Slashdot Mirror

Here are some interesting results of a study of distracted drivers causing an accident:
Rubbernecking: 16 percent
driver fatigue: 12 percent
looking at scenery: 10 percent
other passengers or children: 9 percent
adjusting the radio, cassette or CD player: 7 percent

So does all the fancy extras include windows? radios? passanger seats?

If Kerry has enough time to go goose hunting and then use the Red Sox game as an excuse for being too lazy to carry the goose he supposedly shot, then he should at least be able to get the score correct.

We know that Kerry is getting all his sports wrong because we are informed about sports. How much do you think Kerry gets wrong about subjects you are not well informed about?

I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.

Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.

The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.

And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.

Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.

Those are some of my reasons.

Things I disagree with Bush on:

1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.

In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.

Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.

Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:

1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.

2. Why the hell does he try to pret

much like your beloved Kerry, although by most definitions he is not a Catholic

It's attitudes like yours that caused me to stop being a Catholic. Just because someone doesn't think the way you do doesn't mean that they aren't a Christian. The last time I checked there were only two qualifications for being a Christian:

1. Faith in God
2. Believing that God sent His only son, Jesus, to die on a cross for our sin.

Now tell me, where does stem cell research fit in there??? I'm not saying I agree with him but I think it's pretty low of you to challenge the man's faith over issues that aren't even related to it.

If an issue is brought up that you can't defend, you just attack on another issue.

Hmmm...I seem to remember a certain president who used this tactic extensively during the third debate. And I quote:

SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. Two minutes. And let's continue on jobs.
You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.
Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?
BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.
We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.
I went to Washington to solve problems. And I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system, year after year, grade after grade, without learning the basics.
And so we said: Let's raise the standards. We're spending more money, but let's raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now, before it's too late.
No, education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure we've got a workforce that's productive and competitive.
Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.
And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what I would say to that person.
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally.

Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/poli tics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html

... by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) ...

I just thuoght we'd have some truth in advertising for once. You readily admit you're a Marxist, so any opinions you might have should be put through the appropriate filters.

...our army is being wasted on an enemy that hasn't invaded anybody within the last decade...

Well, I admit I'm not up on current events as much as I could be, but has any other country has invaded another (as of Jan. 2003) since 1991?

...we've got nothing left for the real threats of terrorist countries who have already gained nukes.

Can we please define a terrorist country? If a terrorist country is one that harbors terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that is headed by a terrorist, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that supports terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that pays terrorists' families' after they commit an act of terror, then Iraq qualifies. I'm not saying that Iran doesn't qualify, but let's be clear here. If you want us to do something about Iran now, why won't you accept that we had to do something about Iraq then?

While we're on the subject, maybe you could answer Bob Woodward's 22 questions for Kerry. I'm sure your answers will be very telling.

I can corroborate the story. It was actually an aide to the mayor of D.C., Anthony Williams, who is a very smart, educated guy. The sad thing was that Williams didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for his appointee, and he accepted the aide's resignation.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

That's a great quote that is highly relevant here. I think the folks that are outraged by the media's reports on this issue need to step back and consider the evidence that supported the allegations, because it was very weak.

Sinclair never publicly announced that it was airing "Stolen Honor" in its entirety, but the media has claimed that it did. Even now, after the airing of the unbiased special, the LA times falsely claims that "Sinclair announced plans to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," an anti-Kerry documentary". The Washington Post claims that Mark Hyman told them that the entire documentary would be shown unless Kerry agreed to an interview, but a quick review of their articles reveals no quote of Mark Hyman that says that. Ever since this controversy started, Sinclair execs have been claiming that they were not intending to show "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. On October 12, Mark Hyman said that "nothing has been shot" but the media still insisted that they were going to show the whole documentary.

The best evidence of their alleged nefarious intentions were some TV listings (possibly accidental mistakes), a fired employee that said they were discussing airing the documentary (but weren't sure what they were going to air), and the fact that they were considered conservative. For that, their advertisers were harrassed, their investors were contacted with requests to sell their stock, and the execs "endured personal attacks of the vilest nature". It was obvious to me that the media's reports caused things to get out of hand, and the assault upon the demonized Sinclair was incredibly premature.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire

That's a great quote that is highly relevant here. I think the folks that are outraged by the media's reports on this issue need to step back and consider the evidence that supported the allegations, because it was very weak.

Sinclair never publicly announced that it was airing "Stolen Honor" in its entirety, but the media has claimed that it did. Even now, after the airing of the unbiased special, the LA times falsely claims that "Sinclair announced plans to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," an anti-Kerry documentary". The Washington Post claims that Mark Hyman told them that the entire documentary would be shown unless Kerry agreed to an interview, but a quick review of their articles reveals no quote of Mark Hyman that says that. Ever since this controversy started, Sinclair execs have been claiming that they were not intending to show "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. On October 12, Mark Hyman said that "nothing has been shot" but the media still insisted that they were going to show the whole documentary.

The best evidence of their alleged nefarious intentions were some TV listings (possibly accidental mistakes), a fired employee that said they were discussing airing the documentary (but weren't sure what they were going to air), and the fact that they were considered conservative. For that, their advertisers were harrassed, their investors were contacted with requests to sell their stock, and the execs "endured personal attacks of the vilest nature". It was obvious to me that the media's reports caused things to get out of hand, and the assault upon the demonized Sinclair was incredibly premature.

