Slashdot Mirror

It's called a "Google bomb" and was invented as a joke by Adam Mathes back in April of 2001; while the miserable failure bomb was started by George Johnston in October of 2003. It works by having a lot of people with a presence on the web (web pages, blogs, journals, anything that Google might index) create a link to a specific site, like this: idiotic thieves. Since Google ranks search results by the number of links that point to them, you could catapult a specific page to the number one search result for a specific search string. Like those idiotic thieves. The caveat is this: what you were talking about, with a spoof page getting higher results than those idiotic thieves actual page wouldn't work because, while Google apparently considers the miserable failure type of Google bomb to be a type of valid free speech, attempts to hijack another company's web presence by making the top result for "SCO" become an anti-SCO page would (probably) be stopped.

It's called a "Google bomb" and was invented as a joke by Adam Mathes back in April of 2001; while the miserable failure bomb was started by George Johnston in October of 2003. It works by having a lot of people with a presence on the web (web pages, blogs, journals, anything that Google might index) create a link to a specific site, like this: idiotic thieves. Since Google ranks search results by the number of links that point to them, you could catapult a specific page to the number one search result for a specific search string. Like those idiotic thieves. The caveat is this: what you were talking about, with a spoof page getting higher results than those idiotic thieves actual page wouldn't work because, while Google apparently considers the miserable failure type of Google bomb to be a type of valid free speech, attempts to hijack another company's web presence by making the top result for "SCO" become an anti-SCO page would (probably) be stopped.

There are a number of common arguments against sending humans to Mars. I thought I would address them up front before too many people put forth incorrect claims.

- Mars exploration is expensive

Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.

Also, If you take a look at the federal budget, you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.

- Mars exploration is dangerous

True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.

- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars

Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.

Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space and The Case for Mars.

Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this for a primer.

Combine this with a robotic nose and a little more homeland security and we have a Fahrenheit 451 situation here!

And this wasn't reported by the news because the very day that 'President' Bush signed this into law, Bush's Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. It seems awfully convenient. Especially in light of a certain date tree.

Wouldn't be surprised if Madeleine Albright turned out to be spot-on ...

If Billy and Dubya couldn't get this changed, UbiSoft shouldn't be able to either.

Before you decty money going to NASA, take a look at this. NASA gets about 17 Billion as opposed to the trillion that goes to welfare of one form or another. Please put things into perspective. The 80 cents that you spent on this Mars mission wouldn't have gotten you that battery.

Now on what NASA does that that money, that's a different story. A manned mission to Mars would be about the same cost of the shuttle program or the ISS money-sucker. The perfered way to go is obvious to me.

The pictures are just the tip of the iceburg. If they are able to get Spirit over to some of those rocks, it'll perform tests on them that may detect signs of life. Now that's some tax money well spent.

Don't get me started on the real ways tax money is wasted.

Like most "sermons" your little rant is based on unproven assumptions and faith.

OK, I'll bite, it's a quiet sunday afternoon and I've little else going on. I asserted:

Where does the government get the money?Okay, 2002 budgeted income for the US government was $1,800 billion and actual tax reciepts were $1,979.518 billion. Of that, 52% comes from individual returns, 10% from corporate and 33% from "employment taxes". The remainder is from the gift tax (.09%), excise(2.6%) and estate taxes(1.3%). I think it's pretty clear where the money comes from - our pockets.

Who contributed, at gunpoint, the funds for the government to pay for things?

And what happens when you decide to stop paying taxes? Up to $100,000 in fines and 5 years in jail Oh yeah, and it's a felony which means you may be barred from voting, you lose the right to own firearms and you may find yourself unemployable.

Libertarian? Guilty as charged. Exagerate? Well, I guess I could have replaced "gunpoint" with "5 years in jail, $100k fine, loss of rights and employment". Unproven assertions and faith? Where?

In the end, I stand behind my statement. We fund the government, some of us unwillingly. The "government's money" comes not from some magical well outside Washington DC but from our pockets, and at the expense of other things we could be doing with it. You want to fund open source software - cool, write them a check, send them a paypal, leave some cash on Linus' doorstep or whatever but do it with your own money, stop spending mine.

