Slashdot Mirror

This guy is worse than Nixon, worse than Jackson, worse than Grant or Hoover.

If you want to be able to LEGALLY download music off the 'net, you need to support valid attempts to bring that to you.

:) No shit

Britain is the last staunch ally we have

If Fallwell.com was merely an attempt to capitalize on spelling errors, then this is not different than for me to register Mircosoft as a platform for me to promote non-Microsoft software.

The deciding factor in this case was that the Fallwell.com website clearly identified that they had nothing to do with Falwell ministries. Even google's summary stated this and the disclaimer leads to Falwell.com in case you actually got lost and were searching around for your Reagan Tribute video. That's more than can be said for lazermonks which blatantly mooches business from the actual lasermonks

I thought people learned this lesson years ago with whitehouse.com, whitehouse.org, and whitehouse.gov.

The Pentagon budget declined from $319.7 billion in 1991 to a low of $266 billion in 1996 and thats not factoring in inflation.

No. You must be including inflation (or something) on one of those numbers, but not the other. That CBO webpage is a summary, and may have massaged the data in ways you are unaware of. I suggest you follow through to the more detailed report.

The Pentagon budget for 1991 was $273 billion (see page 115). Inflation-adjusted to 2000, that comes to $333 bill. But I suppose if you adjusted according to some other year, it might come out to $319 bill.

The 1996 budget was $265 billion, or $290 in 2000 dollars.

So you can compare $333 to $290, or $273 to $265. But comparing $319 to $266 is simply invalid.

What the founders planned aside, when the "law of the land" cannot be changed for fear of violating these expressed principles, it means that you need to consider more closely either the proposed law, or the principles. And indeed, as is healthy, we regularly consider these principles with reguard to the laws... but seldom find a need to change our expressed principles. (After all, they've survived over 220 years of discussion and debate.) And as this country grows from an adolescent to an adult in the family of nations, I would hope that it has fairly well developed its principles by this time, and would not change them as casually as it does it's mood.

Yes, we do need to recognize that these founders were men of their times, and their plan was not perfect. Merely because an idea is not consistent with their plan need not be the idea's final bane. On the other hand, it was and is a good plan overall. Furthermore, they worked out a set of political compromises that has mostly lasted for over 200 years (leaving aside one virgorous attempt after about 80 years). Most of our current lawmakers would count themselves lucky if anything they propose lasts half so long half so well, and most are suitably humble towards the efforts of those who wrought so well, realizing they while they might be at least in the equal to Jonathan Dayton, few can hope to equal of Madison, Franklin, Washington, nor Hamilton... and even less hope to equal alone what these men achieved combined.

The problem your random new idea faces is that, when considering the new idea, you weigh the wisdom of the new idea against more than 200 years of demonstrated overall wisdom of the plan. This is a Good Thing.

Interesting. I had no idea that our thirty-third president was some kind of spacefaring cyborg.

I now wish I stayed awake in American history class.

If so, let's all pay a visit Here and Here.

You mean a bloated, but addmittedly powerful chip is going to be call a Prescott?

Quick - someone ring Private Eye!

(for those of you who don't keep up with British politics, John Prescott is His Royal Tonyness' #2).

That's what Bush did wasn't it?

If this is any indication, Bush writes about as well as he speaks (and on the No Child Left Behind page too... You'd think they'd at least check that).

"Foreword by President George W. Bush

Bipartisan education reform will be the cornerstone of my Administration.

The quality of our public schools directly affects us all as parents, as students, and as citizens...

It doesnt [sic] have to be this way.

Bipartisan solutions are within our reach. If our country fails in its responsibility to educate every child, were [sic] likely to fail in many other areas. But if we succeed in educating our youth, many other successes will follow throughout our country and in the lives of our citizens..."

Here's goatse. Careful, this link is nauseating!

> During the hiatus, the Daleks did a little-known > movie called "Mr. Dalek Goes to Washington."

Great photo. There's also a picture of how Mr Dalek looks like without his tin can:
Mr Dalek doing an impression of CP3O .
(Truth is scarier than fiction.)

