Slashdot Mirror

a debt of $25000 per family

You're a little late to the party with that number. You're more than a hundred thousand dollars low for the canonical family-of-four.

Check the OMB's own numbers straight from the White House on when that debt was rung up. Don't forget to check what it looks like when you correct for inflation; they've got those numbers in some of those too, easy to find. A little cut and paste and fill-down arithmetic.

You might think you own your house free and clear. Not really. Rich people effectively hold a mortgage on it, and you and your children will be paying interest on it until you pay it off. Guess who's getting rich on the interest we're paying on over nine trillion dollars of debt. Is it you?

Don't forget to find out who mortgaged your children's future. Don't believe anybody, because you can damned well bet the people who actually did it are lying to you.

At the Federal level, A76 explains it all...and it has been around in various forms since the 1920's. Basically, if there's anything the government does that could possibly be done by private interests, they HAVE to outsource it if they can possibly save a nickel in doing so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a076.html

Not directly related to TFA, but it IS why if you end up in the federal clink, you're quite likely going to be sent to one of the private prisons run by Corrections Corporation of America.

Not exactly the market you want driven by profit motive, methinks, though it does explain why we have the largest, fastest growing prison population in the world.

I suspect that might have a lot to do with the fact that the US government subsidizes the hell out of the gasoline industry to (try to) bring us extra-cheap gasoline.

Both gasoline and petroleum diesel are made from petroleum. Notice I said "petroleum diesel", originally diesel was made from vegetable oil. Mix veg oil with lye to make diesel. However Rudolph Diesel, the designer of the diesel engine, run his engines on straight vegetable oil.

After all, we have two oil men in the white house right now

And a woman. Condoleezza Rice used to be a director on the board of Chevron. Well she's not really in the White House. Neither is the Vice President, his residence is the Naval Observatory.

Falcon

People are apprehensive about teaching chimps sign language, because, ya know, if those chimps are released back into the wild they will take over the world!!!

Sorry to break it to you, they already did.

Oh who am I kidding, that fucking idiot could never learn sign language.

"That would be the NSC"

Or, the National Security Council. Or any of the many secret organizations of the government, that do what they want and don't worry about what voters would think

So that's what is happening to space science in the USA as the Bush term runs out. We are cannibalizing existing programs to study a mission that is unlikely to be funded. Yet another thing Bush has managed to screw up!

Russia is developing quickly. Russia owns most of the world's territory and energy resources, which cannot be reproduced by humans. If you ever have been at the oil-refinery or saw "Druzhba" pipeline you would not say that it is low-tech, it is as high-tech as it gets.

If you measure "high-tech" only according to complexity, I will be the first to concede that petroleum mining and refining are highly complex. But for their costs and benefits to human society, I prefer the clean elegance of solar and wind power, "which cannot be reproduced by humans" either, but which can be harnessed without any cost to neighbors.

At the same time the USA lags behind.

We don't brag about using 19th century technology, and call it "high-tech."

It is in urgent need of its "perestroika". They still use the imperial measurement system, believe it or not. All those medieval feet, stones, miles, inches, arrow flights, etc.

Yeah, that's dire.

But when it starts the whole world will be shaken. The US internal changes and accompanying social struggle will affect the whole world. We saw it already in Georgia and South Ossethia. That war was part of the US election campaign.

I am genuinely sorry for my "President." I cannot understand why all the other voters did not call for his immediate resignation, when he commented publicly about Putin's soul!! It was not the stupidest or most evil thing he did while in office, but it was enough to terminate his employment.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.

Discussions of another world leader's character on such a personal level are certainly appropriate in private discussions with close advisors, but those are not the words of a statesman who believes in democratic principles and human rights. They are the words of a man making a personal commitment to another man, at the expense of both nations. They amount to a public, metaphysical blank check, and he does not have authorization to write those. I apologize for his support of your former "President."

But what will happen when the pushes will come to shoves in the USA?

Hopefully, we will not make the same mistake three times in a row. If George W. Bush becomes prime minister in 2009, I'll eat crow.

You have just proven that you did not read the transcript. Here, I will link to it again. Anyone who has read it will agree that I did not take Bush's words out of context.

Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.

My paraphrase captured Bush's meaning perfectly. I did not take the above quote out of context, nor have I distorted it in any way.