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

And the URL slash mangled is here.

While I agree that propaganda is alive and well here in the US, and they have done things to scare the public such as the whole duct tape thing, the URL you mention actually seems pretty rational. In fact, he says:

"But make no mistake about it; aviation is far more secure than it's ever been in the history of the country."

I don't think that's intended to scare the public, while it might still be propaganda.

Lastly, on the subject of H-Bombs, anyone remember the nuke the moon project? Destroyer of worlds, indeed.

this recession can no more be blamed on Bush and/or Clinton than it can be blamed on my son.

I can only assume that your son did not telegraph his intent to return the U.S. to radical deficit spending in April 2000.

Note that under Bush's plan, interest payments on the national debt reach $260 billion, and that assumes the interest rate (on Treasury notes; see Table 4) doesn't go any higher than 5.3%. At the rate the dollar has been falling lately, there is no way debt markets can absorb another $2 trillion in Treasury securities with interest rates rising only 0.7%.

this recession can no more be blamed on Bush and/or Clinton than it can be blamed on my son.

I can only assume that your son did not telegraph his intent to return the U.S. to radical deficit spending in April 2000.

Note that under Bush's plan, interest payments on the national debt reach $260 billion, and that assumes the interest rate (on Treasury notes; see Table 4) doesn't go any higher than 5.3%. At the rate the dollar has been falling lately, there is no way debt markets can absorb another $2 trillion in Treasury securities with interest rates rising only 0.7%.

Entered its 13th year of footage this March, and continues today with no clear end in sight. What movie is that? Operation Iraqi Freedom

... Intelligence gathering goes into overdrive ...

Interesting theory, but what kind of new intelligence could have been gathered between February 2001, when Powell flatly asserts that Iraq has no WMDs, or August 2001, when Bush indicates his lack of knowledge of Iraqi WMDs, and August 2002, when Dick Cheney said to the VFW national convention, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

And, if there was new intelligence during that period, why haven't the administration said so? Even Joseph Wilson's report on the hoax Nigerian yellowcake memo predates Powell's quote.

If you really want to know the truth, just ask Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

--VERY LONG--
I hope you take the time to read this because I spent some time on it :)

Since the "end of major combat", fewer civilians have been killed as a result of insurgency than would have been killed by Saddam's regime (on average).

Speculation can lead to your demise. Let's see. Approximately 1500 have died since the "end of major operations" in Baghdad ALONE. That's all in half a year (approximately). Who knows how many have died in other areas. Let's say an average of 3000 in one year (that's just one city too, although the biggest city). What was Saddam's biggest atrocity? Probably his chemical attack against Kurds in Halabja. Supposedly this killed 5,000. Now, are you telling me that Saddam was killing more than 3000 per year before the war? Do you have any proof other than the US government (propaganda) documents?

As a side note, Saddam killed A LOT during the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not counting these people because it is hard to say what was going on at that time. It's not clear how many of the deaths at that time were human rights abuses, and how many were war casulties. Also, the US government backed Saddam Hussein at that time (remember this famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?)

I envision an Iraq where the money from oil revenues pays for schools, roads, hospitals, and other social services, so that people don't have to pay taxes or have any other financial burden of the like.

Is USA going to be profitting from this? Or is this supposed to be a neutral thing left to the Iraqis to decide? How much do you want to bet that American oil companies will control all the oil coming out of Iraq in 10 years?

I envision free press (which already exists now), and a place where people can be as secure in their persons as people are here in the U.S. Part of my vision is already come to pass - there is freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to dissent - freedoms they didn't have before.

There sure is a lot of free press in Iraq right now ;| Just recently the IGC banned Al-Jazeera and a bunch of other media. That's free media to you? A while ago the same thing happened. I can't find a link to the newsj--sorry about that (sucks how you have to pay for newspaper archives). But read the beginning of this article. This article is from Justin Raimondo who is on the far right so I don't necessarily agree with it or him (I'm on the far left) but it illustrates my point. You only have to read the beginning part.

