Slashdot Mirror

By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.

However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.

"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).

Proceed!

The one time I'm familiar with Microsoft's software being used anywhere in shuttle operations, the ship blew up. I'm sure Windows is pretty common in nasa, actually.. But for reference: Washington Post article on an Edward Tufte article.

Aha! That assertion would be correct, if we were good at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which we suck at. We tend to set records every single year for greenhouse gas emissions, and lucky for you, a study just out shows that to be true with 2005 as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/11/03/AR2006110300498.html

In addition, the system is EXTREMELY complex, and even if we were good at emitting fewer greenhouse gases (which, I reiterate, we suck at), it could take many decades to return to previous levels, assuming we haven't crossed any critical thresholds, in which case it may take centuries or millenia - nobody really knows, we just know that the system takes a long time to respond. This is partially because the oceans are such a huge buffer of CO2, but there are so many unknown factors. It's a chaotic system.

Republicans engaged in phone jamming in 2004:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=18 29056

a Republican official was CONVICTED of this, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html

Happy to help:

• A study by the NAACP shows a consistent pattern of voter intimidation efforts by GOP campaigns. Dozens of instances of misinformation and intimidation in several states, and every one of them by Republican organizations.
• Republican Congressional candidate Tan Nguyen sent fraudulent letters to registered voters with latino last names claiming that naturalized citizens who attempted to vote would be jailed or deported.
• Kathleen Harris, the Republican Secretary of State of Florida instituted a "voter-cleansing" program which falsely listed at least eight thousand voters as felons, and thus ineligible. The disenfranchised resided almost exlusively in Democrat-leaning districts.

This is just a few minutes of asking google, and specifically looking for items reported by reputable national news sources, not just random political blogs. I'm quite certain that far more documentation of similar incidents is readily available.

They're right. It won't get adjudicated this weekend.

However, just like their phone-jamming shenanigans in New Hampshire, it will get adjudicated against their corrupt asses.

So let them have their fun. This kind of crap is exactly why this Republican will be voting against every Republican on tomorrow's ballot.

Funn how my party continues to call the Democratic party one of traitors when it's my party which is undermining democratic principles.

This article in the Washingtonn Post appears to be the most comprehensive - http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/11 /14_arrested_for_credit_card_ph_1.html

....everyone knows you can't get a fair trial in your homeland when the people and families you are accused of committing acts against are the ones charged with carrying out your trial! He should have been brought to the ICC. This verdict carries no weight with me whatsoever. His execution will be a travesty... think of the treasure trove of information we could get from him about our own crooks and their past crimes!

Oh the humanity! Saddam being tried and hung by the survivors of the atrocities he ordered, and it doesn't meet your approval! Where is the justice!? Why!? Why do those peasants put their 20 year thirst for justice for the mass murder, mutilation, and rape ahead of your political axe? Why does your approval matter so little to them!!?? That is so unfair!

I know what you mean about spending too. After all, spending $419.3 billion on defense out of a budget of $2.57 trillion seems so "reckless", especially since defense is a federal responsibility under the Constitution, as opposed to education and social security.

Well, at least your body count is, well..... founded.... or somthing.....

Saddam Hussein's U.S. attorney was ejected from the court before the verdict was even read (at least his U.S. attorney with a conscience was). Oh, and there is the little matter of the head trial judge having been ousted 45 days before this verdict was read. This proceeding was a sham.

"The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards, dealing with too much or just plain unbalanced information, corporate red-herrings, conflicts of interest, fanboyism, private agendas"

Yes, the news corporations have managed all of this with their wonderful writers, editors, and other staff. It will be a difficult job for the bloggers to stoop down to these standards, but I'm sure they'll strive for it. So one day blogging might become so bad that it can count as (old style) news.

9/11 deaths: 2,819

US soldier deaths (Afghanistan): 901 (total, fourth table)
US soldier deaths (Iraq): 2,823 (total, first table)
Iraqi Security Forces deaths: 15,249 (total, third table)
Iraqi civilian deaths: ~48,000
Afghan civilian deaths: 3,485

And this is just plain scary.
Do the math.

While most Muslim and Arab capitals have remained silent on the president's remarks, a few have spoken out - including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," he told the BBC News website.

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he said.

Egypt, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, also rejected the Iranian line.

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation".

"Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran a month ago. World L eaders Condemn Iranian's Call to Wipe Israel 'Off the Map'

Harking back to language used by of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, the hard-line president also called Israel a "fabricated" entity......

