Slashdot Mirror

This is the thinking that keeps Jews very active in civil rights, they are quite aware that they are step number two on the "Its there fault" line. Fortunately, the US is too ingrained with Civil rights to go blaming gays or other groups for its woes...

Well, first off, because I don't understand what you mean when you talk about an act of treason, above. What exactly was this act of treason? I fail to see how the investigation of Joseph Wilson (and his wife) and circumstances around that was treasonous activity in any way. I'm not a law guru, however, so I may be wrong, but in that column Novak seems mostly to be wondering why Democrats didn't dissent from the opinion of Republicans.

About those Blatent Lies of Bush(tm), what were those? No, we haven't found WMDs, but that was only a part of the resolution in the first place. Maybe I'm completely out of it, but I honestly can't think of much else...

Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism.

Again - may I request examples? From what I have seen of President Bush, he is pretty straight forward about what he thinks and is going to do. And so far he has shown that he is the sort to do what he says he will. I can't really comment on the selfishness as I had not noticed particularly. Perhaps you could enlighten me on those points as well.

In some respect I suppose all political parties tend to somewhat tribal (er, particularly liberals, from what I have observed), but one can hardly fault another for holding a view that others disagree with. This bit about bumping people (from corperations) off of a panel is a bit strange, though. I don't like the looks of it, really, but I'd also like to know more than the Times article provides in it's three paragraphs.

Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people.

A matter of opinion, of course, the reasons for which I think you have already outlined. A majority of the people apparently don't agree or they wouldn't have re-elected him. Either that or the majority of the population is really stupid and obviously doesn't have a clue what is good for our country, as you seem to have.

Now, I'm not saying that I agree with everything Mr. Bush has done, because I don't. (The particular issue brought up by the original post particularly.) My main point is that your opinion voiced here is apparently just that. Yes, I realize that you are not required to have a reason for your opinion. However, I have questions and I want answers, preferably in the form of facts.

Please note small amounts of sarcasm used above, and why no, of course I don't need karma...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html

There's a reason there's a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

A true Republican president would be fighting against the trusts, unlike the corporate whore who occupies the White House.

They've found that if you don't want to do something, it's totally sufficient to not do it and then repeat to the press over and over that you did it.

hmm... who does that sound like?

The Bush goverment could start pushing people to conserve energy but I think they would rather let the high oil prices do that for them.

You should check your facts instead of making assumptions about what the Bush administration thinks.

Go read the transcript of the president's radio address from this weekend . Be sure to take note of what he says the first step should be....

Remember who is in charge? Not to say that antitrust has been properly enforced by ANY administration in the 40 years but this administration has been exceptionally merger friendly.

We have convicted criminals in high political office too... as well as individuals who used political & family influence to avoid prosecution for crimes that anyone else would have done time for.

that's the ugliest dick I've ever seen. he really should have that checked out.

I find these summary tables are the best place to start. For further breakdowns, you can hit up the detailed budget info here.

Tell ya what, I was gonna write somethin about this, but I'll say this instead since I found some ineteresting stuff here. Link to historical spending. It's what every president has been using in both parties for a while so it is as trustworthy as we can get. They give both outlays in dollars, FY2000 dollars, % of GDP and percentage of total spending. The highest spending % wise on military was during WWII. Unless you want to be saluting a swastika right now (and assuming you weren't on Hitlers to exterminate list), I would say that was money well spent. There were other peaks as well. Lets work through it ourselves and see what we come up with.

I personally am going to use the FY 2000 dollars as that takes inflation into account so I don't have to bother calculating it. Once I have compared that with the % of military outlays I can figure out their portion of the debt. Unfortunately, one thing I can't find out easily is how much the military spending has helped the economy. (I know it's a lot, just don't know how much [look at growth in GDP compared to growth in military spending vs. other departments]).

Anyway, those are the raw numbers I sugest we use and work through. Though one thing about that 80% that is impossible (50% MAYBE). The miltary has only for 3 years ever been above 80% of the outlays, 1943-1945. For the past 11 they have been under 20%, and past 30 years under 30%. Military spending has been no where near what they have generally mad it out to be. Although I would love to see how they got their numbers (in detail).

I'm not sure your numbers are kosher. According to the OMB's numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables .html,
HHS only receives ~65 billion dollars. Please see table S-3. You seem to be off by one order of magnitude. Who is www.kowaldesign.com?

