Slashdot Mirror

Or what about the far less convincing http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

They may very well be true. They are also completely besides the point.

I beg to differ. That is exactly the point, and has been since day one.

Weapons of Mass destruction was the original justification for going to war.

Saddam's illegal WMD programs were only part of the justification, and considering what the ISG and UNMOVIC have found in Iraq since the invasion, it was a pretty solid justification. True, we didn't find the decade old decaying stockpiles that we thought we were going to find, but instead we found programs and infrastructure that prompted David Kay to say that Iraq was even a greater threat than we thought they were when we invaded.

Hell our closest allies even flat out admit Bush was bent on military action before anything else. (Downing Street Memos...heard of them perhaps?)

The Downing Street memos are not an admission of anything. One ambiguous use of the word "fixed" by somebody who isn't even in a position to speak for US intelligence is not as damning as you seem to believe- especially considering Blair and Straw have strongly denounced your interpretation.

Do you seriously think there are fewer terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we invaded?

Who knows? Not me, and certainly not you. We are killing a lot of terrorists in Iraq. Are we killing more than are being created by us being there? Hopefully, but only time will tell.

Iran supports terrorists...we aren't invading them...how come?

Like we did with Iraq, we are first exhausting other options with Iran before turning to military action.

North Korea is arguably as much as or more of a threat than Saddam was under sanctions. But we don't invade them...how come?

First of all, I don't think any body argues that the DPRK posed more of a threat than Saddam. But that is irrelevant- pointing out that other threats exist does not negate the fact that Iraq posed a threat. North Korea is a VERY different situation than Iraq. Kim Jong Il is a desperate and egotistical leader that is probably only looking for international aid and recognition. The biggest threat he poses is that he might share technologies with groups of people that, unlike him, would actually use it against us. The 6-party talks have resumed and are progressing nicely this week, and there is no reason to believe that they will fail.

...with China's commensurate commitment to freedom of speech, human rights, free flows of information among its citizenry, support of protest and political dissent, and so on.

That's not the only critical front on which the US will be competing with China: the US will soon pass the oil/fossil fuel consumption crown to China as well if current trends continue.

Further, China is free to spend for its own growth with little oversight from the populace (such as investing heavily in pebble bed fission reactors, planning to build 30 new reactors by 2020), allowing it to spend money as it sees fit without the same social and political constraints as the US. And even with what little oversight you think we might have in the US, it's far greater than the influence a typical Chinese citizen has. It's too bad that we'll likely never see new nuclear plants built anytime soon here, with all the political baggage.[1] We'll just keep using the quickly diminishing supply of conventional fossil fuels.[2]

[1] An environmental research group came to my door the other day extolling the virtues of environmental law, conservation, anti-pollution law, and etc., as you'd expect. All noble causes, when tempered with economic reality. But they continued on to also say opposition to ANY nuclear project was critical. Could they "count on my support?" In a word, no.

[2] Bush is actually pushing hard for the nuclear plants we're in desperate need of. See the policy speeches here. Contrast this with some typical opponents' opposition to all ongoing nuclear research under the guise of nuclear weapons nonproliferation.

http://www.firstgov.gov/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/ How about we create a government project - And hook up everyone securely to it. That way - we can eliminate layers of administration and save money and time. Save time; save money. What all you skeptics are afraid of is like turning from the gold system to the credit system. Relax.

I aksed almost that very same question to Dr. John Grunsfeld when the White House had a Q & A session just after all the new direction was announced. You can see it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040114.html just scroll down until you see the question from the class in Tampa, FL.
I teach science and had my kids come up with the first question, and I asked the second.

I disagree that overgeneralizations are a precursor to racism. Overgeneralizations are a useful way for the human brain to avoid exploding with information. And their a way for you to improve your interpersonal skills. More on this in a minute though.

People these days are really sensitive about race. Overly sensitive. The problem isn't racism. The problem is intolerance and fanaticism. Any form of intolerance (be it based on race, religion (or lack thereof), color, creed, sexual preference, or differing viewpoints) is bad. Combine that with fanaticism, and you have some really scary people.

