Slashdot Mirror

Oh, did I? 0. The correct income tax is 0.

That's a fun fantasy, isn't it? If you have two neurons communicating with each other you would know that is an impossible thing to do, government would collapse if income tax went away completely. Your "liberties" would go away with it.

By the way, you gave the wrong date for your cult rally. Or did the cult not want you to show up because you even make them look crazy?

Here is the link for you. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/

Dumb, in debt and split.
"Special Report Scientists become targets in Iraq" Nature (29 June 2006)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411036a.html
Then you have the luck that is "Iraqi arms scientists killed before they talk" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/23/20040823-124014-3141r/?page=all
Someone has been clearing out many Iraqi scientists and intellectuals. Whats left seem to be getting "money went to American universities to do curriculum development".

For example, Anne Coulter has written books that accuse anyone who disagrees with conservatives is a traitor to America.

Have you read her books? Until then, you don't really know what you are talking about.

But to get back on topic, how much air time does Ann Coulter get? Quite a bit, I'm sure. She writes a book every two to three years and gets a few minutes on a few TV talk shows to promote her new book or being the conservative "talking head" on a panel full of liberals. This lasts for a couple of weeks until the next book comes out. How much time does Rachel Maddow get? How about Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg or Ed Schultz or Bill Maher or Christiane Amanpour or the entire cast of Glee? For every minute Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors on television, any one of these liberals are calling conservatives racists for more than 20 hours. Do your own math.

I'm inclined to believe, in fact, that the flow is the opposite direction that you believe it flows in (and of course, that could be a result of my own confirmation bias).

Granted, on both our parts.

1) Limiting access to abortion and birth control is literally part of the subjugation of women.

Wrong. You say that, but deep down, you know it's a lie. I'm conservative. I don't want to "subjugate" women. For that matter, I have no problem with contraception. I agree with the President that they should be covered by insurance, at no additional cost to the insurer and no copay. Where I don't agree is that insurances companies must be forced to provide birth control. At the very least, it should have an "opt-out" clauses, even if opting out of insurance provided contraception will not reduce premiums (and it should not).

Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not? What gives anyone the qualification to determine that? History is full of bad things happening when one group of people determined that another group of people was no longer human, freeing their conscience to justify whatever evil they determined to be necessary.

Also, you will note that those against embryonic stem cell research are against it because it takes a human life. How is the destruction of a discarded human embryo for scientific research "subjugating" women?

And finally, and if you read nothing else, read this. WHY WOULD 51% OF WOMEN BE AGAINST ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL?

Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.

Are you saying that 51% of women support the "subjugation" of women?

3) If the Republicans lower taxes for everyone but a disproportionate amount of that tax break goes to rich, then it's pretty obvious that they are favouring the rich.

So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich? Seems to me that everyone would get the same percentage of tax cuts. How about if a president, say, gave everyone who pays taxes $600? Would that be more fair? Actually, GWB, a Republican, did just that, but he was favoring the rich, right?

Tell you what. I'm sure you make more than me. Why don't you figure out what you saved from any tax cuts you say favor the rich, and simply send it to me. See, because compared to me, you are RICH! So why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to take what is yours? If you think for some reason I make more than you, you are still still rich compared to someone. Go give them whatever you think you have saved from tax cuts over the last 20 years, because YOU, being rich, has benefited more from Republican tax cuts that whoever is poorer than you.

especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.

 
How about the Assassination of American citizens without a trial for the fifth amendment violation, or Indefinite detention of US citizens without being charged with a crime for your 5th and 6th amendment violations? Does the federal government assuming the ability to detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime, or even to assassinate you, hit you closer to home than denial of marriage to a class of people, or refusal to take down some hundred year old religious display?
 
