Slashdot Mirror

The video is misleading because it has been deliberately altered to be misleading and hide the facts below the poor resolution and compression artifacts.

The area has street lights and is well illuminated as shown by other videos. You can
see for yourself in the photos of the news reports with the Uber car still the at location and the bicycle on the sidewalk below a f-ing streetlight! leaves it pretty clear that the gamma and brightness of the video has been deliberately altered to hide the darker areas.

Driving at night where Autonomous Uber hit Pedestrian at night

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html
[2] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/20/uber-notes-sad-news-killing-lady-driverless-car/

I am beginning to understand why the right has been calling you "cucks".

Heil Hitler salutes at campaign events is why we call the alt-right nazis http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.co...

There were no other cars in the frames.

No, but there was a fucking bus:
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2011/04/20/20110420-205144-pic-539113282_s630x479.jpg?b7cfe1cfd3137aa28a7d58a9c1c923a475f1eedd

this is jetfuel for some guy on an aircraft carrier stationed thousands of miles from the nearest friendly gas station in a warzone

      Eeeek, exactly how many gallons per minute is your magic aircraft carrier based fuel plant going to produce, how much will it weigh, how many points of failure does it have, how much will it slow down that 30+ knot bulls-eye for Chinese subs (who have already proven they can pop up in the middle of carrier battle groups) even more. Oh, and what's that going to do to the price tag of your already expensive carriers defending a more than bankrupt country?

      I would have thought supply tankers were much cheaper.

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

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

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

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

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

And don't forget that Biden is against Net Neutrality too!

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE [youtube.com]

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918 [investors.com]

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/ [msn.com]

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx [businessandmedia.org]

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washt

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

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

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Do Obama and the Democrats deserve a lift in the polls as a result of the financial and mortgage problems? The answer from history is a clear NO. Here's the lead of a New York Times story on September 30, 1999:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending" [link below]. That's 1999 folks. Clinton Administration, I believe.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. "[see link below] The Democrats killed the reforms.

McCain said in co-sponsoring the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. The Democrats killed the Bill.

What was Barney Frank and fellow Democrats saying at the time of these attempted reforms? According to reports, Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts :

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added of the reforms "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." [ See Community Reinvestment Act, link below ]

Even Bill Clinton points to Congressional Democrats failure to deal with Fannie and Freddie as a primary cause.

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

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

Then there is the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd who allegedly got special mortgage deals from Countrywide, who gave preferential rates to 'friends' of company's chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/

For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

"House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

The link below describes how some in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who allegedly has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/pelosis-pac-pays-bills-for-spouses-firm.

See also:

Take some time and learn about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and who ran the "corporation" since 2000. Add to that, researching the 2005 bill that forced FM/FM to give out loans based on racial profiles instead of financial stability, and you'll have a good idea who to blame.

Who was in charge of Fannie Mae when they "misreported" $10.8 billion in 2006? Washington Times

For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years, is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM at $112,000. (McCain has also taken $16,000, Joe Biden also got $500.)

"Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines last week called for continued efforts by Fannie Mae and mortgage lenders to reach out to those 'at the margins' of home ownership. Blacks, Hispanics and immigrants trying to buy homes would be a major focus of outreach, Raines said." Raines made no mention of assistance for the millions of white families who have difficulty purchasing homes.

And who is Franklin Raines? Why, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton. (He was the chairman of the same department under Jimmy Carter.) He's currently under investigation by several different groups, including the SEC, the OFHEO, and others.

There is a bill under consideration that would allow Unions to see how their members (or potential members) voted.

Washington Times article

It's being pushed under the guise of efficiency, but its potential for abuse is disturbing.

It's more that they haven't grasped the full implications of things like YouTube.

I think they're getting it now -- according to the Washington Times, McCain's YouTube channel has beaten Obama's 11 of the last 14 days.

Even if he's just paying people to set around all day and click on his videos, it still makes for a nice statistic. Even if Paris Hilton crushes both of them.

That's how it came out at the time. You have to remember that this was at the end of a very expensive war with Iran and that Iraq was very deep in debt and on the brink of economic collapse. A lot has been written about the this.