The quote above is from an official transcript of Bush's actual words when the crisis began. The world sniggered of course; Bush's hypocrisy was breathtaking. So as is normal with him, many official "clarifications" and "interpretations" came out later. These don't change the fact that Bush said what he said.

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act?

Because that is more important than who wrote it ?

Or more important than Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey

But again, the President is the one who introduced the bill, based on promises that were made during the campaign. When the bill got passed, it was after deliberations in both the house and senate, where 20% of the republicans in the house voted against it. Why did you feel it was needed to list 3 Democrats who voted against it, instead of listing the 46 that voted for it?

It has been discussed that the main reason that the Republican party voted 'yea' in such high numbers was purely for political advantage. The perceptions of the constituents at the time, were much more closely tied into how their representative worked with the President, and not against.[1] And my personal opinion, is that the distinction is not between 'D' and 'R', but between 'The South' and the rest of the U.S. Attaching political distrinction will wind up giving you a hodge podge of data points that looks random with both republicans, and democrats, both opposing the Civil Rights Act. When the distinction is made using the geographical area represented, the connection becomes much more relevant. Where were all of your examples from again? I suppose it doesnt help too much if one of your examples 'opposed' the civil rights act because he already believed the constitution guaranteed these rights to ALL. Or that the other one of your examples admitted his opposition to be the 'biggest mistake in his career' when he supported the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

Trying to point out that a few racists were also in the democratic party does not accomplish anything. "But mommy, he did it too" stopped being a valid point of argument for most people when their age rolled over to double digits. Since 100% of the Republican party didnt support the Civil Rights Act either, it would be a trivial exercise to pull out a handful of names with an 'R' next to their names. Neither of those things would change the fact that John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was the one who brought the legislation to both the house and senate. The Civil Rights Act was introduced by a Democrat, supported by a majority of Republicans, and was pushed through a filibuster(by other southern democrats) with the help of the above linked Democrats that wanted to see the presidents ideals codified into law. It was a GREAT example of what can be accomplished when two political sides work together, and overcome two geographic sides that wont.

Being blatantly partisan helps nobody, except those in politics. Are you in politics? Drone indeed

There are many astonishing things about that statement. This is one of them:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-7.html

Right here!

Technocrat reports:

The Bush Administration's Katrina report has an appendix called what went right, with praise for Amateur Radio:

Other organizations worked tirelessly to assist emergency responders that, due to the storm, did not have the equipment and means to effectively carry out their duties. Amateur Radio Operators from both the Amateur Radio Emergency Service and the American Radio Relay League, monitored distress calls and rerouted emergency requests for assistance throughout the U.S. until messages were received by emergency response personnel.

Ham Radio works because each it's a heterogeneous mesh network of intelligent agents using agile frequency hopping to provide connectionless redundant relay of messages. Yes, we do that!

Leigh/WA5ZNU

By making him sound more malicious and a super cracker, the military both escapes censure and makes it look like their security wasn't awful (because only a master cracker could have broken in).

But.. isn't America the strongest, most powerful nation on Earth ? Surely part of that strength would include having at least one super-cracker of their own to protect their *somewhat important* computers?

I agree. On one hand, we'll have a president who is somewhat tech savvy and a vice-president who despite our contradictions with his philophy of the Internet, knows something about technology law. We just need him to get out of the MPAA, RIAA, and the NCTA's pockets first. Hopefully, Joe Biden has no ties to Jack "Videogames raped me" Thompson.

In terms of foreign policy, Biden is perfect for the job.

In terms of a pro-technology Senate, I believe that in the furture that there WILL be more pro-tech congressmen. Guys in their 30s and 40s running for office who used to be fans of Metal Gear Solid. Former-Iraq War Vets who are angry that the Grandpas in the senate gave them the lowest-common-denominator (the cheap-ass stuff) when they were in battle while the anti-tech grandpas and their special ed bible thumping leaders send their drunken kids on a world-wide vacation to write childrens books.

The Internet is here to enlighten people as to what is really going on. It is impossible to cover up what is really going on with propaganda. Eventually, the truth roars into perspecitive after hiding in the underground until the people of power are put into an embarassing or weak position.

while not law - Executive Orders are the rules for the Executive branch which happens to have the enforcers of law

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

it will be intresting to see if he tries to use it to stay in office/control

there isn't many other uses for some of the provisions in that.