Any such bloc would be fucked over - probably with bombs - in very short order. The current US National Security Strategy is so loosely worded that (viewed with a Rumsfeldian eye) it gives the US more or less carte blanche to intervene militarily as and when it chooses, anywhere in the world, if it feels its interests - ie, the interests of those in power - are threatened. On the surface it's very noble - it's all couched in the language of 'bring democracy and freedom to the developing world'. But read between the lines, and it's more a case of 'open up the developing world's markets to US interests'. The biotechnology clause is blatantly pro-Monsanto and co, for a start. 'They want aid? Then make the bastards buy our patented GM seeds!'

The ruling politicians of the other English-speaking developed nations - Australia, the UK - are so desperate to be a part of Bush's banquet that they'll happily sign away the rights of their citizens for the chance to lick the few drops of spilt gravy from America's trouser bottoms. It's an absolute fucking disgrace, but there doesn't seem to be any credible opposition because all the other politicians just want their own chance to get under the table.

The White House?

I'm a Libertarian, and I'm voting for Bush. Yes, I agree that Libertarianism is about freedom, both economically and personally. For instance, I want lower (or no) taxes, as little regulation on business as possible, and I think you should be able to go to the corner drug store and buy crack, and then hit up the brothel next door. Does either candidate propose much to increase economic or social freedom? I don't really think so.

First, let me just go through your list here. You talk about the War on Drugs. I'm against it. However, I haven't seen Bush escalate the WoD, nor have I heard Kerry say anything about changing the nation's drug policy. However, pick up a copy of National Review, the nation's leading conservative magazine. William F. Buckley pens an article about how we should end the drug war at least once a year, and I know I've seen it on two covers in the past decade. Republican governors around the country are pushing for decriminalization.

Anti-gay rhetoric. I don't think Bush et al. have done much of anything against gays, so much as they haven't done anything for them. Kerry says he is not for gay marriage...heck, a lot of gays aren't for gay marriage. Bush might be watching Queer Eye every week, but he's not exactly setting up internment camps for any man whose watch, shoes, and belt all match.

John Ashcroft. What's he done, exactly, that's so horrible? If you're talking about the patriot act, check out the roll call. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. He doesn't exactly score points there...

Freedom of Religion. Ummm...I didn't realize Christianity was now our official state religion. I guess I better get my ass to church... Seriously, yes, Bush is a Christian, and he espouses Christian ideals...but what has he done to stifle anybody elses' religion?

Fiscal policy. Yes, Bush spends way too much money. As for this being the largest budget ever...it's always going to be the largest budget ever. Have you ever seen the federal budget go down? Review the history of the budget of the United States. Since 1950, the government has spent more money every single year than it did the year before. Every president since Eisenhower has saddled us with the "biggest budget ever."

Iraq. You seem to be opposed to occupation, not so much the war itself. Well, the occupation is slowly ending. Power has been transfered to the Iraqi government, and as their soldiers and police forces come online, ours are leaving. I'd say invading a nation the size of California, toppling their dictatorship, and installing a democratically elected government and then beginning to withdraw after right about a year with...what, 1,000 U.S. casualities?...is excellent performance. If you support the war, I don't see how you think Kerry could have done it much better. To those who would respond, I'm not arguing in favor of the war, so please don't tell me why the war was wrong. I'm simply saying that the execution of the war was about as well as one could possibly expect.

As a Libertarian, I'm not sure what the draw to Kerry would be. Generally, a Libertarian wants small government...low or no taxes, low spending, few or no social programs. Bush has cut taxes, and would probably do so again. He spends too much money (steel tariffs, prescription drug benefit, education bill), but Kerry pledges to spend much, much more, and promises a tax increase. He is also likely to enact more business regulations. From the view of economic liberties, Bush is mediocre (cut taxes, increase spending), but Kerry is terrible (raise taxes, greatly increase spending).

Now onto social issues. What exactly has Bush done to restrict personal freedoms? He certainly hasn't done anything to increase our personal freedom. Still...the war on drugs is plugging along, abortions

"Whatever happened to a person's independence?"