It's a cute theory and may have been a contributing factor or a means of influencing other Iraqi's but it takes more than an insane whim for these things to happen.

People have made all sorts of accusations about it. But you also have to look at their motivating factors behind what they are saying. Iraq was pissed because Kuwait increased production of oil in order to pay off some of their debt when Iraq was relying on relatively high prices for the time to boost income from their damaged and limited production capacity. I'm not positive but I think the comment about the whores came during a discussion about that problem. It might have been just the straw that broke the camel's back.

As for a contributing factor, you wouldn't really need that in Iraq at the time. Saddam was a dictator that more or less ruled by fear. He didn't need public support primarily because of the way any opposition was handled. Some of his sons were masters at torture and the citizens knew it.

There is a saying that free nations don't invade other free nations. This is primarily true because of the need for public support and justifications in free countries. It is far more likely that problems can and will be solved without violence when both sides are free and democratic. I don't think I can remember one war between free nations that was started by either free nations other then a civil war within a free country. If I'm wrong, correct me. But at least in recent history of the last century or two, it has all involved a dictator of some sorts on one end.

The really bizzare thing is the propaganda has been painting Saddam as Hitler when he compared himself to the possibly worse figure of Stalin

Killing the Kurds didn't help his reputation any. He surrounded himself with people willing to torture others into submission. Now keep in mind, these reports of torture and inhumane treatment came long before the Bush administration set it's eyes on Iraq. I'm talking about previous administrations too. Here is a human rights watch document dated from 1995. Here is one from 1991. I think the problem with comparing him to Hitler instead of Stalin has more to do with the willingness to take other countries by force. Russia basically walked in and in three cases (greece, iran and turkey) walked back out but it was all without violence after WW2 fprming the USSR. Hitler, claimed the same protection of borders but as we know, used violence to effect his wishes.

It could be that the insisting on comparing him to Hitler had more to do with how Hitler more or less started WWII by ignoring it's treaty obligations from WWI's Treaty of Versailles. It is interesting that Mussolini was actually invading other countries before Hitler even became offensive yet Hitler is blamed for starting WWII. Well actually, that is a little misleading because Mussolini officially sent aid to General Franco for the civil war in Spain but some claim that Franco was a puppet of Mussolini. None the less, Heinz Guderian, a captured German general was reported in a book about the war to have said ""If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen"

Hitler himself supposedly said "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marc

I thought it was more about Jacques Chirac, Charles Pasqua, Jean-Bernard Merimee and many other top French officials getting illegal bribe payments from Iraq via the oil-for-food scandal. Silly me!

I get too much work from the .NET realm to ever diss Microsoft, because some of their stuff works quite well and saves me quite a bit of time. Some other products... forget it. I think however that when a corporation takes on more than (arbitrary number) say 40 workers, it becomes evil. And now Microsoft has fallen into that evil, and is joining with the empire that emits more greenhouse gasses than the USA, spies on our military, threatens minorities, pollutes recklessly, threatens the US with nuclear weapons, and is building up its military to challenge the US and Europe. Is the new evil empire a Microsoft-China alliance?

Had the students been taught to fight back. Since they were not told it was a drill, it could have been quite a sight with 60 little ninjas armed with pens, rulers and flying calculators. Not a pretty sight to say the least...

Arrogance is confidence which lacks integrity. Being arrogant just makes you a jerk and a bully. Explain to me the master plan for getting the fuck out of Iraq. Explain to me how we go from where we are today to a situation that is worth the blood and money that has gone into this endeavor. What, do we bomb Iran first? Start committing collective punishment against entire neighborhoods in Baghdad? A time-table isn't anymore defeat than what you are facing now. We have been defeated, our occupation is not legitimate and taints the legitimacy of any government we associate with. Our very influence with any government in Iraq and undermines their ability to obtain the consent of the governed. It is time to go. We must let the Iraqi's solve this problem, one can only hope that regional and international interests can help better than we have.