Surgeries, Side Trips for 'Medical Tourists'
Affordable Care at India's Private Hospitals Draws Growing Number of Foreigners

By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A01

NEW DELHI -- Three months ago, Howard Staab learned that he suffered from a life-threatening heart condition and would have to undergo surgery at a cost of up to $200,000 -- an impossible sum for the 53-year-old carpenter from Durham, N.C., who has no health insurance.

So he outsourced the job to India.

Taking his cue from cost-cutting U.S. businesses, Staab last month flew about 7,500 miles to the Indian capital, where doctors at the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre -- a sleek aluminum-colored building across the street from a bicycle-rickshaw stand -- replaced his balky heart valve with one harvested from a pig. Total bill: about $10,000, including round-trip airfare and a planned side trip to the Taj Mahal.

"The Indian doctors, they did such a fine job here, and took care of us so well," said Staab, a gentle, ponytailed bicycling enthusiast who was accompanied to India by his partner, Maggi Grace. "I would do it again."

Staab is one of a growing number of people known as "medical tourists" who are traveling to India in search of First World health care at Third World prices. Last year, an estimated 150,000 foreigners visited India for medical procedures, and the number is increasing at the rate of about 15 percent a year, according to Zakariah Ahmed, a health care specialist at the Confederation of Indian Industries.

Eager to cash in on the trend, posh private hospitals are beginning to offer services tailored for foreign patients, such as airport pickups, Internet-equipped private rooms and package deals that combine, for example, tummy-tuck surgery with several nights in a maharajah's palace. Some hospitals are pushing treatment regimens that augment standard medicine with yoga and other forms of traditional Indian healing.

The phenomenon is another example of how India is profiting from globalization -- the growing integration of world economies -- just as it has already done in such other service industries as insurance and banking, which are outsourcing an ever-widening assortment of office tasks to the country. A recent study by the McKinsey consulting firm estimated that India's medical tourist industry could yield as much as $2.2 billion in annual revenue by 2012.

"If we do this right, we can heal the world," said Prathap C. Reddy, a physician who founded Apollo Hospitals, a 6,400-bed chain that is headquartered in the coastal city of Chennai and is one of the biggest private health care providers in Asia.

The trend is still in its early stages. Most of the foreigners treated in India come from other developing countries in Asia, Africa or the Middle East, where top-quality hospitals and health professionals are often hard to find. Patients from the United States and Europe still are relatively rare -- not only because of the distance they must travel but also, hospital executives acknowledge, because India continues to suffer from an image of poverty and poor hygiene that discourages many patients.

Taken as a whole, India's health care system is hardly a model, with barely four doctors for every 10,000 people, compared with 27 in the United States, according to the World Bank. Health care accounts for just 5.1 percent of India's gross domestic product, against 14 percent in the United States.

On the other hand, India offers a growing number of private "centers of excellence" where the quality of care is as good or better than that of big-city hospitals in the United States or Europe, asserted Naresh Trehan, a self-assured cardiovascular surgeon who runs Escorts and performed the operation on Staab.

T

We don't have a 'winner takes all' system. You must be in that 99%!

Florida should be able to split its votes, as only Maine and Nebraska can now.

The flaw, however, was not Florida's but the winner-take-all electoral system used by 48 of the 50 states in presidential elections

Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about -- not because that state turned out to make the decisive difference in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters -- nearly as many as will go to the winning candidate -- had no say in the outcome. All of Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other guy.

You have a winner-take-all system for senate and house of representatives as well... and thats even worse than the presidential election... this way you make sure that all minorities (anyone not pro-republican or pro-democrat) are completely disenfranchised...

High voter turnout doesn't guarantee a good election result. Why is it prized so much?

ahhh... the mysteries of democracy :)
seriously haven't you got some kind of civics education in school? how old are you... oh well... here we go.
One good reason that having a large voter turnout is good is that it increases stability. People feel like they had some say in who rules over them . Another good reason for having a high voter turnout is that it helps protect peoples rights. If people can make an informed decision they can vote for the people that will represent them and fight for their rights. If people don't make the effort to understand politics and the underlying reason they have the freedoms they do, they will be apt to lose their rights and freedom. People might one day wake up and find that their rights have been taken from them by a president only actively supported by 20% of the population.
Democracy is not something that is god given, it is something you have to fight for. If you are not willing to fight for your freedom (or just taking the small effort to make an informed decision and voting) you, in my mind, deserve to have it taken away... and you probably will.

essentially voter turn-out is a litmus test for determining if the american people (or indeed any people) understand and appreciate the rights and freedoms their ancestors fought and died to give them.

I'm willing to give the american people the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not ignorant and that they do understand the responsibilities that democracy stows upon them, but that they are merely unfortunate to live in a system that was the first of its kind, and therefore not able to learn from the mistakes of others.