Not trying to point the finger at you specifically or put words in your mouth, but as a general rule the people in this country have their priorities so fucked up it enrages me sometimes. These two policies recently exercised and or implemented under the demopublican rule can potentially affect any or every individual in the country, whereas the inability for gays to marry affect what, 10% of the population at most? And let's be honest, who really gives a rosy red rats ass if the supreme court has the 10 commandments on it or if some veteran memorial has a cross? FFS.

China? ***MORE*** civilized? Been there. The Great Wall, the Forbidden City, and the terracotta warriors are all very impressive. Their modern culture was not all that impressive. I felt sorry for them, trapped in that tyranny.

All I could think of in Tiananmen square was tanks and squashed protestors. That'd be their answer to both Tea Parties and "Occupations."

Ever read Larry Niven's stories about "organ legging?" The Chinese execute people and sell their organs just because they spoke out, or had a prayer group in their home, or joined the wrong religion. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/27/chinese-accused-of-vast-trade-in-organs/?page=all

Poor buggers.

(Off topic: The RomancingAlaska.com site looked interesting)

It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized.

I was, but only in a direct response to your comments. "In a civilized society... In an unarmed society..." Where the implication was that an armed society is civilized and an unarmed society is uncivilized. I find such statements to be provably false (how "polite" are war zones? How "polite" was the Old West?), and as such, I was trying to say "you are provably wrong in an absurdly obvious manner" without being uncivilized. Unfortunately, every comment I made was responded to without continuity of context (is that polite enough for "you only post non sequiturs, so I couldn't stick to the topic at hand").

Civilized is also relative. Shaking hands is civilized to Americans, and offensive in other cultures. So, "civilized" is whatever the speaker at the time wants it to be, and implies that anyone who disagrees isn't. Sort of hard to hit a moving target.

Unarmed societies are uncivilized IN THAT the inalienable right (Delaration of Indepence term) of self defense (see McDonald vs Chicago and the earlier Heller decison) is suppressed by the government, leaving The People (term as used in the US Constition) defenceless against miscreants. When the police are not present, the strong may do as they will to the weak, even to breaking into their domicile while they are home. For instance, I prefer a society where a lady can own a gun ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 ) to one where she is not allowed to keep a gun in her home or is effectively blocked by onerous over-regulation ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jan/23/miller-i-bought-gun-dc/ ).

In my view, a society that allows a woman to protect herself in her own home is more civilized than one that insists she cannot.

That is the fundamental question and if you disagree, you disagree. That's fine...it's a free country!

Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me. The US Constitution and the US Supreme Court both say it's her right to be armed, especially in her home.

Citation? Specifically the Fast and the Furious reference. Thank you.

Well, a quick google of "Fast and furious fifth amendment" should get you a good selection of the articles.

But this one seems to summarize it nicely:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/20/federal-prosecutor-cites-fifth-fast-furious-probe/

Citations provided:

TSA expands to trains. Union Station in DC is popular, along with several of the larger subway stations. However, there were also high-profile incidents in Savannah, GA as well.: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/27/from-planes-to-trains-tsa-expands-spot-searches-to-union-station/

TSA expands to bus stops in Maryland and D.C. Additional incidents have been noted in Indianapolis.: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/17/tsa-comes-to-your-bus-stop/

TSA partners with Tennessee for portable scanners at Interstate weigh stations: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

VIPR is versatile.

Has Obama done even one single thing about guns during his entire administration?

I believe they were voicing their opposition to the last Supreme Court decision on how states could ban guns.

They've supported trying to the Ammunition Accountability legislation.

I found this quote from an article:

'I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,' President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.

Some others:

Trying to ban shooters off public lands.

Banning import of historic guns into the US.

Defining high powered guns as those being over .22 cal?

And his judge appointments, many of whom are anti-gun like Justice Sonia Sotomayor has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion stating that there is no individual right to "private self-defense" with guns.

For one thing, the FDA has almost no authority in many of their jurisdictions; they can recommend things, but in most cases have no power to change policy or punish reckless companies.

