rest of government is run as an extension of various multinational corporations via their sock puppets-who got there from the previous closed source corporate voting and propoganda build up from the controlled corporate press.

Actually, this was the case with a lot of the 'corruption' cases that sprang up.
Clinton's Justice Department was noticably lackadaisical about prosecuting or enforcing certain accounting standards (depends on what your definition of 'profit' is, I guess.)
Anyway, when Bush comes into office, with a business background, 'fudging the numbers' is not cool. You either made a profit or you didn't, regardless of what shell offshore companies you bought.

I have always found it curious that on Bush's watch all of these corrupt companies were brought to Justice (especially since Enron had Bush in their pocket, what with them hiring a Clinton official as spokesman) and yet Bush is tagged with fostering this corruption.
I guess you can fool most of the people most of the time.

I don't think Apple did anything other than do what they thought they could get away with (i.e. what everyone else was doing.) Besides, it's not like the rules for Exec Comp valuation don't change every other year (google 'Black Scholes Option Valuation' to get a sense.)

Kim Jong Il has almost zero funds, and yet retains power by personality.

Kim's funds may be insignificant in absolute terms; but relatively speaking, while the rest of North Korea is totally dark, he has enough money left over after his cognac, Segways and iPods to fund a nuclear program.

The effect of money is more insidious and less visible than “blind devotion;” instances:

• the Catholic church (in the middle ages),
• Hollywood.

Murderous Monsanto should never be trusted with our food supply. Not any part of it. Previous links just the tip of the iceberg.

Parent makes an interesting point in mentioning the drop in arctic sea levels. This is puzzling and appears to contradict measurements which show that other oceans are rising at an increasing rate.

However, contrary to the pretty pictures and unfounded claims in parent's reference, the Antarctica Ice sheet is growing smaller. Not only have we witnessed the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf, but rivers of meltwater are draining the Antarctic ice. Indeed, NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) shows declines in the ice pack in both Antarctica and Greenland. Add to this the study I cited earlier which shows even greater declines in mountain glaciers across the globe and the pattern becomes hard to refute.

By the way, parent's claim that "glaciers in California are also growing" is laughable. The article he cited as evidence lists one solitary glacier (the Whitney glacier on Mount Shasta). Readers of Slashdot are smart enough to understand that climate change is going to have local results that are difficult to predict - that one mountain might get enough extra snow to be an exception to the rule. Note that article states that this is "the only glacier in the world that's now larger than it was in 1890". Yikes!

Why nonsense like this gets modded (Score 5:Insightful) is beyond my ability to understand.

By the way, I honestly don't know if it is correct to attribute the sinking of this particular island to global warming. I can tell you one thing I truly believe: By the end of the next century we will have lost a whole lot of beachfront property.

...so there is more article than ads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/12/22/AR2006122200367_pf.html

I know that Sandy Berger (just so no one thinks I'm biased) is a real moron but come on, how much lack of intelligence does one have to have to think that they could get away with this?

There's solid scientific evidence that brain development doesn't really settle down until age 25.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A526 87-2005Jan31.html

Your math is good up until you assume that even a minor percentage of wii accidents are reported to one particular little-known website.

I agree with you, which I included the comment that this Wii problem website is not going to be a reliably accurate portrayal of the incident amounts. However, this site does go beyond a 'little-known' website. It's been mentioned in a Reuters news article which gets published to various news outlets such as yahoo, Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN Money, and the Washington Post not to mention the hordes of local newspapers, blogs, TV and Radio stations who reported on this topic and mentioned that website.

Suffice it to say, they're not 'little-known' when talking about the topic of Wii remote damages. However, I would believe that they don't have accurate data or methods to accurately report the data. Though, as I mentioned in my earlier post, it would have to be off by 400% to even reach 1%, which would be an amount at which I can start to see an actual product defect, rather than 'user defect', so to speak, hehe.

I'm sure there's a large margin of error on that math as it's just using basic estimates and takes in a lot of assumptions, but I think it does put this 'Wii remote damage' phenomenon into a better perspective of how it's more of a 'bizarre' news story than an actual consumer problem. It seems more like FUD than a creditable concern. I'd boldly state that not even Kevin Bacon can be connected to a case. =P hehe Of course, there's plenty of room for me to be wrong on this. =)

Cheers,
Fozzy

Personnel still get most of the money.
"The nearly $440 billion defense budget contains $110.8 billion for military personnel, including a modest 2.2 percent pay increase, as well as $84.2 billion for weapons systems and $73.2 billion for research and development."

Considering how little soldiers get paid (starting at $1,204 per month), and how much engineers get paid (~$3,500 per month starting), you start wondering who the Defense Department's priorities are...

Well, if you read it, it must be true then.

Memo to toby:
I doubt the guy wants to work with anyone.
As I just quoted in another post:Washington Post: "As with the kernel bugs project, Apple will be given no advance notice with the Month of Apple bugs, LMH said in an interview conducted over instant message."
I guess his emphasis is on page views and ad revenue. Not making the world of computers a saver place. Hope that doesn't shatter your weltanschauung.

whether Apple has previously had any chance to respond to any of the issues that will be disclosed.