Let's say I won a match in a game of dodgeball against you (most liberals hate competition, but humor me), there is nothing wrong with bragging about my victory. Sportsmanship defines who we are as Human beings. This applies to both losing and winning. No one likes a loser, but everyone loves a winner (again, except for most liberals)! Bragging is a form of self-rewardment at the others expense. This does not fit the definition of being arrogant as you've so defined. The reason being that sportsmanship is all about integrity!

I'd love to see your rationale for this treason charge.

I gave you one before. They want defeat.

The Democrats have advocated policies which are consistent with this nation's interests, the GOP has implemented policies which are against that interest.

Defeat is in our national interest? Your logic is twisted.

Can't invest in infrastructure, give people hope, might encourage them to be lazy

Republicans do invest in infrastructure and they give people hope through faith. Republicans have the highest work ethic in America. Period.

Those that vote democrat expect the government to provide handouts and entitlements (for the most part). It should be of no surprise that unions are comprised of mostly democrats too. That's a fact!

Which Al Qeada operatives were in Iraq before the invasion? Name a single one or an actual intelligence report citing that there were any in Iraq.

You might want to read this article . Is it legally binding as an official report? I'm not sure, nor would I be the one to answer that question. But I find the evidence compelling to say the least.

In what bizarro world does this happen? Does Osama suddenly get an interest Muslim separatists in the Gobi desert? China is already dealing with insurgents with ties to it's neighbor Pakistan and haven't done shit yet.

"Yet" is the key word. Obviously they wouldn't use nukes due to the political fallout (no pun intended) that would arise. America and Europe are China's biggest trading partners, so I doubt the CCP want's to rock that money making boat. OTOH though, such a large attack in a major Chinese city might provide enough of an excuse to launch a military strike. I foresee a few reasons. 1. they want a real military exercise to test their capability with real-world results. 2. Show Taiwan that they mean business with their military might and thus push for a "peaceful" reunification plan.

Al Qeada doesn't have much to gain by attacking Beijing.

Al Qeada doesn't have much to gain by attacking any nation. But, they do it anyway to advance their perverse and twisted religious ideology. So why wouldn't they attack?

Do you think you can just impose your world view on millions of people who's culture you don't even begin to understand? Do you think that this is a rational course of action to attempt?

Dropping two fatties over Japan ended WW2. Do you think we understood the Japanese culture any better than the Middle East today? Hell no! We did know however that extreme re

Boy you guys are dated. It wasn't all that long ago that a Chinese sub surfaced within torpedo range of a US aircraft carrier. Or you can bring up the shooting at US satellites. China sub stalked U.S. fleet
China Attempted to blind US Satellites

If the US Federal government wants to get serious about cyber-security, they should refrain from firing competent staff such as Shawn Carpenter for doing their job. Current US law hinders counter-intelligence operators from gathering information and countering these attacks, since it is illegal to gain unauthorized access to the perpetrators' machines!

This means that security personnel who are doing their job to combat these attacks risk losing their job and even criminal prosecution.

Although Shawn Carpenter lost his job at the Sandia National Laboratory, he was eventually awarded $4 million for his termination which was found to be"malicious, willful, reckless, wanton, fraudulent or in bad faith."

The US intelligence community and Federal beaurocracy needs to wise up. National secrets are leaking like a sieve while the shortage of qualified operators continues to increase, and the beaurocrats are too busy covering their asses and fighting turf wars to do anything about it.

let's be honest though, a large part of France and Russia's vocal objection to the war was that they were making a ton of money brokering oil-for-food programs that would go away when Saddam went away. they were right for the wrong reasons

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Ar ea=ia&ID=IA16404

Russia
1. The Russian State 1.366 billion
7. Al-Fayco (Russian Foreign Ministry) 128.8 million
8. Yatumin (Russian Foreign Ministry) 30.1 million
25. Liberal Democratic Party (Zhirinovsky) 79.8 million
32. Romain (son of former ambassador to Baghdad) 19.7 million
46. Russian National Democratic Party 3 million

France
1. ADDAX 8.3 million
2. Trafigura Patrick Maugein 25 million
3. Michel Grimard 17 million
4. Franco-Iraqi Friendship 15.1 million
5. Ayix 47.2 million
6. Charles Pasqua 12 million
7. Alias Al-Gharzali 14.6 million
8. IOTC (Claude Caspert) 4 million
9. Jean-Bernard Merimee 3 million
10. Jean-Bernard Merimee 8 million
11. de Souza 11 million

