Slashdot Mirror

This is because China stopped allowing undocumented domain registration. Registering a domain in China now requires a national ID and a business license. GoDaddy then stopped registering ".cn" domains, probably a good thing.

but to be honest, propaganda is everywhere. How many times have you watched a commercial where everything was true? How many people do you know who watch Fox news or listen to Rush Limbaugh? Even NPR and the BBC have their own biases. How many actual, purely objective articles can you find in the mainstream media? Certainly, we don't have the state mandated media in the U.S. like China does, but the important thing to accept is that everyone has their own propaganda, no matter where they are. It's just a matter of which ones you agree with and which ones you don't.

Yes, it's human nature that organized groups enjoy pushing their own agenda, and are willing to hide certain facts or bend the truth in order to do it. When governments do it, we call it propaganda. When companies do it, we call it advertising. It's everywhere.

The critical difference here is what a government does when you publicly disagree with its propaganda. You mentioned the Bill of Rights; consider Freedom of Speech. Yeah, it's not carte blanche to say whatever you want (you can't scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and recent hate crimes legislation comes to mind). But it *does* mean that the US *cannot* imprison political dissidents like the PRC. And if we tried, that shot would be heard around the world.

(Indeed, the US has other ways of silencing a political dissident, such as labeling them a terrorist, or using the media to marginalize them and/or paint them using loaded terms. That's true and worrisome, but it's not the fundamental issue here, so don't let it become a red herring)

Astounding economic growth doesn't excuse human rights abuses. Just because a system of government "works decently well" doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

P.S. Last Sunday I was in Beijing, and visited a certain heavenly-peace-gate square. The surveillance there puts anything else I've seen to shame. Security checks, camera installations every thirty meters, and at least 50 uniformed officers inside -- not to mention a number of under-cover ones. And for what? Not to protect property, even government property... but to ensure nobody can speak out. Tell me it isn't a sickening irony that the current period in history is called the "liberated era".

And then what if they were?

"More than a fifth of the approximately 385 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145.html

There are no more incandescent light bulb factories in the US. This is another way to keep jobs in China. Hello Congress. WTF. Let's save energy and save the environment at the same time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

Odd that you don't seem to know what you're talking (but way to go, beating up that imaginary strawman in your imaginary debate). The bill being repealed actually closed a lot of US bulb production. I switched to all CFLs about 3 years ago and have been gradually switching a lot of my bulbs back to incandescents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

Well, the ban has already cost people their jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

So people complain about wanting to save jobs, and when Congress does something to save jobs, they complain.

Reality check: The only "tea party" affiliate that has filibustered ANYTHING was Rand Paul who tried to filibuster the renewal of the PATRIOT act. . . Your beloved Democratic majority in the Senate tried to block him at every juncture and MADE SURE it passed.

Implying that it's just Democrats supporting the act, rather than large majorities of both parties, makes you a very dishonest person. I hope you realize that.

You people are dangerous (sorry to say, but it's true).

You're delusional, and you seem to forget all the Bush cheerleaders who turned a blind eye to all the trouble he caused, and now try to pin those problems on Obama. It would be funny if it weren't so scary.

Alberto Gonzales didn't forget, the guy flat out lied. There was an infuriating exchange in Congressional testimony between Sen. Schumer and him that flat out showed he was lying and smiling about it the whole time.

Are you suggesting that they just took the names and added them to the no-fly list without identity verification? Is this not even more outrageous?

Actually, that is exactly what happens. How do you think Edward Kennedy, former US Senator (RIP), ended up on a no-fly list?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kenn-a21.shtml

The 72-year-old Kennedy briefly recounted the Kafkaesque incidents: âoeHe [the ticket agent] said, âWe canâ(TM)t give it to you ... You canâ(TM)t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.â(TM) I said, âWell, why not?â(TM) He said, âWe canâ(TM)t tell you.â(TM) Tried to get on a plane back to Washington ... âYou canâ(TM)t get on the plane.â(TM) I went up to the desk and said, âIâ(TM)ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years. Why canâ(TM)t I get on the plane?â(TM)â

On each occasion, at Bostonâ(TM)s Logan International Airport, Washingtonâ(TM)s Reagan National Airport and one other, airline supervisors ultimately overruled the ticket agents and permitted Kennedy to board his plane. All the flights were on US Airways.