You are right... the european leaders are not perfect, but at least they were elected in a democracy. I'm going out on a limb here, but I take it you are talking about the war on iraq when you talk about europeans "not being able to find their arse with both hands in the dark". You might think that Schroeder and Chirac were acting out of petty ecnomical concerns when they were against the war in Iraq, but the fact is that they were supported in their decisions (by a very large margin) by the people who elected them. You might disagree with the europeans on the war, but you can't claim that the french and german leaders had an ulterior motive.
If you were realy trying to compare the EU with the US then you have probably misunderstood one or two things about europe... the EU is a collection of sovereign nations, that sovereign nations often disagree has NOTHING to do with the failings of democracies.
before you go criticize democracies outside of the united states, maybe you should try to understand how your own country works.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

Prove that the Bush administration was a terrorist plot to destroy the US economy.

Easy to do, there's evidence everywhere.

Others have mentioned the taxes. How about this one: Bush will conduct an offensive campaign against rogue states and terrorist organizations, while Kerry will only respond to attacks against us? Kerry sees the bombing of the USS Cole, the World Trade Center (at least the first one, maybe both), Khobar Towers, and our African embassies as "a nuisance" (his words, not mine.) while Bush sees them as acts of war against the United States conducted by rogue states using terrorist groups as proxies.

Or how about this one: Bush won't rely on approval of the corrupt and dictatorial-regime-supporting UN (France, Germany and Russia getting Oil-for-Food kickbacks from Saddam to block us in the security council is BIG NEWS.) and Kerry will use these same thieves and fools as a litmus test to decide whether or not we should use our armed forces to defend ourselves. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' " link to story.

Kerry will guide our course in the world based primarily on input from people who want to see America weaker, who happily accept bribes from mass-murdering dictators, and who would rather not see the 50,000,000 million Muslims that We have liberated in the past three years... uh... liberated. How's that for a start?

"And we need devices to shut people up who talk too loud, or get rid of the fat people that sit beside you on the bus"

And your third wish?

"WHEATON, Maryland (AP) -- A pregnant woman said she was handcuffed by transit police and forced to lie on her stomach during an arrest that began with her talking too loudly on her cell phone."

FYI, this has been done in some counties in Maryland and throughout Ireland as I understand it...I seem to remember hearing that the Irish smoking ban was repealed not long after it was introduced, but I can't back that up with anything I can find in print.

Of course, I don't think anyone bothered to actually walk into said pubs...it was more of a "sit in office, issue edict, threaten pubs with fines" sort of thing. Immediately after the ban took effect in parts of Maryland, I remember the Washington Post running an article of two that talked about how it was killing business in the bars in those areas.

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of this sort of meddling, by individuals or Big Brother. Unfortunately such entities rarely, if ever, consult me before implementing these brilliant plans.

Push all the buttons you want, I can always unpush them. Ha!

I was talking to the election commisioner for the county. She made sure they were as secure as they could be made.

Is your election commisioner an expert in computer security?

Do you machine have a voter-verifiable paper trail? If not, they're nowhere near as secure as they can be made - no where near sedure enough, in fact.

And there were much more severe problems in Fairfax County than taking an extra day to count the votes.

Americans would typically respond with something like "well your news is biased too", because they have been well indoctrinated for years to have nothing but contempt for the notion that objective truth even exists.

Does it?

If you, personally, were not on-site at the occurence of X event, then how do you know for certain that X event really occurred?

How do you know that (Bush|Kerry) said "foo" unless you personally heard them say "foo" live and in-person?

Sure the audio may be in the video, but can't video and audio be doctored? Who's to say that an excellent mockup of (Bush|Kerry) wasn't created and their voice re-created (or even recorded and just taken out-of-context) and used in a falsified video?

It happens pretty regularly with printed docs. Look at the Dan Rathergate in which he presented fake memos on-air.

So just what *is* "the truth"? Quite simply, there is no such thing unless you are a primary source. Unless you were there, you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you know is correct, because you did not make your own observation. This is what we are taught in high school science class -- if you don't make your own measurements, then how do you know the measurements were made correctly?

You don't, because you didn't take the measurements, and you weren't there to validate those measurements at the time of the experiment. Sorry, you can't be a primary source because you weren't on-site making your own observations; all you can do is merely *trust* other people that their observations would fully, 100% match your own (and this is *never* the case, given a fine enough level of precision).

Same thing with media reporting. You have to take things with a mountain of salt, compare what each source presents to what you *know* (or have better reason-than-not to believe is true), and decide accordingly which sources seem most-reliable to you.

I mean, you *do* do this with Slashdot, right? You don't just believe on the face of things that whoever posted the article is going to get their article summary *correct*, do you? :-) I surely hope not! Because they are factually-wrong a rather disturbing amount of the time...

It's not a perfect system -- it'd be nice if all news sources were 100% unbiased and presented news perfectly -- but we don't live in a perfect world. Because of that, we (or at least I) deal with it in as scientific a manner as possible.

(Except the religious zealots, of which we have many - like President Bush. They guide themselves on "faith," not reason. But a great many of us do still think with our brains, believe it or not.)

Actually, I don't know if it is true right now that jobs that are awarded to government contractors must stay in the US. Even if Bush has signed this bill, it still doesn't take effect "until the Commerce Department proves the ban wouldn't hurt the economy or lead to more job losses." So, the India quote stands for now. Quit making assumptions and prove me wrong that jobs cannot go overseas once awarded to government contractors!