Now why did I say that overgeneralizations can be a good thing? Because they make it easier for you to relate to someone whom you've just met, or for you to appropriately modify your behavior for a given situation. As an example, you meet someone who is dressed like a priest. You might avoid topics like the recent incidents of priest pedophilia, or your particular views on religion. At least until you get to know that person.

The important thing is to realize is that people can be (and generally are) deeper than the one most immediately recognizable aspect of themselves, whether that aspect is their race, their beauty (or their ugliness), their religion or anything else about them. Likewise, it's important not to allow a single character trait to define who your are.

Oh, but funny, it's only recently that the crack heads on the right think it's inconsequential.

Back on Sep 29, 2003 there was a press conference at the WH.
Oddly enough they thought it was significant then. How come the change of heart now?
From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030929-7.html#1


Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.


They didn't say... "It's trivial. She's not a secret agent - everyone knew about it."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20 040610-36.html

June 10, 2004

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.


Note: His reply to fire anyone who leaked the agent's name? Yes.

So, there is a little wiggle room. Bush can claim that Rove didn't leak the name, which would be positively, I hate to say it, Clintonian.

So, go ahead and come up with little green men excuses why Rove isn't to blame - we all understand your squirming.

But clearly when no one was being directly blamed, the President and everyone else thought this was a very big deal. So big, GWB promised to fire anyone involved in leaking her name.

How, you spin a very different story.

Cheers,
Greg

Bush said

Oh, but funny, it's only recently that the crack heads on the right think it's inconsequential.

Back on Sep 29, 2003 there was a press conference at the WH.
Oddly enough they thought it was significant then. How come the change of heart now?
From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030929-7.html#1


Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.


They didn't say... "It's trivial. She's not a secret agent - everyone knew about it."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20 040610-36.html

June 10, 2004

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.


Note: His reply to fire anyone who leaked the agent's name? Yes.

So, there is a little wiggle room. Bush can claim that Rove didn't leak the name, which would be positively, I hate to say it, Clintonian.

So, go ahead and come up with little green men excuses why Rove isn't to blame - we all understand your squirming.

But clearly when no one was being directly blamed, the President and everyone else thought this was a very big deal. So big, GWB promised to fire anyone involved in leaking her name.

How, you spin a very different story.

Cheers,
Greg

Bush said

Yes it is. Crime goes up, and so do accidental deaths. See handgun legislation and results in states (good example: MA).

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% In 1991, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than in 1981. - Dr. Gary Kleck, Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force.

And during those ten years, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders; gators 146, illegal shootings 88- the gators are winning! Florida Game Commission and the Florida Department of State, Firearms Licensing.

Guns are tools made to kill things. We hardly have any reasons to kill things any longer. Hence, we no longer need the tool.

Well, if by liberal you mean someone who favors small government that stays out of my personal affairs...

Then I would be a /. liberal. And as far as I'm concerned, the feds are welcome to interrupt my internet access on a plane or sniff my packets that go across the internet (whilst coming from a plane). So long as they get a court order to do so (which the article indicates they will). Except for the fact that I think this is just something that makes people "feel better," not something that will actually save one single life.

Now, a bit of insight into why other measures the government has taken in the past four years...

The bottom line is that none of them work. For example, the rainbow of terror. When is the last time you remember the threat level dropping to Low? For that matter, when's the last time you remember the threat level dropping to Guarded? And what's with the colors, anyways?

And what's with the government being able to sniff out what kind of books I read? Am I the only one who realizes that in order to have a free press, you have to have a populace with the freedom to read what the "free" press writes?

What about the increased "security" at airports? Am I the only one who realizes that the increase in security at airports is unnecessary because passengers are unwilling to be used as a giant bomb against their fellow citizens of the planet Earth? The reason that 9/11 was successful (from a terrorist point of view) was because people expected that the plane had been hijacked, they would sit complacent and would be taken to Abu Dabi, at which point they would deplane. But as the plane that went down in PA shows, people aren't idiots. And they're not willing to sit there and be used as cannon fodder against their fellow humans.

