Slashdot Mirror

1.2 billion dollars to fund hydrogen fuel research and implementation.

Here's Kerry's response: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9341338.h tm?1c

Kerry proposed greater use of ethanol, soy-based diesel fuel and incentives to build and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. His 10-year, $20 billion plan envisions 20 percent of vehicle fuel coming from renewable resources.

See what 2 minutes of googling can do?

so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this take on it:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

The quote above is from this page which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.

I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection

i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.

* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link, which appears to no longer exist.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

FDR tried to alleviate the suffering...by instituting SS...that provided a public benefit.

Ok and what has SS turned into? A pyramid scheme that is looted by Congress. It's dying and needs to be replaced. Support Bush's plan for SS reform.

He did not make lies, half-truths, and political doublespeak an Executive Branch SOP.

Neither do the political candiates whom I trust and believe in. This is your opinion, not a factual argument. Learn to keep the two separate.

He did not slash corporate taxes, and the tax rate of the very wealthiest Americans, and then shift the tax burdeon onto the backs of the shrinking middle class.

Ahem. Did you not receive a tax cut? Thank you. And what's more, your argument here is predicated on the "given" that the Government owns all of everything, and that tax cuts "cost" the Government in lost revenue. I don't know about you, but I want to keep *more* of the money I make. I want to "allow" the government to take only that which is necessary to provide what the Constitution says it should--and not a penny more.

I can't respond as intelligently to the jobs overseas issue, I'm still learning about that. But I think it could be just a phase, frankly. Evidence #1 is when Dell had to "insource" their helpdesk because of customer satisfaction issues with the outsourced provider.

As far as the health of the economy goes, from what I can tell, the left is using historical figures and the right is using current trends. The left are in effect blaming Bush for the dotcom bubble bursting, which is pretty laughable. Bush is doing a "decent" job helping the economy to recover in a tough time, that's how I read it. The current trends are good, and that is well...good. Sorry, you can't disagree with this, it's an actual fact.

From all reliable accounts, one of the Bush administration's top policy goals was the invasion of Iraq, from before his inauguration...

Whoah Nelly! Now you're going a bit off the deep end. I think you have stepped from debate into the realm of fiction. When you get back to earth, let me know and we can continue.

The rest of your rant is characterized by unsubstantiated rumors, personal gripes, incorrect conclusions, and a disconnection with reality. Sorry, they did find WMD's...hate to break it to ya.

Do expect Bush to continue promoting religious organizations as the only source of welfare and social assistance.

Oh I hadn't heard that was something on his platform. I think this is awesome! Let the people help themselves!

Our welfare system is unfair to everyone: to taxpayers who must pick up the bill for failed programs; to society, whose mediating institutions of community, church and family are increasingly pushed aside; and most of all to the poor themselves, who are trapped in a system that destroys opportunity for themselves and hope for their children.

From the LP's Poverty & Welfare platform.

The rich employ clever tax lawyers to avoid paying alot of tax. Even Bush admits it: The rich hire lawyers and accountants so that the middle class gets stuck with the bill.

Interestingly, President Bush's position on reinstituting the draft is similar to his positions on things like deficit spending and the Iraq insurgency: "Don't Worry About It."

Q Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft again?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do is -- don't worry about it. What we need to do is to make sure our troops are well-paid, and well-housed, and well-equipped. (Applause.)

> First of all Bush was up front about how long it would take.

When? We were discussing his project proposals before the 2000 election.

I think the parent post was referring to the president's speech of March 19, 2003:

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

Many people seem to forget that a) war isn't a certain thing, and b) he never said it be "a quickie", quite the opposite.

--trb

The last link there deals with actions the United States took during the cold war to help overturn the democratically elected government of Iran and reinstate the Shah.

Although not necessarily a fan of the Bush administration, I think that in fairness it should be noted that just a couple of days ago in his address to the UN, President Bush acknowledged this mistake and said it was the wrong.

Complete text of the address is here.

The relevent quote:

"... For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach."