The problem is that you are either a neoconservative who is in favour of imperialism (unlikely), or that you are a naive "liberal" (likely). You ACTUALLY think what Bush said in front of the National Endowment for Democracy will happen/is true. Sad to say, it won't and it never has. You just CANNOT bring democracy and freedom to a country with a gun. Gunpoint democracy is doomed to fail. The last person to try that was probably Lenin (and his invasion of Poland) but it never got anywhere. Name ONE country that USA has meddled with since WWII, that ended up democratic or free. The answer is absolutely ZERO! There are lots of examples (El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Panama, Colombia, Iraq (before), Iran, Indonesia, Philliphines, and so on) but it never worked.

Democracy and Freedom has to come from WITHIN the people (if you are a liberal you should know this already). Foreign forces can never impose it on others. It's just like say women's rights or equality or something. Contrary to what conservatives think, you just cannot bring equality to women in the Middle East (for example) by forcing the people to accept it. It's too bad the conservatives don't understand liberalism (whi

Man, I've always been a miserable failure at buying xmas gifts. Thanks for all the great tips!

Sure we got the guy that murdered and tortured his people, but shouldn't we care more about the guy who destroyed everything good about his country? Saddam and Osama might have done horrible things to people, but only Bush and Ashcroft have been waging a terrorist war on OUR basic human rights. Oh fuck, looks like we captured him but he won. Shit.

All Bush said was that the major combat was over.

first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead once there. it doesn't matter if you have one million, or 10 million, troops in an invasion. if you can't support them, they're targets.

Why invade when you can lob missiles?

second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.

I don't think the either the U.N. or the American public would take too kindly to taking out targets by the destruction which will cause the deaths of thousands of civilians.


third, china is so dependent upon the US trade for an in flux of capital and hard currency. anything more than sabre rattling, and we shut that off, they take a shit. they are fscked.

Sorry, it's the other way around. The American consumer is addicted to cheap shit from China. Over 80% of China's population still live in rural villages and surrounding areas, they won't feel a thing in the case of an economic embargo. We, on the other hand, will be hurting if the aforementioned scenario occurs. Remember, never underestimate the idiotcy of senile men in power.

they still have a long way
Compare: www.whitehouse.gov
&
blender.org
Judge for yourself :)

So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis of your argument.... That is, after all, a more or less outright admission that you pick which statistics to believe....

Well, let's have a look at the OMB's own projections (table 4). There we see that the GDP growth in real dollars is expected to rise to, and then hold steady at, 4.9% to 5.0% (and the unemployment rate is expected to fall from 5.9% to 5.1%, ha ha.)

Even with these rosy assumptions, the deficit still only gets down to $213 billion, much larger than 2002 levels, and then starts rising again! Perhaps this is because those huge deficits cause the projected net interest to rise from $171 billion to $260 billion.

But have a look back at the bottom of table 4: even though the interest on the national debt increases $89 billion, or about 50%, the interest on 10-year Treasury bills only rises from 4.7% to 5.3%, or an increase of only 13%! Someone desperatly needs to get Robert Rubin back from Citibank -- at least he understood the extent that changes in the national debt put pressure on interest rates.

That this is so is confirmed by your repeating claims about jobless numbers which haven't been true for months now.

Look again, U.S. unemployment apparently gave back several months' gains if November's new claims numbers are to be believed. But even if the rate holds at October levels, you and your trickle-down ilk have engineered and amazingly jobless recovery. Congradulations and good luck with those 3 million newly jobless next November.

I would argue that when I work all day for money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family, that money is mine, and if the government wants to take it away, it better have a... reason.

The reason is that your money isn't worth a thing if everyone is too sick to transact with it because of lack of health care, or too stupid to obtain the goods and services you want because of lack of education, or too afraid to go to the market because of lack of law enforcement, or it's too worthless because of inflation because of unsound fiscal policy. You can not economically ignore your environment, of which you are an integral part. Or: no man is an island.