I live in a country where prices (cars, gas, housing, consumer goods, everything except food) are the same as in Western Europe, but salaries are five to ten times lower. In effect, even highly skilled and hard-working people have a hard time buying a car or an apartment, and very few people even dream of buying houses. But I'm independent, so I'll pack my bags tomorrow, buy a one-way ticket to the US, get a job at a gas station in Montana and start working my way up from there, maybe one day I'll make it in the land of opportunity.

What do you think is going to happen if I try to exercice my independence? What do you think will the immigration officer say at the JFK airport when I mention I've come to work in the US? But I wouldn't even get that far - I'll never get to so much as smell a visa, even though hey, my country's one of your best allies, your own president said so!

The point being, you can only be independent if the playing field is level. Start letting *everyone* work in the US just as you have allowed your corporations to put their stakes in just about every place on Earth, then we'll talk about being independent and self-reliant.

Let me rebut. First of all, the only reason that space travel seems adventurous is because it is still new, dangerous, expensive, and controversial. All of those aspects need to be removed from the equation of space travel before it can be a productive endeavor. We have to keep working at it, improving it, productionizing it, until space travel becomes old, safe, cheap, and boring. THen we won't have any old-school scientists (taken your metamucil today, Roger?) spewing drivel like this.

Second, any "scientist" who states that manned space travel is a waste is simple envious of the "whopping" budget for manned space flights. True, the space program is expensive compared to say, dinner at Burger Barn. But compared to the 2003 GDP of $10.7 Trillion, the entire NASA budget for 2003 was $15.0 Billion, or only 0.14% of our nation's productivity. Or as a percentage of the $2.128 Trillion 2003 federal budget, only 0.71%. (Holy crap, I had no idea that the feds took 20% of the GDP!) Or finally, as a percentage of the interest we paid on the national debt last year of $181 Billion, only 8.3%. Of Social Security's $472 Billion, 3.2%; of National defense's $368 Billion, 4.1%; of Medicare/Medicaid's $390 Billion, 3.8%; of other 'discretionary' spending's $390 Billion, also 3.8%. Compared to the major federal spending programs, NASA is small potatoes indeed.

There will always be space exploration, but what we need now is to start harvesting the resources available in space. Space travel will become a national priority when it becomes a net positive on the balance sheet. Or in other words, when the expenses are clearly outweighed by the benefits, by the resources made available, and by the money to be made, in outer space.

Argh! I hate it when "distinguished elder scientists" come up with this kind of crap. Do they just enjoy shooting themselves, and their colleagues, in the foot? Sheesh.

Let me rebut. First of all, the only reason that space travel seems adventurous is because it is still new, dangerous, expensive, and controversial. All of those aspects need to be removed from the equation of space travel before it can be a productive endeavor. We have to keep working at it, improving it, productionizing it, until space travel becomes old, safe, cheap, and boring. THen we won't have any old-school scientists (taken your metamucil today, Roger?) spewing drivel like this.

Second, any "scientist" who states that manned space travel is a waste is simple envious of the "whopping" budget for manned space flights. True, the space program is expensive compared to say, dinner at Burger Barn. But compared to the 2003 GDP of $10.7 Trillion, the entire NASA budget for 2003 was $15.0 Billion, or only 0.14% of our nation's productivity. Or as a percentage of the $2.128 Trillion 2003 federal budget, only 0.71%. (Holy crap, I had no idea that the feds took 20% of the GDP!) Or finally, as a percentage of the interest we paid on the national debt last year of $181 Billion, only 8.3%. Of Social Security's $472 Billion, 3.2%; of National defense's $368 Billion, 4.1%; of Medicare/Medicaid's $390 Billion, 3.8%; of other 'discretionary' spending's $390 Billion, also 3.8%. Compared to the major federal spending programs, NASA is small potatoes indeed.

There will always be space exploration, but what we need now is to start harvesting the resources available in space. Space travel will become a national priority when it becomes a net positive on the balance sheet. Or in other words, when the expenses are clearly outweighed by the benefits, by the resources made available, and by the money to be made, in outer space.

Argh! I hate it when "distinguished elder scientists" come up with this kind of crap. Do they just enjoy shooting themselves, and their colleagues, in the foot? Sheesh.