How large our social spending really is is cleverly hidden. Much of it is sliced off the top of incoming tax dollars, what's left becomes the dollars that are 'budgeted', the providing a misleading indication of how much money is going where.

Really, gosh, you'd think that 'secret' 'off-the-top' skim by the godless homosexual judge-loving liberals would have been the first thing the [strike]Chosen Race[/strike] the Bush Administration would have shitcanned.

Let's see the goddamn proof. Let's have reputable statistics from a government budget demonstrating your Fox News tinfoil hat liberal-conspiracy theory.

As for proof: Try this from C-Span. Or this from the Senates own website. Or this from the OMB (Scroll down to table 2-2, the expenses marked 'mandatory' are those 'off-budget' items to which I refer.)

Google on mandatory spending or off-budget and feast on the links.

I'm tired of neofacist right-wing troll bullshit on blogs, on slashdot, on television, and in all the newspapers, of all places. Gimme some proof, or go back to the sewer.

But understanding that requires actually understanding the meaning of the word fascist.

Maybe get your facts first dude.

Total Defense spending is at about $400 Billion a 7% increase over last year. A far cry from $500 billion increase. The full budget is $2.3 Tril. We spend alsost $9000 per student is Federal funds redirected to the State and Local Govt. this does not include State and Local taxes. One would expect that educating costs less than running a military. Books, teachers and computers cost less than bombers. Education spending has increased at a higher percentage than military spending on avg. the last five years. Blame your state and local govts. in my state the School must spend in fat years or lose the money. So the constant need for money exists rather than saving to deal with revenue cycles.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlit e-chart.html#4

I'm not going into the Clinton deal, but on Iraq and WMDs. Congress isn't going to go after Bush on Iraq because Congress voted to support beating the hell out of Iraq with a B-52 for a wide variety of reasons, WMD wasn't the only one.

It's the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq from 2002 or PUBLIC LAW 107-243--OCT. 16, 2002. Some highlights

"Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas 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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"

And the big point

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush didn't start the War in Iraq on deceit, Congress laid out a list of reasons for the United States to go to war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021002-2.html

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Anonymous Cowards are more than likely Anus Cowards:
While posting drivel on Slashdot, two trolls today made a life changing discovery. Although they've lived the first 15-20 years of life convinced that they are "normal" human beings, it was revealed to them that they've been mistaking their buttocks for their faces and their anuses for mouths. Professor J.Q. Ass, of Columbia University Medical College reported his findings, "When these two young men came to me earlier this week complaining of incredibly bad breath that offends everyone they know, I was a bit struck by the fact that they weren't facing me but had their backs to me. Not only that, but their anuses were doing the talking! I've never seen anything like it! It's astounding. I asked the one gentleman, 'You do realize you're talking out of your ass'? and he wanted to start a fist fight. I told him, 'no seriously, you are literally speking through your anus. I've never seen anything like this".

The Slashdot Connection:
After showing the two young adults some basic anatomy videos and their own images in the mirror, they were both driven to tears. How many years had they been using their anuses for speech? Too many. According to special biologist Ruth Ann Pudendum, "Cases like this are extremely rare, but it does appear that the incidence rate is quite high among the AC posters of the online community/blog Slashdot. Unfortunately, we've only had a few ACs come forward and acknowledge their disability".

Is there hope?:
Of course, the question that everyone wants answered, "Is there a possibility of a normal life after the discovery of anal speech"? While most disabilities can be treated through the use of various therapies, counselling and medication, it does appear that anal speech is an irreversible condition. The best that sufferers of this illness can hope for is to find a place where they can fit in. Extensive research shows that there are many positions within management, politics and some areas of the IT sector where anal speech does not preclude one from excelling to the top of their field. Some examples of famous anal speakers are, CEO of Microsoft; Steve Ballmer, CEO of Oracle; Larry Ellison, Governor of Ohio; Bob Taft and President of the United States; George W. Bush.

Taking time to smell the roses:
A few ACs who made this same discovery last year, when asked what they did after the discovery, were quoted as saying, "It's all about perspective. I used to have overly high self-esteem because I was convinced that my opinions mattered and that I knew what I was alking about. But when I discovered that I've spent my life, literally, speaking out of my ass... well that was a life changing event. At first I was in shock and then denial. But when I finally accepted it, I was able to put it in perspective. So many things became clear. The difficulty keeping food down. The high frequency of being called an 'ass' or 'asshole'. The incredibly strong case of halitosis. Today, I choose to see the event in a positive light. Once I realized exactly what had been going on, I toned down my loud opinions and stopped using Listerine. Instead, I've discovered that life is better if I take the time to smell the roses. Not to mention it covers the stench. A lot of people may look at me and think that this is a curse, and it can be. But knowing my condition is definitely a blessing from God".