Now, one can certainly debate those points and any priority you would give to each. One can debate the amount of money set aside for each of them (1.2 billion for hydrogen as an example). What is not debatable is the nonsense of "the US government would want you to believe otherwise", that's tinfoil hattery of the first order.

...that The Gipper was buddy buddy with China and made an under the table deal with them to *not* pursue any SDI projects until after Ronnie cashed in his chips.

...that The Gipper was buddy buddy with China and made an under the table deal with them to *not* pursue any SDI projects until after Ronnie cashed in his chips.

Bush gave 5 reasons to attack Iraq, one was WMD

Which of the five was mentioned to the U.N.?

"Iraq was not a sovereign state. Therefore, it is quite legitimate for the US and the Coalition of 88 countries to attack it."

Iraq is not a U.S. state either. The U.S. has no jurisdiction there, and the people of Iraq have no say in the leadership of the U.S.. They should not be subject to terrorism by the U.S..

" The Iraqi people simply had no sovereignty under Saddam"

I think you are confused about what sovereignty means. Iraq was a sovereign nation, but now isn't.

"Now these same people are free to form their own government and have been awarded their human rights for the first time in their history."

No they aren't. They aren't even free to sit in their own homes without the fear of bombs falling on them.

"To say that 26 million Iraqis should remain in bondage because no WMDs were found, is so asinine."

No, to say that 26 million Iraqis should not be able to walk down the street and feel safe today and call it freedom is asinine.

"Only a fascist would even think like this"

I don't even know how you come to this conclusion. Fascist governments just love to impose their rules and beliefs on others. That is exactly what the U.S. is doing now.

and Rush Limbaugh types CONTINUE to promote such a story: The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed" By Laurie Mylroie, FrontPageMagazine.com / May 11, 2004 but the FACT is that the US government intelligence community (apart from the administration's loyalty-oathers) was already very skeptical of the meeting way back in 2002. And as far as Bush himself never saying it, you are monstrously false. What part of these statements is unclear to you? See also: June 18th radio address appearing to link the two: "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror"

"i'd like to point out that dubya actually declared the axis of evil before the Twin Towers fell."

Is that true ? State of the Union speech, 2002

I thought this was the speech that first used this phrase.

I am still left to wonder why they are gone and we are still here. I keep coming back to our inherent violent nature and I can't help but think that is at least a big part of the reason.

Bigger brain != intelligence or sensitivity. In particular, it seems that Neanderthal left no artistic legacy. Compare with sapiens sapiens' `cathedrals' such as Lascaux, Altamira, Chauvet, etc.

Which does not mean that they were dumb brutes. They had some spirituality and buried their dead with symbolic rituals (apparently involving some cannibalism and necrophagism). Also, it is possible that they did have artistic abilities, if the `Neanderthal flute' is really a flute and is really Neanderthal.

The most probable reason why we're still here and they aren't is that we were simply more clever than them. Our tools were more refined and made of more diverse materials. Our art and spirituality (burial rites and probably hunting-related 'chamanism') were more elaborate. While Neanderthal was probably more advanced than once thought, it still seems that they were no match for our own ancestors.

So overall we really are the most clever creatures ever to roam the Earth. Notwithstanding the occasional fluctuations, of course...

Thomas-

No, I must disagree. As I mentioned, .gov, .edu. .mil are regulated and not sold to the first bidder so you know if you go to one of these sites you're not going to get a phishing &/or porn site. Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.

This can be and is a function in most browsers. No need to remove it from the actual URL. This is rather like the way Windows hides the file extensions; and rather like that it can lead to unexpected results. With "whitehouse.gov" you can be sure it's the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what if you happened to type "thewhitehouse" or some other reasonable variation that had been squatted? And there is more than one legitimate "White House" in the world. (A former royal palace in London, for example, predating the one in Washington.) I personally often type a partial URL into the Google searchbox and get the real site on the "lucky" button reliably.