Kennedy staff members eventually telephoned the Transportation Security Administration, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, and officials there promised to rectify the mistake. However, it took them several weeks to clear up the matter. In fact, only days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called Kennedy in early April to apologize, another airline agent attempted to block the Massachusetts Democrat from boarding.

The thing you should be really worried about is why the media isn't all over the TSA in general. Groping of children by randomly recruited people? Taking pictures of them? What message is this sending to them? It's ok for people to touch you there if they wear a uniform? If it wasn't the TSA the press would be all over this...

Even without the children there's plenty of adults who have an issue with this, rape victims, etc. The press loves stories like this but where's the outcry? Why is sexual molestation OK if it's done by government employees but nobody else? Employees who'd be flipping burgers if they weren't working there.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/xe-services-llc/ http://www.blackwaterwatch.com/page/1034/?s=blackwater

This is precisely why historically, the FCC did not allow on company to be both a content creator and content provider or "carrier". There is a huge conflict of interest which is not in the best interest of either innovation or the citizenry in general.

You mean the FCC actually protected public interest at one point? With the likes of Meredith Baker it's hard to believe they ever did anything other than line their own pockets by selling democracy, one dollar at a time.

compete against China in getting companies to move there. They will follow CHina's lead

Has it occurred to you that there is a way to deal with China and its successors in this race to the bottom? The US, and all other western nations, are sovereign. We decide who is and is not permitted to import goods and under what terms. We have the leverage necessary to alter this dynamic.

Why do we not use it? Why does this tactic not occur to people like you in these discussions? There are two reasons, one for each end of the political spectrum.

On the right, you have capital. Asian industry was built with Western capital, and it's paying off handsomely. They would rather that continue, so there is no enthusiasm for upsetting with the status quo. Aside from a few protectionist voices like Pat Buchanan no one on the right talks about trade policy. The current situation is optimal.

On the left you have at least two distinct considerations. First, and most obvious, Asia is funding a vast welfare state in the West. Hundreds of billions of deficit financing for the US every year has deferred, until very recently, any serious discussion about the rapid growth in dependency among citizens. Consider the absurdity of China promising to 'help' Greece (a Kyoto signatory) by funding yet more debt to keep that nasty little welfare state afloat. Second, the existence of an outlet for industrial activity in Asia enables an ever growing regulatory regime in the West without actually incurring the otherwise inescapable increases in cost. If voters couldn't go to Walmart/TESCO/IKEA/ASDA and buy stuff cheap they might have less enthusiasm for green statists.

Thus, there are no voices that oppose the race to the bottom, and people like you believe we're empty handed. We are not. Unfortunately it appears we must bottom out hard (sovereign debt crises, widespread economic hardship, etc.) before people like you figure it out.

Sorry but you are full of shit.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39166
http://missouri.watchdog.org/5937/dead-voters-in-missouri/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/starting-friday-protective-orders-easier-to-get-dead-voters-votes-count-new-va-fiscal-year/2011/06/30/AGbcVtrH_story.html

Voting fraud is almost a national tradition.

I could be wrong, but I didn't think unpaid interns where legal except in a very few limited cases. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/campus-overload/2010/04/is_your_unpaid_internship_lega.html

It is interesting to see how the trial ended. IÄm citing the Washington Post here because those links up in the parent post all look a bit... shall we say, interconnected.

Debris From Satellites' Collision Said to Pose Small Risk to Space Station

It seems like the risk isn't that small after all.

Actually former secretary of homeland security, but the point is still valid:

http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+chertoff
http://www.cov.com/mchertoff/
http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Chertoff
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/11/19/michael-chertoff-behind-tsa-pornoscanners/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/biography_0116.shtm
http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Chertoff_Michael
etc.

My mistake. He doesn't run the company that makes them.