Oh brother...

Former director of the CIA says reports on Iraq were "an honest mistake"

I have been searching for this on google news to find a context, but I can't find any story about this. The only "honest mistake" that I have found in the news this was Sandy Berger accidentally stuffing top secret documents down his pants.

Also says that there is no plausable connection between 9/11 and Iraq

2 things-
#1- That is not what the report says. The report enumerates the many Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, but says there is no evidence that Iraq contributed to 9/11. The plausability of such a contribution is not discussed.
#2- We are fighting a war against terrorism, not a war against Al Qaeda. Iraq was one of the biggest state supporters of terrorism in the world.

though most of the hijackers did move through Iran.

You mean Iran supports terrorists too? Its almost like they are in an axis of evil or something.

And oddly enough, that threat you mentioned? The one that was so dangerous it fell in less than two weeks?

Yup- rational people see that as a big achievement for the President.

The one which we STILL haven't found any proof of actually being even remotely close to the threat the president and the Republicans kept hollering about?

If you were actually as knowledgable about the current events as you claim to be, you would realize how retarded that sounds.

Well, it's gone, but some of the terrorists who are there now are going to be beheading an american citizen every 72 hours.

Actually, it looks like they have figured out that beheading Americans doesn't do them any good, because (unlike Spain and the Philippines) we don't roll over and play dead when the terrorists make a threat.

In other words, shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool

Why am I not surprized that you resort so quickly to childish insults?

I think every government budget should be slashed, from schools to police. FORCE them to be efficient.

You may not realize it, but you are arguing a point the person who wants to maintain/increase the budget always argues. Whenever there are talks of cuts, they put up a plan for across the board spending cuts. Now everyone is pissed because everyones' personal pet project is detrimentally affected and the whole idea of budget cuts goes down in flames. Bravo.

BTW, didn't Bush promise NASA a budget increase? This just in from the Ministry of Truth: NASA has exceeded all efficiency goals and has patriotically pledged it's remaining funds to the war against the Eurasians.

Now, wanna really get your britches in a twist? The Executive branch gets more money than NASA. (Java applet, if you're using IE or life otherwise sucks, 27B Executive, 16B NASA) Almost twice as much.

Didn't we have one of those darn Razorbacks in da Whitehouse[.com] a few years ago?

It is official; Netcraft confirms: English is dying.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered English speaking community when Slashdot confirmed that English use has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Orkut members. Coming on the heels of a recent Slashdot poll which plainly states that English has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. English is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Orkut census.

You don't need a foreskin to predict English's future. The hand writing is on the wall: English faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for English because English is dying. Things are looking very bad for America. As many of us are already aware, English continues to be lost in the Portuguese babble. Long vowels and hard consonants crumple like Volkswagens facing the SUV juggernaut which is Brazil.
American English is the most endangered of them all, having been overwhelmed by 93% of all Brazilians. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time American English scholars Daniel Webster and Noam Chomsky only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: American English is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.Theo, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, states that there are 350,000 speakers of American English. How many speakers of Portuguese are there? Let's see. The number of English versus Portuguese posts on Orkut is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 350000/5 = 70000 Portuguese speakers. Japanese posts on Orkut are about half of the volume of Portuguese posts. Therefore there are about 35000 speakers of English. A recent article put
Portuguese at about 80 percent of the Orkut market. Therefore there are (70000+5000+700)*4 = 302800 Brazilians! This is consistent with the number of Orkut messages to English speaking groups.

Due to the troubles of Google, abysmal sales and so on, America went out of business and was taken over by Canada who speak two dying languages. Now Canada is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that English has steadily declined in users. English is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If English is to survive at all it will be among Minnesotans and survivalist groups hunkered down in Montana. English continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, English is dead.

Fact: English is dying

On sites that have a legit need for my email address like Amazon, ebay, Newegg and others I buy stuff from I use Sendmail's plus notation (also known as the user+detail format) OR an alias on one of my personal domains. I use aliases quite a bit. That way I can remove the alias and shut off the potential (or actual) flow of spam to that address. It's easier to remove an alias than it is to have Procmail filter out mail to a given plus notation address. It always amazes me who gets my alias or plus notation email address over time. For example I may notice that I'm getting penis enlargment or mortgage spam from "networkcomputing@mydomain.com." Hmm... I wonder who sold the spammer that address... Hmm....

When filling in First name Last name fields I always use Marion Morrison. Before you Google for that name try to guess who's it is (ok, a hint, was).

I also understand that it's very common to use pres@whitehouse.gov, or so I hear. Another favorite is darl@sco.com

It should be noted that whitehouse.gov, the official site for President Bush, is apache running on linux. So in the end this is all just political propaganda, interesting but still just propaganda. Peace, Rovaedne

The revolution will be over before it starts.

I guess the Vision for Space Exploration doesn't count as Bush Administration interest in Space. . .

Error: Adult Content Blocked!
Site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
Reason: George W Bush is a boob!

I wonder how President Bush feels about Satan helping build the U.S. communications infrastructure.

But is that mostly debt financed, tax financed, or does it matter?

The way I understand standard bookkeeping is that you have two columns: money in, and money out. You never make the distinction that "dollar X was paid for service Y," because from a bookkeeping point of view it doesn't make any sense. I mean, do you take all of the money from Delaware and say that's for school programs but money from South Dakota is for defense spending? Or do you break it down evenly by percentage per person? If so, do you count debt as a person, or as a blanket sum? These are hard questions, and as you suggest, they don't matter. Spending is what it is. Taxes are what they are. It's obvious the government doesn't care, because whatever imbalance you have come out of bonds, which incidentally are generally paid for by American citizens' savings accounts.

Furthermore, by itemizing the bill (which would be several hundred pages long), they are making the inference that you can line item veto services you don't want. Which is again absurd. Everybody agrees we need a welfare assistance program but nobody wants their cash going to freeloaders. Allowing people to vote with their dollars would mean having to advertise and hard sell each social program, of which there are thousands.

I assume this is what you're suggesting, because why else would you want so much detail? Accounting is at its best when it is simple addition, without a lot of percentages involved. Do you notice how SIMPLE Schedule A is compared to your own personal accounting system? They don't care about where YOUR tax money is coming from nor do they care what your expenses were beyond some very simple type association. In other words, they don't ask you to itemize every penny of the money coming in -- saying that you spend so much on electricity, so much on natural gas, so much on pencils, so much on skilled labor -- and, in return, they're giving you a very simple breakdown of where your money is going.

And hey. If you want to know what every cent of your money is going, you can find this out. They publish it every year in a document called "the budget." It's even available on the internet. I'm willing to bet a similar document is available from your municipal, county and state governments as well as your school district.

Of course time shifting can also be used to highlight a point that is important that people would miss otherwise.

Take for example a recent CNBC interview where Dick Cheney was caught lying about something he said on Meet the Press earlier which was also a lie about the Al Qaeda Iraq meeting in Praque.

The Daily show caught him at it and showed the video side by side. It was a very effective and legitimate technique for shooting down all the Bush fanboys like Twirlip who insist the Bush administration never lies. The video was replayed on Larry King this weekend when he was interviewing John Daily.

The best right up I've seen on it is on spinsanity.

"During the CNBC interview, Cheney also dissembled in the following exchange about Mohammed Atta, an Al Qaeda member who was allegedly involved in the September 11 attacks (a witness claimed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the spring of 2001, a heavily disputed assertion that the FBI and CIA have questioned):"

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: I never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.

But as a White House transcript demonstrates, Cheney said in a December 9, 2001 interview on "Meet the Press" that, "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (our emphasis)

Ok, if you want to talk about lies and liars--and imply GW Bush (I assume that's who you are implying?) is a liar--what's an example of a lie he told?

I'll bite, but only because I think this is important... Anyone still remember stem cells?

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. 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." - George W. Bush, 8:00 PM CDT, Aug 9, 2001. (Bold mine)

Information on Eligibility Criteria for Federal Funding of Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Now, count the number of lines available for use with federal funds under the regulations provided by Bush. Granted, it's been a while since grade school math, but I'm fairly certain that 19 is NOT "more than 60".

"Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards... My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs... I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world... I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one." - Also G.W. Bush, several excerpts from the same speech, which in my opinion speaks to the "messenger of God" mentality.

Not only that:

" I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago." - also same speech.

Leon Kass, of course, has a long history of such things as testifying in State of Michigan v. Jack Kevorkian against assisted suicide, fighting against human cloning, and also brings us such wonderful quotes as:

"But more importantly, in my own teaching, I discovered that the BIBLE was a book that could more than hold its own with the great works of philosophy and literature that I had been teaching to undergraduates.... And the classes that I've had on Genesis, Bill, have been the best classes I've ever taught. I don't lecture. I mean we sit and read these stories, and they take to them-- like thirsty men and women to water... You don't have to be a Jew or a Christian to believe that we are in touch with powers of inspiration that summon us. There are powers that speak through us." - Leon Kass, interview with Bill Moyers, July 25, 2003

Definitely lying. Definitely, definitely lying. No question about it, definitely lying.

Yes, twirp. Definitely lying. Thank you for finally agreeing with me. If you can't tolerate the Daily show you can probably check it yourself. I can't find official transcripts for the CNBC interview but the text is below and there is video. Hopefully this will shatter your illusion that the people in the Bush administration never lie. Hopefully it wont push you in to another schizophrenic episode now that you have to accept just once that you are wrong.

"During the CNBC interview, Cheney also dissembled in the following exchange about Mohammed Atta, an Al Qaeda member who was allegedly involved in the September 11 attacks (a witness claimed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the spring of 2001, a heavily disputed assertion that the FBI and CIA have questioned):"

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: I never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.

But as a White House transcript demonstrates, Cheney said in a December 9, 2001 interview on "Meet the Press" that, "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (our emphasis)

Now maybe a private company can develop it for 2% of the cost and we'll have cheap, environmentally benign power.

Or, now maybe we can continue to be dependent on (mostly foreign) oil, established oil companies with little incentive to develop newer and ultimately cheaper energy sources, and politicians who make sure NASA doesn't undermine those vested interests.

"NASA officials cited a policy shift toward the International Space Station and the space shuttle program."

Now, I know the Shuttle has been so tremendously successful, and the International Space Station isn't just the leftovers of the lasts gasps of the old Soviet Manned Space Flight Program, both have been so well funded since the "policy shift" three years ago in 2001 -- so, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to ask yourself, "what occasioned this policy shift?"

I'm not just trying to be annoyingly partisan here; I'm trying to make the point that even when it comes to science, politics takes over, and when politics takes over, you have to follow the money.

"This is about imminent threat."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Damning, huh? There it is, right there, he said "imminent threat." That seals it, doesn't it?

Well, no, it doesn't. Because Mr. McClellan wasn't even talking about Iraq: he was talking about Turkey.

QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

UESTION: Who's going to do the reminding to NATO?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just made some comments regarding that and, obviously, we will work through NATO, as well.

QUESTION: So what's the significance of that, it goes to the core -- I mean, what if it's rejected?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we support the request by Turkey under Article IV.

He was talking about Turkey's request to receive military aid from NATO in the event of an attack by Iraq, a request made under Article IV of the NATO treaty.

He wasn't saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, or to anybody at all. He was saying that if Turkey were facing an imminent threat, the NATO treaty would obligate the United States and the other members to help provide for Turkey's defense.

That's just the most glaring and obvious example of a lie on the part of the people who compiled that list. Well, maybe "lie" is too strong a word. Maybe they just did a search on White House press briefing transcripts for the word "imminent" and got all excited when they thought they hit paydirt.

But then... no. You don't even have to read the whole transcript to know that Mr. McClellan was talking about Turkey and NATO. Just reading a few lines before and a few lines after is enough. Anybody who thought that exchange was about Iraq's threat to the US had to have been deliberately ignoring the context.

So yeah. Lie.

Most of the other quotes are completely orthogonal to the point. "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American.... Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.... There's a grave threat in Iraq...." (All from the President.) Yes, Iraq was a threat. Saddam was a threat. Nobody every argued that Iraq was not a threat. So when the President says, on the record, that Iraq is a threat, well, that's hardly a smoking gun, now, is it?