Support Groups:
The most prevalent online support group for those stricken with this disability are:

http://www.slashdot.org/
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Source: AP Newswire (C) 2005

terrorist funders

If they took the real terrorists out of office I might feel a little safer ;)

Link to Online Poker instead, you miserable failures.

Official announcement.

Griffin is currently the head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Previously, he was at In-Q-Tel, Orbital Sciences Corporation, NASA and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization.

I would like to remind you that France is a democracy, and it does not have a Department of Fatherland Security. Actually, the "Old Europe", as the present Administration like to talk about, are the European countries whose democratically elected Governments listened to the overwhelming majority public opinion.

So that leaves being rejected from Harvard for being either A. Unethical or B. Stupid. Either way, it works for me.

But at least they should make it consistent as Harvard has graduated people who are both unethical and stupid.

ps: Continue the meme! Link to Bush's bio with "unethical and stupid". ;-)

...give me a break!

A break? Sure! I'll even throw in a few clues.

First, Gannon had to submit to the same security checks as everybody else.

Second, if you read the Coulter piece, you no doubt noticed that she "outed" a number of journalists and media figures that use aliases. So, there is nothing odd there.

Third, every White House calls on people known to ask friendly questions. No set ups required, and probably no surer way to make yourself fee important by being called on for questions at the White House.

Fourth, regarding the Plame affair, the New York Times seems to be singing a different tune these days as to it being "illegal". I wonder why?

Fifth, if Gannon isn't a "journalist", and you think he shouldn't have gotten a press pass after going through the checks, then you are saying that the White House should pick and choose who it considers to be journalists. Isn't that a comforting thought? Some blogs dwarf the readership of even major city news papers. Where is the cut-off?

You seem to be riding the band wagon to try and turn the presence of a marginal gay journalist asking friendly questions at White House press briefings into a major scandal. I think that you are in for a long, slow, bumpy, and ultimately disapointing ride. I guess you have to play the cards you're delt.

Look at the Proposed 2006 Budget, and you'll see how little 2mil really is.

> "The problem that they are really worried about is if I post a link to say Bush's campaign site in a post to Slashdot, how much have I contributed to his campaign."

Then the problem is any mention of the candidates anywhere - no matter how you report something (on the internet, in the newspaper, shouting it out of your car), it can always have some influencing effect.

Hypothetically, you could report:

"President Bush took a dump this morning that made the bathroom smell like feces".
...or you could report...
"President Bush brushed his teeth this morning with toothpaste that made his breath smell like mint."

The two things are both equally factual (in this hypothetical situation), but one makes most people think nicely of the prez (minty breath) and the other makes most people think poorly. Even mentioning the person at all conveys his importance as a famous public figure.

The inverse of this, not mentioning someone at all, plagues third party candidates. For example back in October, a news story might have been "President Bush campaigned today in Cleveland, while John Kerry campaigned in Tampa." That is free publicity for both Kerry and Bush, but just because you're being unbiased regarding those two candidates, the fact that you exclude from your reporting any mention of third party candidates means you're helping the campaigns of Bush and Kerry to defeat their other competitors.

I don't envy the FEC for having to try to regulate this kind of campaign influence.

As for your example, it even depends on how you linked: Miserable Failure or Gleaming Success

> "The problem that they are really worried about is if I post a link to say Bush's campaign site in a post to Slashdot, how much have I contributed to his campaign."

Then the problem is any mention of the candidates anywhere - no matter how you report something (on the internet, in the newspaper, shouting it out of your car), it can always have some influencing effect.

Hypothetically, you could report:

"President Bush took a dump this morning that made the bathroom smell like feces".
...or you could report...
"President Bush brushed his teeth this morning with toothpaste that made his breath smell like mint."

The two things are both equally factual (in this hypothetical situation), but one makes most people think nicely of the prez (minty breath) and the other makes most people think poorly. Even mentioning the person at all conveys his importance as a famous public figure.