That is a load of malarky. Not to mention that The FDAâ(TM)s actions stand in contrast to other areas where the Obama administration has said it will take a hands-off approach to violations of the law, including the use of medical marijuana in states that have approved it, and illegal-immigrant students and youths, whom the administration said recently will not be targets of their enforcement efforts.

So ultimately, the FDA doesn't have the mandate, the funding, or the legal prerogative to do even one-tenth as much as the scientists and lower-management would like

GOOD. FUCKING GOOD. FUCK THE FDA UP THEIR CORPORATIST ASSES. And fuck the USDA while you're at it. Food pyramid indeed. Fats and oils, 1-2 servings? Suck me.

About USGS, Weather Services, and such... Straight from Ron Paul's mouth: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/one-year-to-go/

Note: "Functions that cannot be abolished immediately will be transferred to other departments."

I hope that you would reconsider your stance (and yes, I've notices your interest in USGS in your recent posts, but not enough to make me think that you would sell your integrity and freedom of mind for having a certain title on your business card! ;) ).

And I did like your recent petition, though both of us know that it will go nowhere whatsoever...

Just trying to win one heart at a time, and yours seems to be not all crusted,

Paul B.

I'll bite on that OT troll. OWS has actually published a list of reasonable, workable policy changes. If you want to make fun of someone for being ignorant, look in the mirror.

One can only hope there will be others who stand on the shoulders of that particular giant. Feeding hungry people is good. Helping hungry people feed themselves is great, and Borlaug was great. It's a shame most Americans don't know that one of our countrymen was responsible for saving a possible billion lives.[citation]

The malthusians amongst us may argue whether or not this is a good thing. Not being one of them, I heartily think it is. People not starving is good.

"Occupy Wall Street" is a fringe movement spouting tired, old, leftist dogma and hate. The only thing it has in common with the "Arab Spring" is that there are threads of anti-Semitism running through both.

Occupy Wall Street Goes Global

Sunday Reflection: Protestors should try occupying reality for real change

Right now, idealistic young Americans are gathered together to fight injustice and build a better world.
Sure, they're a little dirty, and maybe some of their language is a bit rough, but they've left behind family and friends, as well as the creature comforts the rest of us take for granted, to make a stand for what they believe in.

It's just too bad that today the mainstream media is focusing on the spoiled, incoherent clowns of Occupy Wall Street and ignoring our young fighting men and women.

The mainstream media's cameras can't get enough of these pierced protesters, with their crudely written signs proclaiming their unfocused discontent and general anger at society's selfishness in failing to satisfy their every want and desire.

Of course, those cameras discreetly turn away when the placards demanding socialist revolution and blaming the Jews come out. The protesters' function is to demonstrate inchoate outrage simply by being there. When they start talking, they start alienating the normals.

These are Potemkin protesters, community organized by government worker unions to allow liberal Democrats a way to triangulate to the center next year. Only the rebel media outfits will actually stick a mic in the protesters' dirty faces and let them talk.

What comes out is a confused hash of gripes about their banks, complaints about their student loans, and whining about the quality of their jobs.

Tragically, graduates of Ivy League universities brandishing master's degrees in minority women's studies are not getting jobs that pay enough to service their $150,000 student loans. Who could have seen that coming?

PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands'

Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements (Updated)

Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

Video: Occupy Portland Protesters Sing “F*ck the USA”

THOUSANDS Of Obama-Endorsed “Occupy Chicago” Protesters CHEER the Communists (Video)

Wall Street: Occupied by Anti-Semites?

Political party paying Occupy Wall Street protesters?

More Anti-Semitism at Occupy Los Angeles

Coast Guard member spit on near Occupy Boston tents

‘Occupy’ protesters branch out

On the one hand, they have launched a nice space station.
At the same time, they are gearing up to attack Vietnam and the phillipines, and warning India to steer clear of Others properties that China wants.