Let's start by linking to a Washington Post Article written by Dave Barry. I don't have the syndication rights to Mr. Barry's intellectual contributions, yet I just distributed a way for people to read that. I understand that the material in question is different, and I also know that the Washington Post has a policy explicitly allowing linking. But even if they didn't, I still don't have the right to advertise for Dave Barry without his agent or distributor's permission.

I agree. Truly bizarre.

Let's start by linking to a Washington Post Article written by Dave Barry. I don't have the syndication rights to Mr. Barry's intellectual contributions, yet I just distributed a way for people to read that. I understand that the material in question is different, and I also know that the Washington Post has a policy explicitly allowing linking. But even if they didn't, I still don't have the right to advertise for Dave Barry without his agent or distributor's permission.

I agree. Truly bizarre.

You, sir, are wrong.

Or perhaps you are. Let me pick apart the major points of your short troll:

1. How exactly do you know they aren't terrorists? Could is be that you just assume the government is wrong because you dislike their policies? Here in the USA, we used to believe in our country, I guess you don't.

2. Torture, depending on what methods is a reliable way of getting Intel, despite what your left wing friends tell you. If you can tear yourself away from your friends reenforcing your opinion, google up the CIA book on how to effectively interrogate people from back in the 80's and you will see what techniques work and which ones don't. It basically involves mindfucking your prisoner into believing they are torturing themselves, and it's very effective. I could also point you at various techniques the police use on local levels successfully, but I'm sure you don't want to see anything other than what your worldview will support.

While I doubt this insight will do you any good, I hope some of the brighter people on slashdot will go out and read up about this stuff from places other than the Daily Kos and such. There are intelligent arguements against our foreign policy, specifically in Iraq. Making up propaganda like 'TORTURE DOESNT WORK!!!" flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary, and waters down the real debate that should be going on in America, about when our armed forces should be used.

There are effective interrogation techniques that work, and yes the US military uses them.

i think it's gone beyond that point senator kennedy got flagged by the no fly list, but the list is still around, he's just one of the lucky few that managed to get off it. at this point i think america needs a good old fashioned revolution to get rid of the rot, the only question is what the breaking point would be.

...On Nov. 15, the Russian Interior Ministry and Gazprom, the state-controlled energy giant, announced three new senior appointments. Oleg Safonov was named a deputy head of the ministry. Yevgeny Shkolov became head of its economic security department. And Valery Golubev was appointed a deputy chief executive at Gazprom.
All three men had something important in common beyond the timing of their promotions: backgrounds as KGB officers and experience working directly with President Vladimir Putin when he was a KGB operative himself in Germany or later, when he was a rising presence in the local government of St. Petersburg, his home town.
In Russia, A Secretive Force Widens


About 4/5 of Russian elite is involved with FSB (new KGB).

Here you go: " whether the presidential limo will get egged the way it did four years ago (a scene captured in "Fahrenheit 9/11") http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A108 24-2005Jan14.html

1. do you memeber video of bush's second election night? the streets where filled with protesters.. in fact it was the first time in history that the pres couldn't walk in because they where afraid he would be shot
    
   No video. No evidence in the article of streets filled with protesters. (The article was filed before the Inauguration.) Not to mention the fact that President's routinely ride. (I'm old enough to remember the shock in the media because Jimmy Carter chose not to.
    
     Article cited fails to support claim.
    
2. no one saw this in the us.. except for the people there. the news didn't cover it - sure they had people covering it but it never ever got to the air.
    
   Linked article filed before Inauguration.
    
     Article cited fails to support claim.
    
    
3. 90% or more of the US doesn't know and doesn't give a shit what happens.. and that is how they want it.. it saddens me..
    
   Linked article filed before Inauguration.
    
     Article cited fails to support claim.
    

"Sexual Relations" as when a person knowingly engages in or causes "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."

The definition was the only one approved by the judge, two additional definitions were discarded. The wording is overly verbose even for a definition, imho. It was provided in advance, and refreshed right before his infamous denial. You can interpret it two ways and have a case for both but in the end... actually, I'm not even sure. None the less, GP, cite.

Parent.. Why did you even bother replying if you weren't going to contribute something?

Other than name-calling... stupid git. :|

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/spec ial/clinton/stories/starr081398.htm http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/18/clinton. v.jones.dep/

Here you go:
" whether the presidential limo will get egged the way it did four years ago (a scene captured in "Fahrenheit 9/11") http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A108 24-2005Jan14.html

I could post more of them... or you could look some of them up yourself. Google is a great place to start - even though it is a pain to find the newer articles mixed in with the old ones.

On top of that - keep in mind that the Business Release wasnt ready for pressing Nov 27th... it was ready earlier than that to allow for manufacturing (Nov 9th-ish)... so, tell me, are there no changes in the Business version that was RTM on Nov 9 compared to the Consumer version not yet released?