Here is the full text of the quote from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010129-7 .html: Q: Why did you decide not to challenge the Clinton pardon, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Oh, on Marc Rich? First of all, I didn't agree with the decision. I would not have made that decision myself. But the ability for a president to make decisions is -- a decision on pardons, is inviolate, as far as I'm concerned. It's an important part of the office. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well. And that's why I made the decision.

maybe they are just losers (like this election for instance)

This election is a loser? Next you'll be saying you eat pieces of shit for breakfast.

Or Dubya: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

here

in a nutshell: get shuttles flying again, finish building ISS to fulfill commitments, ground shuttles, stop burning money on building/maintaining ISS.

Let me see if I get this straight. You commented that ) Drugs are expensive because they are illegal... suggesting crack, crystal meth, and marijuana are expensive? No, only some drugs are illegal. Even though name brand green beans are $0.50-0.88 per can, some people will still buy the cheaper generic ones for a variety of reasons. So cocaine gets cheaper, so does crack, and there's still a market for it.

) Several studies have shown that when junkies get their fix consistently, they are perfectly able to maintain their jobs and responsibilities.

I cannot stand it when people say "several studies" and give no source whatsoever. Anyone can say those two words, and it adds an element of believability in the same way saying Benjamin Franklin once said it, or whispering it. For every study, there is an equal and opposite study. My experience in the volunteer work I've done in the past for the Star of Home shelter in Houston is that once people are on drugs, it is extremely difficult to get them off of them, and they "need" more and more. At first they can afford them, but the increased need for them eventually causes them to lose everything, or overdose. Quite a few of the people I spent time with lost their jobs because they were no longer able to function at work, given their increased need for the high associated with the addictive drug of choice... needing it during their working hours eventually. So maybe I should write and publish a "study" disproving the studies you paraphrased, but did not give any reference to.

If even 10% of the money that we currently spend on fighting the drug war were directed towards drug treatment, we could greatly reduce the drug problems we face right now.

Currently, in the war on drugs, 20% of federal dollars are spent on treatment, leaving the other two thirds to be spent on prevention. The Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2003 Executive Summary shows that the federal budget increase for 2003 was $461MM. That's just an increase. The total was almost $19BB. Care to make any summaries as to how that money could have been spent instead? Let's look at how you suggest (rather how Peter McWilliams, whose only qualifications are as an author, suggests) we could spend the war on drugs money elsewhere...

Pay off the national debt in less than ten years.

Anyone who has an understanding of federal bonds and the majority of their use would never suggest we pay off the national debt. Most of those bonds are held by American taxpayers, and typically for retirement funds. Would you like to see more people forced into an already overbought and unstable stock market instead? In the realm of risk analysis, people closer to retirement need investments that less risky, and t-bonds/t-bills are near the top of that list.

Reduce personal income taxes by more than 75 percent. With 41% of federal income spent on social security and medicare, and an additional 18% spent on the US military, I challenge you to show me the math in 100-41-18=75.

Allow the Pentagon to purchase 23 wrenches, 16 office chairs, and 243 paper clips.

What? Oh, probably the story of the $600 hammer again. That hammer never existed.

Send every man, woman, and child in the United States a check for $2,000 each year

Erm... watch the clock tick and let me know when it reaches the $580 billion dollars you get when you give 280 million people a check for $2000.

Pay everyone's doctor, dentist, phone, and utility bills, as well as pay for gasoline and repair of every car in the United States.

While my numbers may not represent everyone in the US, I think I'm prob

Actually, the GOP issues with the healthcare task force centered around public policy being determined by an unelected official, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Besides, once the document was released, it was realized how rabidly Socialist it was.

Cheney, on the other hand, was actually elected. His full report and recommendations have been released and nobody seems to bother reading them, instead focusing on who was met and what recommendations they put forth.

Also, the problem with the tech transfer to China wasn't around nuke technology, but around missile, satellite and laser technology. The Cox Report detailed clinton's handing over of sensitive information at the behest of Hughes and Loral despite the objections of his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. (You don't expect that twit William Cohen would've uttered a peep, do you?)

It's interesting that you're using DNC talking points, however.