China
1. Mr. Juan 39.1 million
2. Noresco 17.5 million
3. Zank Ronk 13 million
4. Biorg 13.5 million
5. South Holken 1 million

"Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million); "

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-259 3r.htm

It has been ridiculously warm here in New York this winter. It is NEVER warm in new york in the winter. The last few days it has gotten mildly cold, but up until then, it has been almost spring like. It is simply amazing how different the weather has been this winter here in the north east. This is the warmest winter i've ever experienced here in NY in 30 years.

As someone who lives in the NYC area, yes it's been very warm this winter. We haven't even had snow since last Spring, and it's almost the middle of January! Do you know when the last time that happened was? The the winter of 1877-1878. I guess there was some global warming going on back then too..or wait, it's called Climate Change now right? Although the weathermen seem to think it's El Nino preventing us from getting any artic air.

As someone who works in NYC, I can tell you it was much colder just two years ago. It must be the global warmi....err...climate change! I remember just two years ago around mid January, Al Gore came to New York City to give a speech on global warming. Of course, that was one of the coldest days on record in NYC, -1 degrees without windchill.

You will have to forgive me for being skeptical about the politicization of Global Warming. Heck, they went from calling it global warming to 'climate change' just so they could point to anything and claim it was occuring. Most of the arguments used in the political arena to 'prove' global warming/climate change are circumstantial. It is to the point where any time there is a record high, a record low, or a small or large number of storms, we hear 'IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE BOOGYMAN AGAIN!". Some of the assements in Gore's movie that are taken for granted are incorrect. Most notably the assessment that the decade of the 1990's was the hottest on record.

I'm not saying that Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever is or isn't happening. I am saying the issue has been politicized to the point of foolishness. The name change to 'Climate Change" has driven the debate to the point where people are using anecdotal data to support it, like 'wow it's really warm/cold this winter!' or "there were 14 hurricanes last year, and none this year! IT MUST BE THE CLIMATE CHANGE"!

Of course, either side can make anecdotal points, for example, I could ask you to talk to James Kim about Global Warming and how it's working out for him.

A BBC article from September, 2003, Fears rise for sinking Sundarbans indicates that the island mentioned in the Slashdot story, and others, sunk a long time ago. Perhaps the Slashdot story article gave the wrong name.

A July 29, 2003 article GOP disputes global-warming cause gives the Bush administration's position then: "... the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee question[ed] not only the evidence for warming, but also the link between human actions and climate change."

The issue in the United States, of course, is not when an island in India sunk, but the fact that there is ongoing damage, and that the Bush administration has tried to delay action as much as possible.

"Why don't they ban "tag" while they're at it, a game which encourages *actual* attacking of another human being in the game." We're one step ahead of you... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-rec ess-bans_x.htm http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061018-114713- 2243r.htm http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art icles/2006/10/18/attleboro_elementary_school_bans_ tag/

It sounds very much like just taking a connecting flight through the US could allow you to end up in custody, declared as an illegal combatant, and locked away.

Are you engaged in a plot to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you giving money to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations that are plotting to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you supplying terrorists with: weapons? documents? intelligence? Have you been hanging out on any battlefields and shooting or lobbing grenades at Americans? Have you been spending long periods of time in various countries known for training terrorists after proclaiming your allegiance to Bin Laden and your steadfastness in pursuing Jihad? Are you a Muslim extremist who demands that Spain be returned to Muslim rule, Israel be destroyed, and hang around with extremists Imams while having the occasional problem with weapons that you shouldn't have?

No?

So, why do you think they will be interested in you? They have real threats to be concerned about.

I realize it's unlikely, it's just eerie to know they believe that they can do anything they want.

Unlikely is an understatement. No, they don't believe that they can do anything that they want. That impression might be caused by not knowing American law, history, and the extensive but still limited powers of the US President, especially in time of war. I doubt that President Bush has done much of anything that President Roosevelt didn't do in the 1940s, and in many respects, far less.