The problem is that TLDs administered by for-profit registries like ORG and NET have been debased so they have no meaning, and new ones have no obvious reason not to go the same way.

Hence: get rid of TLDs...

I agree with the other who think TLDs are a thing of the past and are no longer useful. I understand your point that they can be useful, but I think their usefulness can be incorporated into whatever name one wants.

Example:

Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.

Instead of http://www.rutgers.edu/ I could just type "rutgers". And if there's a company that already owns "rutgers" then the university could simply be "rutgers-university" etc. Instead of http://www.microsoft.com/ I could just type "microsoft". I'd rather type "EVILEMPIRE" but microsoft will do.

How is appending a TLD to a name more useful? It's certainly not faster.

RS

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020313-8.html

Q: ...don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.

Correct. The Democratic-Republicans were also referred to as Republicans in short. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.h tml

And yes...not the same as today's Republican party.

You can exclude them from your website using the robots.txt:

I believe the actual quote is Speak softly and carry a big stick.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26. html

Reminds me of that miserable failure.

The whitehouse seems to take a "pre-emptive" approach. Just in case they ever put stuff on the internet that they might someday not want you to see (or that they might not want archived by google), they seem to cover all the bases in their 92KB robots.txt file.

My personal favorites:
Disallow: /911/iraq
Disallow: /911/patriotism/iraq
Disallow: /911/patriotism2/iraq
Disallow: /911/sept112002/iraq [sic.]

There's a theme here. Can you spot it? I'd like to think it's intentional, but at 2255 lines, it may just be that all permutations of Republican buzzwords have been covered.

Ok, I think I have a suitable smoking gun document.

First you'll need this definition:
ICT = Information (and) Communication Technologies.

Document. At first it sounds potentially innocent, but about half way through it becomes explicit that it is talking about a 2010 agenda for a Single European Information Space, a unified Trusted interoperable DRM Information Society. The source for it is the European Union's official portal for "institutions and bodies of the European Union, including the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank."

The following list is merely to cite the government bodies, not specific documents...
The United Nations Press Release establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG still seems relatively small and relatively early in their work. Far bigger and more developed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). And of course there's the Whitehouse with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, almost a Megabyte worth of PDFs I haven't even begun to dig through.

-

The American military is engaged in an agressive campaign to collect vital information about critical Eastern technologies. The website-registering technology being showcased at this conference in China would help the Americans in their plans to build a fully democratic nation ruled under an iron fist.

This technology must be banned or restricted from export.

Khrushchev didn't bang his shoe while yelling, "We will bury you!" Those were two separate incidents. Since you're so keen for others to educate themselves, maybe you could read up on what really happened.

Certainly Krushchev was an aggressive leader. But today the U.S.'s stated aim is to not only maintain military supremacy, but to build up so much military strength that no other nation can even consider trying to compete. If you don't live in America, that sounds a lot like a plan to rule the world, too.

I wouldn't say that pure capitalism negates having people pay for the negative externalities of their behavior. Even in a purely laissez-faire system there are still laws against dumping hazardous waste in someone's backyard, as well as against dumping something in your own backyard which pollutes water sources that you don't own.

Perhaps I'm associating "stereotypical Republican" anti-environmentalism with capitalism. (I say "stereotypical" with the understanding that there are many Republicans who are not anti-environment.) Many Republicans, however, seem to have a problem with regulating the pollution that companies dump into the air and/or water. (The laughable Clear Skies Initiative comes to mind, "using a proven, market-based approach" (quote taken from the web-site). Nevertheless, the primary problem with the CSI is not the approach, but the weakening of the target standards as well as delaying the enforcement of those standards.) I agree, however, that one could have a capitalistic economy that theoretically figures such things in. I am, no doubt, confusing the terms Republican and Capitalist.