Bzzt Wrong! Take a look at this (pdf warning). Specifically, Chart 4 which is a nice pie chart with 2007's break down. It's also from a slightly more reliable source than an arms trade blog.

It'd like to point out that Medicare and Social Security are about 20% each with defense spending coming in at about 20% as well.

The president doesn't make the budget.

Oh?

NASA could always do with more funding. They re-pitch the idea that Mars has the building blocks for life and will require a few more $$$ to go back an explore it properly. They see an opportunity with a miserable failure in charge to fool him into signing another cheque.

Personally I think it's a long way to go. Why can't the Mars fossils get off their lazy backsides and come here for a change? ;)

Explain why the price of oil dropped quite a bit the same day the Bush rescinded the executive ban on drilling then?

"I don't know if we fully deserve the credit, but I do think that it was important to send a signal to the market that we are serious about moving forward."
-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, July 23

The reports I've heard cite decreased demand.

I want an idle treat.

Easy when you are idle and have nothing better to do:

1) Remove your trousers/pants/under-pants/panties/skirt?
2) Visit whitehouse.com (or .gov if you prefer!)
3) Give yourself an idle "treat".
4) Profit?!? (well maybe if you film and charge access.... ... mind you for most people on here they'd probably be in debt - when no-one sees/cares what they are doing in mums basement and/or online either!! Pretty much like most of our sad lifes, eh?! :)

Oh, well, in that case, I guess I'm wrong. I guess it's Mission Accomplished all over again. Way to go!

I take it you didn't read the part, in the first paragraph, where it talked about how troop levels were still higher than they had been. You must also have missed the memo about how things are going in Afghanistan.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

Federal receipts in millions of dollars
1998: 1,721,955
1999: 1,827,645
2000: 2,025,457 (last year of the dotcom bubble)
2001: 1,991,426 (Clinton's last budget)
2002: 1,863,395 (Fresh off 9/11)
2003: 1,782,532 (Beginning of Iraq War)
2004: 1,880,279
2005: 2,153,859
2006: 2,407,254
2007: 2,568,239

Clinton's term only had two years with higher federal revenues than any of GWB's years. Arguably, Clinton's best years were due to the irrational exuberance rather than any government tax policy at the time while Bush's worst year coincide with 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War.

The increased deficits have nothing to do with decreasing revenue... in fact, revenue is up significantly. It has everything to do with spending increases far outstripping revenue increases.

Anyway, before you go and call the GP pointless and lacking in evidence, you might want to do a little investigation yourself to see if the dogma you've been taught is actually true.

>the U.S. was never intended to institute a true separation of church and state, at least that's not what the U.S. Constitution says we should be doing.

Article VI, Section 3. Before there was a Bill of Rights, the Founders had made sure that government would be independent of religion.

>But there is nothing wrong with a state *having* a religion which is what our (U.S. that is) Constitution was trying to accomplish.

"..the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion", treaty ratified 1797.

It's kind of ironic that in the US the people who want the government to display their religious symbols and give money to their churches tend to be Christian. It's ironic because if they believed their own religion they'd believe in separation of church and state. Jesus said flat out "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). When Jesus was asked about paying taxes, he outlined a separation of church and state: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21). Caesar's things are separate from God's things. Before Jesus, the faithful were warned about trusting earthly authority: "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save" (Psalm 146:3).

The problem the US has is with people who have religious followers and want political power. Such people are only too happy to make their flocks believe that anything that interferes with their lust for power is somehow anti-religious.

Perhaps the U.S. Vice president who previously headed a federal energy taskforce that purposefully excluded wind, solar and other green energies directly talked to the administrators at BLM and "encouraged" them to reduce their application intake?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/

Clean coal is a myth. So are fuel efficient SUVs. Meet the new WMDs.

Ah yes, because the headline is clearly what all replies are in reference to.

I suppose you read it to mean, "The White House staff not opening the email illustrates why an administration should not be blamed, as they do not have complete control of their bureaucrats."

I read it as, "The EPA going head-to-head with the administration illustrates why an administration should not be blamed, as they do not have complete control of their bureaucrats."