He runs a security consulting group, and one of his client companies makes them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

Minor nitpicking. The standard legal excuse of those who seek to impose censorship is to declare that the offending material isn't 'real' speech, and so isn't protected. They don't so much ignore the first amendment (They are often highly patriotic people who would defend the bill of rights with great vigour) as imagine some loophole by which they may decide it doesn't apply. The legal concept of obscenity is the most obvious example: If something is defined as legally obscene in the US, precident says that it isn't real speech because it doesn't say anything of value to society and so may be censored. This is the exactly approach that used to be used to restrict discussion of contraception - it was just ruled to be obscene, no different than pornography. Indeed, pornography is still technically illegal in the US today at the federal level - even perfectly ordinary adult pornography. It's simply that the law goes unenforced. There is an occasional brief revival of enforcement, the last one in 2005 with the Adult Obscenity Squad, as a show to win conservative political support - but they never go anywhere.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Nixon.

Clinton's technical impeachment was trivial, partisan and he was acquitted. It was one of IIRC three attempts, the other two of which never reached trial. It was essentially an abuse of the impeachment process and didn't work. It was technically an impeachment but in spirit a waste of time.

Proceedings towards Nixon's impeachment received bipartisan support from the House Judiciary Committee, appropriately targeting an abuse of power with the Articles of Impeachment. Everyone knew what the outcome would be and the proceedings resulted in Nixon's removal - forcing a corrupt president's removal being one of the aims of such proceedings. He resigned before the impeachment proceedings reached the stage which is technically labelled "impeachment", but that is irrelevant.

Nixon's was the last impeachment proceeding which worked, and Clinton's was simply partisan abuse. The efforts to impeach Bush, who had behaved in a manner far worse than poor Nixon dreamt of, fell on deaf ears within the Judiciary Committee.

But I apologise for not demonstrating the necessary level of pedantry. I should have said, "the President not only could be affected by impeachment proceedings, but was affected by impeachment proceedings, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?"

Nixon.

Clinton's technical impeachment was trivial, partisan and he was acquitted. It was one of IIRC three attempts, the other two of which never reached trial. It was essentially an abuse of the impeachment process and didn't work. It was technically an impeachment but in spirit a waste of time.

Proceedings towards Nixon's impeachment received bipartisan support from the House Judiciary Committee, appropriately targeting an abuse of power with the Articles of Impeachment. Everyone knew what the outcome would be and the proceedings resulted in Nixon's removal - forcing a corrupt president's removal being one of the aims of such proceedings. He resigned before the impeachment proceedings reached the stage which is technically labelled "impeachment", but that is irrelevant.

Nixon's was the last impeachment proceeding which worked, and Clinton's was simply partisan abuse. The efforts to impeach Bush, who had behaved in a manner far worse than poor Nixon dreamt of, fell on deaf ears within the Judiciary Committee.

But I apologise for not demonstrating the necessary level of pedantry. I should have said, "the President not only could be affected by impeachment proceedings, but was affected by impeachment proceedings, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?"

The whole story is designed to make it hard to visualize to make it scarier.

Agreed. The fact is this event is a success for nuclear power. The regulator, in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, determined the original design basis was insufficient and changed the design basis. The utility did due diligence and pushed back, but ultimately the utility complied and improved the flood defenses. Today the plant is dry and will resume generating clean base-load power when the refueling operation is complete.

Guess that's what happens when your regulators aren't sniffing coke off asses (MMS) or browsing porn all day (SEC). Those regulators gave us Deepwater Horizon and Madoff, respectively.

BTW, the Pakistani paper 'The Nation' is trash. Pakistan doesn't have credible media.

So it removes the federal laws against marijuana, legalizing marijuana federally. Got it.

No, it explicitly does not do that, which is what Slashdot got so wrong.

Marijuana, under this proposed law, would still be illegal at the Federal level, but the Federal Government would have no power to act in cases where there was no inter-state transport.

So, for example, if you grow pot and sell it to your neighbor, only the state would get involved. If the state wants to prosecute you for that, they can. If you sell it to your friend in the next state over, on the other hand, then you're still committing a feral crime.

The Washington Post article clarifies this (even though they still refer to it as "legalization" in the beginning of the story) along with pouring cold water on the idea that this bill is even a long-shot. It's not going to make it out of committee.

All of Jupiter's moons are constantly bathed in enormous amounts of radiation.

What's your point?

New bacteria found fueled by radiation

...Greek economy permitting.

Another sad story:

For Want of a Dentist

Basically a young boy dies a painful death because his parents could not afford $ 80,- of dental treatment that was not covered by Medicaid. The bacteria spread to brain, the 12-year old gets treatment worth more than $ 250 000,- before he dies. How does tax payers save money by not allowing everyone proper health care (including dental health)? That is health care before people get seriously sick and end up in the emergency room. And I have not even included in the calculation what this young boy could have given back to the society by working and paying taxes and maybe being an entrepeneur...

Begin with tort law reform and health care reform will not be necessary.

Yes, because a 0.5% decrease in health care costs will fix everything.

Perhaps "long time goal" was a bit of an overstatement. I do stand by the that it's been a recent goal, since the radical Randian/pseudo-literal-constitutionistl wing of the party became ascendant. (I will take those arguments seriously, when those spouting them take equally stern view at the Air Force.)

This year Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) has proposed a 28% cut in funding . This adversely effect forecasting.

In 2005, Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania, now GOP Presidential candidate, in proposed to forbid the NWS from disseminating forecasts and data free of charge, and instead force access of the taxpayer supported data through for-profit companies such as AccuWeather. Why? The NWS unfairly competes with for profit companies, even though the companies get 90% of their data from the NWS, thus meaning people would be effectively purchasing the same data twice.

Of course we can follow this up with accounts of GOP meddling with NOAA funding of climate science, but I chalk that up to their run of the mill corporate-religous synergistic anti-science policies.

Also dear mods, a question can't be "informative," since it is a request for information. It may be "insightful," or maybe "interesting," but it is never "informative."

Even the Washington Post agrees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html?hpid=z1

A good, but depressing, read.

Except the US and NATO don't "indiscriminately" kill as they please, they put a ton of planning into every strike and try to conduct operations is with a minimal amount of civilian death and injuries.

After all, the US and UK have been using inert bombs on radar and light structures for over 12 years, because an explosive would do too much civilian damage.

Those ignorant of military history think all modern bombing and air strikes look like Sir Harris planned them and that because a B-52 can carry 35 tons of bombs, every time a B-52 is mentioned it must have dropped 35 tons of bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

But the vast majority of airstrikes and bombings by the US and NATO since 1992 have been with smart weapons, guided missiles or single small (500 pound or 1000 pound) bombs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_guided_munition

In Iraq/Kuwait in 1991 8.8% of air strikes were with PGMs, in the Kosovo War the number is up to 90%, in 2001 Afghanistan it drops back to 55%

In Libya it looks like about 75-80% PGM, and of course anything from a Predator or Reaper drone is going to be a PGM, either a Hellfire (Laser or Millimeter wave radar) or a small JDAM (GPS and/or laser)

http://theamericanaudacity.blogspot.com/2011/03/canadas-six-cf-18-hornets-deployed-to.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html?hpid=z1
http://jha.ac/articles/a110.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_guided_munition

Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?

Conflict in Libya: U.S. oil companies sit on sidelines as Gaddafi maintains hold

In late February 2008, Mulva was “summoned to Sirte for a half-hour ‘browbeating’” from Gaddafi, according to a U.S. State Department cable made available by WikiLeaks. Gaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or expel ... U.S. oil and gas companies,” the cable said.

Wikileaks was the source for these articles. If all cables get leaked, it is difficult for US to pursue its interests.

And more: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

The number of Executive Branch employees per capita has been declining since the 1960s. Actually, that's not true. It went up a bit under Reagan and the first Bush.

Speaking of which, they busted one of those guys today. TV pitchman charged with defrauding 220,000 people out of $52M for worthless Internet business

I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.

LulzSec has been rapidly escalating its campaigns since the legislation has been passed. It was not on anyone's radar during the debate in Congress.

May 27, 2011:

Overcoming objections from a bipartisan clutch of libertarian-minded lawmakers, the legislation passed the Senate, 72 to 23, and the House, 250 to 153.

Senator Rand Paul won a small battle with his opposition to the Patriot Act by reaching a deal with Congressional leadership to add votes on two amendments, one of which would exempt some gun records from government searches.

That was the score late Thursday afternoon following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) announcement that after days of grueling debate over the renewal of three key Patriot Act provisions, Senate leaders had reached a deal on allowing votes on two amendments proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Under the agreement, announced less than nine hours before the law currently extending the Patriot Act provisions was to expire, the Senate would vote on two amendments proposed by Paul: one that would limit "suspicious activity" reporting requirements under the Act to requests from law enforcement agencies, and another -- the one that had seen the greatest opposition from Reid -- that would exempt certain gun records from being searched under the counterterrorism surveillance law.

The victory for Paul wasn't so much that either of his amendments would pass -- in fact, both fell well short of the 60-vote threshold necessary for approval, with the gun-rights amendment receiving the support of only 10 senators.

Rather, it was that after days of vowing to block the passage of the Patriot Act extension -- even at the risk of missing Thursday's deadline -- Paul, a tea-party freshman who has served in the Senate for less than five months, was granted votes on his two amendments.

Patriot Act extension signed into law despite bipartisan resistance in Congress

So... "I think that if one aspect of the solar power cycle is a criminal enterprise, then perhaps the whole thing is. And, certainly the disposal of waste is one of the most risk ladened parts of the whole dirty business." Right??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/solar_pollution_china.php

Yikes! And i thought it wasn't just "too cheap to measure" but it was FREE!

This is a misconception. The United States has the ighest share of private spending per individual on health care, yet it has the highest costs and only middling health outcomes.

Every system in the developed world has a private spending component, usually through insurance and copays just like here, but most also have a government payer either as the single payer or more commonly as a backstop, last resort payer; all systems more firmly regulate costs and practices and all systems at least have independent boards to assure efficacy of treatments (we call those "death panels.") There's no empirical evidence that people make rational decisions about their own health care spending.

The Washington Post has an entire section about the drug war in Mexico - Mexico at War. As does the New York Times. The BBC has plenty of coverage as well. Perhaps you're just not looking hard enough, or you're more attached to your biases than facts?

More food for thought about "hottest year ever":

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/

"While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)"

Of course, the US != the whole world, but when they make alarmist claims, they'll use whichever one is convenient...for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html

Put simply, the "hottest year ever" metric is a cherry pick of a cherry pick that offers no particular support to any hypothesis, but it makes for great headlines.

I love this discussion. It goes back and forth again and again. I wonder how long it will take for people to realise that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are inherently corrupt. With the current structure of both parties almost guaranteeing that neither will be close to free from corporate interests. They've even locked up the presidential debates after chasing off the former hosts due to too much political shenanigans. Remember seeing any independents since Perot in the debates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates#Debate_sponsorship

In short BOTH parties receive considerable funding from rich, private interests. BOTH parties serve the sources of their revenue streams.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503933125159928.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102513.html

Their will be no change in the status quo since there is no incentive to change. Both parties get their cut and a bunch of us nameless, faceless folk get screwed. The only real change will come from transferring the power to other parties. Almost any other party at this point will be better than these two but I think the Libertarians will really give the system a good cleaning. IMO they are also the best chance of holding some of these corrupt politicians to task for the damage done by their greed.

From Ted Koppel on the death of news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.

On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.

Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.

I will not vote for Palin, but it's pathetic how low liberals have stooped to destroy her image.

90% of the "stupid" things she's "said" were either not said by her ("I can see Russia from my house"), or ended up not being stupid at all (1773, Paul Revere). The other 10% are comparable with things Obama has said (57 states, or pretty much any time he speaks without a teleprompter).

The libs are desperate for dirt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/help-analyze-the-palin-emails/2011/06/08/AGZAaHNH_blog.html

That's a writer for the Washington Post. How pathetic is that? Organized muckraking, with no reason to believe they'll find anything. It's desperate, and they don't see how pathetic it is.