Data for all federal employees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=poli tics/fedpage/workers&query=qdb_Results1_Srch_Page/ Search

The Oregon report said one person "might" have seen 8-10 registrations shredded and another "might" have been encouraged to do so.

The second one references the same people as the first one (same individual, at least).

The third is a woman who says she was told to do something, by people who deny it, and never saw it happen.

Oh- the people accused deny it, and "never saw it happen!" That settles it then!

Your insinuation- that this is somehow nothing but hearsay, and that these are just mean Democrats making this stuff up about Sproul in Oregon- is laughable. The similar claims being made about him in Nevada are supported by physical evidence. He has been running this scam in multiple swing states.

Since you seem to be so insanely insistant I chastise the RNC, I will admit that if any of these cases are proven legitimate then the firms responsible should be held accountable. That's a long, long shot from the RNC itself being guilty of voter fraud.

You should do some Google searches before posting. The firm in question (Sproul & Associates) was directly funded by the RNC to the tune of $488,000. The RNC is guilty of voter fraud.

And it seems the people who had their forms ripped up by RNC workers will not be allowed to re-register. A Republican judge this morning had told the two parties in the case to work out a compromise, which they apparently did. Hours later, the court reconvened and she denied the petition without hearing any arguments- reasoning that if a law was broken, the guilty party would be punished, end of story. The local news video about it is here.

"Worse, all that this does is use a feature of the OS - nothing more."

I don't know about your OS, but mine does not send my usage data to third parties.

"Once the Google search technology is installed for free on a personal computer, it will transmit basic data daily about usage patterns. For example, it will tell the company how often Google is being used to search personal computers, how often it is used to search the Web, and how often simultaneous searches are done. Google lets users opt out of sending some usage data, but not all of it.

However, Mayer said the data collected will be aggregated so that the company knows where to focus its efforts on upgrading the search technology. She emphasized that the daily up-loading will not transmit any personal information to Google and said it is typical for major software programs that offer voluntary upgrades and fixes for bugs to capture that sort of information as a matter of routine."

"Google Desktop isn't spyware, because it makes what it is doing clear before you install it. Of course it reads your files; that's how Google works. As long as my data doesn't go back to Google, I couldn't care less."

Except that it DOES transmit some of that information back to Google (and partners).

"Once the Google search technology is installed for free on a personal computer, it will transmit basic data daily about usage patterns. For example, it will tell the company how often Google is being used to search personal computers, how often it is used to search the Web, and how often simultaneous searches are done. Google lets users opt out of sending some usage data, but not all of it.

However, Mayer said the data collected will be aggregated so that the company knows where to focus its efforts on upgrading the search technology. She emphasized that the daily up-loading will not transmit any personal information to Google and said it is typical for major software programs that offer voluntary upgrades and fixes for bugs to capture that sort of information as a matter of routine."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A321 09-2004Oct14.html

You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

... (continues and closes with)...

And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what I would say to that person."

Washington Post Debate Transcript

I'm conservative, but I'm not going to blindly follow or reject someone based on their political label. To the person whose unemployment is about to run out and is unable to find a job, even with a bachelors degree, such a statement was stupid and insensitive.

Let me paraphrase it for you: "we're creating jobs and we'll give you money to go get education so that you can get a job and that's all you'll get."

Washingtonpost has an article on the Industry vs. American workers squaring off on this issue. and an article on outsourcing.

BTW, Harriss Miller and the ITAA are the ENEMY on this issue and the IEEE is the good guy. Check out IEEE Legislative action center to help us take action on these issues.

Washingtonpost has an article on the Industry vs. American workers squaring off on this issue. and an article on outsourcing.

BTW, Harriss Miller and the ITAA are the ENEMY on this issue and the IEEE is the good guy. Check out IEEE Legislative action center to help us take action on these issues.

Um... that shows that they are effective against a democracy, which I don't think anyone questions. Sanctions are utterly ineffective against a totalitarian government,

They also worked against Libiya .

And two weeks before going into Iraq, The US Government was crowing in the UN about how they were working against Iraq. The absence of WMD is proof that they were right when Colin Powell was telling the world that the Sanctions were working.

Funny how they get something right, only to then flipflop and turn the world against them.

"Once the Google search technology is installed for free on a personal computer, it will transmit basic data daily about usage patterns. For example, it will tell the company how often Google is being used to search personal computers, how often it is used to search the Web, and how often simultaneous searches are done. Google lets users opt out of sending some usage data, but not all of it.

However, Mayer said the data collected will be aggregated so that the company knows where to focus its efforts on upgrading the search technology. She emphasized that the daily up-loading will not transmit any personal information to Google and said it is typical for major software programs that offer voluntary upgrades and fixes for bugs to capture that sort of information as a matter of routine."

This makes me hesitate to install it on my work PC, even though indexing Outlook is soooo tempting ...

The parent poster was probably thinking of Kerry's wife, who has the Heinz fortune but pays a relatively small percentage of tax given her income level. See A Washington Post Article.