. ... and short of torture (which they defined in terms or organ failure and death)

I very much doubt that.

It sounds very much like just taking a connecting flight through the US could allow you to end up in custody, declared as an illegal combatant, and locked away.

Are you engaged in a plot to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you giving money to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations that are plotting to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you supplying terrorists with: weapons? documents? intelligence? Have you been hanging out on any battlefields and shooting or lobbing grenades at Americans? Have you been spending long periods of time in various countries known for training terrorists after proclaiming your allegiance to Bin Laden and your steadfastness in pursuing Jihad? Are you a Muslim extremist who demands that Spain be returned to Muslim rule, Israel be destroyed, and hang around with extremists Imams while having the occasional problem with weapons that you shouldn't have?

No?

So, why do you think they will be interested in you? They have real threats to be concerned about.

I realize it's unlikely, it's just eerie to know they believe that they can do anything they want.

Unlikely is an understatement. No, they don't believe that they can do anything that they want. That impression might be caused by not knowing American law, history, and the extensive but still limited powers of the US President, especially in time of war. I doubt that President Bush has done much of anything that President Roosevelt didn't do in the 1940s, and in many respects, far less.

. ... and short of torture (which they defined in terms or organ failure and death)

I very much doubt that.

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials. ....

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

        "That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." .....

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
        Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
        The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
        The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
        A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
        "That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
        "They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
        The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
        "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

   

Would the people that determine the known list of terrorists be the same ones who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

That is very unlikely. Terrorism and Counter-proliferation are very different disciplines, requiring different knowledge bases and skills. WMD would be mainly CIA & DIA. Terrorism would be a different part of CIA & DIA, shared with FBI.

If it makes you feel any better, they did find a number of active, banned weapons programs in Iraq though, not to mention a few other surprises. It is clear that Saddam still had an interest, and was prepared to resume WMD activities as soon as sanctions were lifted. As to the actual weapons, maybe they really were all destroyed, or maybe they were transferred to Syria. We may never really know for sure.

Getting good intelligence on weapons development and counts of deployed weapons in authoritarian countries is a very difficult problem for intelligence agencies. It is by no means uncommon for major foreign weapons systems to be missed, their capabilities misjudged, or occasionally overstated. South Africa was an undeclared nuclear power for a time, and nobody actually knew until they announced that they had dismantled their weapons. China recently displayed a new type of attack submarine that took the US by surprise.

Kudos on the rhetorical device.

Riiiiiight...I forgot. China has no navy whatsoever...

Then other scientists couldn't repeat the findings.

Which other scientists (just curious)? What's suspicious about all this is that JRDF, which will throw money at everything from new implantable device research to stem cell research won't fund research into Denise Faustman's legitimate breakthrough discovery. Could it be because her discovery involve a cheap drug whose patent has expired?

It should also be telling in the whole debate over private schools vs. public schools that public school teachers send their children to private schools at a rate of more than double the general population. As do politicians who are telling us that we should support and use the public schools. If the teachers teaching there and the politicians running and funding it don't think they should educate their children there, then why should we?

Who specifically are we at war with? That is to say, other than "the terrorists." Who do we have to kill or who has to surrender to end this war, bin Laden, the Taliban?

Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Taliban at present. Hezbollah is operating in the US, and has threatened the US, so its time may come. Hamas, also operating in the US might get there too.

The fact is, we are not at war in any meaningful sense of the word. We are at war only in the same sense that we are at war with drugs and poverty.

Here is a useful guide to figure out when you are in a literal versus figurative war: When you are expending M1 tank main gun rounds, 500 lb or larger bombs, and artillery, to kill people, it is very likely to be a real war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq admits that the US has killed at least 4,000 foreign fighters who came to Iraq to fight in what Bin Laden refers to as, "...the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era".

Now, if you are killing thousands of enemy fighters with tank main gun rounds, big bombs, and artillery, and your enemy says that they are in, "the greatest battle of Islam in this era," and trying to kill you in large numbers, take the hint: you are in a war.

The metaphorical "war on drugs" generally only uses pistols or shotguns, education, and prison cells. The metaphorical "war on poverty" generally only uses government aid checks and programs.