On Wednesday Ahmadinejad said "there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. As the Imam (Khomeini) said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

While most Muslim and Arab capitals have remained silent on the president's remarks, a few have spoken out - including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," he told the BBC News website.

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he said.

Egypt, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, also rejected the Iranian line.

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation".

"Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran a month ago. World L eaders Condemn Iranian's Call to Wipe Israel 'Off the Map'

Harking back to language used by of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, the hard-line president also called Israel a "fabricated" entity......

On Wednesday Ahmadinejad said "there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. As the Imam (Khomeini) said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

The European lead negotiations with Iran are failing to produce meaningful results. That is bad enough given the threatening language from the Iranian leadership, and their President's state of mind.

Now it looks like the Sunni vs Shia / Arab vs Persian rivalries, are about to take a much more dangerous form, not to mention the Arab/Muslim conflict with Israel. What is even more disturbing is that the restraints that contained the cold war don't seem to apply. We might end up with a nuclear Jihad.

Ted Kennedy found himself on one in 2004. Couldn't board a plane one day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A170 73-2004Aug19.html

Now, the GOP have long considered him a terrorist - at least since July 19, 1969 - but I think it's safe to presume that it's very easy to find yourself on such a list when the senior Senator from Massachusetts has landed there.

Not surprisingly, Bush signed a Belarus Democracy Act, to end this last dictatorship in Europe. And, as with all places where "US Democracy" should be put into place, the US is learning pretty quickly from them.

Republican Bob Ney of Ohio resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, three weeks after pleading guilty in the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal.

And he stayed on long enough to pick up paychecks and bennies.

This has been an exhaustingly long discussion. I admire your endurance, especially when looking at this in retrospect it becomes clear to me that I haven't always been fully engaged.

I've been spending a lot of time waiting for long builds to complete. :) Of course, it's probably best to let it trail off. This is probably the last I'll post on the topic.

Honestly, I've been dismissive, because I don't have the time to check the validity of your claims. There's so many lies out there that are pushed as truth that it would be impossible to verify or debunk each one without it becoming a full time job. I'm not arguing that the cases weren't accurately documented, I'm only skeptical of the way they're being characterized.

Understandable. To save you the trouble of digging through Kuo's book, the Washington Post has relevant excerpts here. Note that this was an example of systematic bias that just tends to creep in when one group is in charge. Probably nothing too inherently malicious, but definitely something in need of correction. As for (then) Governor Bush's remarks, the expanded quote is, "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made." The context is, he was asked about it in an interview with ABC News in June of 1999 in response to Senator Thurmond's push to have the military reverse its stance on accomodating Wiccan ceremonies. I suppose it's just as valid to point out that Senator Thurmand was... well... pushing to have those accomodations removed essentially because they weren't Christian. The example is the same and the actor is different.

However, I think it's all in fairness since you dismissed my example of the ACLU using extortion, when the practice has been admitted by an ex-ACLU lawyer as one of the main reasons they left the organization. Don't take my word for it, lookup "Rees Lloyd" and PERA (H.R.2679).

Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with the idea behind HR 2679. I don't disagree with you that the ACLU frequently barks up the wrong tree, but HR 2769 is simply silly. It essentially says that some amendments are OK for the government to violate. The burden of paying for a violation of the Constitution should *always* be paid by the organization that violates the Constitution. I shouldn't have to pay legal fees to defend my Constitutional rights if I'm in the right. If I'm wrong, that's a totally different matter, but that's not what PERA addresses in its current form. The solution to not paying the plantiff's fees in these cases is not to be found in violation of the Constitution. Remember, it takes more than an accusation to get legal fees paid. It takes a finding in favor of the plaintiff--a finding made by a person who amounts to a professional Constitutional analyst. If you're right and it's actually important enough for you to want legislation to protect you, fight the claim in court. If it's not that important for you to have a picture of Jesus in your school hallway, maybe it's better just to remove it. Of course, you rarely hear complaints about the legal fee structure when a group like the ADF wins a case and demands fees to pay their lawyers.

It's true that many people are upset at religion because they're naive enough to believe that we wouldn't be at war in the first place if religion never existed.

Yes, I happen to think that those people are nuts and have no serious perspective. We might have fewer laws on the books that have no rational social benefit other than pleasing a particular diety, but IMO, wars are generally factional and all about power. Religion is just a good excuse. Atheistic societies would just come up with a different excuse.