• despite the increasing budget deficit. When George W Bush took office there was a $236.4 Billion surplus (Source: Congressional Budget Office.) The budget deficit of $446 billion (Source: CNN.) In addition, the national debt has incressed from $5,674,178,209,886.86 to $7,347,867,800,168.01 during the Bush administration (Source: US Treasury Dept. Office of hte Public Debt)
• [Bush Supports] Pre-emptive military action anywhere in the world to prevent potential threats toward the United States " we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country...To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." -The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, written by The National Security Council and approved by George W Bush (Sept. 2002) The statement which you claim is one sided says exactly the same thing as Bush's own office policy documents.
• [Bush Supports] addressing the budget deficit, if at all, by cutting government spending (except for defense spending) rather than raising taxes "Many of the tax cuts - including the new, low 10 percent tax bracket, the reduction in the marriage penalty, the doubling of the child tax credit, the phase-out of the death tax, and the increase in small business expensing - are set to expire. This tax relief must be made permanent so families and businesses can plan for the future with confidence." Source: The Bush Line: President Bush's Record of Cutting Taxes from George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) That sure doesn't sound like he wants to raise taxes and the only other way to balance the budget would be by cutting spending.
• [Bush Suppoorts] Opening more forests in the US to logging and opening more Federal land to oil exploration "President Bush will seek to promote environmentally sound domestic oil production" (Source: A Plan for Creating Opportunity for America's Workers, George W Bush's Offical Campaign Website) and signed the ironically named "Healthy Forest Initative" which opened a huge amount of public land for logging.

illegal alien amnesty

Illegal aliens are demographically Christian and more actively religious than the general USA population. Maybe the voting bloc called the "Christian Right" disapproves of them (for racist reasons?), but aliens are heavily Christian.

equivocation on supporting Israel

Bush seems pretty strong in support of Israel's administration. He brags he's been the first President to support a Palestinian state... which is funny, because he tries to spin it like that's pro-Palestine or pro-peace, when really it's just formalizing that the "Palestinans" will never be allowed back to the land conquered from them in Israel's "War for Independence"

National Defense: 379 billion
Education, Training, employment and Social Services: 81 Billion

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.

Umm its embryonic stem cell research. In no way are these things ever fetuses. They never attached to the uterus lining which is the definition of a fetus. The cells in questioned are the waste of invitro fertilization. And his ban affects all universities from exploring embroyonic stem cell research which has greater possibility of curing nerve and brain diseases since adult stem cells cannot transform into nerve or brain cells(neurons). Calling them fetuses is pure FUD and leads me to question wheter your statement about being a scientist is truthful.

Embryonic Stem cell research

Statement from the white house about in vitro fertilization and embryonic research.

The origin of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived from excess embryos created in the course of infertility treatment. As a result of standard in vitro fertilization practices, many excess human embryos are created. Participants in IVF treatment must ultimately decide the disposition of these excess embryos, and many individuals have donated their excess embryos for research purposes.
White house statement

Your Prayers Have Been Answered.

Stream

Use Real, Real Alternative, Quicktime or VLC. Not sure about WMP.

A real interview with the President. With a real jounalist from Ireland. From late June 2004 with Irish broadcasting.

OMG do he look incompetent. This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!

From the transcript:

Q -- and you will be discussing at the EU summit and the idea of bringing democracy to the broader Middle East.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Is that something that really should start, though, with the solving of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, first of all, you've got a democracy in Turkey. And you've got a democracy emerging in Afghanistan. You've got a democracy in Pakistan. In other words --

[My emphasis]

Well as you will understand after viewing that; there is a reason why this is the only lenghty interview with non-preapproved questions he will do with a decent journalist asking real questions not just picthing.

Wow. Thank you. Worth pointing out that there's even a link to the video. Worth watching really, especially because they don't edit Bush into soundbites - they let him ramble (until he fails to answer the question). Bush really didn't like being interrupted whenever he ran off track - he wanted to use it as a platform to give speeches.

For those who can't see the video, there's the transcript.

Jedidiah.

Failure. miserable failure

Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.

According to the President's Office of Management and Budget , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.

