Slashdot Mirror

In George Bush's first speech following the 9/11 attacks, he explained the attacks not as a war against democracy, a war against the US, or a war against The American Way, but as a war on freedom.

The September 11 attacks spread fear. But they did nothing to restrict our freedom. Who has worked more effectively to restrict or remove freedom within the US, Bin Laden, or our Politicians acting in reaction to Bin Laden? If the intent of those attacks was to remove our freedom, then our own politicians are inadvertently allied to Osama Bin Laden in their goals. What no terrorist could ever accomplish alone, removing the freedom central to our way of life, they have effectively made the politicians do for them by attacking us.

Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.

Um, actually that's the definition of "terrorist" -- someone who tries to scare us into destroying ourselves. The terrorists won, by the way...

Maybe more people need to listen to Yoda: "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads... to the Dark Side!"

I don't see what the big deal is. Who hasn't listened in on the people they work for?

On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that conservatives will grow the parts of the government that they like

Like Medicare?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20 030519-6.html

Read it and weep.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt

think about it-- anything on this list IS NOT on google..

why???

We can't deny that the various religious fundamentalists are somewhat responsible. They have successfully lobbied the US government to reduce its financial support to NASA and other scientific bodies. They have even taken the "battle" to the classroom.

We can't deny that the various religious fundamentalists are somewhat responsible. They have successfully lobbied the US government to reduce its financial support to NASA and other scientific bodies. They have even taken the "battle" to the classroom.

We can't deny that the various religious fundamentalists are somewhat responsible. They have successfully lobbied the US government to reduce its financial support to NASA and other scientific bodies. They have even taken the "battle" to the classroom.

He does not support any form of Stem Cell research regaurdless of the method

You are either a liar or severely ignorant. See, e.g., Bush's support of umbilical-cord stem cell research.

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Reviewing a moron's arguments for going to war, I do see chemical weapons but I sure don't see anything about getting tired of bombing them. I do see an argument that inspections failed, but it sure does seem that in retrospect that was wrong.

and supporting an embargo that was internationally unpopular.

So... how's that occupation working out for you, as far as international popularity is going? Any comment on the mortality rate increases as compared to the sanction period?

In breaking news report on Al Jeezera, the Great Satan, the United States Of American has just launched a cyber-attach on the Iran Presidents personal website. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows revenge against the infadels and has ordered all 357 computers with an internet connection in Iran to use http://whitehouse.gov/ as their homepage.

Everything about the memos was contested.

Please site your source for this. Mine is easy; for example at the time, MSNBC reported:

Yet, it was the White House -- not Kerry's campaign -- that distributed four memos from 1972 and 1973 from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, now deceased, who was the commander of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston where Bush served. The White House obtained the memos from CBS News, which said it was convinced of their authenticity, and the White House did not question their accuracy.

and

Records released this year when Bush's military service re-emerged as a campaign issue contain no evidence that he showed up for duty at all for five months in mid-1972 and document only a few occasions later that year.

I find it pretty entertaining that you would ask for sources after making the bizarre and baseless statements about the role you think Karl Rove played in the forgeries without even attempting to back them up. But anyway, here we go.

You are confusing some things here. It is customary in the White House press room that when a news organization is going to report on something, they inform the White House about it in advance, and the White House then makes the information available to all of the reporters in the pool. This is not an endorsement of the information- it is a courtesy to the reporters in the pool. The White House said multiple times that they made no attempt to authenticate the documents before passing them along to the other reporters, so it is ridiculous to assert that this means the White House agreed with the contents. When asked a few weeks later what the President thought about the "essence of the accusations" made in the memos, the Press Secretary responded that what had been asserted "simply was not the case".

So, to put this in perspective, here is a list of the facts that are known about the President's National Guard service:

• He joined the National Guard in 1968, signing a 6 year commitment
• By all accounts, he served aggressively for the first four years of his commitment, earning great reviews from his superiors and racking up an impressive number of hours and retirement points
• In his 5th year of service, his activity suddenly dropped. He missed a physical and stopped flying. He transferred from Texas to Alabama for a non-flying role, and his records of service that year are spotty.
• In 1973, he applied for and was granted an early release so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge from the National Guard.

Are you still with me?
The President has claimed that he stopped flying because his airplane (the F-102) was being phased out, and he was busy working on the Senatorial campaign in Alabama. The decision was apparently mutual, according to Col. Campenni who flew with Bush in the Guard (see this), because the Vietnam War was winding down and they had a huge glut of pilots. Because he wasn't flying anymore, there was no need to take the flight physical. He finished his time in the Guard by doing just enough to pass, often in bursts of activity surrounded by months of inactivity, until he was granted his early release.

Up until the release of these memos, there was no evidence to contradict this version of events. Nobody was disputing that his service was sporadic in 1972-73, or that he missed a physical and stopped flying, but there was no evidence that he had disobeyed any orders or had failed to meet all of his commitments in the Guard, and nobody could ask his commanding officers because they were all dead. These memos purported to prove exactly tha

Everything about the memos was contested.

Please site your source for this. Mine is easy; for example at the time, MSNBC reported:

Yet, it was the White House -- not Kerry's campaign -- that distributed four memos from 1972 and 1973 from Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, now deceased, who was the commander of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston where Bush served. The White House obtained the memos from CBS News, which said it was convinced of their authenticity, and the White House did not question their accuracy.

and

Records released this year when Bush's military service re-emerged as a campaign issue contain no evidence that he showed up for duty at all for five months in mid-1972 and document only a few occasions later that year.

I find it pretty entertaining that you would ask for sources after making the bizarre and baseless statements about the role you think Karl Rove played in the forgeries without even attempting to back them up. But anyway, here we go.

You are confusing some things here. It is customary in the White House press room that when a news organization is going to report on something, they inform the White House about it in advance, and the White House then makes the information available to all of the reporters in the pool. This is not an endorsement of the information- it is a courtesy to the reporters in the pool. The White House said multiple times that they made no attempt to authenticate the documents before passing them along to the other reporters, so it is ridiculous to assert that this means the White House agreed with the contents. When asked a few weeks later what the President thought about the "essence of the accusations" made in the memos, the Press Secretary responded that what had been asserted "simply was not the case".

So, to put this in perspective, here is a list of the facts that are known about the President's National Guard service:

• He joined the National Guard in 1968, signing a 6 year commitment
• By all accounts, he served aggressively for the first four years of his commitment, earning great reviews from his superiors and racking up an impressive number of hours and retirement points
• In his 5th year of service, his activity suddenly dropped. He missed a physical and stopped flying. He transferred from Texas to Alabama for a non-flying role, and his records of service that year are spotty.
• In 1973, he applied for and was granted an early release so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge from the National Guard.

Are you still with me?
The President has claimed that he stopped flying because his airplane (the F-102) was being phased out, and he was busy working on the Senatorial campaign in Alabama. The decision was apparently mutual, according to Col. Campenni who flew with Bush in the Guard (see this), because the Vietnam War was winding down and they had a huge glut of pilots. Because he wasn't flying anymore, there was no need to take the flight physical. He finished his time in the Guard by doing just enough to pass, often in bursts of activity surrounded by months of inactivity, until he was granted his early release.

Up until the release of these memos, there was no evidence to contradict this version of events. Nobody was disputing that his service was sporadic in 1972-73, or that he missed a physical and stopped flying, but there was no evidence that he had disobeyed any orders or had failed to meet all of his commitments in the Guard, and nobody could ask his commanding officers because they were all dead. These memos purported to prove exactly tha

The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.

The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, a parliamentary committee lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.

--posted on behalf of daksya

The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.

The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, A parliamentary committee has lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.

Details of such a heinous thought crime can be found here.

In the past the US of A took a much stronger stand against such obscene human rights violations by the Chinese regime and other dictatorships, but it is very clear that the current regime in Washington has neither the intention nor moral standing to help oppressed and occupied peoples. You see, the dictators in Beijing are among Bush's "staunchest allies" in this bizarre "global war of terror" where the occupied and the oppressed are considered to be the "terrorists"!

Dubya's inaugural address (2005) now reads like a sad mockery of the Freedoms the USA used to claim to be representing:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The six million Tibetans living in the world largest concentration camp they once knew as their homeland meanwhile haven't even got a clue that the "world's most powerful man and the leader of the Free World" ever uttered those words. Even possessing a copy of the UN's Human Rights Declaration is enough to get a Tibetan slammed into the Chinese prison camps...

White House Faith-Based Initiatives
Faith Based Initiative - Transformation from Secular to Religious Government

On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

The legislators are so stupid they just banned their own websites! Example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/question2.html

Nonsense! There is nothing wrong linking linking as often as Wikipedia does

[T]he American Bar Association urges the Congress to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation to determine: (a) the nature and extent of electronic surveillance of U.S. persons conducted by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with FISA; (b) what basis or bases were advanced (at the time it was initiated and subsequently) for the legality of such surveillance; (c) whether the Congress was properly informed of and consulted as to the surveillance; (d) the nature of the information obtained as a result of the surveillance and whether it was retained or shared with other agencies; and (e) whether this information was used in legal proceedings against any U.S. citizen.

Once again, Congress has not conducted such an investigation.

The rest of you points are just as uninformed - you are sadly mistaken about a whole lot of things. Here is why the war in Iraq was unnecessary - it diverted the attention from the war on terorism, to a campaign whose alleged goal was to address a "real and present danger", according to Colin Powell:

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

.
The reality was that Saddam was already scared to death, and had allowed the weapons inspectors the full access they had asked for in the past 12 years. From the

Somebody please mod this nut down, he is just another Pseudointellectual luddite who has no comprehension of the good that has come out of the space program. People who scream about how much money we are wasting on the space program are invariably the same ones who scream we should spend more money on welfare programs. When in fact the amount of money budgeted for welfare programs for 2007 is more than 10 times that budgeted for NASA. (source http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/ )

[T]he President shall [...] make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:

[..]acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings
concerning Iraqs support for international terrorism. Among
other things, Congress determined that:
  Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
  Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations, including organizations that
threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.
  It is in the national security interests of the United
States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.

Unfortunately, we will never know whether (and how often) the NSA's programs did indeed prevent attacks like 09/11.

What a load of manure. We hear about "elevated threat level"s, &c., all the time. Do you seriously believe that the administration would not have crowed long, and loud, if they had evidence of any attacks which they had successfully blocked? Think of the political capital that would have been reaped through such an act.

Wake up.
</rant>

Compare traffic fatalites per annum with the terrorism fatalities.

• terrorism : 2,976 fatalities in 9/11 | spending 37.7 billion dollars (just for homeland security)
• traffic : 41,945 fatailities in 2000 | spending 5.3 billion dollars (just for the TSA)

-Phantom of the Operating System

references

• http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/homeland_securi ty_book.html
• http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/display?theme=39
• http://www.madd.org/stats/2336
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 with a BA in History. Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

This just sounds like part of the recent Executive Order on Emergency Alert System updates. Will they now interrupt your tivo realtime? Is this a bad thing?

THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

This is called the Air Marshall system (yes, I know they're not FBI), and nobody has ever griped about it being an invasion of privacy or a waste of money.

Well, I'd certainly complain if they started rifling through my luggage mid-flight.

The biggest complaint one could really have is that a rather expensive program at $660 million dollars a year of funding, with very little to show for it. They haven't completed a single assessment of their own efficacy, and the last note about this is that in 2005, the project to determine how much less completed guidelines one how to assess their own operations.

Attacks between 1990 and September 10, 2001 involving terrorists aboard U.S. aircraft: 0
Federal Air Marshals in active commercial flight duty, same period: max. 50 (33 agents on 9/11/2001)

Attacks following September 11, 2001 involving terrorists aboard U.S. aircraft: 0
Federal Air Marshals in active commercial flight duty, same period: "thousands" (numbers no longer released)

Indeed, the only real news about FAM operations seems to be when they mistakely shot and killed a passenger who was distressed over a spousal argument and stormed off of the plane upon their arrival in Miami, in the mistaken belief he was a terrorist.

So hey, for millions of added dollars, we've gotten the same efficacy we had before the single milestone event that caused the agency's expansion. Zero. But on the plus side, there's one less tourist in Miami.

I suppose the moral of this is the same as ever other post: for the right price, your government can certainly instill in you an illusion of security. The most effective ways of fighting crime tend to assume everyone is a criminal to begin with, and work from there.

Sources:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10 001070.2005.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_S ervice
    http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/wp/wp107/wp107.htm l

This video gives you some idea of what minimally conscious means.

False. If you go back and read the things said about invading Iraq, Bush never solely said it was WMD -- only the media did.

According to the UN? Which resolution, show it to me. Meanwhile, here are all the UN resolutions Iraq defied and blatantly ignored that got them rightfully invaded.

What Kofi Annan says is pretty meaningless since he has no real power, and notice no resolutions ever passed that called the invasion illegal. Considering the other atrocities and corruption that have go on his watch, I wouldn't look to him as for any sort of authority.

NASA's FY 2007 request is $1.7B.

Meanwhile, the Whitehouse published this memo last Friday. It's about time, IMHO.

Except we can't resign from it -- they just take some of our taxes and give it to the churches of their (current administration) choice: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/ Troll-ish? Perhaps. But you like it.

I guess you haven't heard of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Praise the Lord (the Lord is a magic man who lives in the clouds who controls everything, in case you don't know)!

I agree, the US government spends 49% of its discretionary funds on the department of defense. That amount needs to be A) reduced dramatically and B) transitioned to local defense spending.

Or are you referring to the 1% identified by the Citizens Against Government Waste as pork. This group deliberately uses a pretty loose definition of pork, and that's what they've managed to identify.

Let the BDS posts begin ... You guys really need to grow up and start thinking.

• Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Nope.
• Saddam has links to al Qaeda? Nope.
• Katrina victims will receive the support they require in a timely fashion? Nope.
• US citizens will only be spied on using a court order? Nope.

"In a perfect Communist society, I was born to do something and as long as I work hard and do it, I get the exact same education you get.

There isn't supposed to be competition dividing people into two classes (one worthy of secondary education, one not)

The most important change is the one from 1999 where tuition fees were introduced. It is my understanding (though I could be wrong) that money is often tight and your standard laborer in China makes roughly $50-$100 USD per month. Can you expect them to afford tuition rates of £200-400? Not really.

Seriously, this is real "top secret" info and goverment got it loose to some God damn hacker?

It's not top secret. If you want to learn what top secret is, read EO 13292 (which is the amended EO 12958). You'll be a little disappointed in the definition though.

A more practical definition of top secret is this: disclosure of top secret information can start a war. Disclosure of secret information can lose a war that has already been started (or may start). Disclosure of confidential information can get people killed. Generally only intelligence or active secret military operations fall into the top secret category. The list of contractors probably wasn't even classified 'Confidential.' It was probably classified "NOFORN" (as in no foreign nationals can read it), "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" with a destruction statement (so that it isn't disclosed to the public), and "RESTRICTED DATA" (which is a classification that falls under the Atomic Energy Act for anything that relates to nuclear material). Another potential warnings would be the ITAR warning (which just reiterates NOFORN).

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

So then what does that make this person?

Ummmm....you haven't been paying attention, have you?

heck

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. These movements generally envisage a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

Wikipedia

Of course, public schools have local oversite. But they simply do not have control. And if you want an example of that, I submit to you No Child Left Behind. How many people who don't like the rules imposed have any control to supercede them?

I don't think you have a very good understanding of the words "Personal Responsibility". What they mean is that if you don't like the private school you're sending your kids to, it's your responsibility to either influence change or leave. If you don't like the terms of your employment, it's your responsibility to find a new employer. In general, you are responsible for the condition of your life. If you don't like it, change it.

I love taking shots at public entities because they are

1. expensive
2. ineffective
3. destroyers of freedom

And all in the name of insulating people against the consequences of free choices. I'm glad you think that public institutions provide you excellent service. I submit that they are the highest cost producer and if we sent less of our money to them and didn't allow them to spend as much as they do, we'd all be better off and richer.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." George W. Bush, September 30th, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030930-9.html Perhaps someone else can provide a more reputable source to back this up.

The posted article is, um.... not a confidence booster for astronauts. So if you're an astronaut click here for a more politically correct article.

as credible as Timecube or David Icke.

Here's the damn Presidential Executive Order in question. Published on the WhiteHouse.Gov website itself.

The directive itself is rather opaque, reffering to 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)), but reading those sections reveals that they do in fact say what it is claimed the directive says - that the President was granting the Director of National Intelligence the Presidential Authority to immunize companies from Securities Exchange laws that they can LIE TO THE PUBLIC and legally deny that they did what they did on National Security grounds.

It seems that the remaining 29% who still support president Bush are suffering from some pretty severe cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonace: "People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

-