The Cold War lasted about 45 years, don't be surprised if the war against the Islamist extremists lasts as long. Right after 9/11, President Bush referred to the War a ... a long struggle.

It isn't so hard to figure out if you try just a little.

Chavez is considerably worse than just "not a saint". And comparing him to an elected President of the US is somewhat absurd. Anyone who thinks life in Venezuela under Chavez would be nicer than life in the United States under Bush should put their money where their mouth is and move there.

pretty much every state Supreme Court in the country has declared voter ID laws unconstitutional.

24 states and the District of Columbia currently have the minimum HAVA ID requirements - first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide ID verification with their registration must show ID before voting.

19 states require ID for all voters.

2 states require all voters show photo ID

3 states request all voters show photo ID

2 states require ID of all first-time voters

source

Meanwhile (September 21, 2006)... "The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks. The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member."

Greenpeace founder supports nukes.. Watch The Inconvenient Truth, one of the salient points of the movie was we can make changes today, now that will in time have tangible effects, switching from coal to nuclear for example (also fyi coal also is highly radioactive , minute quantities of radioactivity x tons n tons of coal). Another equally important point with hydrocarbons worth billions if not trillions of dollars in the ground there is sufficient business for people to do anything possible to stem erosion in market share (cue the CO2 is life ad's) The bottom line is regardless of our 'understanding' of us being the causative agents or not, the CO2 levels are rising and this in turn will have adverse effects. Even if this were a result of polar bears farting if we can work to offset the excess to minimize impact, would that not be a sound move? Also regarding what we can do? cut down on power usage, energy saving appliances, the whole thread on slashdot and elsewhere on minimizing idle mode power consumption, energy efficient cars hybrid electric etc, flourescent lightbulbs etc etc. Bottom line there is no significant downside that i'm aware of to conservation and switching from hydrocarbons to the maximal extent possible, then why not do it?

Was it Jamie S. Gorelick, Clinton appointee, who banned the sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228- 6538r.htm

>how is this different?

Life imprisonment of citizens without trial, charge, or legal counsel. Attempts to block court review.

Hamdi, Hamdan(noncitizen), Padilla. This administration tried to hold them solely on the administration's say-so for the duration of the war on terror, in other words forever.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (for which he sought Congressional approval) and the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans (which were given a Supreme Court review, though one shamefully decided) happened during times when the fear, though not the actions, were justified. Lincoln acted when the country was already torn in two with the South shooting at the North. Roosevelt faced heavily armed enemies that had conquered entire nations. Neither would have pulled things like that in response to occasional atrocities committed by a few thousand fanatics in caves.

Employers, not individuals, should buy insurance for employees rather than give them the cash equivalent

Thats half the point of the argument. If the employers gave the employee the exact cash value of their benefits, their employees would be unable to buy back the insurance they had using the extra cash (even if they received the same tax breaks that the companies have now). Now, if ALL of the employers did this, insurers would be forced to lower their rates in order to do business in the new market, but its unlikely that anything short of more government intervention would bring this about. Of course, the whole argument is like arguing over what flavor shit you'd like to eat...

Life insurance, car insurance, home/renter insurance, and expatriation insurance are "different". Somehow.

Which you'd realize if you understood what makes health insurance different. Think about it for a while. If you need help, I suggest calling up your car insurance agent, tell them you've got a million dollar Ferrari Enzo and you want to slam it into the wall of your house at 180MPH, and you want to know how much an insurance policy that will pay for the repairs on that will be. Then call up your homeowner's insurance agent and let them know you intend to try to knock your house down with your car. Be sure to let your life insurance agent know you're planning to be the one driving.

Then, call up your health insurance agent and ask him how much it costs to get an insurance policy that will cover your care when you get sick. Chances are, the first three will cancel your policy and tell you to go to hell. The fourth will happily give you a quote, because all they do is move money from healthy people to sick people. Even life insurance has term policies that can expire before you do, but only health insurance basically guarantees a payout. And pay out it does, over and over again. Whether it's to 20somethings that get the bug going around the office, 40somethings that stroke after a stressful day at work, 60somethings who lived through too much mcdonalds, beer, and cigarettes or 80somethings with a personal pharmacy and a list of diseases that could fill a dictionary. Don't forget their spouses and kids.

At least when the government socializes healthcare, skimming hundreds of thousands of dollars off the top sometimes gets people arrested, unless they've got connections. When companies socialize it, the skimmers are called CEOs. Abolishing health insurance completely is the only truly sane way to proceed. The market should readjust fairly quickly without insurers contractually setting the prices doctors charge the uninsured (people like to believe only the government does this, but they're either misled or misleading). Doctors and Hospitals will return to competing on service and cost, rather than just whether they take your insurance or not. Service will stratify of course, poorer people will only be able to afford older technology and shared hospital rooms, but the vast majority of them will be receiving better care at rates they can afford than they did in today's world where service basically existed for the insured and those willing to go deep into debt.

Here's one:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

"Senator Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us - and are comfortable using that terminology."

Vice President Dick Cheney
Remarks by the Vice President
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum
March 17, 2004

*Shrug*. My country has been targetted by Islamic terrorists for about two decades. They are backed by a Chinese/US/Saudi Arabia supported, armed and funded nuclear power. The Islamic terrorists already have nukes. Believe me, it really can't get worse from where I sit.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/Terrorism/
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/ornet/2002 -June/004544.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Kashmir
http://www.kashmirherald.com/january2002/kashmirte rrorismupdate.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10958641/
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/beher a_20020525.htm
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlin es/volume16/Article1.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index. html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/terror/m ain648733.shtml
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1577.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_ of_mass_destruction
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000575.html
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040104-102921-916 6r.htm

And you think I worry about teeny little things like giving nukes to Lebanon forcing Israel to openly declare its nuclear status? I suspect you need to learn a little bit more about the rest of the world.

Thanks for this opinion, it helps understand why there is so little understanding between the US and the rest of the world.

For the record, I'm Australian, and so perhaps somewhat neutral. If I may respond :

> Europeans hold America to a higher standard than you do yourselves

This may be the perception, however Europeans by and large don't pretend to save the world from itself, while simultaneously bombing everyone and pretending to be restoring democracy everywhere in the process. The US government pretends to do this all the time. The US Gov went to the UN in NYC, and basically said "We are going to restore democracy in Iraq" "The Iraqi are going to welcome us with open arms". Don't you remember this ?

Look at the score card, and tell me whose standards weren't upheld again?

> You treat immigrants with such disdain, and then preach about human rights?

Europe has exactly the same problems regarding immigration than the US does. I seem to hear that the federal goverment wants to build a huge wall along the Rio Grande to keep wetbacks out. I heard that Arizona wanted to specifically tax recent immigrants to help build that wall. That's more than disdain, that's downright humiliation.

> You have domestic terrorism problems that you can't solve, and then you presume to tell us how to solve our terrorism problems?

Actually I think Europeans are slowly solving them. The Lockerby Lybians were found and charged thanks to international cooperation. We know who masterminded the Paris Metro attacks, he was recently arrested and extradited to France via the UK. This particular procedure was very long, but European countries have signed an international agreement for faster processing recently.

Notice that the UK didn't bomb Lybia as a result of Lockerby (the US did for other reasons, though!) and that France didn't bomb Algeria for the metro attacks.

Notice as well that internal terrorism is also hopefully being resolved. IRA vowed to disarm a year ago, and went ahead a few month later despite considerable doubt in the Protestant camp that this would ever happen.

The bottom line is that Europe has been coping with terrorism longer than the US have. I hear that the US got some tips from the Israeli. This is good, because if there is a country knows about terrorism, that is Israel. Note that they, too, despite considerable military and financial help from the US, still haven't resolved that issue.

> You are more than willing to ask for our help when things like Bosnia get out of control, but then your population would prefer to snub the US when it needs help?

Bosnia was the best US deed from recent memory. Thanks. However on the Iraq issue the US was not *asking* for help, it was *demanding* it. As in strongarming, refusing debate and even calls to the most basic rule of reason. Note that in the case of Afghanistan, where terrorists and 9/11 masterminds were harboured, *many* nations responded to the call. Even the French, who count 7 casualties so far in Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, it was well-known that Iraq was not involved. GWB wanted to go there to settle some kind of score and grab the 2nd largest known reserves of oil in the process. Some European refused, insisting that Iraq was not going to be the easy walk in that GWB was hoping for. Can we blame them?