Here the party demands war and here they warn india to steer clear or be attacked as well

I can't help you if you refuse to read a newspaper, look up statistics, or generally pretend that stuff that's happening isn't really happening. Here, here's a sample of what the FBI has done lately:

http://www.collateralvision.com/?p=446

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/23/2280652/james-whitey-bulger-boston-mobster.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/09/national/main20041229.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/19/fbi-arrests-man-as-agent-of-pakistan/?page=all

http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-09-03/news/30117033_1_fbi-arrests-campaign-treasurer-kinde-durkee

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/feds-arrest-over-100-in-ny-nj-mob-takedown/

But that's all just the lazy feds, doing nothing all day long, I'm sure. Here's a tip: actually being informed is much more effective in life than striking a hip pose and pretending to be informed.

The game's final cutscene will undoubtedly be the player receiving the Pulitzer Prize or possibly the Nobel Peace Prize for reporting atrocities. How could the game possibly end otherwise?

Invested in the US government? Really? I guess you are making a semantic argument, but then people in the press wouldn't refer to SS going into "red"... meaning that it is paying out more than it is taking in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/

In the commonly used definition of an investment, the institution does not/can not go into the red and remain viable. If it does, then that means it has failed, and everybody loses their money.

Your definition of investment seems more in line with Bernie Madoff's.

In a carrier battle group, the carrier is the main platform. All other ships in the group are designed and designated to protect it. As a last resort, the carrier does have missile defenses, but by the time the missile get through the external defenses, the aircraft have been launched. If you're in a war where an aircraft carrier is being targeted that heavily, by an enemy that capable, the aircraft probably never intended to return to the carrier anyway.

Of course, with the Carrier Killer Missile China's developing, things will change until we develop a defense against it, if we haven't already.

More and more people are waking up to the reality of things. Politicians play politics, period. It doesn't really matter which side you happen to be on. The "game" has the same goals for either party, really. It's all about getting enough votes to get into and stay in power. I blame just about everyone in the Senate, in Congress, our current and past few presidents, and the rest of the folks more concerned about their short-term political success than the long-term welfare of the nation.

It's immensely clear when you look at the lies spread, all around, about the entire issue. EG. Threatening the American people with the fear of a default if the debt ceiling legislation wasn't passed by a specific time? Pure B.S.! If the debt ceiling wasn't raised, government would simply have to prioritize who it paid first and who had to wait longer.

Heck, we spent most of the debt limit increase in a DAY:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/3/us-eats-most-debt-limit-one-day/

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

Nobody would ever, ever put an explosive device or weapon on a child if we decided that children were too precious to scan.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=19669

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-15/opinion/obaid.suicide.children_1_suicide-bombers-pakistan-northwest-frontier-province?_s=PM:OPINION

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/2/taliban-buying-children-to-serve-as-suicide-bomber/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lwaypeucTk

So there could not possibly be a problem with systematically allowing a certain class of people through security unscanned.

They've been putting bombs in kids for many years. $7k - $14k for children as young as 7

so let's see if I understand this, Soon gets a million from ExxonMobile and it a bad-thing(tm) and conflict of interest, but

major environmental advocacy organizations that accepted major gifts from BP in recent years include the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council and others. ... the Nature Conservancy has received about $10 million, ... The World Wildlife Fund ... evidence of grants totaling slightly less than $1 million, ... World Resources Institute, ... received at least $200,000 from BP
Return BP cash
Environmentalists and politicians enjoyed BP green

and nobody bats an eye! Only a Million, most of the CEOs at the green NGOs make half that in salary each year.