A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?

Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.

According to the President's Office of Management and Budget , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.

A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?

Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.

According to the President's Office of Management and Budget , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.

A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?

Democracy is a system where everyone gets what the majority deserve. If the person who gets elected is a total disaster who dooms the country, being able to say "well, *I* didn't vote for him" is small comfort.

Or, in other words, if the wrong guy gets elected, you get the booby prize regardless of whether you voted for him OR someone else.

Bush's Axis of Evil rhetoric scooped up his personally preferred target, Iraq, along with the connected states of Iran and North Korea, lying to fabricate a rationalization for invasion. Those latter two are both customers of the country missing from the equation, Pakistan, whose AQ Khan supplied them with the nuclear technology with which they are both threatening us today. Pakistan also is the home of the Taliban which conquered post-Soviet Afghanistan, supporting the terrorists which planebombed the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001. And while we're discussing the missing links in that Axis, we might as well mention that Saudi Arabia bankrolled the whole thing. The evil controls the White House, which is covering for all of these enemies, leading the war against America from within, from on top.

Thank you for pointing that out. The site you linked to in turn links to the actual budget proposal, which clearly shows there is no planned increase in the Selective Service's budget. I have removed the rumors (some of which were explicitly labelled as such) and the outright factual errors from the Wikipedia entry. You can still view the history (I'm not sure if you need an account to see that). I hope this doesn't turn into an edit war. It seems clear to me that pure, uncorroborated speculation does not belong in the encyclopedia.

(Summary: 5/225 Rep nay in House, 3+1/51 Rep nay+no-vote in Senate, 0/1 Rep veto in Exec)

The Republicans having reintroduced this bill several times in different forms only to have it vetoed repeatedly by Clinton certainly undermines your position that Republicans could do a hell of a lot more on the kids-being-murdered (your words, not mine!) front.

But you're right about one thing. We should check what they do, not what they say.

Because at least one of the candidates has a full-time job.

Citizens of the Independent Republic of Chechenia (not yet).

Or if you mean the politician with the cunt-licking dumb daughter: he is called Dick Cheney.

Dick means penis.

The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment

Of course it's not. No labor statistic is "true indicator" -- it is simply a statistic which has meaning only when compared to itself.

Notwithstanding the National Review's "spin," the simple fact is that the Wall Street, the media, and politicians on both sides talk about "jobs" they mean the Payroll numbers. In fact, Cheney referred to the 144K Payroll jobs added this past month said this yesterday:

We think we've made very significant results -- progress out of that. You can look at the fact we've added 1.7 million new jobs over the course of the last year. (Applause.) We've got growth for the last four quarters of about 4.8 percent in GDP; 144,000 jobs last month alone. Source: White House

Interesting that he didn't mention the "HOUSEHOLD" numbers, huh? No, not interesting at all. The Household numbers are a nice way of supporting the National Review's so-called "gain of 2.15 million jobs" under Bush, but even Cheney and the White House know that it's the Payroll numbers that count.

And under Bush that figure is and will be a net loss since his "tax cuts alone."

LOL or cry in silence, it doesn't matter to me which you do. Executive Orders are not fluff or nonsense and are enforced even when they contravene the Constitution. You should read one or two before you pooh pooh them as impotent foolishness. And how do you expect anyone to take seriously your link to a crackpot website? Did you know what kind of "fluffy nonsense" that site contains, or did you find that particular page in Google and so accept it as gospel truth?

And yet, the exact same methods were used to claim the Saddam-Osama connection.

By whom? Nobody in a position of authority ever said there was a Saddam-Osama connection.

"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."

Please don't try and argue that a Saddam-al Qaeda connection is not the same as a Saddam-Osama connection. It only makes you guys look stupid. If you'd like to argue that the President is not in a position of authority, then you may be on to something.

Leave to an election year for every discussion to digress into a Bush-vs-Kerry thread or a War on Terror critique.

To me, this post is yet another example of the depths of mediocrity to which Slashdot has sunk. Like all vigilant citizens we love to read up on stories of real censorship, and this topic is "Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004" and we get the little face with a black bar over it, so I clicked on the article expectantly.