Look here for diagrams:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20 030205-1.html

well i was told it was an insult (to him) to spell it that way

I see. So you're not so much ignorant, as just immature. Gotcha.

your religious talk shows your true colors.

My religious talk? I didn't say anything other than point out the hypocrisy of your president claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and simultaneously being a war monger, proponent of capital punishment, and avid sport hunter. I am not of any particular religion. If I had to choose one, it would probably be Buddhism or some form of it. I don't have a religious agenda. I'm not offended by Christians. I am however offended by people taking advantage of Christians. Which true colours did I show?

Who says it isn't in the US's best interest?

Lots of people. Your economy is a mess. The terrorism that is being conducted by the U.S. government is much worse than the terrorism that occurred on 9/11. It occurs daily in the form of threat levels, and press releases. But also that many more civilians have been killed by the U.S. in Iraq than were killed in the twin towers. The U.S. is a country that watched 9/11 on TV. Iraq is a country where everyone knows someone killed by the Americans. 9/11 was over after a few hours. The Iraq conflict will drag on and on for decades. Now you've got Al Queda to deal with still, as well as a whole lot of pissed off Iraqis who watched their country get destroyed by a country patting itself on the back for liberating them. You invade the country, and refer to the people of Iraq as insurgents. It's lunacy. What are you going to do about it when they elect leaders that hate you anyway?

Didn't you pay attention when the "proof" was being presented

It's on record, and most of it is complete bullshit. That's why there was almost no support for the invasion, and no WMD have been found, or any evidence that they had anything like it since 1991.

Of course something has to happen if we want another country to behave differently then they are. let me know i'm interested on how to do it without looking like a bully.

Sovereign nations are not subject to the will of U.S. elected representatives. They have their own laws, and act according to them. The governments of those countries are accountable to its citizens, because they are the ones who give it legitimacy. The U.S. must deal with reality, not ideals or what it believes to be ideal. The answer to your question is that you don't get involved in the politics of other nations. It's none of your business until someone declares war on you, or asks for your help or whatever.

well last i checked isreal isn't the largest recipient of foreign aid

Well check again, because they are and have been for a long time. It's very hard to check from official White House documents though, because the U.S. government only lists foreign aid to "The Middle East" as about 60% of the total, and don't mention that well over half of that goes to Israel. And no, last years "contribution" to Iraq doesn't count. If you break it, you bought it. You owe those people, that's not aid it's reparations.

you will see that we are in support of a renewed palistine state. This is a little different then 20 years ago

Well that's mighty big of you to finally come around considering the Palestinians were there first, and Israel continues to add settlements in Palestinian territory.

I'll give you a hint. There was a cold war going on ... complying with US laws

Too late.

Like many hysteria robots, I have already inducted my self destruct sequence.

I mean, er, expungator.


So what's all this talk about the "red" button? That's something about Cold War Russia, right? "Red". I'm clever. I watch FOXnews nightly. Ah well, push those Russian buttons, see if IConnection with host lost...

Too late.

Like many hysteria robots, I have already inducted my self destruct sequence.

I mean, er, expungator.


So what's all this talk about the "red" button? That's something about Cold War Russia, right? "Red". I'm clever. I watch FOXnews nightly. Ah well, push those Russian buttons, see if IConnection with host lost...

It is the classic pattern of neo-conservitive thinking to distil complex issues to black and white absolutes in order to make a snap judgement. Is a fetus alive? The issue of where life begins and ends is a complex scientific, moral, spiritual, and ethical dilema. We can not state that a fetus is alive any more than we can state that a dog has a soul. We can take dogmatic and argumenitive positions -- but ultimately there exists no "right" and "wrong" answer to the question -- there may never be such an answer.

Note that I make no such judgments. Why, then, is it appropriate for the prototypical "liberal/progressive" position to be staunchly in support of embryonic stem cell research and the right to abortion, as if that is the manifestly "right" position, that there aren't any other logical alternatives, and indeed, completely ignoring the issues about life, etc., that you just brought up?