And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone else as well if they are left to the individual

Tell that to Sweden. They have the highest marginal tax rates of any country in the world (and interestingly, less than half of all Swedes pay income tax because of their progressive, two-bracket system which goes from 0% to 57% starting at salaries 10% above mean.) They also have the longest life expectancy and the lowest infant mortality in the world, along with low (4%) unemployment, low (2.2%) inflation, low national debt, free college education, free daycare, single-payer health care (no uninsured), poverty rates around 0.2%, literacy rates as high as they get in Europe, and per-capita spending power on par with the U.S.

Ooooh, it's scary Socialism, going to drive you out of house and home, run away!

So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis of your argument.... That is, after all, a more or less outright admission that you pick which statistics to believe....

Well, let's have a look at the OMB's own projections (table 4). There we see that the GDP growth in real dollars is expected to rise to, and then hold steady at, 4.9% to 5.0% (and the unemployment rate is expected to fall from 5.9% to 5.1%, ha ha.)

Even with these rosy assumptions, the deficit still only gets down to $213 billion, much larger than 2002 levels, and then starts rising again! Perhaps this is because those huge deficits cause the projected net interest to rise from $171 billion to $260 billion.

But have a look back at the bottom of table 4: even though the interest on the national debt increases $89 billion, or about 50%, the interest on 10-year Treasury bills only rises from 4.7% to 5.3%, or an increase of only 13%! Someone desperatly needs to get Robert Rubin back from Citibank -- at least he understood the extent that changes in the national debt put pressure on interest rates.

That this is so is confirmed by your repeating claims about jobless numbers which haven't been true for months now.

Look again, U.S. unemployment apparently gave back several months' gains if November's new claims numbers are to be believed. But even if the rate holds at October levels, you and your trickle-down ilk have engineered and amazingly jobless recovery. Congradulations and good luck with those 3 million newly jobless next November.

I would argue that when I work all day for money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family, that money is mine, and if the government wants to take it away, it better have a... reason.

The reason is that your money isn't worth a thing if everyone is too sick to transact with it because of lack of health care, or too stupid to obtain the goods and services you want because of lack of education, or too afraid to go to the market because of lack of law enforcement, or it's too worthless because of inflation because of unsound fiscal policy. You can not economically ignore your environment, of which you are an integral part. Or: no man is an island.

And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone else as well if they are left to the individual

Tell that to Sweden. They have the highest marginal tax rates of any country in the world (and interestingly, less than half of all Swedes pay income tax because of their progressive, two-bracket system which goes from 0% to 57% starting at salaries 10% above mean.) They also have the longest life expectancy and the lowest infant mortality in the world, along with low (4%) unemployment, low (2.2%) inflation, low national debt, free college education, free daycare, single-payer health care (no uninsured), poverty rates around 0.2%, literacy rates as high as they get in Europe, and per-capita spending power on par with the U.S.

Ooooh, it's scary Socialism, going to drive you out of house and home, run away!

It sounds like you have a real problem with bigotry against those who don't share you own religious views.

Sharing at the point of a gun isn't sharing. It's forcing.

If this be bigotry, let us make the most of it.

It sounds like you have a real problem with bigotry against those who don't share you own religious views.

Sharing at the point of a gun isn't sharing. It's forcing.

If this be bigotry, let us make the most of it.

I'm a bit surprised by the D- for NASA. I was a NASA contractor for many years, and about 5 years ago NASA got very serious about implementing the requirments of OMB Circular A-130 Security Management of Federal Automated Information Resources. In particular, NASA developed a set of its own stricter guidelines to respond to Section III of the OMG circular. NASA referred to this as NPG 2810 and instructed all program-related data centers and contractors to implement post-haste.

Money was added to our contract to facilitate the implementation, the NASA CIO oversaw the implementation effort and assigned both security contractors and internal security managers to coordinate the implementation. The schedule was fast paced, and within 3 months we had completed 3 detailed plans: Risk Assessment, IT Security, and Contingency. We then had 6 months to implement. After 6 months we were audited by a independent security team. We were audited every 6 months with proactive scanning, plan checks, security background checks, and other auditing methods.

About 1.5 years after kicking this effort off, we asked to begin penetration testing, and NASA hired an independent contractor to conduct an aggressive penetration test. NASA demanded compliance, we were responsive, and NASA provided the resources (including training). While I don't know how comprehensively NASA applied this same attitude to all of its programs, they were very aggressive with all contractors as well as NASA-run data centers within the same program area. I'm flabbergasted to see a D-grade for them!

Anytime somebody puts this type of argument into their comment, they look like a wacko. Stick to the point and you won't sound like a some loony toon.

Are you kidding? The fact that the US spends thousands of times as much money on "defense" as it does on space R&D is central to this discussion. DoD spending for 2004 is estimated at about $380 billion. The 2004 estimate for NASA is $15.5 billion. You could cut miltary spending by 5% and more than double NASA's budget. Zubrin's estimates for Mars Direct are $30 billion done government-style and $4-6 billion if it's done by the private sector. $30 billion is 7.9% of the DoD budget. You could cut military spending by one dollar out of twelve and fund the entire Mars Direct project, including the pork flavoring packet, tomorrow.

(Reference: Budget of the US Government, FY 2004: Budget documents. BTW, Table S-2 in the budget document shows that the plan for discretionary spending through 2008 is to increase the defense spending percentage and decrease the non-defense spending percentage. Who are we planning to fight in 2008?)

That's not even considering that the US spent extra billions this year and last to start a war while we were in the middle of UN resolution of the conflict with the opposing country.

And even if you believe the propganda coming out of DC, there's nothing that would make the US more secure than the benefits of space R&D. Even in a purely military analysis, we'd have the undisputed literal high ground, better technology and a stronger economy to defend ourselves. The world would be a more prosperous place in general, reducing the threat from disaffected political groups. And maybe a few more people would come back with a little perspective and be better world leaders for the experience. Maybe that kind of world leader would solve international conflicts before we have to send in troops.

This is entirely about priorities.

Anytime somebody puts this type of argument into their comment, they look like a wacko. Stick to the point and you won't sound like a some loony toon.

Are you kidding? The fact that the US spends thousands of times as much money on "defense" as it does on space R&D is central to this discussion. DoD spending for 2004 is estimated at about $380 billion. The 2004 estimate for NASA is $15.5 billion. You could cut miltary spending by 5% and more than double NASA's budget. Zubrin's estimates for Mars Direct are $30 billion done government-style and $4-6 billion if it's done by the private sector. $30 billion is 7.9% of the DoD budget. You could cut military spending by one dollar out of twelve and fund the entire Mars Direct project, including the pork flavoring packet, tomorrow.

(Reference: Budget of the US Government, FY 2004: Budget documents. BTW, Table S-2 in the budget document shows that the plan for discretionary spending through 2008 is to increase the defense spending percentage and decrease the non-defense spending percentage. Who are we planning to fight in 2008?)

That's not even considering that the US spent extra billions this year and last to start a war while we were in the middle of UN resolution of the conflict with the opposing country.

And even if you believe the propganda coming out of DC, there's nothing that would make the US more secure than the benefits of space R&D. Even in a purely military analysis, we'd have the undisputed literal high ground, better technology and a stronger economy to defend ourselves. The world would be a more prosperous place in general, reducing the threat from disaffected political groups. And maybe a few more people would come back with a little perspective and be better world leaders for the experience. Maybe that kind of world leader would solve international conflicts before we have to send in troops.

This is entirely about priorities.

No, TCO is computed by the accountants at the Office of Management and Budget.

Accordingly, current costs are minimized, deficit spending is OK, and future projections assume the rosiest of revenue growth and unprecedented steely-eyed disciplined spending, and are stopped just before 2008 when the consequence of current fiscal policy decisions hit the fan in a big way.