I really don't care, since she also donated more than $4 million to charity last year. If you hunt around online, John and Theresa Kerry track financial assets separately per the terms of their prenuptual agreement. In fact, John Kerry mortgaged the only house they jointly own to help finance his election bid.

Hooray for modern medicine!

The courts have ruled: you may mock politicians, but not televangelists.

"I'm still waiting for the source of your supposed quote, and am still waiting for the context of the quote (that is, the full text of the remarks)."

You are lazy. Its an exact quote. You could search it in Google faster than waiting for me to do it for you. It was published originally in the Israeli online newspaper, Haaretz Reporter, by a reporter named Arnon Regular. Can't immediately find the original online but here is a on it.

"He had intelligence which specified that they were at X, Y and Z. The intel was incorrect. This isn't rocket science."

God isn't that convenient. You can make up any intelligence you want, use it to gin up a case for a war, and then when it becomes obvious it was a lie, you just say "the intel was incorrect...next". Who are you going to take down next with this strategy? You can take down anyone you know using this vapor.

"Or do you expect him to have personally verified the locations"

Uh, yea. If he says he knew where they are I'd expect him to know where they are. He didn't say "We think we know where they are". It was a definitive statement and the American people bought it. He commands some of the worlds most advanced spying capability and special forces that could have actually gone and looked. When someone has a half trillion dollar budget you'd think he'd figured out a way to avoid be made out a liar.

"WMDs were not the sole reason for the invasion of Iraq."

Sorry man, cop out. It was at the top of the list and links to Al-Qaida was #2. The "Freedom and Democracy" angle, or sending a message angle, would have never flown as justification for a war with the American people, nor would the fact Saddam supported Palastinian groups. The American people bought the war because the Bush administration was painting pictures of nuclear bombs going off in American cities, and drones spraying them with Anthrax and Sarin. They knew thats the case they had to make to sucker Americans in to so thats the case they fabricated.

"Which has worked--note how Qaddafi has surrendered his program"

I see you are a sucker for this as much as the Bush administration. He bought a crappy WMD program just so he could turn it in, give Bush and Blair propaganda points, and get sanctions lifted. It worked. He is a genius. Bush and Blair are either dumb or they really wanted and needed the propaganda points.

"Um, there are dozens of other nations in this with us."

Your list is a joke. There was Spain but that government was out the door the first chance their people got to vote on it. "Don't forget Poland", well their Foreign Minister flat out said they were in the coalition to get a piece of the oil field action. You want me to dig up the BBC article where he said it last summer? Beside which Poland is pulling out. After that you are down in to token committments by the coalition of the "bribed and coerced" many of whom have pulled out or are pulling out now that they realized the WMD thing was a lie and Iraq is a bloody mess. Counting tiny island nations, who sent a couple people, just shows how much of a joke your coalition is.

"Oh, and your statement, 'Hitler said almost exactly the same thing,' (which is unlikely, given that Hitler didn't seem to believe in God) is a nice invocation of Godwin's Law. Thus I win:-)"

You wish.

All you proved again is you don't know what you are talking about. The Nazi's and Hitler were at least superficially Christians, Christians don't like that fact and deny it as you are. Its certainly a possibility Hitler was a rabid, wacky, extremist Christian. At times he said he was. They no doubt were using religion as a political tool, they were probably lieing through their teeth but how do we know if they considered themselves to be Christians, much the same can be said for today's Republicans.

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty C

Thats funny but in fact the people who like the patriot act just don't think like /.ers. The Washington Post put together a fair and detailed account of the developments leading up to the call for a supreme court case [for freely registered readers]. Toward the end of the report they cover Orrin Hatch's idiotic Induce Act as congress's lame industry-sponsored fix for the whole copywrong mess. But this the same who put up a bill to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from liability for what guns do. The glaring difference between the two pieces of legislature is the way one finds only the users at fault and the other blames the manufacturer of of the equipment and not its users. Where is the logic? This if totally f__ked up. Though these are supposedly the legistlative work of one mind, it is clear as desert daylight that they are simply work done at the behest of two different industries that Mr. Hatch either likes or takes money from. Lets hope the courts can do better at finding justice than Mr. Hatch. They have so far. Well, there you have it One person on whom to concentrate your hatred.

John Kerry has already messed with fate when he was in Green Bay and referred to Lambeau Field as 'Lambert Field'. His disgraceful sacrilege has already cost the Packers two home losses. Kerry's heresy will cost him dearly when the Packers win in Washington and then Bush wins Wisconsin and wins the election in a landslide.

Go Bush, Go Packers, Go Football Fans For Truth.

I guess you missed the fact the Coalition Provisional Authority spent or locked in all of the proceeds from Iraq's oil revenue for them before they transfered sovereignty and apparently their bookkeeping was so shoddy its unclear where much of the money went. They CPA spent nearly $20 billion for the Iraqis and most of it is probably going in to the pockets of American contractors like Halliburton.

Halliburton landed a potential 7 billion dollar no bid contract to repair Iraq's oil fields and most probably operate them long term. They certainly have the inside track to run Iraq's oil fields long term.

By contrast the CPA has spent a tiny fraction, 2%, of the U.S. money Congress allocated for reconstruction.