The inverse of this, not mentioning someone at all, plagues third party candidates. For example back in October, a news story might have been "President Bush campaigned today in Cleveland, while John Kerry campaigned in Tampa." That is free publicity for both Kerry and Bush, but just because you're being unbiased regarding those two candidates, the fact that you exclude from your reporting any mention of third party candidates means you're helping the campaigns of Bush and Kerry to defeat their other competitors.

I don't envy the FEC for having to try to regulate this kind of campaign influence.

As for your example, it even depends on how you linked: Miserable Failure or Gleaming Success

They could come up with a color-coded "Virus Threat Advisory System". Just off the top of my head, they could use something like:

Low = Green
Guarded = Blue
Elevated = Yellow
High = Orange
Severe = Red

Who the hell knows what users should do at each of these levels, but at least they'd be using techniques that have been used in other successful alert systems.

its too late they've already taken over...

Fuck Texas. Let them create stupid laws. Let their talented move to staes that recognize the value of the interweb. While we're at it, let them secede and take their former governor http://www.whitehouse.gov/ with them! If they don't want their citizenry educated, I suppose it's their prerogative. Where are Texas schools right now anyways? Ahead of Arkansas? Behind Bulgaria?

Hi Arbiter,

Just some quick facts for anyone else that dips into this thread regarding the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq:

On Feb 05, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a briefing to the U.N. on why we were seeking to finally call Iraq on the carpet after their years and years of ignoring Security Council resolutions. CNN has a transcript here, the White House has a better one here with the presentation slides in-line with the text.

In reading the presentation, Sec. Powell gave two of our main reasons for what was to become an invasion of Iraq: WMDs and the horrible event of a rogue state like Iraq mixing their WMDs with terrorism. Anyone can read the intercepted communications and view the graphical materials for themselves and I think understand why we did what we did.

Not that it means anything as I am the epitome of a nobody, but I certainly would have done the same thing as the administration if I was in their shoes. With years of this type of intelligence from not only our own security agencies, but those of other countries as well... countries of varying 'friendliness' to the U.S., it made the most sense considering the world we live in. Of course some will disagree with that conclusion.

So as far as points 1 & 2 above, I don't see any facts changing there or being pushed after the failure to find WMDs.

On March 19, 2003, President Bush addressed the nation to explain that hostilities were underway in Iraq and to explain yet again why we were taking those actions. The first sentence of his address, from March of 2003, was:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. (emphasis added)

So there is bullet point 3 from above. As you can see, all of those ideas were open and honestly on the table almost two years ago. They didn't come about after the fact. They didn't come to life to distract from the inability to find WMDs. They have always been there. I could cite other instances but that should be enough to make the point.

Please note however that the name of this military option was "Iraqi Freedom". So named by military planners with direction from the administration long before we heard it from President Bush in March of 2003.

Another way to respond would be this:

Many years ago when I married my wife, the fact was that I loved her more due to physical attraction and the fact that we had been friends for quite some time than anything else.

After many years of marriage, I can say quite honestly that being physically attracted to my wife is not my answer today. My love for my wife today springs from the fact that she is a wonderful mom to our children, she is deeply devoted to our family, and of course remains my best friend. That's a good thing too because no matter the amount of healthy living you mold your lifestyle around, age will eventually catch up to you in rather shocking and unseemly ways.

If I'm fortunate to have many years in the future, I'm quite certain my answer then will change as well. The example of motherhood won't be so prevalent then being replaced by the future's needs, etc.

That isn't changing facts over time. It is giving new facts their due while not denying the validity of past facts. My point with my sappy tag line is to be wary of people that would seek to tell you that what they maintained in the past was true, was in fact not true (while refusing to categorize their past stance as being mistaken). They were either lying then, or lying now. In any case, they make a great case for distrust.

Hi Arbiter,

Just some quick facts for anyone else that dips into this thread regarding the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq:

On Feb 05, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a briefing to the U.N. on why we were seeking to finally call Iraq on the carpet after their years and years of ignoring Security Council resolutions. CNN has a transcript here, the White House has a better one here with the presentation slides in-line with the text.

In reading the presentation, Sec. Powell gave two of our main reasons for what was to become an invasion of Iraq: WMDs and the horrible event of a rogue state like Iraq mixing their WMDs with terrorism. Anyone can read the intercepted communications and view the graphical materials for themselves and I think understand why we did what we did.