But neither the original post nor the linked article ever say a word about censorship. Instead we get an assorted and random diatribe of 25 leftist topics. Where's even a discussion of any involvement of censorship? Where's even the attempt to describe how this is censorship? Sure, we all know that generally censorship refers to government prohibitions, but where's at least a lame insinuation about big evil media corporations spiking these stories? The article gives us nothing.

CmdrTaco might as well have posted this as a link to pictures of barenaked ladies, it would be about as relevant.

Leave to an election year for every discussion to digress into a Bush-vs-Kerry thread or a War on Terror critique.

To me, this post is yet another example of the depths of mediocrity to which Slashdot has sunk. Like all vigilant citizens we love to read up on stories of real censorship, and this topic is "Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004" and we get the little face with a black bar over it, so I clicked on the article expectantly.

But neither the original post nor the linked article ever say a word about censorship. Instead we get an assorted and random diatribe of 25 leftist topics. Where's even a discussion of any involvement of censorship? Where's even the attempt to describe how this is censorship? Sure, we all know that generally censorship refers to government prohibitions, but where's at least a lame insinuation about big evil media corporations spiking these stories? The article gives us nothing.

CmdrTaco might as well have posted this as a link to pictures of barenaked ladies, it would be about as relevant.

If you read books about the issues, you may come to the conclusion that by far the biggest underlying issue in the present political campaign is U.S. government violence. You probably won't know this unless you read books.

The present system of violence in the U.S. and Britain started in the 1940s. In the 1940s, it was decided that the U.S. government could act in secret in foreign countries to preserve the profits of U.S. and British companies. It was decided that the U.S. government could not only act in secret, it could break the laws of the foreign country. It was decided the the U.S. government could even arrange the murder of the leaders of foreign countries. Agencies like the CIA were created for secret accomplishment of largely secret foreign policy.

Only an estimated 2% read non-fiction books not connected with work. The system of violence works partly by keeping U.S. citizens ignorant. It is not necessary that all citizens be ignorant, just a large percentage of the voters. Actually, there is plenty of information freely available in books, but only an estimated 2% of American citizens read non-fiction books not connected with their work. It is easy to understand why. United States citizens are the hardest-working in the world, with the exception of the Japanese. Many U.S. citizens have only two weeks of vacation every year, and they need that to rest. They simply don't have time to read books.

However, the only way to understand something as complicated as politics is to read books extensively. The issues are too complicated to express in a few words.

By far the biggest issue in the present political campaign is this fundamental one, about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

The problem he warned us about has been a major influence on both the politics and quality of life of the United States. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Very few U.S. citizens know the full history of the war against Iraq. This short article is a summary: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.

The events leading up to the present "war on terror" and the two wars against Iraq began in the 1950s, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran.

The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. To give a present example, the Bu

The site you are thinking of is already cited in the Slashdot story: FactCheck.ORG from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Great site, but very limited focus. There is no examination of the underlying problems. In this case, that is a BIG shortcoming.

By far the biggest issue is one about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

The problem he warned us about has been happening big time for many years. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Every important speaker at the Republican convention spoke of keeping America safe. Every important speaker was reading speeches written for them by marketing consultants like Karl Rove. "Keeping America Safe" is code for "keeping America fearful by promoting violence so the rich can get richer". It was despicable when Bill Clinton did it, and it continues to be despicable now that George W. Bush is doing it. Possibly many of the nation's leaders are not fully aware of the circumstances. It seems that only a very small percentage of citizens realize the extent of the violence of the U.S. government.

The only really good way to educate yourself about the U.S. government is to read books about it. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. It's necessary to gather enough information that you can make your own informed conclusions, and not just copy the conclusions of others.

Don't like the books I found? Find your own. It's your duty as an adult to participate in the political issues of your country.