Here is the BBC's take. Here is the Washington Post.

I'd appreciate it if you showed the same righteous indignation about possible U.S. corruption as you showed about U.N. corruption. Fact is when there are billions in oil revenue bouncing around, it corrupts just about everyone in sight of it.

It may not have been the main reason for the invasion, but an obvious fringe benefit was to open Iraq for oil and war profiteering by U.S. and British companies. You might scream "there are a lot cheaper ways" but crony capitalists don't care if they squandered a couple hundred billion of our tax dollars, and thousands of lives, as long billions of dollars land in the pockets of the cronies.

You can also be pretty sure the Bush administration wanted to dramatically increase Iraqs oil production to dimish the world's dependence on Saudi Arabia. Iraq has the potential to pass Saudi Arabia as the world's number one producer. Since Iraq is under a puppet government that gives the U.S. much greater leverage over global production and pricing than it had before the war. Of course Iraq's oil production continues to be in deep trouble due to looting, sabotage and the difficulty in developing their facilities in the current shaky security environment.

The future is now.

The Washington Post had an interesting article today. Here it is. It's basically a critique of Bush's tax cuts.

It all boils down to this: Bush wanted lower taxes. He lowered all the brackets that were in effect in 2000 and added a 10% bracket (details and comparisons can be found here). This ends up 'costing' the nation money, because the revenue that would have come from the additional taxes isn't going to be there. Whenever you see 'Bush's tax cut cost $X.YZ billion over 10 years', that's what it means. Also, some tax cuts are temporary. Congress passes them for a window, say 10 years, and then they have to be made permanent down the road.

Clinton presided over a ridiculous boom in the economy, one that caused the market to surge and provided us with a surplus. When I got out of school in 2000, I was coming into the job market at the tail end of the boom. People were handing out jobs like candy, and salaries were ridiculous. It's debatable what caused that surge to end, but it had to. If you look at numbers, and I don't have any handy, but looking at the numbers from the first part of 2001 on (when Bush was innaugurated), it's pretty clear that everything had slowed down and was continuing to slow down. September 11th happened, more bad news for the economy. Whenever stuff like that happens, the markets get shaken up and tend to go down.

Additionally, there is a tax loophole that allows multinational corporations to shift tax burdens around and decrease the amount of taxes they pay in this country. Some people claim this leads to outsourcing, since it's cheaper for them to pay workers in other countries, claim profits across multiple countries yet still claim expenses here. This article is a little lengthy but explains that more.

Jobs aren't really part of the job of president, but unemployment is seen as a bad thing. The president (really, him combined with congress) can only "promote" job growth by giving companies tax credits for new hires, or by reducing their tax burden or by making it more profitable to hire people here rather than other countries (ie, outsourcing). Kerry's economic plan (read it here) wants to drop that loophole above and use it to give corporations a 5% cut in corporate taxes (that's important...not all companies PAY corporate taxes, only about 8% do). He also wants to give a two-year new jobs tax credit to companies.

If you're a Kerry supporter, Bush has a net loss of jobs, is running a deficit because he cut taxes for the rich (he cut the top tax bracket from 39.5% to 35%, saying last week on O'Reilly "Nobody should pay more than 35% in taxes") and is a spendthrift on the war.

If you like Bush, a lot of this was bound to happen anyways. The war is contentious, obviously, but tax cuts are typically viewed favorably by Republicans because money back for everyone is a good thing.

That's my take on the economy. And as a caveat, I'm a Bush supporter. I don't think Kerry has the money to enact half the things he wants. If you look at his website, he wants a "Pay as you go" policy, which means that if he gives a 5% tax cut for corporations totalling $12billion over 10 years, we need to cut something or raise taxes so that it's on the books...no deficit spending. It's a great idea...it also rarely gets talked about in his speeches and, to me, sounds like a cop out so that next year he can say "The Republican Congress wouldn't reduce spending here, so I can't give you health care like I promised. Sorry."

--trb

So, Maurice Wilkins, the son-of-a-bitch who showed Rosalind Franklin's photographs, without her knowledge, to misogynistic loudmouth James Watson and mealymouthed Francis Crick, and therefore got to share in the Nobel Prize for the structure of DNA, has finally died.

I have seen from several sources that he was the one who shared her photos with Watson and Crick. In Franklin's biography, Rosalind Franklin: the Dark Lady of DNA, biographer Brenda Maddox presents information that suggests Wilkins had been hard at work all along to usurp Franklin's work. There was a long pattern of him taking her data while she was away on holiday or at conferences and discussing it with other scientists, analyzing it, and then presenting the analysis to her as a "surprise" when she returned.

Amazingly enough, she couldn't STAND him.

So the Watson/Crick thing was just the icing on a cake he'd been baking for a really long time.

Oh, and articles like this one in the Washington Post refer to him as the leader of the team. Um, no. He was about the same age as Franklin, kept trying to dominate her research, and finally ended up having to go into a negotiation meeting with THEIR supervisor, wherein Franklin got the best samples, the best instruments, and Wilkins was left with substandard samples and old instruments. Gosh, why was that? Because Wilkins couldn't get the same high-quality photographs that Franklin did.