The consistent use of the term "Agency" tends to lend support to the latter conclusion. Bureaucrats are "entrenched" because they are notoriously difficult to get rid of. White House staff? Not so much.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/independent-agencies.html

I hope that NASA's budget is minuscule in the big scheme of things; we spend much more on things like professional sports

"much more" is a bit questionable...

NASA FY2007 actual outlays: $15.8 billion
MLB and NFL 2007 sales: $6 billion each

a) Saddam tried getting yellow cake from Niger and the Congo. Despite what Richard Clark now claims, Saddam was indeed trying to get uranium.

It's not just Richard Clark, it's Bush's CIA Director ("These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.") and the Bush Whitehouse itself ("Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.") who claim that Iraq never sought uranium from Niger and the Congo.

If you'd like to refer me to a particular bit of the Congressional report that you feel disproves this, I'd be happy to take a look. But every part of the executive branch has long since admitted that the claims of Iraq seeking uranium were based on forged documents, and entirely incorrect.

b) Saddam definately wanted to harm the US. Alliances with terrorists, incl. Al qaida. You can also reference many of the translated documents recovered from Iraq for more proof of this. Even Gen Clark at one point said that if Bin Laden was driven from his base in Afghanistan he'd likely end up in Iraq. So, hardly one lone voice here.

What alliances with Al Qaeda would these be? Every single entity that has investigated it has claimed that there were no such alliances and that the two groups shared only mutual enmity, so please cite any sources you have that dispute this.

c) Re the lapdog: Wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier for the Bush administration to cozy up to Saddam, and get rid of the UN inspectors and the sanctions, in exchange for a good price on Iraqi oil? If he was so kind, that would've been so much easier. No rabid peacenik libs. Well, fewer anyways....well, rabid over different issues I guess. No war issue, etc.

Uh, yes. It would indeed have been easier, safer, cheaper, smarter, and in all ways better to have not invaded Iraq. I'm glad we're agreed.

"[Iraq] has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."

"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again"

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"And [The Iraqi Regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq." (this is only a small lie: the authorization was conditional)

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power." (a twofer)

"These [permanent members of the security council] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. "

And this is just from the first half of one speech made to the world on the eve of war, conveniently saved on the president's own website, whitehouse.gov.

Now that you've learned that the president proudly incriminates himself on his own website, are you ready to support impeachment? I know there's no blow jobs...yet. Jeff Gannon's secret Whitehouse lover is yet to be revealed.

The rise of exceptionally violent and explicit media, starting in the early to mid 90's, is actually inversely related to the violent crime rates. That's right - as media has gotten more violent, actual violent crime has provably gone down.

Anybody trying to claim that violent media is responsible for any objective worsening of American society doesn't have a single iota of evidence in their favor.

WTF jackass. Were you in a coma when Bush became president and canceled every reasonable alternative energy program in existence, and then blew smoke about Hydrogen, a technology that wouldn't be commercially viable for at least another 20 years and until gasoline hit $10 a gallon?

What reasonable alternative energy program did Bush cancel? None. Why? Because currently, there is no REASONABLE alternative energy available. We have ethanol, which didn't get canceled, although it probably would have been better if were.

Bush stopped alternative energy research.

Again, source? What got canceled? If you were interested in facts, you'd know that what you say simply isn't true. Here is something from MSNBC, which is no fan of the president, btw:

Energy conservation groups and environmentalists say they're pleased that the president, a former oil man in Texas, is stressing alternative sources of energy...

Also, from HERE:

$10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution.

Does $10 BILLION dollars equal stopping alternative energy research?

And in the area of nuclear power, Bush did absolutely nothing to lead the US into clean electricity generation of any kind. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly.

Yucca mountain ring a bell? Every one of Bush's attempts to generate energy of any kind has been blocked by Democrats in congress.
Here is a little quote from Democrats.com:

President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.

Here is how former gov of NY Elliot Spencer (D) sees it:

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has come out against the re-licensing of the two reactors at Indian Point, a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Manhattan.

Tell me again. WHO is stopping us from producing nuclear power? (Also, Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear engineer!)

Please elaborate on what brilliant Bush Energy Policies were stopped by the Democratic congress.

Uh, all of them. From HERE:

Bush, whose energy plan has been stalled in Congress for four years, is facing increased pressure from Democrats...