If you have e-mail trap addresses, forward them to president@whitehouse.gov. If you want, fax the whitehouse at 202-456-2461. If you do fax a letter, you may want to include a copy of 1 day's worth of spam to the letter.

Of course, if you do this every day, they can opt-out.

I spoke to a couple of representitives who told me that the bill was voted on before they had a copy of the bill, so they could only vote on it, based on the title and not read the bill.

The President's come under some criticism of late because he hasn't vetoed any bills in this term. Maybe we can give him a reason to change that.

White House contact info is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ The most effective communication for this type of this thing is a real phone call and fax.

If you decide to fax a note, the general rules of thumb are to address the issue in the first sentence, to keep it short, be concise with your reasoning, and to note anything that gives you expertise relating to the issue.

These guys actually do keep track of the mail.

They talk about how programming will be outsourced and then these programmers will magically become trained in the medical sciences in order to build these wonderful devices for an aging population. This is pure fiction. The programmers who lose their jobs, will find others at McDonalds not at some R&D shop developing medical devices. How are they supposed to pay for this new training when they can barely afford to eat?

Let's face it folks. The current administration has been a miserable failure They have traded away America's future prosperity, in order to give big businesses more profit so that they can be re-elected. This is more of the same like the biggest tax-cut that they have given to the wealthiest 5% of Americans, at the expense of everyone else.

These guys talk about moving up the food-chain in order to keep jobs in the US, but do you really believe that even project management will not be outsourced? Within 5-10 years, there will not be any kind of high-tech companies based in the US. That's where this is leading to.

Click, sign, send.

I'm thinking your third-grade reading comprehension teacher could commiserate with Dubya in the miserable failure department.

No idiot, it takes a large, coordinated effort from hundreds and hundreds of websites to do it. I know it's hard for you Bushies to get the fact that a majority of people saying the same thing just might be right. George Bush has been a miserable failure.

Ummm... What planet are you from? The economy is doing fine, and on its way up. Despite what the nine dweebs running for the office say, We actually have about 1.5 million more jobs now than when Bush took office.

Bush sucks. He whores for the big corporations and Jesus freaks, and doesn't give a fuck about anyone else. As Zappa said:

"Whats they do in Washington
they just takes care of number one.
And number one ain't you
you ain't even number two."

Try reading a newspaper outside the US like the Toronto Sun or the Guardian and find out what's really going on in the US and the world.

Fucking coppertop.

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

Interesting. Sure enough, the first link when you search Google for "miserable failure" is www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html... a page which certainly does not contain the terms "miserable failure".

This can't possibly be a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely to be a bug; and it damned sure isn't a legitimate search result. What it is, is the first instance of overt politicization I've seen in Google's ranking system.

I'm not a Bush defender, but this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part that isn't the least bit cool. Google does not represent itself as a subjective editorial site. Search engines, like armies, are valuable public resources with the potential to do a lot of good or a lot of harm. They both work best when they keep their politics to themselves.

Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also creates them. In some sense, if USA (or for that matter other interventionist countries) did not intervene in the affairs of others, the world would be better off. You'll have a hard time finding the last dictator that USA did not support, train, fund, or help in the past. Most of the dictators/tyrants/etc that USA has attempted to eliminate have been its own creations. This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).

You are either an American or one that is brainwashed by US propaganda. When you live under the control of the empire (yes, USA is an imperialist), everything the government does seems to be towards good when in fact it isn't.

US government and its imperialism is similar. When you are within the borders of the empire, it is hard to discern reality from propaganda.

I suspect there is.

Another political prisoner, held without charges, access to lawyers, or consular staff was recently released by his captors too.

"We spend 400 billion on our military every year, surely we can find a way of cannabalizing THAT boondoggle before picking on any of NASA's current budget?"
We also spend ~180 billion every year (and rapidly increasing) on interest for the nation debt. Atleast the military does some service. For all the talk of military spending, especially here in SF, it's actually not that big of a budget item. I would also like to increase NASA's budget, but there are better places to trim.