Because, ultimately, the safety systems at Three Mile Island were able to keep the plant from blowing up, where other nations have not done so well when they had accidents. Nuclear power systems are safest made by advanced technological nations... even leaving aside the number of agressive loons who want nuclear bombs to lob at their obnoxious neighbors. True, even the current guys get it wrong... but the US has 60 years of experience in screwing up, and tends to not make the same engineering mistakes twice. (Political mistakes are another story.) If the developing world gets to use advanced safety designs, even if only by borrowing them rather than having to build them themselves, it's probably safer than them trying to reverse engineer the product and botching it.

You want to stop nuclear proliferation? How about starting with the United States, Israel, England, France, India...

Ummm... because stopping proliferation means keeping those who don't have nuclear weapons from getting them, which is incidentally easier than it is to get the ones who have them to give them up?

.. Dick Cheney changes the administration's position on stem cells.

The President's National Energy Policy says:

"We have a similar opportunity to increase our supplies of electricity. To meet projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants. Much of this new generation will be fueled by natural gas. However, existing and new technologies offer us the opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well. Nuclear power today accounts for 20 percent of our country's electricity. This power source, which causes no greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding part in our energy future." ...

"Radiation exposure from nuclear facilities is extremely rare. In fact, roughly 82 percent of human exposure to radiation comes from natural sources: radon gas; the human body, which contains radioactive elements; outer space; and rocks and soil. Radon accounts for about 55 percent of our exposure to natural sources of radiation; radioactive elements in our own bodies account for 11 percent; rocks and soil account for 11 percent; and outer space, including the sun, accounts for 8 percent. The remaining 18 percent of average human radiation exposure comes from man-made sources, primarily medical and dental X-rays and consumer products." ...

"There is potential for even greater generation from existing nuclear energy plants. Experts estimate that 2,000 MW could be added from existing nuclear power plants by increasing operating performance to 92 percent. In addition, about 12,000 MW of additional nuclear electricity generation could be derived from uprating U.S. nuclear power plants, a process that uses new technologies and methods to increase rated power levels without decreasing safety."

See page 85 for specific policy recommendations. All of this was wrapped up and passed in the House in 2000, and now sits in the Senate, waiting for a party to get majority to move the bill. It's a shame that the Democratic half of the Senate refuses to do anything that might actually help the Republicans, but that's the divided times we live in... Something I wish more people would remember when they punch the ticket this November, to kick the asses out of office.

Seriously, what sort of idiot would think that we'd make energy by splitting up water and then recombining it?

George W Bush?

Here, let me help you:

From the 2002 State of the Union address:

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction"

That's not Democratic propaganda, that's Bush propaganda. It's right there, Bush stating that Iraq has been developing chemical, biological, and nuclear WMDs. Maybe you need to stop listening to Republican talk-show propaganda and read the facts that are easily available.

Sad that autopr0n.com is down.

I like this. Horny hung hanks and such. The one named xxxGWBxxx is especially hot.

of course America wouldnt try to hide anything would they ?

out of sight, out of mind perhaps ? or is it just some people can't handle the truth no matter how horrible it is.

it seems like a lot of countries still have issues they need to face , from rampant anti-semitism (which presumably France is trying to appease with this yahoo action)

can you see a pattern in all this trouble ?

The executive producer of JFETS is Rob Sears, and he's quoted as saying

"I keep two measures of success in mind for JFETS," he tells me. "Number one, I want guys who have been to the Middle East to go into those rooms and have their hair stand on end. And number two, to have the project be an election-year trophy for Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz so they can say, We're transforming the Army."

By contrast, the Army's bill for underwriting ICT for the last five years was $45 million. Rehearsing even a single mission in the field also requires weeks of planning and construction.

"For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/wolfowitz-bi o.html Whitehouse Bio)

For my money/vote, CAN-SPAM is a MUCH bigger issue than what someone did in Vietnam 30+ years ago.

George Bush's State of the Union speech.

Well yeah.
Mod parent up!

Our defense budget could probably feed MOST third world nations on earth if re-allocated. Gee, do you think that might reduce the amount of moral-outrage based attacks on our country, compared to asserting the right to ignore every other country and pre-emptively attack anyone who might ever be able to threaten us? (think this is fiction? read bush's national insecurity strategy (PDF from http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) )