So, for four years...FOUR YEARS, the US had no energy policy.

And before you congratulate yourself further for "understanding supply and demand," how about reading up on what a cartel is and what it does to competition? Ever hear of OPEC? The US could strip mine Alaska and OPEC could make the whole operation a bust simply by turning its valve.

So you suggest that we do nothing? Viable alternative energy is at least 20 years away. You're OK with us being beholden to said "cartel" until then?

You were identified as a troll above, I should have taken note.

Yeah, slashdot mods think that anyone with a different view than their own is a troll. They downmod you when they can't come up with a valid response. I was also modded insightful four times to two trolls. One of the trol

I mean, apart from these sites do you know any other site that so blatantly and directly markets themselves to people breaking the law?

whitehouse.gov?

Actually, I started off by calling candidates who would support your ideas idiots. So you can cut your half a dozen times down quite a bit.

Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway.

Well, first off what did he lie to congress about? Are you talking about the state of the union address that was corrected the very next day and anyone with access to a radio, TV, or newspaper would have known that.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.

Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?

On the other hand, here is a statement from the White House 2 and 1/2 months later repeating the same lie.

Or are you talking about the WMDs that there was specific inteligence (sic) to support. Hell, All during the Clinton years, the idea was the same and then all the after 2 years in office we are supposed to ignore all that because france said it wasn't true. well, here's a hint. France hasn't won a war in so long, nobody trusts their positions because they know it leads to defeat.

Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!

Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!

And all that "intelligence". You know, the plagiarized student papers, the the forged documents, the blurry satellite photos, and aluminum tubes, among so much other fabricated material. Whoever could have seen through that? Certainly not a Yale graduate or his entire administration and military!

And now, Mr. SumDumAss, who trusts us "knowing" it leads to defeat?

How it is unconstitutional to use signing statements of the law can't be passed to cover him in the first place.

Not that I really understand that sentence but...it isn't unconstitutional to issue signing statements, it's unconstitutional to use them to pretend that the president can ignore parts of the bill to which it is attached because he issued them. The signing statement is a footnote, not a line item veto.

You see, here is where the problems arise, You don't know what all of his signing statements are and you just assum that congress has the ultimate authority over the other branches by passing a law. Well, here is a hint for you. The roles and positions the different branches play can't be don't by another branch because the constitution gives each of those branches the power ha

The argument that there is no free thought is a specious one, unless Cuba has developed mind-control technology. I call shenanigans.

Your comment is extremely Limbaughian. You also cannot spell ideology. Are you aware that the fine firefox web browser has a real-time spell check feature that will underline misspelled words? I heartily recommend it, it has helped me not look like a total dumbfuck more than once.

We allegedly have free speech in the USA, but the simple truth is that no one is free while others are oppressed. People can be and are imprisoned for stating their political views in this country; it has happened previously, and it is sure to happen again. We're talking about the administration whose press secretary (or should I say former press secretary) says all Americans need to watch what we say, watch what we do - In response to Bill Maher's statement that suicide bombers are not cowards, and those who sit back and push buttons to launch missiles are.

Now, last I checked that was an opinion, and stating an opinion was an American right. I need to watch what I say? Fuck you, Ari, and fuck your ex-bosses. There's no reason for me to be civil to someone who is part of a systematic effort to dismantle personal freedoms in the US in order to push an agenda of Fascism. Ari's statement was well-supported by the usual cast of characters, it clearly represents Policy with a capital Fuck You.

What the hell does "coming apart at the seams" mean, anyway? This particular attack is logically unsatisfiable because the meaning of "coming apart at the seams" does not have any well defined meaning. Unless you're referring to my nutsack. To which I say: please, refer to my nutsack.

Thank you, and good night.

"A couple of years of not archiving emails due to configuration errors"

Like, where are all the tapes of the nightly, weekly and monthly SYSTEM BACKUPS. They do keep backups of the IT system of the Government of the worlds greatest democracy.

Like, I worked for a ten man architect outfit and even they managed to figure out that they needed backups. We didn't have to hire in a special contractor, we bought a HP Surestore tape unit .. :)

Disallow .. :)

was: Re:Interesting take on what REALLY happened

too blinded ... to form an honest, open-minded opinion

Prejudice is the mother of all traps, sure. Here's the one I fell into:

In an essay by Ron Suskind, one of the President's advisors is quoted referring to

the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence

I know I'm not alone: when I saw the way he walks and the way he points, every poser alarm in my system started screaming bloody fool.