It seems that the pro-choice camps and those who disagree with Bush on stem cells have already distilled it down to black and white issues - choice and science, exclusively - just as much as you would say "neo-cons" have.

we need to be investing in alternitive energy sources and the Bush administration has singularly failed in that task.

You may be interested in Bush's latest energy policy speech

Technology is allowing us to better use our existing energy resources. And in the years ahead, technology will allow us to create entirely new sources of energy in ways earlier generations could never dream. Technology is the ticket, is this nation's ticket to greater energy independence.

[...]

Over the past decade our energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, while our domestic production has increased by less than one-half of 1 percent. A growing economy causes us to consume more energy. And, yet, we're not producing energy here at home, which means we're reliant upon foreign nations. And at the same time we've become more reliant upon foreign nations, the global demand for energy is growing faster than the growing supply. Other people are using more energy, as well. And that's contributed to a rise in prices.

Because of our foreign energy dependence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing. Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people. It's a tax our citizens pay every day in higher gasoline prices and higher costs to heat and cool their homes. It's a tax on jobs and it's a tax that is increasing every year.

The problem is clear. This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it. See, we got a fundamental question we got to face here in America: Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?

I made my decision. I know what is important for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and that requires a national strategy. Now, when I first got elected, I came to Washington and I said, we need a national strategy. And I submitted a national strategy to the United States Congress. And it has been stuck. And now it's time for the Congress to pass the legislation necessary for this country to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

[...]

Our country is on the doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens. By harnessing the power of technology, we're going to be able to grow our economy, protect our environment, and achieve greater energy independence.

[...]

The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources

Maybe you missed this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20 031105-1.html

An abortion ban isn't going to happen without a major shift in public opinion. "[T]oken gestures" are all that can be done. The partial birth ban and, AFAIK, parential notification for minors are supported by a noticable majority of people. If there is an "ideological base" voting Republican thinking that abortion will be stopped altogether then they need to get a clue. Same goes for blind Dem supporters and whatever pet issue they might have.

Asserting that politicians use issues to "string along their ideological base" is a truism, IMO. Most know where public opinion lies when it comes time to make a decision, but still will posture and attention-grab in the meantime, then backpedal, "flip-flop," and damage control afterwords (tacking controversial items on to basic bills could fit in with these too). In cases where there isn't much of a public opinion, they'll just do what the money says.

And as usual, most of the best places to get the materials you need are college campuses

You'll love this bit:

Bush admits he reiterates propaganda.
You can't make this stuff up.

Quoting:

Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

Here's the sound bite.

He actually said it. Ye gods. And you can tell how well they screen that audience - because they applauded him admitting use of reiterated propaganda.

Someone above disputed that Bush is stupid.
Case closed.

Yipe.

Mirror it now.

The amount of tax dollars spent on corporate welfare, an appalling percentage of which goes directly to line the pockets of the very wealthy, dwarfs by an order of magnitude the amount of money being returned to those who've paid into the Social Security system, being paid to those who've paid into the Unemployment Benefits system, being returned to those who've paid into the Medicare and Medicaide system during their working lives, and yes, even those getting free handouts ('welfare') because they're too poor, too uneducated, lack resources, lack opportunity, or (in some cases, but not even close to all) are simply too lazy to work.

Are you nuts? An order of magnitude more? Do you even know what "order of magnitude" means?

According to government figures, the total gross domestic product (GDP) of the US will be 12.9 trillion dollars ($12,900 billion). This is the total economic output of the nation.

Social Security ($540 billion), Medicare ($340 billion) and Medicaid/SCHIP ($199 billion) alone add up to $1.079 trillion (1,079 billion) - and that's leaving out traditional "welfare". That's almost 10% of GDP.

You're claiming an "order of magnitude" more in corporate welfare? $10.79 trillion? What kind of tax breaks are you thinking of here? Apparently, you believe that the government should take 100% of GDP in taxes and simply redistribute it as it sees fit, because that $11+ trillion that doesn't go to SS, Medicaid/Medicare is all "corporate welfare".