Not that it means anything as I am the epitome of a nobody, but I certainly would have done the same thing as the administration if I was in their shoes. With years of this type of intelligence from not only our own security agencies, but those of other countries as well... countries of varying 'friendliness' to the U.S., it made the most sense considering the world we live in. Of course some will disagree with that conclusion.

So as far as points 1 & 2 above, I don't see any facts changing there or being pushed after the failure to find WMDs.

On March 19, 2003, President Bush addressed the nation to explain that hostilities were underway in Iraq and to explain yet again why we were taking those actions. The first sentence of his address, from March of 2003, was:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. (emphasis added)

So there is bullet point 3 from above. As you can see, all of those ideas were open and honestly on the table almost two years ago. They didn't come about after the fact. They didn't come to life to distract from the inability to find WMDs. They have always been there. I could cite other instances but that should be enough to make the point.

Please note however that the name of this military option was "Iraqi Freedom". So named by military planners with direction from the administration long before we heard it from President Bush in March of 2003.

Another way to respond would be this:

Many years ago when I married my wife, the fact was that I loved her more due to physical attraction and the fact that we had been friends for quite some time than anything else.

After many years of marriage, I can say quite honestly that being physically attracted to my wife is not my answer today. My love for my wife today springs from the fact that she is a wonderful mom to our children, she is deeply devoted to our family, and of course remains my best friend. That's a good thing too because no matter the amount of healthy living you mold your lifestyle around, age will eventually catch up to you in rather shocking and unseemly ways.

If I'm fortunate to have many years in the future, I'm quite certain my answer then will change as well. The example of motherhood won't be so prevalent then being replaced by the future's needs, etc.

That isn't changing facts over time. It is giving new facts their due while not denying the validity of past facts. My point with my sappy tag line is to be wary of people that would seek to tell you that what they maintained in the past was true, was in fact not true (while refusing to categorize their past stance as being mistaken). They were either lying then, or lying now. In any case, they make a great case for distrust.

This individual

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/im ages/20040106_d010604-515h.jpg

was detained while attempting to board Air Force One after being detected as possibly being Osama Bin Laden in disguise. He was later released after it was determined to have been a false match.

I think you're basically thinking of what NASA's Centennial Challenges Program is planning on doing. I remember reading that the 2006 NASA budget is dedicating $100-$200 million to the Centennial Challenges, which will hopefully increase in coming years.

Perusing the robots, I found:
Disallow: /kids/teeball/iraq
WTF
But really, it looks like they disallowed every /iraq and /text in every folder - whether it existed or not. Can't think of any reason, unless they don't want everyone to know about The bloodiest military mistake ever.
(Yes, this is a joke, look up google bombing [I think that's the term])

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

well that was insightful. Or maybe we need to elect presidents who can see into the future since that is the only way anyone would have known how Iraq would turn out and that NK would do this.

When Bush first started his "crusade" he named three countries that he was going to deal with, you know, the axis of evil (Iran, Iraq, N. Korea). He has done what he planned all along with Iraq. He is preparing to do the same to Iran, and I'm sure N. Korea isn't far removed.

It is quite possible that N. Korea is seeing the writing on the wall finally and, as a defensive move, they are just claiming to have Nuclear Capabilities. They may not - but if you were President how willing would you be to call their bluff?

It's one thing to invade Iraq and piss people off. Its entirely different when you knowingly attack a country that is willing to start a Nuclear war.

The kicker, of course, will be that if we attack N. Korea and they do have Nukes - we will be blamed for the Nuclear devastation and not N. Korea even if they are the only ones to launch.

I wonder if Kim likes to play poker?

How about Yale and Harvard?

I'm sure your mother thinks you're really smart, but I think you're rather dull. My point was subtle - a technique used by grown ups. If 3000 deaths due to terrorism justify a $38 billion budget for a new department, where is the $50 billion federal budget for renal failure? With our education system in jeopardy, where is the massive increase in federal spending on education?

Had you engaged your thinking cap before replying, you would have discovered that I am speaking to the concept of priorities. Look it up.

Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities. The tax cutting regime that started with Ronald Reagan in California has starved the schools of adequate funds to operate.

OK, that's a reasonable hypothesis. Let's see what the data says. This is a spreadsheet from the 2004 federal budget, showing total educational outlays from 1962 - 2004. The bottom line is the one you want to look at, showing that educational outlays have grown approx 8x in constant 1996 dollars during that time. They did decline under Reagan (as you note), but then grew again under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So significantly reduced funding is probably not a cause of educational failure, and certainly not a cause from 1990-present.