Look, maybe we're just looking at pure stupidity here. Maybe you, like some other Americans, just don't know what the word "imminent" means, and so are therefore confused by the difference between a threat and an imminent threat. Well, dictionaries are cheap; there's no excuse for

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.

In other words, you think that "supporting the troops" means we have to roll over and let islamic extreemists kill us because we dont want to harm anybody.

Bush said "WMD". Nobody found any. How long have US troops been in Iraq? When did they stop bothering to look for WMD?

Over the past 13 years a lot of people said "WMD". Thats because it is a well established fact that Saddam had capibility to produce WMD, and was actively seeking the technology to produce more. Nobody, including the UNMOVIC team that was carrying out inspections in Iraq, disagrees with this.

Bush told us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Bull crap. Bush never told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here is a complete listing of all the public speeches that Bush has made in office, including his State of the Union addresses, his address to the UN general assembly, and his remarks to the nation after the war started. Find one instance where he said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you can save your time because he never said it. What he did say is that Saddam supported Al-Qauda, and that he approved of the attacks, and that the 9/11 attacks proved that we could not allow the threat of his WMD to go unchallenged. This has never been in dispute.

Practically all the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. Where is al-Queda funded? Very largely, out of Saudi Arabia.

And Saudi Arabia does not support them. Sure there are Islamic extreemists there, but Saudi Arabia has been very responisive to help with the war on terror, particularly on the financial front. Attacking them would be akin to attacking New York because Timothy McVeigh was born there.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.

In other words, you think that "supporting the troops" means we have to roll over and let islamic extreemists kill us because we dont want to harm anybody.

Bush said "WMD". Nobody found any. How long have US troops been in Iraq? When did they stop bothering to look for WMD?

Over the past 13 years a lot of people said "WMD". Thats because it is a well established fact that Saddam had capibility to produce WMD, and was actively seeking the technology to produce more. Nobody, including the UNMOVIC team that was carrying out inspections in Iraq, disagrees with this.

Bush told us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Bull crap. Bush never told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here is a complete listing of all the public speeches that Bush has made in office, including his State of the Union addresses, his address to the UN general assembly, and his remarks to the nation after the war started. Find one instance where he said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you can save your time because he never said it. What he did say is that Saddam supported Al-Qauda, and that he approved of the attacks, and that the 9/11 attacks proved that we could not allow the threat of his WMD to go unchallenged. This has never been in dispute.

Practically all the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. Where is al-Queda funded? Very largely, out of Saudi Arabia.

And Saudi Arabia does not support them. Sure there are Islamic extreemists there, but Saudi Arabia has been very responisive to help with the war on terror, particularly on the financial front. Attacking them would be akin to attacking New York because Timothy McVeigh was born there.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.

In other words, you think that "supporting the troops" means we have to roll over and let islamic extreemists kill us because we dont want to harm anybody.

Bush said "WMD". Nobody found any. How long have US troops been in Iraq? When did they stop bothering to look for WMD?

Over the past 13 years a lot of people said "WMD". Thats because it is a well established fact that Saddam had capibility to produce WMD, and was actively seeking the technology to produce more. Nobody, including the UNMOVIC team that was carrying out inspections in Iraq, disagrees with this.

Bush told us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Bull crap. Bush never told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here is a complete listing of all the public speeches that Bush has made in office, including his State of the Union addresses, his address to the UN general assembly, and his remarks to the nation after the war started. Find one instance where he said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you can save your time because he never said it. What he did say is that Saddam supported Al-Qauda, and that he approved of the attacks, and that the 9/11 attacks proved that we could not allow the threat of his WMD to go unchallenged. This has never been in dispute.

Practically all the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. Where is al-Queda funded? Very largely, out of Saudi Arabia.

And Saudi Arabia does not support them. Sure there are Islamic extreemists there, but Saudi Arabia has been very responisive to help with the war on terror, particularly on the financial front. Attacking them would be akin to attacking New York because Timothy McVeigh was born there.

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS MEANS NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY WITHOUT A DAMN GOOD REASON.