I believe the answer was a

So you're saying that this isn't proof that Saddam had the ability to build a bomb in less than a year.

BUT you're saying that it is instructions for someone ELSE to build a bomb within a year.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
- The Washington Post, Oct 7, 2004

To be fair, Ron Paul votes against everything. He's really a libertarian in Republican clothing, which is fine, we need more of them to balance out the neocon and religious right types.

He may not know YouTube, but he knows about Xybernaut.

Or do you mean "stolen" as in "trying to fake up thousands of democratic-leaning votes?

And by "thousands" you mean "about eight"? From TFA:

The four indicted--Kwaim A. Stenson, Dale D. Franklin, Stephanie L. Davis and Brian Gardner--were employed by ACORN as registration recruiters. They were each charged with two counts.

[...]

The Kansas City Election Board told KMBC they found suspicious forms, such as seven applications from one person and an application for a dead man.

And no one has indicated, once, that there was anything suspect about the actual results. Plenty wrong with the people actually understanding how to cast a vote, but that's rather a different thing, isn't it.

Really? That's news to me. And to respected statisticians who have looked at the results:

They concluded, based on voting and population trends and other indicators, that irregularities associated with machines in three traditionally Democratic counties in southern Florida may have delivered at least 130,000 excess votes for Bush in a state the president won by about 381,000 votes. The study prompted heated critiques from some polling experts.

[Dr. Charles] Stewart of MIT was skeptical, too. But he ran the numbers and came up with the same result. "You can't break it; I've tried," Stewart said. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."

So, other than just repeating that meme, what's your actual evidence that what you're saying is actually true?

Oh, I don't know. Means, motive, and opportunity, perhaps? Results that just don't add up? An unfortunate history of election fraud in certain parts of the South? (this coming from someone born and raised in Virginia) Grounds, at the very least, to count the paper ballots (the practive of which Florida attempted to ban somewhat recently)?

What I smell is a frenzied effort to have, in pocket, a handy explanation for why fewer people that some political camps might wish will actually vote they way they're stamping their feet and insisting that they do.

Indeed. Damned partisan hacks stamping their feet and trying to block out reality. How dare they?

-jdm

The review over at the Washington Post wasn't exactly steller. It seems the documentary could have used facts much more to their advantage but rather relied more on implication and innuendo rather than following through on their leads.

Unfortunately, as both the NYT and Washington Post report, the documentary itself is a stinker. They both claim it does little to present actual problems, showing instead unfeasible hacks that admittedly would never work, and contenting itself to merely cast doubt over the voting machines rather than providing any solid evidence. And let's be honest -- it's easy to cast doubt on anything, including paper voting or anything else. On top if it all, the woman at the center of it all reportedly comes off as a crackpot, rather than someone with whom the public would actually empathize.

Not having seen it myself, I can't make any conclusions of my own, but if the reviews are accurate, this film does a disservice to the concept of secure voting by further validating the fringe/crackpot image that people already have regarding this issue.

The real news is that Diebold is so furious over such a vague "expose." What they should be doing is simply ignoring the whole thing, unless questioned specifically. By launching their own campaign against it, they're legitimizing the film -- which may actually be a good thing -- and giving it more attention than it may have otherwise received.

Personally, I think there are much bigger problems with the voting system than the machines that count the votes. Primaries, party politics, and campaign financing all throw much bigger wrenches into the gears than a couple of districts in Ohio that might have gotten shafted.

Maybe it's time to scale back or end the Back to Sleep campaign before we have even more babies with flat heads.

My 13-month-old son would have never gotten a moment's sleep if we had tried to force him to sleep on his back for the first year of his life -- he hates sleeping on his back, and always has. The same medical industry drones who wanted us to do prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome (what difference would knowing this beforehand make, other than a stressed-out pregnant woman? We'd love our son just as much.) also harped on the "Back to Sleep" campaign. When we balanced almost assured skull deformity against the low risk of SIDS, there wasn't any choice at all.

I'm all for making sure my son is safe, but keeping a death watch isn't my idea of parenting.

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

Yeah, right...

Saying that North Korea should have nuclear weapons to make things even is like saying that rapists ought be allowed to carry pepper spray.

Are you saying that the U.S. has forced abortions, political executions (with the executee's family being billed for the fucking bullet), wholesale cultural genocide (Do you know the chinese are hauling ethnic chinese by the trainload into tibet to overrun the place? Look up "tibetan spaniel" sometime to see how the fucking chinese have clubbed to death the entire population of tibet's beautiful native dogs), wholesale censorship of the press and Internet, massive "reeducation" (read: concentration) camps, support for mass-murderer dictators (Pol Pot, "Our Dear Leader", etc.).

Yeah, America is so much better.

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

I'm no fan of nuclear weapons, but I saw nothing in the article you linked that said the administration was planning to build more powerful nukes. Rather, as I read it, they were planning eventually to replace existing stockpiles of about 6,000 weapons with a smaller inventory of about 2,200 that were more reliable.

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

U.N. officials in New York sought to play down the significance of Annan's remarks, noting that he had previously said the U.S.-led war was not "in conformity with the U.N. charter." They noted that he was prodded three times by the BBC reporter before acknowledging his position. "The secretary general was quite reluctant to use that word," said Annan's chief spokesman, Fred Eckhard. U.S., Allies Dispute Annan on Iraq War

Annan's statement that the war was "illegal" is both false and spurious. By Annan's logic, the 1999 U.S./British-led intervention in Kosovo, which was conducted without benefit of a Security Council resolution, also would be "illegal" despite the fact that it was widely supported by the international community. It is true that Washington failed to convince Paris and Moscow to vote for a final Security Council resolution that explicitly endorsed the use of force if Iraq's dictatorship continued to renege on its legal commitments to disarm. But the Security Council did unanimously pass Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to do so. Iraq also defied sixteen other Security Council resolutions on disarmament, human rights, and support for terrorism.

Moreover, Iraq put itself in a state of war with the United States by violating the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi forces shot at American and British warplanes assigned to enforce the U.N.-imposed "no-fly zones" over Iraq on a daily basis long before the 2003 war. While the Clinton Administration chose to ignore these and most other cease-fire violations, the Bush Administration correctly decided to take action in view of Iraq's manifest failure to prove that it had dismantled its prohibited weapons programs. The U.N. Charter explicitly recognizes the right of every state to act in self-defense, a fact that Annan curiously neglects.

An Ill-Timed Intervention

Kofi Annan's ill-timed comments should be seen as a poorly conceived attempt to undercut the U.S. President's impending address to the U.N. General Assembly and to indirectly influence the electoral debate in the United States. The notion of U.S. isolation, a prominent theme advanced by Senator John Kerry, is a myth that Annan is keen to promote on the world stage. He ignores the fact that the U.S. is backed by over 30 allies with troops on the ground in Iraq, including 12 of the 25 members of the European Union and 16 out of 26 NATO members states.[3] Kofi Annan's Iraq Blunder

Correct the misunderstanding introduced by *bribing* Iraqi newspapers, to the tune of *millions* of dollars, to plant positive stories written by Pentagon-paid contracting agencies (e.g., the Lincoln Group).

What a great job -- plant story, then correct it.

It would be joke, if this wasn't so pathetic.

I assume you got Article 147 from this article, which was also repeated at several other sites around the web.

In the context of that article, and the documentary about Venezuela we have been discussing, it is much easier to understand the crack down on journalists, especially those financed by foreign parties. They provoked the coup that usurped his Presidency after all. Though it does seem rather broad. I'll have to look into whether there are any other rights that have been limited by Chavez. But I still think that most of what we hear about him is because of his intent to reclaim their oil from the private ruling class to help feed the poor in his country, and that ~15% of our oil comes from Venezuela. He is also hostile to NAFTA and similar trade agreements.

• Former CIA Agent Affirms Possibility of Chavez's Assassination in Venezuela
• Venezuela's 'Anti-Bush' Fears Assassination
• Declassified CIA Documents Show United States Had Detailed Information Regarding The April 2002 Coup In Venezuela

• Media, Propaganda and Venezuela

Bullshit! If you can read Spanish, I suggest you read his statements about what is going on in his country. Read how he has increased security (increased murders to 10,000 per year in a country of 25 million), provided money and hospitals for the poor (while increasing the poverty rate even while reaping record oil profits), improved the economy (which has >10% inflation and small growth even while reaping record oil profits), and has increased personal freedom (by introducing communist style price controls and jailing reporters).

Wow... and all of those accusations have occured in the local Venezuelan press? That's pretty cool, considering we've got US pundits trying to claim that Chavez is censoring the press.