That is interesting data, but to be meaningful for this discussion, it needs to be adjusted on a per-student basis -- and probably adjusted for LOCAL cost-of-living.

In our local high school, there aren't enough textbooks in most classes for students to be able to take them home to do homework! How are the students supposed to do any homework? The discovery of this left me astounded and speechless at first, and then angry.

Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

It's certainly true that fundamentalists want to change the teaching of evolution. I hadn't heard they were opposed to math - maybe you'll provide a link.

In my personal experience, as friends of a home-schooling teacher, Fundamentalist Christian parents discourage the kind of skeptical, evidence-based reasoning required to really understand mathematical logic and scientific reasoning. Some of these parents got together and scolded my friend for teaching their children to "disrespect higher authority", when all my friend suggested was that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

To date, they've had no notable success in doing so, and the Supreme Court has remained unsympathetic to arguments that teaching biological evolution infringes on 1st ammendment religious freedoms. So it's hard to see how this could be a cause of educational decline today, although maybe it could become one if the political & legal situation changes.

This poster reinforced my statement more eloquently that I can in the time given: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=115 33930 [slashdot.org]

American schools have an entrenched bureaucracy and union structure that is powerful enough to block virtually any proposed reform, save that of pumping more money into the existing system. For example, in Washington State, our teachers' unions campaigned vigorously and successfully against our recent charter school referrendum.

I won't argue that none of that exists, though I can't say that I've seen it firsthand. I certainly would be in favor of some decentralization of school systems and encourage more local participation by parent and the community.

There are very few feedback mechanisms in the public school system, where a teacher's job performance determines his professional success, or where parents can choose to remove their students (and tax dollars) from a failing school. In most other professions, these feedback mechanisms are the way in which failing "firms" are reformed or replaced.

I think that parents are a vital part of that feedback system, if they can't be involved, then they need to elect a different school board! But to be in favor of f

I attribute the decline in the U.S. primary education system to the following ills:

1. Significantly reduced funding with respect to inflation, leading to mediocrity in staffing and inadequate facilities. The tax cutting regime that started with Ronald Reagan in California has starved the schools of adequate funds to operate.

2. Parents take less interest in their own education, as jobs become more demaning. Relatively wealthy parents work long hours at "exempt" jobs, unable to assist their kids with homework. The kids are raised by TV instead.

3. Fundamentalist religious forces are demanding the weaking of science and math education in schools because these subjects don't coincide with their mythology. No wonder U.S. students are so weak in these subjects!

Try typing "Miserable Failure" in google and hitting I'm Feeling Lucky

Searches....http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gw bbio.html

No, I'd say it's spot on.

The President of America George W Bush is a failed busines man with a criminal record. Renowned for overseeing the most number of executions in his stint as Taxes governot. Advocated more death sentences than any other governor in American history (all 4 pages of it).

You can download and read Bush's resume from the Internet.

For the curious, the President of America's website runs Apache on Solaris.

Here bush entertains some people in white coats with some shadow play

Either of your first two claims (if true) would probably be reason enough to shut it down, due to the administration's current stance on terrorist financing. Now, I personally think their definition of 'terrorism' is overly broad, but this specifically is the sort of thing they did have in mind.

In your comment, you suggested that if a group, college, or organization is receiving federal funding of ANY kind for ANY kind of research, they cannot do embryonic stem cell research unless they want to lose their federal funding. BZZZZT!!! Wrong.

From that same page I linked you to:

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.

In other words, federal funds cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research (with the exception of the 60 stem cell lines that had already existed as of 2001). No need to repost your comment because the "right-wing" modded you down... you were modded down because you were WRONG.

is from this website

Pssst. You're screwing up the googlebomb. It's supposed to be like this: inexcusable fuckup

that must be "plenty hot" about that right now.

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

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

User-agent: *
Disallow: /cgi-bin
Disallow: /search
Disallow: /query.html
Disallow: /help
Disallow: /360pics/iraq
Disallow: /economy/iraq
Disallow: /firstlady/newborn/iraq
Disallow: /government/images/iraq
Disallow: /president/statevisit/window/iraq
Disallow: /president/ridge/iraq
Disallow: /911/911day/iraq
etc...

...and NOT focus on the real problems here.

Oh, you must mean like social security.

The British burned some relatively unimportant buildings

Yeah, one of those unimportant buildings needed a paint job anyway.