One article.
Another.
The story from the plant operator
The root cause of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - especially in this case is the lack of information. The reactor is apparently on level 4 alert (accident with local consequences - this alone should have made the news at least in Nebraska), has had a fire, has had a no-fly zone extended over it since June 6 - the reason given is "the flooding". The first I heard of this was on June 17th - stumbled across it by chance while looking up information on nuclear plants and was suspicious of it (Russian source so WTF would they know was my first thought). Found lots of youtube stuff, people screaming "why haven't we been told". It has only recently hit slashdot and mainstream news - this has been going on since June 6 (the fire was June 7).
Knowledge stops FUD and builds confidence, the authorities should have at least informed people instead of people calling in ("by the hundreds" as on shock jock put it) and complaining that something is wrong.
Instead of being "condescending", it would help the nuclear cause if facts were given to counter the shock jocks - before they get a foot hold.
It wasn't until June 17 that the plant operator actually deemed to give any information (the answers look a little shaky imo - the water level does not constitute an accident with local consequences). I hope they are truthful because this should have been a story of conservative precautions - see, FUD is working - I doubt them.

It hasn't really been ANYWHERE on the national news, but we are losing more than just the war on drugs here. The cartels control parts of the state of Arizona. Not just as in they create a danger of violence there, as in they're building roads there. Americans are warned not to go there. The local law enforcement doesn't go there because they're out manned and out gunned.

See here and here>.

In other words, they are well on their way to actually occupying (in the sense of an invading army) a chunk of the U.S.

They've had infantry for some time now, It seems that they are now working on a navy and a mechanized unit.

I just can't tell you what a relief it is to hear how we're winning the drug war!

What the hell does this mean "go to prison for possession of certain comic books"

No, that was not an exaggeration:

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/27/manga-collector-face.html

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Did you think I was just making it up? Or were you not paying attention to the sorts of laws that have been passed in the United States?

Again I think you are leaving out a couple of facts with this beauty "Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves".

No, actually, I left nothing out; just ask these teenagers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479803,00.html

Oh, sorry, that was a Fox News link. Here, something less fair and balanced:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/

Note that the three girls who took the photographs -- photographs of themselves -- were arrested, as were the boys who received them. Not one of the people arrested here was over the age of 16.

This "people who break the law should not have any doubt as to whether or not what they are doing is illegal" assertion says more about idiots committing the crime than it does about the law.

Oh yeah? Are you sure that you have never committed a felony? These people were pretty sure too:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/

Did you remember to check all the paperwork relating to your hobbies? Obviously importing orchids without doing so is something you can go to jail for, right?

"Mr. Johnson, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, estimated that China owns about $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, or nearly half the $2.37 trillion stock of Treasury debt held by “foreign official” owners."

That's a trillion out of a total of 14 trillion. Plenty to economically ruin the US if they decided is worth a trillion dollars to them to do so. They just need to announce they want to sell a significant portion of it because they lack confidence in the dollar and the US economy will be in the toilet. Or they could just announce that they won't be buying half when the US next sells treasuries for the same effect.

I don't think "almost half" counts as "a tiny percentage":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/

Blame for the economy:
Feb 23, 2011 52% Bush, 41% Obama, according to the Washington Times
May 4, 2011 51% Bush, % Obama Fox News(warning, video)
May 18, 2011 54% Bush, 39% Obama Rasmussen
The above all are right-wing sources, and all put more of the blame on Bush than Obama. So what about other polls?

April 28, 2011 63% Bush, 30% Obama Marist Poll
May 9, 2011 55% Bush, 33% Obama CNN

Unsurprisingly Bush fares even worse.

There's nothing wrong with porn (well, until you get into the realm of doing something that is illegal anyways and filming it). If you want to take the pseudo-feminist pseudo-right-wing-neanderthal position (how the hell did those two wind up on the same side for something, given that feminists are all about empowering women and the rightwing cro-magnons are all about keeping them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?) that it is "destructive to society and denigrates women", we'll have that argument another day.

There is, however, something incredibly ironic about a massive porn collection owned by people who among other things, murder porn stars for fun because they believe porn is "evil."

I hope Rossi "cold fusion" device will be used as energy source for cars:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

Well, what about Cold Fusion reactors??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece

Rossi and Defcalion Technologies are currently constructing 1MW fusion reactor in Greece.
They say it will be ready in October this year and production of 20kW market ready devices should start in 2012.