Dude, even Ralph Nader only puts corporate welfare at $200 billion - only about a fifth as much as is spent on the big three social programs.

You seem to have been bit by the "numerical nonsense" bug yourself. Maybe you meant an order of magnitude less? You'd at least be in striking distance then...

I suppose, of course, that those are just "fascist facts". I'm sure you can figure out some way to link the approximately 10% of GDP paid out in the above services to fundamentalist Christian tithing of 10% of income to the church to "prove" how Amerikkka is becoming a theocratic dictatorship.

The rest of us learned to put down the bong when we started getting paranoid.

I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation.

I hate to defend Dick Cheney, but saying he only has a few years of government service under his belt is flat-out false.

==
His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988.
==

From Whitehouse.gov

I think Cheney is the No.1 poster child for corporate corruption. A few years of government "service", then he goes to Haliburton and rakes in the big bucks, then goes back to politics and starts an unnecessary war that "purely coincidentally" throws billions of dollars back to his old company--which is STILL paying him deferred compensation.

I hate to defend Dick Cheney, but saying he only has a few years of government service under his belt is flat-out false.

==
His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988.
==

From Whitehouse.gov

You are obviously jaded by your exposure to what you perceive as reality. I recommend that you pick up a copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography or simply read the White House press briefing site for a while.

You will quickly find that your current way of thinking is just ... too difficult for you. You don't need to go to all that effort. Relax, and let them do the work.

If you feel you must stay informed, watch a little CNN or Fox News (one or the other, not both), so you don't have to constantly hear people disagreeing with one another.

Never again will you think that you can't trust your government.

A certain minority of Americans are inventing new illnesses in order to avoid work.

The economic miracle that was started off by Ronald Reagan in the 80s, and continued through the George Bush Sr and Clinton administrations is one the wonders of the modern world. The solid economic base of Amreica, coupled with the explosion of the American designed world-wide-web and Internet have created opportunities for all regardless of education, race, sex or class. Anyone in America who wants a job will be able to take their pick from a selection of attractive and highly paid positions due to the strength of the American economy.

So why is it then that the middle classes have taken to faking diseases and why are otherwise respectable physicians joining in this collective fraud ?

Dyslexia, M.E., Attention Deficit Disorder, Repetitive Strain Injury, Anorexia. You have probably heard of these diseases before. At least one of your co-workers has probably taken time off work for one of these 'illnesses' in the last month. And yet, up until now no evidence has been produced to support the existence of any these afflictions as actual medical conditions. Let's analyse these 'sicknesses' one by one.

• Dyslexia. This is the 'diagnosis' given to a middle class child who cannot read owing to low intelligence. It is an attempt to medicalize a problem which in reality is a social one: All men are not created equal. When God gave out the brains, some of us were fortunate enough to be given a shiny new BMW 7-Series sedan, some of us got '97 5.0 Mustang, and some of us (the unfortunate few) got nothing more than an old skateboard.
  
  Dyslexia does not exist. Stupid children who cannot read do exist.
• M.E. (also known as the 'yuppie flu'). Again the middle classes cannot stomach the fact that they are not superhuman beings. Consequently when one of them needs to take a day off work, due to being what normal people would call "tired" they medicalize the problem (by giving it a long medical-sounding name) and hey-presto you can get all the time off work you want. Not bad for simply being tired. I wonder what our forefathers who built America by the sweat of their brows would say to a modern yuppie suffering from M.E. ?
  
  M.E. does not exist. People who need to go to bed a bit earlier do exist.
• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This one is quite sinister. For thousands of years, children were allowed to be carefree spirits, wandering wherever the mood took them. Investigating a world which is new and fresh to them, getting distracted when something more interesting came along. This was cal

I did not intend to imply that unchallengable military superiority is a prerequisite for a nation to ensure its freedom, but is necessary to ensure freedom in general. Consider Canada, Mexico, Germany, Japan -- all these nations are ensured freedom because they are our allies, formally, and informally (general ideology). Our military superiority should ensure free nations remain free, and in reality it already does. MAD is not what won the Cold War. MAD is Cold Warfare. What defeated the USSR was our movement away from MAD and towards 'untouchable military superiority'. We need to ensure that we and our close allies have 'untouchable military superiority' in order to make the world a place where freedom is protected and tyrany is in always in jeopardy.