Do you honestly believe that Alaska believes that paper-only e-mails will actually help hide information? They aren't that dumb. They are doing it this way because they honestly believe they have a legitimate reason for doing so. I don't know what that reason is, but they know very well that paper won't hide anything.

Do any of you expect a similar reaction over Obama's Senate e-mails being released? Will that same writer for the Washington Post ask his readers to comb through them? For some reason I doubt it.

This is just a slap to the face of the papers that are trying to embarrass Palin. Clearly, whether there's something there or not, being printed is not going to stop the papers from scavenging through it to find whatever they can.

Or inviting their readers to help them:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/help-analyze-the-palin-emails/2011/06/08/AGZAaHNH_blog.html

It's a witch hunt, plain and simple. They're looking for any type of dirt they can find. And this is why Palin isn't going to run for President. She's far more powerful as a regular person that gives her opinion about what's going on.

If Palin were the idiot that everyone makes her out to be, then why does everyone get their panties in such a bind every time she says anything about anything? You ignore the morons in Hollywood and at work when they do really stupid things (upskirt photos, getting hauled into court yet again for drunk driving, etc), but you freak out when the former Governor of Alaska says something questionable.

Actually, in a study in Washington DC, collisions of all kinds increased at red light camera intersections compared to signaled intersections without red light cameras.

The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame. Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars ...
The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

source, Washington Post

No idea why my carriage returns are not showing up?? Your very angry that this socialist system isn't working huh? Here is an article i saw today that clearly lays out that Toyota didn't pay back everything, and probably never will. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html Its very sad that you say I "shit" on America, by buying an American car from successful business instead of one that ran itself into the ground. Some business fail, that is life. Some socialist governments fail, cough, Greece... Its funny you talk down the GOP, so do I, the answer isn't big Government under the Republican tent, its small government primarily controlled by local/state politics. I will probably never ever go on unemployment for 1 reason, if I did I would consider myself a slug sucking on society. In the end though, we will never agree, but I will leave with 1 question. I want freedom from these socialist things that are happening to America, where can I move??? There really isn't anywhere left to go. You got Europe, America, Canada, Australia... Why can't you leave people like me alone. Why must you force your socialist ideas on me? I don't want to force my ideas on you, you want to depend on government for all your stuff, fine by me, i just want a state or somewhere, where my dollars don't have to pay for your security.

you don't point out that there is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

There is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure as you present them, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

Men with no oversight are doing what they will in the name of national security because they've convinced themselves that they can't permit 9/11 to reoccur, and that it was their fault. They've driven themselves mad, falling into the mentality of "those who prefer security to freedom." It's not that they're innately cruel tyrants, or sadists, it's that they're paranoid and guilt-wracked—a horribly dangerous combination when you add on the "defend the collective" mentality that causes police officers to protect each other when corruption charges manifest.

you don't point out that there is a hell of a lot of money sloshing around in all this, I doubt that these peoples motives are as pure as you present them, they are not just worried about 'national security.' Fraud in defense contracting is extremely common. See Boeing tanker contract fraud, BAE systems Bribery and the primary contractor for trailblazer, SAIC, has had previous fraud prosecutions for the FBI information system they worked on and the New York citytime contract: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110527/FREE/110529884 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/business/16tanker.html?_r=2 http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0210/US_settles_with_BAE_in_Saudi_bribery_case.html This kind of activity is very common in the defense department and more generally in corporate america, see the massive amount of fraud that at least partially caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The U.S. needs to attack white collar crime much more vigorously. http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-secret-america.html http://natsecurityeb.blogspot.com/2010/10/13-bankers-vrs-brooksley-born.html

Not only do they already have these images - Today was "Children's Friday" demonstration - where kids marched in the streets, carrying placards with the images of Hamza Al-Katib.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116392427645443.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/syria-internet-services-shut-down-as-protesters-fill-streets/2011/06/03/AGtLwxHH_blog.html

Why a Kidney (Street Value: $3,000) Sells for $85,000

Poor Pakistanis Donate Kidneys for Money

Since it's not a legalized trade, prices will vary wildly.