> Well, from my perspective, you all look like a bunch of racist spoiled children

A very slippery slope here. When I studied in the US, I saw very few African-Americans doing advanced degrees like master's and PhD's. Why is that do you think ? when did the African-Americans acquire

Google has the right idea, automatic extraction of semantics from content.

But content has no semantics.

Meaning is a verb, and "to mean" is an action of a knowing subject. Communication is an attempt to stimulate the same meanings in multiple subjects--kind of a psychological choreography.

As such, meaning is not extracted from content, ever. Rather, probable meaning is inferred from content, and the basis of inference is fundamentally psychological. What a given word, symbol, sentence, paragraph or page means will depend entirely on who is doing the meaning, and any attempt to infer meaning from content will therefore require a model of who is doing the meaning.

Building such a model is non-trivial, and multiple models will be required to serve the needs of multiple constituencies. The meaning of "nekkid women with goats" will vary widely depending on who is doing the meaning: a man or a woman, an religious person or a rational person, a child or an adult, and so on.

Tagging mechanisms that allow anyone who visits a page to classify it will be subject to an enormous range of variation even without spammers, bored teenagers and other malicious entities. People have mentioned the low quality of data in freeDB, and that is within an extremely narrow, specialized area with well-recognized commercially-created categories. Consider the mess that will result from the average American, nearly half of whom believe that god created humans in our current form in the past few thousand years being free to tag pages dealing with evolution and ID.

None of this is to say that some form of classification wouldn't be a good thing, nor that useful classifications aren't possible. But successful attempts at associating common (within a given culture/sex/age group) meanings with content are going to be vastly harder than most advocates of the semantic web believe, and will be based on a fundamental awareness that content on its own has no sematics. Until that fact is recognized and incorporated into the designs as the deepest level we will get nothing useful out of the semantic web.

I think zoning laws are some of the worst laws in existence -- private property should not be regulated as long as actions on that property don't harm another's property physically. I believe if my generator made noise that affected my neighbors, there should just be tort laws that cover it (and I believe tort can be provided for in a free market without the legal system!). If I pollute my neighbors property, fine. But if I want to paint my home pink with stripes, I should be free to. If I want to build it all the way up to my neighbor's property, I should be free to.

The Medicare thought of my is NOT disingenous. Look at this WashTimes article:

No Charity Allowed

I don't think so. . .

The Washington Times had it right when it said in it's editorial of June 26 that what the New York Times and LA Times did was "an extraordinary commandeering of public policy from elected officials and the government they administer, committed ostensibly in the name of "the public interest" but more likely stemming from hostility to government as administered by George W. Bush. There is no other persuasive explanation...This is another unnecessary leak, six months after the New York Times revealed a secret National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program."

It's clear this program worked and that it was legal. It was a primary source of knowledge about Islamo Fascism and was responsible for the capture of the terrorist known as "Hambali." Hambali, or Riduan Isamuddin, masterminded the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 innocent men and women.

When I read many of the reactionary complaints (from inferior types addicted to being judgmental as a way of maintaining a false superiority)its easy to detect that many of the criticisms don't stem from any virtuous concerns but are the mutterings of people with a seething nature more sympathetic to criminal elements they share an identity with.

Good editorial from The Washington Times - no conservative bastion:
  ( http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060623-085054-654 2r.htm )

FWIW, The idea that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda was original to the Clinton Administration.

"Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible? "

You mean like this?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060606-113418- 4179r.htm

By the way, where are those famous WMD Irak was supposed to produce en masse ?

In Russia.

I wonder whether or not the Christian fundamentalist unbeliever-killing Left Behind: Eternal Forces game is "appropriate" violence. Does this look any better than GTA? At least Doom and Quake are about fighting demons and mutants. This "convert or kill" game is a far cry from Veggie Tales, and very telling of the state of some religions in the US that churches refuse to denounce it.