I disagree with our administration's position on almost every domestic (social and economic) issue, but fully support its 'freedom' policy (which I do not think that many people fully understand). Check out this speech.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20 031028-2.html

Sorry. But you CAN do stem cell research with federal money.

Here are the basic guidelines:

Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.

See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html

It is Embrionic Stem Cells.....

And federal funding is not restricted on the current lines of EMBRIOS. It is restricted on *NEW* Embrios.

And it is *NOT* Backword looking. Geeze...
Moderators, please MODERATE!

Here is a link to the real story
And for thoes challenged:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
August 9, 2001

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush

Federal funding of research using existing embryonic stem cell lines is consistent with the President's belief in the fundamental value and sanctity of human life. The President's decision reflects his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life and his desire to promote vital medical research. The President's decision will permit federal funding of research using the more than 60 existing stem cell lines that have already been derived, but will not sanction or encourage the destruction of additional human embryos. The embryos from which the existing stem cell lines were created have already been destroyed and no longer have the possibility of further development as human beings. Federal funding of medical research on these existing stem cell lines will promote the sanctity of life " without undermining it " and will allow scientists to explore the potential of this research to benefit the lives of millions of people who suffer from life destroying diseases.

Federal funds will only be used for research on existing stem cell lines that were derived: (1) with the informed consent of the donors; (2) from excess embryos created solely for reproductive purposes; and (3) without any financial inducements to the donors. In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, the NIH will examine the derivation of all existing stem cell lines and create a registry of those lines that satisfy this criteria. More than 60 existing stem cell lines from genetically diverse populations around the world are expected to be available for federally-funded research.

No federal funds will be used for: (1) the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed embryos; (2) the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or (3) the cloning of human embryos for any purpose. Today's decision relates only to the use of federal funds for research on existing stem cell lines derived in accordance with the criteria set forth above.

The President will create a new President's Council on Bioethics, chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, an expert in biomedical ethics and a professor at the University of Chicago, to study the human and moral ramifications of developments in biomedical and behaviorial science and technology. The Council will study such issues as embryo and stem cell research, assisted reproduction, cloning, genetic screening, gene therapy, euthanasia, psychoactive drugs, and brain implants.

BACKGROUND

Embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which come from the inner cell mass of a human embryo, have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. The scientific term for this characteristic is "pluripotentiality."

Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop

The ban is on stem cell research derived from human embryos. And to be much more specific it is a federal ban on *NEW* embryos.

Here is an actual snippet from the prez:

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist" I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines " where the life and death decision has already been made", This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research" without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."
-- George W. Bush

The Real Thing

And yes, that means that FEDERAL FUNDING *IS* ALLOWED for embrionic stem cells.

There is *NO* limitation on other types of stem cells.

And we already have created products from adult hair, skin, bone and blood stem cells. Most medical researchers insist that embrionic stem cells have less potential than other types of stem cells.

California has literally jumped the shark. Any facility that would like to touch that money *MUST* do embrionic stem cell research exclusivily.

This is equilivent to Wyoming deciding that ARM processors may save lives and setting up a research fund. In order to touch the fund you must do verifiable research on the ARM processor.

And yes, it really *IS* as silly as that. And we are not talking about magical money.... It is strictly tax payer money. Remember that last pizza... well forget it...

There is a ban of federal funding for stem cell research that involves killing a human fetus. The government funds over 60 different stem cell resreach groups, they just all get their cells from other sources. (ambilical cords, bady teeth.)

Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-1.html

FYI: Dubya is from Connecticut.
See here.
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut.