Slashdot Mirror

This is a CA case and there is a CA shield law that gives reporters the right to shield their sources. There have been bills introduced to create a federal shield law, but they have not passed.

Just recently Garrett Graf, who runs the political blog FishbowlDC, was granted access to the White House Press Briefing - the same thing Guckert/Gannon was maligned for attending without any "real" credentials.

Guckert/Gannon was not maligned for receiving a press pass. He was maligned for receiving a press pass using a false name, lying about his journalistic credentials, and lying about his involvement in illegal prostitution. All of this is well documented on blogs and legit news outlets.

(I don't want to step over the bounds into liberal conspiracy theories and bring up rsync with White House/GOPUSA press releases as "news", access to CIA Plume documents, and "go ahead Jeff" access to the press secretary and the President himself. Ooops. I just did.)

'over-inflated' == "spending more than you have"

Hype, because Americans, due to their proclivity for cults of personality and inability to dis-introvert themselves long enough to escape Club Med Nirvana and have a Real Look At The World, hyperbolically still consider theirs the greatest nation on Earth, irresponsibly, when in fact as a nation America is far, far, far less great than many others in an exceedingly expansive number of realms, such as education, agrigultural sciences, manufacturing, even 'entertainment' .. oh wait, militant mass programming of police-state-asseted inebriated peon hordes, America and its Gigantic Drug and Propaganda Apparatus is very great at that.. but in fact, the only bouyant export from the U.S., economically, is police force/forms of warfare, and we all know (those of us who were paying attention in History class) just how long police states can go before collapsing on themselves. (Hint: not very long.)

Every single one of those Shock and Awe weapons could've been used for far, far greater, peaceful purposes which would have made an awesome impact on world stability, but instead Americans allow their politicians to use its technology to destroy. [Is George W. Bush really the best America can do? Honest?]

Show me a cruise missile, and I'll show you a highly effective way of peacefully delivering a very badly needed water pump and medical supplies, to precisely where its needed, very rapidly. Show me a fleet of B52 bombers with heavy lift capabilities, and I'll show you a Dafur that didn't need to happen. 10,000 pounds of Uranium would do well to safely improve the condition of life for multiple millions of people, yet America prefers it be weaponized "just in case".

Crimes of America: Vietnam. Honduras, Nicuragua. Venezuela. Iraq "Highway of Death", Desert Storm. Afghanistan. Iraq War Two. Sure, you've got excuses for every one of these 'wars', but for every excuse to kill, there are also a hundred reasons not to kill thousands of people.

The list goes on ... And on ... And on ... (not a single Geocities link there, buddy ..)

Do keep in mind that one of the forces stopping 'bible-thumping' presidents from stacking the courts with far-right conservatives has been the advice and consent of the Senate. With the minority's right to filibuster, only candidates with some degree of centrism really stand much of a chance to make it onto the court (Rhenquist, Scalia and even Thomas, while conservative, are definitely constructionists -- the Constitution is very clear about not forgiving government censorship).

The Republican majority, drunk on its own power, is now trying to eliminate the filibuster option for judicial nominees. If this happens, the tyranny of the majority can and will put people on the court who will vote irresponsibly and ignore the word and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Your point about the court to date is a good one but we must realize that some in Congress are trying desperately to shift this balance.

The NAACP suit was not about restoring voting rights to those human defendants, it was attempt to mudsling at Harris and DBT/Choicepoint.

Not to defame hero Katherine Harris or the freedom lovers at ChoicePoint, but that comment on the NAACP suit is certainly groundless and defensive. Besides, these people sling mud on themselves.

Harris and the accountable administrators at ChoicePoint could elevate their status considerably in the conservative movement by serving the prison time they've earned. Too bad there are Republican majorities in every level of government above them, so they'll never be prosecuted.

Interesting article about a growing anti-phishing industry. They note strange temporal patterns, IPs that read official sites, but dont log in. They use "honeypot" accounts to capture phishers.

Please cite your source about psychology... because the studies I have done shows a capacity of understanding of death far before the age of 18. Look at your own life experience - can you honestly say you did NOT know what death was until the age of 18?

See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A526 87-2005Jan31.html

Having been fortunate enough not to lose anyone close to me until I was 22, I couldn't say at 18 I knew what it meant to have someone die. Once I did, yes, I think I had a much clearer understanding of it. Besides, whether I personally understood it or not is irrelevent; 18 is an average, some people mature faster or slower then others.