As you say, right or wrong, snap judgments convince no one; but that's not the trap I fell into.

The trap I fell into was that I didn't take the trouble to really eliminate the effects of confirmation bias. Laziness, really. I let my faith in the American system lull me, without acknowledging that I'm part of that system.

The trap I fell into was to dismiss my gut reaction as implausibly extreme; to leave the job of responding to people with, as I thought, cooler heads and clearer vision. What I did was, I allowed a really important question to remain "open": I recognized my own prejudice and did not work to eliminate its effects.

But it doesn't seem to me that confirmation bias has much chance of distorting these results. Take a gander at the last paragraph of this speech . Sit quiet and look at the premises, the reasoning, the implications.

I've opened my mind, done my looking, and the conclusion I've reached is this: Bram Stoker's masterpiece is a metaphorical treatise on the desire for vengeance.

But the war ended in May of 2003.

Oh please, which rock have you been living under for the last five years? Even President Bush refers to the war in Iraq in the present tense.

That's not relevant -- the poster I responded to made a very specific claim: that we waterboarded POWs.

I'm sure your pedantry brings great comfort to the many people who have been tortured by US interrogators.

or...according to a certain Washington DC resident:
"half-glass empty guy or half-glass full guy"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080328-3.html

Stop whining, get out of the basement and get some fresh air, you lazy lot.

Sincerely,
Your fearless leader,
GWB

The irony is Bush has proven time and again that his job is to write law not interpret it. In fact, it's not that far of a stretch to say in some ways we are no longer a Republic, but a elected representative dictatorship. For someone that pushes "Democracy" as much as Bush, he sure doesn't act like it (incidentally, neither did Clinton and escalation has almost been exponential in recent years).

Executive Orders by a President are law unless Congress overturns them, and both Clinton and Bush have used them excessively (and that's just Bush's public ones) to dictate policy and bypass Congress. In fact, some such as the wiretapping law were issued as National Security Directives (Bush's name) which don't have to be publicly disclosed (even to Congress, as I understand it). He also issues Homeland Security directives, which are basically NSDs with a different name. This dictatorial power is based on loose interpretation of some provisions of the Constitution (see links above).

    I'm not saying the US is a dictatorship yet, but each President seems to abuse executive privilege more and more and I personally think it's time to rein in that power. Bush has issued at least one blatantly unconstitutional law in the federal warrantless wiretapping. Not only that, but he gave the job to an agency that cannot legally operate in the US (the NSA), even though he has an agency that has legal privilege to operate inside the country at his disposal (the FBI).

If he only knows the price of pirated software in third world countries (generally just a few cents more than the price of blank media) he would think twice before making such alarming claims. I can't wait to see him in UN security council showing a burned Vista CD in his hand, and illustrations of trucks "burning" CDs in the desert. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html [whitehouse.gov]

That federal agencies want to use the Google search engine is about as newsworthy as their use of toilet paper - c'mon already.
But there are other things going on that are of more significance, like the OMB "TIC-Trusted Internet Computing" mandate http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf

Feds must reduce their connections to the internet in order to allow the NSA scan them and keep track of everyone who accesses government websites.

SO is the NSA spying on you - absolutely, but not with Google, fer cryin out loud!

Jew-tracker??? ROTFL
For crying out loud, NOAA has several terabytes of satellite images and weather forecasts to share with the public, all they want to do is help people FIND what they're looking for with an inward looking search engine.
If you want a REAL conspiracy theory -look at the OMB "Trusted Internet Computing" initiative http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2008/m08-05.pdf

All Federal agencies are now required to reduce their connections to the internet to TWO peering points so that the NSA can attach listening devices and keep track of who looks at what on all government websites.

The reason that conspiracies succeed is that the conspiracy theorists are perpetually barking up the wrong tree, and lose credibility with inane accusations while REAL plots are being hatched.

According to this article the links were fake. So all you need is a link that says child porn here and people who click the link will go directly to jail. Or, at least, get their homes raided. Even if the link really didn't feature photos of exploitation of children. Nah, no way this rule could be abused.