In other words, you think that "supporting the troops" means we have to roll over and let islamic extreemists kill us because we dont want to harm anybody.

Bush said "WMD". Nobody found any. How long have US troops been in Iraq? When did they stop bothering to look for WMD?

Over the past 13 years a lot of people said "WMD". Thats because it is a well established fact that Saddam had capibility to produce WMD, and was actively seeking the technology to produce more. Nobody, including the UNMOVIC team that was carrying out inspections in Iraq, disagrees with this.

Bush told us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Bull crap. Bush never told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here is a complete listing of all the public speeches that Bush has made in office, including his State of the Union addresses, his address to the UN general assembly, and his remarks to the nation after the war started. Find one instance where he said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you can save your time because he never said it. What he did say is that Saddam supported Al-Qauda, and that he approved of the attacks, and that the 9/11 attacks proved that we could not allow the threat of his WMD to go unchallenged. This has never been in dispute.

Practically all the hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA. Where is al-Queda funded? Very largely, out of Saudi Arabia.

And Saudi Arabia does not support them. Sure there are Islamic extreemists there, but Saudi Arabia has been very responisive to help with the war on terror, particularly on the financial front. Attacking them would be akin to attacking New York because Timothy McVeigh was born there.

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State?
Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques ?

Hold citizens with[out] trial or bail?
Hmm, even the CATO Institute seems to think this is a bad idea.

Nation building without proper cause?
Well, the US gives lots of money to Israel. As for Iraq and Afghanistan: you call that building?!?!

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich?
Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws?
It's called the "Clear Skies Initiative", probably because it clearly pollutes the sky. There's also Cheney's Energy Task force, but I can't give you supporting evidence because it is being withheld, even from the Government Accounting Office.

Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity?
We're reading about this right now.

Do you mind if I use the text of your post in a letter I am writing to the president, Halliburton^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvice president and my congress men and women?

Do you mind if I use the text of your post in a letter I am writing to the president, Halliburton^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvice president and my congress men and women?

I hate to reply to sigs, but He DID. Both directly, and by implication

in a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003, Bush said the Iraq war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Anyway, that's not important. What's important is that he and everyone in his adminsitration wasted no chance to mention Sadam's name in close proximity to Bin Laden's. This repeated subtle linking of Sadam to Bin Laden is why about 50% of our people still think that Saddam had something to do with 911.

And even more impressive is that the social security tax (no longer paid into a trust fund literally) is providing nearly as much money to the government as the income tax . See the White House budget numbers , Table S-10.

It estimates that the 2004 receipts from individual income taxes are going to be $765.4 billion and from social security taxes, $732.4 billion.

We'll also borrow $521 billion in 2004 (based on the known bad HHS estimate of the drug benefit, so this is really lowball). And everything else (estate taxes, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, corporate income taxes, park fees, 9/11 fees for air travelers, customs fees, etc.) bring in the remaining $300 billion.

I am really depressed, when I see these numbers, and despair of any realistic funding for the forseeable future.

give us a link. Some PHP or Perl or JSP site, or some project you've contributed to, or your personal project page or some commit log with your name.

Sure, I'd love to have you assholes do the same things to me and mine what you do to Slashdot. Why don't you check out all the fine code at:

This site.

If /. Readers had an impact how was it done? Was there a petition link on the previous story that I missed? Was there a letter writing campaign that I missed? Or the the LWV leadership (and the hundreds of their members who oppose paperless ballots) simply derive all their impetus from the firestorm going on in the comments? Did thjey for example read them and think, "wow we have to move now or these people may moderate each other more heavily!"

I am not minimizing the role of discussion here nor am I saying that posting a comment on /. is a waste of time.

What I am saying is that comments on /. stay on /. If you want to pressure other groups don't expect that they will read your comments and change their minds. What you do is take action at the EFF, join the ACLU, get organization info from Blackboxvoting.org, or send letters to the appropriate people (Congress, Whitehouse) . You can even create your own online petition at PeitionOnline.com. The key is to branch out to others and raise their conciousness level not preach to the choir.

Correct. We practice rule by an uneducated dictator.