Also being tried as an adult means nothing unless you are found guilty. I realized, in one of my other posts yesterday, that they have to announce how you will be prosecuted BEFORE being prosecuted. The accused must know why they are standing trial and the punishment being sought. So they can't find you guilty and then decide (it also wastes more time, and gives more chances for appeals which increases the red tape).

Yes, and if you suddenly say that this person can be tried as an adult, don't you agree then he should immediately have the benefits adulthood? Society is telling them all along they are not adults and can't even be responsible for themselves, but now you want to just throw all that away? Its illegal and I believe its unusual as well.

As for the constitutional argument - thanks for an update we already knew...but you forgot to mention that the fed can ammend the constitution, and if someone brings a case before a federal judge - their decision affects any court below them.

Understood; unfortunatlly not all amendments make our gov't better. I see no reason why the pyramid should have been inverted, it seems to have been working fine to me.

So lets stay on topic here and get off the notion on how power is distributed in the gov't. Though, except in federal cases, the death penalty *IS* a state decided issue.

Unless the Supreme court says said state laws are unconstitutional. Which is what the court did.

The feds do not need to setup a situation where the states are dependent - the inherent nature of the gov't dictates that they are dependent. The little guy needs the big guys help - happens throughout all of time. Why can't that help come at a cost?

The states were supposed to be the 'litle' guy. The help shouldn't come at a cost because it distorts our system of government and leads to corruption...which is where we are at today.

No, in practice, debit cards are not covered by the zero liability plan. From VISA's site:

*Covers U.S.-issued cards only. Visa's Zero Liability policy does not apply to commercial card or ATM transactions, or to PIN transactions not processed by Visa. See your Cardholder Agreement for more details.

**Cardholders should always regularly check their monthly statements for transaction accuracy. Financial institutions may impose greater liability on the cardholder if the financial institution reasonably determines that the unauthorized transaction was caused by the gross negligence or fraudulent action of the cardholder--which may include your delay for an unreasonable time in reporting unauthorized transactions.

Before you think 'I can keep my PIN secret, so what's the problem?', try to figure out how a transaction was processed by looking at your bank statement. Was it credit or debit? What network processed the transaction?

I recently had my VISA card used fradulantly, and was stuck footing the bill.

The 'call this number if your card is lost or stolen' number on the back of the card didn't work. Apparently, the organization that I contacted does not handle debit cards.

The charge was for $40; the zero liability plan applies to the first $50 of fradulant transactions.

Of course, my bank "didn't know" how the charges were made, and ATM/pin transactions are not covered, so I couldn't take advantage of the Zero Liability policy without paying the bank to figure it out for me.

I found that the vendor (McAfee) was totally unresponsive (I never managed to contact a human being after trying for a few hours), so I could not obtain any information about the transaction (I thought I would get an IP address or a shipping address. Yeah, right!)

The bank wanted to charge well over $100 to 'launch an investigation', which would be billed as an initial cost plus an hourly fee, and could drag on indefinitely.

VISA charges vendors a few percentage points of every purchase you make. If the per-transaction fees aren't being used to combat fraud on the network, or even to maintain contact information for a handful of major vendors, what are they for?

If the average amount of a transaction is $5, and Visa takes 1% (two very low estimates), that's costing the vendor $0.05. For what? Sending a few kilobytes of data over an encrypted line? Running a (really expensive!?!) database transaction?

I've been dumping around a bit over 1% of my income into this network for years. If federal tax is 20%, that's roughly as much as I've put into the department of education and department of transportation, combined!

At this point, I think I'll just carry cash, since its less of a hassle. If I get mugged, I'm out $100, and that's it. With a VISA card, I get to negotiate with my bank over who is liable for what, and there is a huge risk of electronic fraud. Besides, using cash keeps prices lower, and most businesses are happy to accept it.

Its a little off topic, but there was a brief breath of fresh air for civil liberties monday when a Federal judge, appointed by George W. no less, found George W. and John Ashcroft had no constitutional authority to hold an American citizen indefinitely without charges or any due process. Jose Padilla, was arrested in the U.S. and had set a precedent where the Bush administration could arrest and detain ANY American citizen in perpetuity without any due process or even access to a lawyer. That is the definition of a police state.

Of course the government will appeal in hopes of finding a friendly court, probably in Virginia. Last time this case made it to the Supreme Court they punted on a jurisdiction technicality and let the person rot in jail for a while longer while it was filed in South Carolina where Padilla, a civilian, is being held in isolation in a Navy brig. Padilla may be an Al Qaida member, and might have been planning terrorist acts but if there is any shred of our constitution left the government has to lay charges and prove it in a court of law, and not in front of a kangaroo court of a military tribunal.

On a less happy note I found thisarticle nteresting about an obscure defense contractor called ESSI who with the help of George W.'s Uncle Bucky has rocketed to being a major defense contractor, and is specializing in war profiteering in Iraq, mostly thanks to sole source contracts steered their way by friends in the Bush administration. Uncle Bucky was apparently tipped off that the Pentagon was going to launch an investigation of how they were landing all these juicy sole source, no risk contracts, and dumped a half million in stock just before the bad news came out. It sure is great to be a Bush and friend of the Republicans these days

Having never heard of this senator from Alaska, I did some research online just now and read a Washington Post article describing his "shakedown" (WaPo's word, not mine) attempt in organizing a $5,000-a-ticket fund-raising event to benefit a "non-profit organization", whose sole beneficiary turns out to be, you guessed it, Senator Ted Stevens. Here is the link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31925-20 04Mar4?language=printer

The only difference between this and what's going on in the US, is in this case, it's a state-controlled monopoly and in the US it's the few remaining Baby Bells doing the same with trying to ban municipal wi-fi.

Unfortunately, it's all about the telecom industry, both in the US, and abroad, trying to consolidate power, and shut out open access, whether it's data or voice.

The companies paid federal fines of $1.5 million for the accident.

Alright, now that I can read your link, it does indeed say that. I retract the bulk of my vitriol. However, in the interest of finding out the "right" answer, I looked around a bit more...

The Washington Post says "Oct. 25: The NRC fines Metropolitan Edison, TMI's operator, $155,000."

From reasonably trustable sources, I couldn't find any other sites supporting either of our numbers, though personally I would consider the Post the best of the three.

However, I think I can explain the number your link gives... It seems that TMI itself has received numerous fines over the years for its chronic safety problems. I found one at $210k, a few at $55k, a few at $50k, possibly one at $160k. I suspect these probably all add up to somewhere around $1.5 million. "The" Three Mile Island incident we all know about only earned Met Ed a $155k, but it only counts as one of many.


As an aside... Did you somehow edit your post to which I responded one round back? I would have sworn it contained another sentence when I first read it the other day, but when I went to quote it just now, I found it not there.

Wierd...

Perhaps more like the tyranny of the conservative-supported Parent's Television Council, which makes between 21-99% of complaints against TV indecency.

I do agree with their unsuccessful "'a la carte' programming option" plan though; hopefully soon I won't have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't need.

The Washington Post has an article(reg required) today about Beth Plowman, a Damascus international public health adviser, was shocked when she discovered that a $27,240 arbitration judgment had been levied against her for credit card charges incurred by an identity thief who bought sporting goods all across Europe.

First off, let's be realistic: the current US Congress wouldn't let the UN run the internet. After all, our own Al Gore invented it... But seriously, there's a lot of mistrust of the UN, much of it for good reasons.

The lack of accountability and responsibility that led to the Oil-for-Food scandal is hardly encouraging. Can we really expect the UN to be more responsive to internet users' needs than ICANN, as bad as ICANN is?

There are also some really twisted jokes to be made about how effective the UN would be in fighting child porn, considering the actions of some of its employees and peacekeepers in the Congo.

In essence, we're talking about replacing a large, corrupt bureaucracy with an even larger corrupt bureaucracy. Doesn't sound good, does it? I'd much rather see ICANN's functions assumed by a diverse group of private companies, with oversight from democratically-elected governments. In particular, the Chinese government and other repressive regimes can stay the hell away from internet regulation. Even good companies can be pressured into making bad decisions when China gets involved.

I *KNOW* I've just opened the flood gates of Bush jokes, DMCA rants, and PATRIOT Act tirades, but please, before you post, think about whether you're (1) on-topic (this is about the UN replacing ICANN), and (2) saying something new that hasn't been said in the numerous slashdot stories on the DMCA, etc. I'm all for a good joke, but please let it be something more original than "Bush is really stupid, and Americans are fat and stupid for voting for him". I live in one of the bluest areas of a very blue state, and I've heard them all.

Interesting definition of a weak candidate. Some how the fact that Bush did not complete his duty in the Texas National Guard seems to evade you and the fact that you bought into the RNC spin and Swift Boat baloney really is quite telling about your ability to make clear reasoned judgments. Its amazing that as a U.S.M.C you're more impressed with a man who's family had political connections to get him out of Vietnam tour of duty versus a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam to serve.

I am a Libertarian
That explains so much. Libertarians are the polar opposites of communists, both however share quixotic notions of their utopian societies.

Let me lay the facts down for you buddy, since you're highly confused watching your Fox News propaganda. We went into Iraq because we had incorrect intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. Are you with me so far? Then after looking like a bunch of morons to the rest of the world who we gave the finger to (e.g. "Old Europe") for starting a preemptive war that was clearly unjustified. The administration puts the spin on it that it was all about promoting freedom in the middle east. Okay ... now for the bad news.

You many come down on democracy all you want. However, democracy is truly the most peaceful system around. Most nations that deal with one another in a democratic fashion will almost never resort to war
Lets talk about freedom and democracy for a second since thats what both you and I can agree that is a good thing. Why is it that we support and ally with a military dictator who over threw the democratically elected leader in a coup d'etat on one side of the world and who's country has been selling nukes to all the pariah nations. Then using questionable intelligence invade another country that didn't have nukes and then put the spin on it by declaring the promotion of "freedom" and "democracy" in the middle east. I fail to see how the public don't see this glaring irony. By the way has anyone see Bin Laden around?

The Man Who Sold the Bomb

Khan's Dangerous Game

Musharraf Named in Nuclear ProbeFebruary 3, 2004

Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001

Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead23 December, 2001

Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden deadJanuary 18, 2002

Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admitsDecember 6, 2004

A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin LadenDecember 13, 2004

Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004
So much for us supporting "democracy" and "freedom"

With North Korea's recent declaration of possessing nuclear weapons. One should stop to ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. How Pakistan traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles.

The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is

Any advertisement that elicits any strong emotion (anger, disgust, laughter) is going to be more memorable than one featuring a simple unemotional recitation of the product's strong points.

then, out of simple curiosity, why do mechanical engineering profs re-release edition after edition of their textbooks every 2 years, even when the field of, say, "Structural Mechanics" has not really evolved enough at all (at the undergraduate level at least) to warrant any text changes?

And why do the homework section questions change ever so subtly between releases so that you cannot use a 2 year old book for the same course?

i call shenannigans. There IS profit in authoring textbooks. If the professors are not pocketing the profits, I think they may have signed an unsatisfactory contract with their publishers

It's interesting that the main AP story (picked up by the Washington Post, LA Times, and others) label the perpetrators as "hackers" who "penetrated the company's computer network." Nowhere in the original MSNBC article is there mention of the criminals hacking into a system. Rather, that reports indicates that "suspects had posed as a ChoicePoint client to gain access to the firm's rich consumer databases." Changing the story into some malicious hacker who infiltrated their computer seems to take ChoicePoint off the hook (except for thin database security), when they need to be held to task for not properly vetting the companies they contract with and allow access to their data.

Looks like their stock is still doing ok. Although that could change come Monday. Graph

The Internet tax ban is on discriminatory taxes--taxes that only apply to Internet-based sales--and also tax on use of the Internet itself. Use taxes already apply to almost all Internet-based interstate transactions, just as they have always applied to catalog/mail-order sales. There's nothing unconstitutional about them. (What is probably unconstitutional is the federal government collecting tax on interstate commerce, or perhaps states levying discriminatory taxes against interstate commerce--that is, state-level import/export taxes. I'm not an expert in the Constitution or in tax law.)

The reason you currently don't pay a state or local tax on transactions where the seller does not have a physical presence in your state, is not because the tax itself is unconstitutional, but because it's an undue burden on the seller to have to figure out the intensely complicated state and local tax rates for everyone in the country. At least, this was the case almost 40 years ago when the US Supreme Court decided this (google for National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue of Illinois (1967)). So you actually do owe tax for every purchase, Internet or otherwise (unless you live in a state without sales/use tax)--it's just not legal for the state to require the seller to collect the tax, and it's not practical for the state to come after you.

Plenty of people are trying to change this sorry state of affairs, because as you say, the Internet wasn't around when the rules were made. The main approach seems to be to simplify the state and local sales tax codes across the country, so it would no longer be an undue burden on retailers to calculate the appropriate tax, and Bella Hess could be overturned. 1, 2, 3.

D isn't failing

You're right, it isn't. The agencies that failed got F. I was going to make a spiel on how /.ers never read the article, when I realised that the article didn't clearly state this.

More info in links below:

Washington Post

Report Card

Statement and links

When was the last time Japan invaded a country over economic interests (and rewarded for it)?

World War II, why do you ask?

Let me guess, your "and rewarded for it" is designed to discount that one. I disagree, because I don't think the US has really been rewarded for its actions in Iraq either. The costs are ballooning to what one would expect, and international enmity towards the US is higher than ever. Some reward.

Of course none of this matters, because the Japanese have some pretty screwed up kids too. Apparently no one here remembers the 11 year old Japanese girl who killed a 12 year old classmate.

Try searching online for this stuff - the Japanese are really concerned with the rise in violent youth crimes.

The irony is that such out-of-touch statements is the reason why companies that make them have products that are not considered "cool". Apple is cool because Apple is cool. Pepsi has tons of product placement, would anyone consider Pepsi (or any other product placement product) to be "cool"? I highly doubt it. These execs just don't get it and probably never will.

Don't you feel bad for this Intel employee's kids that want an Apple but can't get one because daddy can't? How do you think that makes the dad feel? The poor guy must be completely divorced from reality .

To recover all the taxpayer money wasted by MS when it was claiming that the browser was "part of the operating system."

Gee, that's funny, the Washington Post did mention it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html

And since you apparently missed it, I'll repeat it here:

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Funny how it's completely relevant!

- Trade secret information likely protected by binding confidentiality agreement or NDA: check

- Third party disclosing that information: check

- Legal expert in Intellectual Property law saying it's relevant, and even that the first amendment doesn't always protect you, and that legal precedent is NOT on the side of "first amendment" arguments here: check

I await what is sure to me another insightful commentary!

The subject of a journalists ability to keep their sources secret has been going on for a while. The question is, when does a journalists right to keep their sources anonymous pass over other rights? How about the right to privacy? How about national security? This lawsuit reminds me of one last october, where a journalist was jailed for up to 1 1/2 years for refusing to release her sources on the CIA leak. (For those who don't know the story) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A147 77-2004Oct7.html/ On the other hand, companies go through a lot to protect their trade secrets, importantly so, because innovation is the lifeblood of business. The CIA's outlook report said that foreign nations, such as Russia's are no longer spying on our weapons, but on our companies. I personally had to sign a huge legal waiver just to visit my dad in his office at Xerox. So it's easy to see why Apple is pissed off. But should their anger jail someone?

Wow, um, did you like, read my post or anything?

I'll repeat, just in case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements. [i.e., an NDA]

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Just because you don't agree with the UTSA doesn't make it disappear. It remains to be seen whether the UTSA can be legally asserted by Apple, as they haven't publicly commented on this case beyond saying "Apple's DNA is innovation", etc., but the fact of the matter is that a law may indeed have been broken in the publication of information reasonably known to have been protected by a confidentiality agreement, period.

Funny how almost no story or commentary about this ever mentions that current, in-force US laws may have been broken in the publication of this information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Apple doesn't really care about these web sites. They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to web sites (such as Think Secret). And no, it's not information that's "known" elsewhere. Some of these sites have got very reliable moles, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.

Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe these sites "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)

If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting these sites from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe the EFF challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.

I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. This is not about the Seymour Hershes of the world and the Pentagon Papers. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, which involves a corporate entity, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, a

Wow that is really stretching to tie thoses two together.

Um, considering that the Social Security surplus is currently funding 20% of the general deficit - no, it isn't.

When the Social Security trust fund runs out, the US government will need to borrow money until the baby boomers die off. That demographic lump will go away, and it's actually possible the problem will never happen.

When the Social Security trust fund runs out of money, the government borrows to pay for the trustees. The Social Security surplus now - caused by Greenspan and Reagan doubling payroll taxes in the 80s - is actually pre-paying for this borrowing.

What theoretically should be happening is the US government paying down the deficit, and preparing to borrow when the trust fund runs out. Given that Bush reversed Clinton's surplus and is spending money like a drunken sailor, he wants to reneg on those promises and promise the moon. His plan won't kick in until 2009, when he's safely gone.

You did know that social security is taking in more than it's paying out now, right? And those funds go straight into the general pool?

So, let's summarize from your perspective: current budget deficits that are weakening the dollar and appear to be structural: OK. Budget defecits that won't kick in for 40 or 50 years because they've been prepaid for? Not only much worse, but totally different!

If the payroll tax hike in the 80s is meaningless - the way Bush says it is - then US govenment bonds are worthless. Hello, major economic meltdown. (By the way, most of Bush's money is in US government bonds. I don't think he really feels they are worthless.)

But then I am not a hate filled person who considers every corrected mistake a lie

I hate stupidity. Would you please show me where Bush admitted that Social Security won't be bankrupt in 2042, or that US government bonds aren't worthless? By the way, the non-partisan CBO says that Social Security won't exhaust its trust funds until 2052. Wow, ten years of solvency right there!

Every year or two, the date of social security meltdown gets pushed back another year. If this happens often enough, problem solved.

Can you show me where Bush admitted that voluntary pollution controls and abstinence-only education don't work. Oh! How about all those times he apologized for taking credit for bills that he had opposed, or even vetoed? (Bush even opposed the Iraqi vote for over a year - imagine what would have happened if the vote were last May, like Sistanti originally wanted?)

You could also show the cite where Bush admitted that going into Iraq without a post-war plan was a mistake.

I know, I know - I'm full of hate for clinging to reality.

You know - or you probably don't - 10 years ago, the crisis was scheduled to happen sooner than 2018 and 2042. Do you know why this is? I bet not.

Like the chump you are, you repeat your 2% talking point. The Social Security trustees use an amazingly pessimistic forecast, while the private account numbers are done with an optimistic one.

This is repeatedly and deliberately using misleading numbers to create a phony 'crisis', then proposing a "solution" that doesn't address the problem. If you don't think this is lying, today's Republican party is the right party for you.

Markos Moulitsas, a San Francisco liberal who writes the popular Kos site, said of Gannon: "He has been extremely anti-gay in his writings. He's been a shill for the Christian right. So there's a certain level of hypocrisy there that I thought was fair game and needed to be called out."

Asked if digging into someone's personal and business activities was proper retaliation, Moulitsas said: "If that's what it took to really bring attention to him, it's one of those unfortunate facts of reality in the way we operate today. It's sex that really draws attention to these things."

The US has been responsible for more deaths, destruction and chaos since the 1950's than Saddam ever has.

Holy cow. It wasn't the US's fault that Kim-il-Sung invaded South Korea. It wasn't the US's fault that Ho Chi Minh encouraged an insurgency against South Vietnam to prime them for a communist takeover. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam invaded Iran to start the third bloodiest war of the century. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam then decided to "annex" Kuwait. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam starved his own people during the 1990s just for propaganda.

We are not the bad guys here. Your anger is sorely misplaced.

We have WMD's.

Yes- in fact our status as one of the 5 nuclear states in the NPT mandates that we maintain WMDs so we can defend the non-nuclear states that are signatory to the NPT.

We disobey the UN fairly regularly.

No we don't. The actions we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly authorized by the UN.

We destroyed two third world countries

My goodness. Do you seriously look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think that we destroyed them?

Iraq posed a significant threat to us. Whats more than that, Saddam was a big destabilizing force in a very volatile region. Our action in Iraq has not only eliminated one of the biggest threats to our national security, but it attacks the root of the problem by spreading freedom to the part of the world that is responsible for most of the terrorist threats that we face.

So instead of dealing with the real threats, we made up one and now after all the ash is falling we see not one but two "rogue" states with weapons that go boom.

What makes you think that we aren't dealing with these other threats? We tried diplomacy with Iraq for over 12 years. And our action in Iraq makes it more likely that diplomacy will succeed in Iran and the DPRK.

All this in the name of...what? Terrorism?Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and some very thick documents detail this quite explicitly.

Nobody claims that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I hate to break this to you, but there are more terrorist threats to us than just al Qaeda. Iraq directly supported many terrorist organizations, and they had been caught plotting attacks against us several times throughout the 1990s. International intelligence indicated that they were still plotting against us. How long do you want to wait for this threat to materialize?

WMD? They didn't have them.

They did not have the WMD stockpiles that we thought, but they did have banned WMD programs and infrastructure. The ISG found over a dozen proscribed programs that the UN did not know about- any one of them was enough to justify military action.

Freeing an oppressed country?

Yes. A free and democratic Iraq will put enormous pressure on the governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to reform, and will help stabilize the whole region.

I have never understood this fixation some people have with blaming all of the world's ills on the US. I believe that it is this pessimism and myopia that is preventing the Democrats from winning elections.

I'll give you the word "threat". However, let's talk about the level of "threat". Was it severe, dire, imminent (which would have warranted an immediate military strike)? Absolutely not, and the actual reporting that Bush saw (not the heavily-doctored stuff that Rumsfeld's illegal Pentagon espionage office produced) was FAR from concrete in terminology and opinion regarding the existence of WMDs in Iraq past 1995.

The level of threat which existed was that Saddam, left unchecked, would undoubtedly reconstitute his weapons programs and use them to exert his influence throughout the Middle East (thereby lending a destabilizing effect on the region). It was necessary to recognize this threat in order to keep international political and economic sanctions going against Saddam until he submitted to verifiable dismantling of his WMD stocks and programs.

I'll reiterate that only BushCo told us that they knew what, how much, and exactly where all these materials were. It turns out that they were wrong about everything they claimed as a justification for this war.

I find it especially curious now, after having engaged in unilateral invasion and occupation based on intelligence which has been unequivocally proven vague, that the Bush Administration would now soft-peddle an outright admission of having WMDs (in the form of nuclear weapons), while still putting intense pressure on Iran where the level of doubt is much higher.

That said, I'll apologize for the name calling and insults. However, it is very tiring to constantly see people trying to use those out-of-context quotes as though they somehow rose to the level of justifying Bush's illegal and immoral actions in Iraq (and inside the US, for that matter).

"...the CIO for the city of Philadelphia, explaining why she thinks it's time to break the telcos de-facto monopoly and for public agencies to start offering public services."

...then why has the City so hardily endorsed th running of public schools by private companies. Which, coincidentally, has apparently been successful.

Bush had to appear on national TV in June/July of 2003 to explain to the nation that we did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. Why? Because polls showed that almost 70% of the US population believed that to be the reason

*sigh*

You have the poll wrong, this poll was talked about in the media at length. The Poll was about an Saddam-September 11th link. The media would basically run stories like this one which includes this text "Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved" most of the stories talked about how the American public has been "mislead".

The actual poll however asked the question How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

32 Percent of the people said it was very likely
37 percent said it was somewhat likely.

Somehow though, CBS turned this into "nearly 70 percent of the respondents believed the iraqi leader was probably personally involved". Maybe it's just me but the words probably and somewhat have different meanings to me. Also what does "personally involved" mean? Was Saddam personally involved if one of the September 11 hijackers trained at a terrorist camp in Iraq for sometime? Or does personally involved mean that Saddam was sending them money? Or does it mean Osama called Saddam and the two watched September 11th unfold on CNN from a remote cave somewhere? Ok, I'm being a little silly but I think you get my point.

Sometimes the questions in these polls aren't very clear and can mean different things to different people. Yet the media picks them up and spins them to run the stories they want to run to influence YOU and it works.

here's why.

Better anonymous than in "the man's" database.

Regarding UN reports, this is disingenuous of you. The final reports from the UN inspection teams let by Hans Blix etc stated plainly that sanctions were working and there was no evidence of WMDs. Let me spell this out for you since you seem to find it hard to comprehend. The expert sent to determine whether there were any weapons on his final visit said that he had concluded there were none.

What the hell are you talking about? What final report? UNMOVIC hasn't issued a "final" report yet. They are supposed to release their first draft of a compendium if Iraq's proscribed weapons and programs next month (March 2005).

And UNMOVIC has not said that there is "no evidence" of WMDs. I think you are confusing some things here. They have said that there is no evidence that there were large WMD stockpiles left, but they can't rule out the possibility of smaller WMD caches spread across Iraq (including over 500 155mm artillery shells filled with high grade mustard gas that Saddam's Special Republican Guard is believed to have had as late as March 2003). This is all covered in their latest quarterly report.

And the stockpiles are only part of the story. We found dozens of proscribed WMD programs and activities in Iraq that the UN did not know about. All of these were direct violations of Iraq's cease-fire obligations that the Security Council had given explicit authorization to enforce using military action.