New factory in Xanthi (100mln euros investment) is expected to manufacture 300.000 such devices per year:
http://translate.google.pl/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=el&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energypress.gr%2Fportal%2Fresource%2FcontentObject%2Fid%2Fe7cf318d-06b8-414a-8183-54af3baf5897

Cost of 1kWh energy production is expected to be within US cent range.

Despite recent government reports that China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury debt declined during the second half of last year, the Asian economic giant almost certainly owns far more Treasury securities than official statistics indicate. After peaking at $801.5 billion, China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities declined to $755.4 billion at the year’s end, dropping the communist power into the position of second-largest holder of Treasury debt after Japan’s $768.8 billion, official government data reveal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/

china is the country basically funding u.s. govt. debt. leave aside 'assets'. the entire borrowing capability of u.s. now depends on china. if china sells the u.s. govt bonds it holds, their value will drop so low that us govt wont be able to borrow by selling new bonds. not to mention that dollar will sink to bottom and get replaced by another currency as the trade currency.

you are talking about a pathetic amount of 2.5 b worth of prc assets .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/

china holds more than $801.5 billion worth of u.s. govt bonds. go figure.

Google refuses to give up data

The Bush administration demanded in court documents this week that Google Inc. turn over information about its users’ Internet search requests.

Google has refused to comply with a Justice Department subpoena filed last year, which the agency hopes to use to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 2004.

The subpoena requested that Google provide a random sample of 1 million Web addresses and “the text of each search string entered into Google’s search engine over a one-week period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query),” according to the motion filed Wednesday in San Jose, Calif., by Justice Department lawyers.

“Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and their demand for information overreaches,” said Nicole Wong, Google’s associate general counsel. “We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously.”
....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/19/20060119-105801-2649r/

Well, it is kindof true. Google is very big brother in the way they gather data about their users. For that matter, just about any large internet company is going to be in bed with whatever governments whose jurisdiction they operate within. It's called "compliance with law enforcement".

Remember this?

Google refuses to give up data

The Bush administration demanded in court documents this week that Google Inc. turn over information about its users’ Internet search requests.

Google has refused to comply with a Justice Department subpoena filed last year, which the agency hopes to use to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 2004.

The subpoena requested that Google provide a random sample of 1 million Web addresses and “the text of each search string entered into Google’s search engine over a one-week period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query),” according to the motion filed Wednesday in San Jose, Calif., by Justice Department lawyers.

“Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and their demand for information overreaches,” said Nicole Wong, Google’s associate general counsel. “We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously.”
...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/19/20060119-105801-2649r/

The Coburn amendment (or a similar provision ending or limiting fee diversion) is essential to revival of the patent office. There is no way that the USPTO can get itself on firm footing any time very soon, unless the legislature stops raiding its revenue. All other patent reform issues pale in comparison.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/dispatches-heartland/2011/feb/8/ibm-watson-jeopardy-harbinger-vexing-politics/
"It’s hard to imagine the mood of the country changing if these trends persist. Will our bad mood turn to deep funk if we’re entering a period of long-term, systemic underemployment without even a hint of a plan for how we’ll manage? Does it make sense simply to hold on to our faith that eventually life will be like it was in the 1940s, 50s and 60s? It is marvelous to witness the technological advances brought about by human ingenuity. It’s a kick to watch computers compete against humans on shows like Jeopardy. But, IBM Watson’s real success on Jeopardy would be if it helps kick-start a meaningful political conversation about the economy of the future."

Solutions (my comments):
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/robots-jobs-and-our-assumptions/#comment-392
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=6#comment-20270
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery/38e2u3s23jer/2

The Supreme Court has long held (since the 1800s) that searches at international borders don't require a warrant.

In addition, the courts have repeated ruled that national security warrantless wiretaps are legal, such as this recent ruling:

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping
The judges ...concluded that the government's protections and restrictions included in the 2007 procedures were appropriate. "Our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts," Selya wrote in the 29-page opinion.