He apparently got all resentful that she was "keeping all the data to herself" -- interesting how it played out that he stole her data and even after she told him to stop interpreting her data went off to discuss it with Watson. Not a vindictive bastard at all, right?

Good riddance, you slimy backstabbing scumbag. Better luck next time around in being a decent human being.

The normal people are so food-deprived, there are claims of cannibalism in the North. Screw satellite pictures: technology is the least of North Korea's people's problems.

Thank you for your informative post; too bad it was modded flamebait. Here are some links for those who reckon it's "flamebait" to point out that starving people probably don't give a shit about their country's "intelligence warfare capability".

A travelogue: "Journey into Kimland" by Scott Fisher

more: clicky, clicky, clicky, clicky, clicky.
since we seem to read the same stuff as our leaders, might as well be strung along the same.

Good points, but perhaps things are already being done. Sactions, supplying them with food and talks all seem largely useless. But putting the plans on CNN for the world to see and approve wouldn't be wise, either.

The US presence in S. Korea seems to be tightening up a bit, doesn't it? Read this: http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2004/Jun/29-53 5351.html and consider what other posters have said about Seoul falling, think about how S. Korean troops would be regarded differently in N. & S. Korea and globally. And consider the US missile defense system http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A966 1-2004Aug17.html Bush is building and Kerry opposes.

Jobs keep dismissing PDAs altogether while telling everyone that phones will inherit the future...

Well , I agree with Jobs in that point , and sony as well . I have been living in japan for the last six months and I arrived here with my palm assistant , but after a week with my new cell phone (Toshiba a5504t) I dumped the palm , I just have everything on the phone ( I download apps/games, internet , email , GPS , camera , a place to put my appointments ). I have to admit that Im still slow writing with the keyboard in english , but if you know japanese this little toys let you write really fast once you "train" the phone.

Clickable:
How about Bush's lies about the cost of their geriatric/pharmaco bribery^Wprescription drug plan, promised at $400B to convince Congress to vote for it, then readjusted to $534B after the law was (barely, illegally) passed? Another lie: now it's up at least $42B more, to $576B, a 44% increase over that already vast sum. When the decade after its passage on a pack of lies, how close to a trillion dollars will have been fed to pharmaceutical companies to get their campaign bribes^Wdonations, and votes from old people who believe they're getting free drugs?

"Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions."
If this were a surprise, it might matter more. However, I have trouble believing that an intelligent person can believe most of the things the Bush administration says. I do not think this will hurt Bush because his supporters are completely uninterested in knowing the truth.
Do you remember the cost estimates of the Republician Drug Plan? (e.g. here, here).
What about WMD?
Do you believe him when he talks about how much better is the economy?
Did you believe Bush or Greenspan when they talked about the need for tax reductions because the federal government was going to have too large a surplus?
"But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.
"I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.
"Short of an extraordinarily rapid and highly undesirable short-term dissipation of unified surpluses or a transferring of assets to individual privatized accounts, it appears difficult to avoid at least some accumulation of private assets by the government." (From here)

When I hear Bush or his crew talk, I know that the truth is the exact opposite of their opinion.
Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists before we invaded? NO!
Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists because Bush invaded? YES!

Did Bush look like a "little boy" who did not really belong in that first debate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/camp aigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm

In Kyoto, a leading Democratic member of the observer delegation agreed that the treaty was not acceptable to the Senate in its current form. "What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate in my judgment," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said. According to aides in Washington, Kerry wanted Clinton to sign the deal but hold off submission of it until follow-on conferences scheduled for Bonn in June and Buenos Aires in November.

At those meetings, the next step in the process of designing an international strategy to combat global warming, international delegates will again discuss more active participation by developing countries, which was essentially removed from the pact during the final hours of deliberation in Kyoto because of objections from China and India.

U.S. opponents of a global warming pact, including the Republicans and major American industries, especially coal, oil, steel and electric power producers, have argued that a deal that requires industry in this country to go through the expensive process of significantly cutting emissions of greenhouse gases was unfair unless the same requirements applied to all nations.

I can't help but wonder about the "fake" Bush service records too. They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized. What if the content of the documents were generally correct but forged versions were prepared by Republicans to discredit the real ones that they feared were about to turn up.

The forged memos that you are refering to were pathetic forgeries prepared by someone with more Anti-Bush venom than brains. CBS's own experts warned them about the documents, but 60 Minutes went ahead with the story anyway. Maybe that was because Mary Mapes, the producer of the story who is also known as a liberal activist, had been after the story for five years and this was one of the last chances to get the story out before the election. Well, at least she had the decency to put her source for the documents, Bill Burkett, an ardent Bush hater and Democrat activist, in touch with the Kerry campaign as he requested.

You can read more of this pathetic story here, here, and here.

Hopefully this will put some of your fears to rest.

The only allies that are ever going to be there are already there.

That may be the status quo, but whether that will change is completely dependant upon the actual and perceived integrity of our commander in cheif and his ability and willingness to bring other nations to the negotiation table. Bush has neither of these qualities.

We're already trying to do that already. No difference in administration policy, there.