UNMOVIC addressed the ISG findings in their last quarterly report (November, 2004). In that report, they acknowledge that the ISG did in fact find proscribed weapons, programs, and procurement activities that the UN did not know about. Iraq was clearly in violation of Resolution 1441!

Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Saddam used to be.

Numerous others? Like who? Who else was in violation of 17 Chapter 7 Security Council Resolutions? Who else was under international orders to disarm? Who else had shown a willingness to use chemical weapons in the past, launched unprovoked missile attacks against neighboring countries, tried to illegally expand their borders, and had direct ties to numerous terrorist organizations? Sure- there are other bad people in this world, but you cannot seriously claim that Iraq did not pose a unique threat.

But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on.

There was a lot more than just an "off chance" that Iraq would resort to terrorism- they already had multiple times! We foiled numerous terror plots against us or other western countries throughout the 1990s. And intelligence from around the world suggested that Iraq was still trying. Just how many "bloody noses" do you expect us to accept as a price of freedom?

I agree completely. Did anyone else hear about this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A124 92-2005Feb9.html While I think that dressing like this makes you look like a slob, if that's what you want to do, then I'm all for it. The last thing we need is more government regulation. We don't need Big Brother to be a fashion consultant.

> This statement is idiotic. North Korea had
> nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now
> they're afraid because... they developed nukes.

United States Congress has this year sponsored "Freedom Fighters" in the following countries, with the following sums:

Russia $150,000,000
Iran $150,000,000
Egypt $25,000,000
Syria $5,000,000
Venezuela $20,000,000
Cuba $40,000,000
North Korea $20,000,000
Myanmar $12,000,000

These include terrorist groups like MEK

It should prove that MANY COUNTRIES have a LOT
to fear from U.S., even if they've never developed
nukes.

It also seems that US going wimpy on North Korea,
and bullish on Iran, just proves that nukes are worth it in their deterrent value.

You don't hear Rumsfeld being uncertain about Iranian nukes, whereas you can read him doubt
that North Korean nukes even exist. The funny thing is, that Iran claims to have none, and North is claiming to have several. Read it here.

The quote I was refering to was "Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

That was in this article, along with all the other people that said Iraq had it.

He never said what happened to it, and Iraq never offered any proof it was destroyed.

The 100,000 figure does not come from them however, it is from a study led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was released last October. It was covered in the media, more in the international media of course.

Guardian
NYT
International Herald Tribune
Washington Post

If that's not proof enough that companies tend to patch only AFTER their products are directly threatened, I don't know what is.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Clinton said it, Gore said it, Blix said it, Chirac said it, Blair said it. Stating otherwise is completely revisionist history.

"outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN't have WMDs".

Sorry, but that's complete FUD.

From this article:

Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."

Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

and that's leaving out the Clinton quotes.

Not to mention the fact that France, the UN and many other people were in Saddam's back pocket because of the money they received in the "Oil for Food" program. No wonder they were against war in Iraq. They already sold out.

So get off your damn high horse and quit acting all holier than tho. Getting bribed to keep a dictator in power isn't a virtue.

From the Washington Post

Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."

Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

Al Gore: "[Saddam Hussein has] stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bill Clinton describing "[Iraq's] offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.": "...Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

From the same Post article about the August report:

John H. Marburger, the president's science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy."

Bush in 2001 was still repeating the conservative mantra on this topic: we don't know how much change is due to natural fluctuations, etc. Now the administration says that we've got evidence it's happening, and that we need to study it. Now THERE is the sort of moral courage that gets a man re-elected by turning on vulnerable minorities...

Linkified and delinebreakified

Good article.

No, you're thinking of the FAA. Remember those stories in the 90's about the ATC system crashing and getting computer techs out of retirement to fix 'em (and frantic searches for tubes and old, no longer manufactured transistors)? I guess nothing has really changed. Your tax dollars at work.

Taxes go to subsidise oil prices. Its a payment no US president will remove because it will be far too unpopular if the price of oil in the US was to match the real market value and be the same as what the rest of the world pays for it.

Futher discussions at various places on the web, including the Post.

So next time theres someone complaining about too much tax ask them to start paying for the real cost of their car and its fuel.

See here for a brief summary of the toxicity of old electronics parts. There is plenty of toxic heavy metals in the components.