He added that requiring a warrant in such cases would probably "hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake."

And here are just a few recent examples of why they might need to do so:

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians that could easily spill across the border: Converts Who Kill

The national security wiretaps are legal, and not an abuse of human rights.

They do them because people either in the US, or who come to the US, keep trying to conduct attacks. Just a few recent examples (there are many more):

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

You forgot "Think of the Children."

Well, that's maybe where we differ. I think we need to be adults and think of everybody, especially if Al Qaeda is successful in getting nuclear weapons, which they already have permission to use.

But, if it will make you more comfortable, for the moment lets forget about the children, and see where we stand. We can recap, and maybe you could point out what is actually wrong instead of in essence saying "I don't like it".

I pointed out that the courts have ruled against your assertion that the government's national security wiretapping is illegal, and a human rights violation: Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping

Even the page you linked to noted the EFF defeat on the legal question:

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case
Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
San Francisco - A federal judge has dismissed Jewel v. NSA, a case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers challenging the National Security Agency's mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails.

I also pointed out just a handful of the many active terrorism investigations and court cases going on inside the US. This points to a genuine, current, dangerous threat of people being killed by militant Muslim extremists. I assume you don't debate that they are genuine.

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

I then pointed out that this current turmoil started with Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, and that according to Bin Laden, he won't stop trying to a

All the actions of our government over the last few years are those of a governement afraid it's own people will rise against it, not one worried about our safety from terrorists, should be clear to almost anyone by now.

No, it's terrorists - that's pretty clear given the limited actions they've taken domestically along with the fact that we continue to change our government with elections, have a free press, free speech, 2nd Amendment rights, are free to work and travel largely as we please (even if there is the nuisance of security checks prior to flights). I'd love to see your version of how this somehow isn't the case.

To the extent they've stopped even a single credible terrorist plot (I haven't noticed they have prevented a single one) all they've managed is to deny me some good clean fun on moving target practice -- it's a total lose-lose.

Not hard to find... really....it's not. I'm guessing you've never looked.

(Just a sample - there are many, many more.)
Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009

The US is the only one allowed to use this tech to abuse human rights, and it really doesn't want to risk losing its lead in technology used for spying on citizens.

You are completely wrong. First off, it's legal, and not an abuse of human rights. (And no, this isn't the first time a court has made a similar finding.)

Second, it's necessary because some American citizens, immigrants, and visitors don't want to live in peace, but have taken up the cause of extremists. (Just a sample - there are many, many more.)
Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

And how did this get started? September 11 attacks

If you bother to read bin Laden's 'letter to America', you will see that in order for him to call off his minions, Americans will have to convert to his flavor of Islam, give up the constitution, implement Sharia law (which will mean cutting off hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, no more alcohol (prohibition again), drugs, porn, executing homosexuals, etc., etc., etc.), and many other odious demands.

Ultimately this is about various factions of Islam trying to extend their power by force. It won't go away soon. I suggest you get used to it.

Dreaming of Al-Andalus

By the way - the Muslim Brotherhood is not helping.

Although early rumblings tend to indicate that this latest effort at patent reform may well be doomed, the good news is that IP issues appear to be headed on an upswing under the Obama administration. Leahy's legislation may be too big not to fail, but the recent increased attention to patent reform will likely yield at least one or two bills that are small enough to succeed.

Then why does the list of Obama's friends who are exempt from participating grow longer by the day?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/

No, they don't. There has not been a single case of a pilot blinded by lasers, nor is it likely there ever will be.

Strawman argument. The issue is not permanent blindness, but disorientation, temporary blindness, or injury. There are multiple reports of pilots being injured by lasers:

Burned retina: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/28/20040928-111356-3924r/

Ruptured blood vessels: http://www.marconews.com/news/2011/jan/03/collier-sheriff-helicopter-pilots-injured-laser/?partner=yahoo_feeds

Unspecified possible injury: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/25/319357/pilot-injured-in-american-md-82-laser-incident.html

You might not be impressed because there's no blood, but an eye injury can be a career-ender for a pilot. Disorientation is the most common result of lasing incidents, with some cases of temporary blindness. Reduced vision, even temporarily, is a Big Deal when flying.

>>Already discussed, but note that nuclear plants do generate small amounts of CO2 due to current enrichment and mining methods, as well as the curing of concrete containment dome

Sure. And people driving to work and breathing at the plant generate CO2, too. It's still no excuse for AGW protestors to chain themselves to a nuclear power plant in protest, though, as the amounts are insignificant.

>>Dr. Knutti's emissions graph makes it clear that he's examining a scenario in which CO2 emissions only drop to half of 2010 values by ~2030

There's lots of greens calling for zero CO2 emissions. Since you work in the field, I'm sure you're aware of them.

As far as science vs. policy goes, I absolutely agree with you that science and policy are two different ballgames, but people confuse the two: denying science because they don't like the policy, or pretending that because they know science, they are suited to crafting policy. Hansen's latest statements are illustrative: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/china-style-dictatorship-of-climatologists/

That said, he discovered the facts pointed him toward nuclear as a green solution, so he's not all bad.

>>I've already mentioned that albedo geoengineering "solutions" like stratospheric aerosol injection wouldn't address ocean acidification, so I don't see why you think they'd be effective.

Those are two different issues. It seems like it would be quite cheap and effective at reducing global temperatures (if they're found to be a problem), while not addressing the ocean acidification problem, which is another problem. Since you have /. search on tap, you should be able to find a quote from me on here that says basically this.

>>In reality, none of the geophysicists I've met at conferences have advocated solutions that will kill people or destroy the economy

Not outright, no. But the suggestions to move to 100% renewable would triple our current energy prices, or more. I care not a whit for your estimates of cap-and-trade - I'm talking about looking at what the price is we pay for power now, vs. what we'd pay with 100% renewable, and the impact would be quite devastating.

I'm currently modifying my position on the issue, though. While the levelized cost of large-scale solar is around 4x the cost of natural gas production, Small-scale solar is only about 2x as expensive, and avoids a lot of the land use, transmission line and lawsuit issues that can make large-scale plants unattractive to investors.

>>CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40

Be very, very careful with your estimates. Poor families get subsidized power. Here in California, the high tier pricing has been shooting through the roof (it's up to 50c/kWH now) while baseline usage has remained flat at around 8c for the last decade or so. The PUC has been allowing PG&E to blow rates through the roof as long as they keep them low for the poor. Likewise, your estimate of only a 10% increase in cost for the rich is either wrong, or is representative of very little change being made on the CO2 front. You can look at kilowatt hour prices for renewables vs. coal and NG, and derive these numbers yourself.

Kyoto is irreparably flawed, as anyone knows, and basically would constitute a money transfer to Eastern Europe (being paid to have the USSR collapse on their heads).

Final point - nuclear is such an attractive technology (both from an economics and CO2 perspective) that they were banned from earning carbon credits, since they would be too effective. Nothing more needs to be said about the stupidity of our CO2 overlords, or the viability of nukes.

What's another 2 trillion[1]?

The USA has already created many trillions since 2008, without hyperinflation of a "few thousand percent in one month". Seems like as long as they don't call it "printing money" nobody appears to notice or care that much.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=armOzfkwtCA4
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7484bxHz7Bk

While it's still "printing money" if you lend money that doesn't exist, or borrow from a "financial smoke and mirrors scheme" to pay off a real debt, it seems as long as the smoke and mirrors are good enough, nobody asks too many questions about it. I doubt China would either - they'd take the trillions very quietly and try to convert it to stuff that's more tangible, before everyone else notices...

[1] Approximately:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100011049/america-owes-china-two-trillion-dollars-but-what-does-that-mean/