Trying is the operative word here. It was Kerry's (and others) opinion that he is failing horribly at this endeavor. To the point: There have been more deaths with each passing month than the month before since the declaration to the end of combat.

WTH? What is an enabler? That's just some vague psycho-babble buzzword . . .

This is more of a snipe than any sort of legitimate retort. So I'll rephrase to give you another chance: My key point was that the general world opinion is that we are occupiers not rescuers. This view is mainly due to Bush's cowboy, fuck the world, go for broke antics and non-cooperation as well as the appointment of a prime minister that the iraqi people view as a CIA Stooge.

Now for the point by point:
- Give them free elections?
Rumsfeld doesn't seem to think the free elections goal will be reached on time. I'm curious which portions onf the country will constitute Rumsfeld's acceptable toll of 25% disenfranchised voters. . . maybe the war torn Shiite areas? Not quite a 'check' here.

- Replenish their police force?
Try again: The challenges to the United States in training and deploying that many officers are considerable, officials acknowledge. Currently, about 82,051 Iraqi police officers are on the payroll, but only 32,880 have received training under U.S. guidance, according to figures provided by Capt. Steven Alvarez, an Army officer working with the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Of that number, Congress was told last week that only 8,200 had received the eight-week training; the rest got a more basic course for three weeks or less.

- Restore electricity, sanitation, and medical services?

And that's the bell for class so you can look up the rest

The interview you cited does not establish anything negative about the author, only about the verbally aggressive Chris Matthews.

Do you disagree that George W. Bush stopped his Guard service in April, 1972? Or, do you disagree that the Guard started drug testing in the same month? Or, do you disagree that alcoholics use cocaine to help them drink more?

I find it really, really frightening that you did not already know the things in the book. There's nothing particularly remarkable, if you understand the issues from other sources. The interview discusses someone who said he thought George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute. It should not come as a surprise that an alcoholic abused sexuality. I don't know if George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute, but such a story does not seem surprising for an admitted alcoholic. They usually abuse sexuality. For example, Dick Cheney was known as a drinker and "womanizer" when he worked in Wyoming as CEO of Halliburton.

(George W. Bush admitted only to years of problem drinking, but said he did not think he was an alcoholic. However, this is normal behavior for alcoholics, to deny that they are alcoholics.)

The book just lists things you would hear if you did the research yourself. If you go out to ask people, and 10 people who don't know each other all say that they had knowledge of an abusive drunk, it begins to have credibility. Anyhow, the matter is not in contention, since George W. Bush has admitted publicly his problems with alcohol, and his wife Laura Bush told him she was thinking of leaving him because of his drinking.

George W. Bush would say that his abusiveness was only having fun. This is normal for alcoholics. For example, he called Russian leader Vladimir Putin, "Pootie-Poot". English commentators are not able to analyze this adequately. They don't know that "poot" is a slang American term for a baby's defecation.

George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Preston Bush, had real ability as a politician, but he was a physically violent alcoholic. George W. Bush's daughters have problems, too. See the story Laura's Girls. It is common that highly stressful families who abuse alcohol induce abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in their children.

Do some googling. For example, see this admiring article from Time Magazine: How George got his groove. Or, see this less-admiring article: Bush's Life-Changing Year. Remember, these journalists were covering a political candidate who might win, and the journalists depend on access to keep their jobs.

The interview you cited does not establish anything negative about the author, only about the verbally aggressive Chris Matthews.

Do you disagree that George W. Bush stopped his Guard service in April, 1972? Or, do you disagree that the Guard started drug testing in the same month? Or, do you disagree that alcoholics use cocaine to help them drink more?

I find it really, really frightening that you did not already know the things in the book. There's nothing particularly remarkable, if you understand the issues from other sources. The interview discusses someone who said he thought George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute. It should not come as a surprise that an alcoholic abused sexuality. I don't know if George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute, but such a story does not seem surprising for an admitted alcoholic. They usually abuse sexuality. For example, Dick Cheney was known as a drinker and "womanizer" when he worked in Wyoming as CEO of Halliburton.

(George W. Bush admitted only to years of problem drinking, but said he did not think he was an alcoholic. However, this is normal behavior for alcoholics, to deny that they are alcoholics.)

The book just lists things you would hear if you did the research yourself. If you go out to ask people, and 10 people who don't know each other all say that they had knowledge of an abusive drunk, it begins to have credibility. Anyhow, the matter is not in contention, since George W. Bush has admitted publicly his problems with alcohol, and his wife Laura Bush told him she was thinking of leaving him because of his drinking.

George W. Bush would say that his abusiveness was only having fun. This is normal for alcoholics. For example, he called Russian leader Vladimir Putin, "Pootie-Poot". English commentators are not able to analyze this adequately. They don't know that "poot" is a slang American term for a baby's defecation.

George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Preston Bush, had real ability as a politician, but he was a physically violent alcoholic. George W. Bush's daughters have problems, too. See the story Laura's Girls. It is common that highly stressful families who abuse alcohol induce abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in their children.

Do some googling. For example, see this admiring article from Time Magazine: How George got his groove. Or, see this less-admiring article: Bush's Life-Changing Year. Remember, these journalists were covering a political candidate who might win, and the journalists depend on access to keep their jobs.