I don't know much about it myself, but one of those silly leftist writers, Tariq Ali, is going around saying things like this about Chavez:

And what people do not seem to understand, within the establishment in the United States and its state media hacks, is that you can have political leaders today in parts of the world who are extremely popular because they give the people what they promised to give them. And politics elsewhere has become so isolated and alienating from the population that people just don't expect this anymore. And I think this is what explains the popularity of Chavez. And, of course, using oil money to push through mega-spending on health, on education, on building homes for the poor, free universities for the poor, this is not permitted in this world. He does it, and at the same time he challenges U.S. foreign policy in a very sharp way.

Bush hasn't nationalized his country's only real industry (in Chavez's case, oil) and started using it as a subsidized way to prop up leftist politicians in other countries.

No, but Bush HAS nationalized his country's only real industry (war), and started using it as a subsidized way to prop up rightist politicians in other countries. (Duvalier in Haiti, Maliki in Iraq, Karzai in Afghanistan. . . and probably others we don't even know about).

He doesn't shut down journalists for speaking out against him,
Um. Sorry, try again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html

He doesn't issue statements saying that his "brothers" in Iran will get his undying support as they build, traffic in, and sell weapons throughout the middle east.

. . . except when those "brothers" are in Israel.

He doesn't buy temporary favor from poor people by doling out food when the cameras are watching,

no, he certainly does not.

but completely neglect the most crime-ridden, murderous, corrupt thug culture in the region.

you mean Bush's neighbor to the South? (Mexico):
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0610a/copyright/usdru gtechmexico.html

Or were you referring to Afghanistan?:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s12478 17.htm

Personally, I'm not one to stick up for Chavez. But Bush is by far the worst offender these days. If Chavez is ten times as dirty as the neocon propaganda machine is saying, he's still a punter compared to Bush.

"Chavez gets to call Bush anything he wants when addressing the UN general assembly. Its a small price you have to pay for sponsoring a coup against a democratic government."

Chavez, as a dictator, has nothing to do with "democratic government". There's certainly nothing like democracy in Venezuela under Chavez, where it is now an explicit crime criticize the dictator.

Wow. This is inane. I didn't think I needed to specify that Bush wasn't personally wiretapping US phone calls without a warrant. But it was done on his orders. Or are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy to wiretap without Bush's approval? I did forgot to mention that the problem with the wiretapping was that the wiretapping wasn't being approved by the Judicial Branch as required by law. Remember the Judicial Branch? Remember the checks-and-balances-thing to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government?

Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that.

• WASHINGTON - Columnist Armstrong Williams has reached a settlement with prosecutors regarding payments he received by the Education Department to promote President Bush's agenda.
• Education and Medicare policies...
• 1.4 billion dollars spent on spin.. also regarding "the global war on terrorism" and the "dangers of buying drugs from non-US sources"
• Wherein Bush is 'concerned' about reports that the US military is writing propaganda in occupied Iraq. (Either he knew about it, or he has double-standards.)

Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please.

• Climate research..
• Cosmology...
• Sex education...
• Endangered salmon..
• Medical benefits.."
• Reproductive medicine.."

BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything.

• House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all.

• "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"
• "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
• "I don't spend much time on him." -G.W. Bush, six months after 9/11 event. [video]
• Bush withdrew the majority of our troop

Wow. This is inane. I didn't think I needed to specify that Bush wasn't personally wiretapping US phone calls without a warrant. But it was done on his orders. Or are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy to wiretap without Bush's approval? I did forgot to mention that the problem with the wiretapping was that the wiretapping wasn't being approved by the Judicial Branch as required by law. Remember the Judicial Branch? Remember the checks-and-balances-thing to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government?

Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that.

• WASHINGTON - Columnist Armstrong Williams has reached a settlement with prosecutors regarding payments he received by the Education Department to promote President Bush's agenda.
• Education and Medicare policies...
• 1.4 billion dollars spent on spin.. also regarding "the global war on terrorism" and the "dangers of buying drugs from non-US sources"
• Wherein Bush is 'concerned' about reports that the US military is writing propaganda in occupied Iraq. (Either he knew about it, or he has double-standards.)

Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please.

• Climate research..
• Cosmology...
• Sex education...
• Endangered salmon..
• Medical benefits.."
• Reproductive medicine.."

BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything.

• House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all.

• "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"
• "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
• "I don't spend much time on him." -G.W. Bush, six months after 9/11 event. [video]
• Bush withdrew the majority of our troop

Wow. This is inane. I didn't think I needed to specify that Bush wasn't personally wiretapping US phone calls without a warrant. But it was done on his orders. Or are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy to wiretap without Bush's approval? I did forgot to mention that the problem with the wiretapping was that the wiretapping wasn't being approved by the Judicial Branch as required by law. Remember the Judicial Branch? Remember the checks-and-balances-thing to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government?

Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that.

• WASHINGTON - Columnist Armstrong Williams has reached a settlement with prosecutors regarding payments he received by the Education Department to promote President Bush's agenda.
• Education and Medicare policies...
• 1.4 billion dollars spent on spin.. also regarding "the global war on terrorism" and the "dangers of buying drugs from non-US sources"
• Wherein Bush is 'concerned' about reports that the US military is writing propaganda in occupied Iraq. (Either he knew about it, or he has double-standards.)

Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please.

• Climate research..
• Cosmology...
• Sex education...
• Endangered salmon..
• Medical benefits.."
• Reproductive medicine.."

BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything.

• House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all.

• "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"
• "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
• "I don't spend much time on him." -G.W. Bush, six months after 9/11 event. [video]
• Bush withdrew the majority of our troop

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member s/p000583/

Republican Ron Paul voted against this bill. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against it.

Ron Paul is the kind of honorable Libertarian who, though I disagree with him on many issues, I'd want to stay in office. When the Left takes over we'll need him as a counterweight.

I went looking for who voted for this, and here is what I have found so far.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/ho use/2/votes/510/

I clicked on the options and got the list for my state. It looks like it was overwhelmingly voted for. I wonder how many of them actually read or understand what they voted for.

Scalia, on the other hand, follows the Constitutional principle that the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce ("commerce among the states," as is in the Constitution). Using that principle, it would be Unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit the growing of Marijuana on private property. States could still outlaw it, of course, but the feds couldn't do a thing. Does that sound "conservative" to you? Nope, but it is what the Constitution says.

Check out Edward Markey's voting record. He's one of the most liberal members of congress. His call to arrest this innocent security researcher further proves that the Democrats are authoritarians just like the Republicans. Only Greens and Libertarians appear to have any respect for free speech and other civil liberties.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/10 /phishers_respond_to_web_bankin.html

When I visited this particular site in Firefox, I received a pop-up alert from Netcraft's anti-phishing toolbar, but also from Firefox, which flagged the scam site as a "suspected web forgery" and included links I could click on to earn more about phishing scams. When I visited the Bank of America scam site in IE7, I received no such alert.

No. If they were using Google Earth, they wouldn't have asked the WMD search team to look in Lebanon for Iraq's weapons..

Counting all the innocent Muslims killed in the US and around the world since 9/11, well that would be a bit trickier.

But hey, they hate you for your freedom, ain't that right.

I'm surprised I don't see a link to the original story yet, so here it is:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/24/122153/98

From the story:

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl, --AZ-01: Rick Renzi, --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth, --CA-04: John Doolittle, --CA-11: Richard Pombo, --CA-50: Brian Bilbray, --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave, --CO-05: Doug Lamborn, --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell, --CT-04: Christopher Shays, --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan, --FL-16: Joe Negron, --FL-22: Clay Shaw, --ID-01: Bill Sali, --IL-06: Peter Roskam, --IL-10: Mark Kirk, --IL-14: Dennis Hastert, --IN-02: Chris Chocola, --IN-08: John Hostettler, --IA-01: Mike Whalen, --KS-02: Jim Ryun, --KY-03: Anne Northup, --KY-04: Geoff Davis, --MD-Sen: Michael Steele, --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht, --MN-06: Michele Bachmann, --MO-Sen: Jim Talent, --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns, --NV-03: Jon Porter, --NH-02: Charlie Bass, --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson, --NM-01: Heather Wilson, --NY-03: Peter King, --NY-20: John Sweeney, --NY-26: Tom Reynolds, --NY-29:

All told, people in power do things which lead to lying. We can both agree on that. But the real concern I have is in terms of the things they lie about, and the scope of the lies, and the extent to which they actively try to disseminate once caught.

What makes it news is the magnitude and impact of the lie.

Canadian governments almost invariably get caught. We just had an election which turned on the fact that the previous government in power got caught in a set of elaborate lies about funnelling money to PR firms. We spent more money investigating this than they'd funneled over. I'd call that, relatively speaking, a small lie. And certainly less newsworthy than any of the lies you hear from the US government. (Again, not trying to be a troll, here!)

Given that the article states that Sony Corps. profit has fallen so dramatically I'm surprised that they can give away anything.

Given that the article states that Sony Corps. profit has fallen so dramatically I'm surprised that they can give away anything.