If by some chance, factors changed that (according to MS) were delaying the Consumer release, then why is it the release date hasnt been moved up? Just curious... seems weird that they wouldnt be striving for the Holiday Season release (especially with hardware vendors bitching, and MS having to offer coupons for free or discounted upgrades to live up to the promises and appease their channel partners) they originally wanted if the product is ready - as you claim - as MS earlier claimed it was not - a claim they havent retracted in anything but very vague statements that entirely miss the heart of the matter (completing revisions/fixes MS thought necessary for the Consumer release).

They (MS) dont specify what is RTM (Business or Consumer)... and I've already seen numerous releases of Windows that are identified the same but arent actually the same (yeah, if you look at the full version string there is a difference - but nothing on the box, packaging, manual, disk, etc). And there are enough articles just-pre RTM of the business release, as well as post RTM of the business release still claiming the same reason for the consumer release delay. And of course, they have told some of their channel partners, like CompUSA, the same thing. Maybe they are lying. Weird...

ok, a few googled results for you...

Dec 2, 2006 http://1digit.blogspot.com/2006/12/windows-vista-r elease-delayed.html

Jul 11, 2006 http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=22868

Nov 29,2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/11/28/AR2006112801697.html

Note the section about them stating that hardware support and software compatibility support is a factor for the consumer release delay. odd...

Well, the vast majority of them are funny, but the one that says 'the Republican Party will attempt to control science to meet political needs' deserves a prize. How about a 'Medal of Freedom', I hear they are going pretty cheap these days.

Update: 12/15 17:07 GMT by Z : I used the right term here in the text, but Edge Online notes that recall is not the right term to use here. Title corrected.

--It would certainly go a distance in explaining the actions of some of the supposedly fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the prelude to the grand 9-11 performance acting in ways most un-Islamic. (Booze and Cocaine and Women [gnn.tv] won't win the devout many points with Allah.) So what's the story here? Were they fundamentalist terrorists, or were they dupe mercenaries who didn't know what they were signing up for, and who were allowed to bring off their clutzy plan while the US secret services conveniently looked the other way [tvnewslies.org], while the secret/shadow government [washingtonpost.com] provided access to the remote controlled [911review.com] jets actually capable of performing the precision flying which badly-trained mercenary goof-balls could not have been asked to manage, and while the Israeli-owned security companies [whatreallyhappened.com] which held contracts at each of the airports involved during 9-11, gave them fast-lane service at the boarding check points?

There is a great antidote to some of that confusion: Debunking 9/11 Myths

Dudes with bombs and box-cutters working independently is still the false reality which needs to be understood here. The myth of terrorists is the preferred tool for building the fascist state. Luckily, this is increasingly well understood. It's the 'How' which seems to be causing some hiccups.

Here are some victories the good guys won against terrorism around the world in the last couple of weeks (this list doesn't include terrorist attacks):

11 suspected Islamic radicals arrested in Spanish African enclave
Spain arrests Chechen rebel suspect wanted in Russia
Turkey Arrests Suspected Regional Al Qaeda Leader
Turkey arrests 10 with suspected links to al-Qaeda
Pakistan arrests 47 suspected Taliban
13 foreign nationals arrested in S. Afghanistan
Police Claim Arresting Taliban Commander in Ghazni
Pakistanis Arrest 90 Afghans at Border
Saudi detains 139 suspected militants
Security forces scrambled to disrupt Asian summit terror plots
Court freezes Islamic group's bank account
Top aide of Qaeda chief in Iraq killed
Morocco jails 14 Islamists
Eight French Islamists Returned To France
4 Dutch Muslims Convicted of Terror Plan
and another trial: Denmark: Muslim terror trial begins
Terrorist plot targeting Illinois mall foiled
Man accused in Taliban arrest ordered held without bail
And reaching back just a little further just to inc

-FL

"President Bush revealed today there is a shadow government run by people who live outside of Washington in bunkers in case Washington was ever attacked. I thought the shadow government was the one Enron bought with all those contributions." --Jay Leno

Well sure, if by "money fairy" you mean tax payers in the blue states...

It seems to me that lots of people (both Democrats and Republicans) have formed some sort of image of John McCain based on what they see on the news and not on his actual voting record.

That so-called "liberal" media must be where some people get the idea that he is [far] left; his voting record indicates that he votes almost always along GOP party lines (when he's actually there to cast a vote, that is).

They aren't doing anything illegal, they're just using tricky marketing tactics that make the news.

Well, according to an article in today's Washington Post, it might very well be illegal. The FTC is beginning to investigate viral marketing campaigns.

Well, actually, here in Fairfax County, VA (just a few miles west of DC), for the past few years, we've had an "Open Carry" law with respect to firearms. And even according to the Washington Post, we're at a 20+ year low for violent crime:

"Crime is at 20-year lows in the county," Lt. Col. Charles K. Peters pointed out, even though the population is soaring. The county's homicide rate was the lowest in the nation last year among the 30 largest jurisdictions. "Hopefully no one feels the need to carry a gun, lawfully or unlawfully," Peters said. "But there's no question it is lawful to carry a gun on the street. So we've had to ensure that all of our officers are updated on the nuances of Virginia law that allow citizens to carry firearms in public places."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A504 16-2004Jul14.html

Causation, not necessarily... but definitely correlation.

What would they do with a computer?