Slashdot Mirror

You know that wasn't a direct quote.

Sure it is.

Well Lord Kano, fortunately my self respect doesn't fit in my wallet or on my wrist, and I don't drive it to work, so its pretty tough to steal.

Maybe you didn't read my follow-up post to an earlier response to my post, so I'll recap for you.

The material possessions are not what I was referring to. It was the loss of self determination. To live with the knowledge that you are only living and breathing at the sufferance of a criminal.

As my post said, I wouldn't hesitate to hand over a wallet or lapop to avoid injury.

Would you perform a sex act on a criminal to avoid injury? There isn't much difference. Both involve being forced to do something against your will.

I'm not afraid of violence, I just don't think material possession warrant physical altercations.

Can you ever be sure that the mugger will just let you go after you give up everything that you are carrying? If someone is going to threaten you with bodily injury, there is a good chance that they are willing to inflict it. Especially if it's a 2 time felon who wants to make sure that you can't ID him and give him a 25 year vacation.

As crazy as things have been getting recently, every once in a while we get a sign that common sense is not dead yet.

LK

Um, I suggest you check out

An Article
Another Article
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Especially the Crime rates from victim surveys.

Rewarding murderers, rapists, and child molesters with a lifetime of food, shelter, and medical care at taxpayer expense is even more wrong.

Excuse me, wrong link. This one is much more relevant.

Yeah, he's afraid because of what happened last time he tried to express an opinion at an American awards ceremony. I love how Bush-supporting conservatives love to absolutely squelch anyone who opposes their fractured way of thinking.

My textbooks still stay that Americans value freedom and free speech more than Canadians, for example... but you wonder.

A lot of textbooks still label that large country that sits between Europe and China as the USSR.

That said, Canada isn't exactly a bastion of freedom these days, either. Not when reading excerpts from the Bible (or Koran) can get you thrown in prison.

Fat lot of good being a Rhodes scholar did for Clinton's intellectual reputation! But speaking of low grades...

Bush got higher grades at Yale than Gore did, despite Gore getting into Yale through his father's senatorial connections!

Some references: (Yes, the last one is a link to a conservative site. Gasp!):

Nations Online
Quest for the Presidency
Larry Elder

Well I'm gonna guess PETA might care. They aren't happy about the military using dolphins.

Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. ...

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. ...

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." ...

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ...

I know it's their right as a private company to accept any advertising they choose, but I would have thought Googles anti-gun policies would have precluded them from such an award.

• No gun ads allowed at Google
• GOOGLE ! Makes Direct Assault on The US Constitution
• Google and Firearms Ads

Google is anti-gun - if you support the right to keep & bear arms, don't support Google:

• No gun ads allowed at Google
• GOOGLE ! Makes Direct Assault on The US Constitution
• Google and Firearms Ads

I call Shannaginns on your .sig. Your qoute was form a column by Doug Powers. He said
"The event was headlined by Hillary Clinton, who I half expected to see wearing a 'If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will be allowed to screw around with my husband' T-shirt." She didn't say that. The article is here.

See, 4 seconds on google, and you would have found the answer. But you were too busy criticizing.

$237,967 annual salary in 2003, with $582,075 in cash allowances.

It's good to be the king.

Not exactly an un-biased source, but thier claims should be relatively easily verified for anyone who wants to wade through the congressional testimony. For whatever that is worth.

See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38213.

Quoth the article:

OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
Saddam's WMD
have been found
New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear, ballistic arms

Posted: April 26, 2004
1:36 p.m. Eastern

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

Key assertions by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all.

But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors. (Emphasis mine)

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner.

The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects."

They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational-looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence.

"Where were the missiles? We found them," another senior administration official told Insight.

"Saddam Hussein's prohibited missile programs are as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating United Nations resolutions," the first official said. Both senior administration officials spoke to Insight on condition that neither their name nor their agency be identified, but their accounts of what the United States has found in Iraq coincided in every major area.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice.

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tel

Sorry, the URL got broken in that last post. It is:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=33168

If this is so easy to secure ASP, why then are there so many SQL injectionable ASP websites around?

Isn't giving the government your encryption keys like testifying against yourself? And isn't that not required by the fifth amendment?

If you are a tax cheat, isn't giving the government your financial records like testifying against yourself? Not according to the Supreme Court.

<rant>

Well... at least in 1927. In 1894, income taxes were declared unconstitutional. So along came the 16th amendment to change all that.

But... the 16th amendment was never properly ratified.

Apparently, the Constitution has not mattered for a very long time.

While on taxes, I would like to note... the USA is 7.2 trillion dollars in debt. 13% of this years budget is devoted to paying interest on that debt. This year's budget deficit is 300 Billion dollars. The Baby Boomers have the government living beyond its means and expect Generation X to:

• a) pay for it
• b) pay for their retirement
• c) do without the benefit of social security.

Neither candidate in the next election is a fiscal conservative. So we'll have four more years of budget deficits either way. The rigged electronic elections will just be for show. Provisions of the Patriot Act may expire, but Section 213 does not sunset. And just when you thought all the news was bad, the MPAA is teaching our children about copyright, complete with cash and prizes.

</rant>

Um, back to the topic... Yeah, I think the Ronald Reagan defense is your best strategy in that case.

Of course there could not be a simpler explaination, could there? I am not saying the goverment never hides secrets, but pick and choose your stories, you sound a little worked up.

The salesman mentioned that Mr. Lewin actually died before the plane hit the building, as there is a recording of a stewardess phoning someone that "9B just slit the throat of 10B". Lewin was sitting in 10B, and someone with an Arabic name, one of the hijackers, was in 9B.

Actually, according to reports, he was shot. The FAA draft memo says as much. However, the FAA's final draft omits mention of gunfire.

The salesman mentioned that Mr. Lewin actually died before the plane hit the building, as there is a recording of a stewardess phoning someone that "9B just slit the throat of 10B". Lewin was sitting in 10B, and someone with an Arabic name, one of the hijackers, was in 9B.

Actually, according to reports, he was shot. The FAA draft memo says as much. However, the FAA's final draft omits mention of gunfire.

We certainly are a nation divided.

More URLs about this here, and Here (USA Today's original article). Even Snopes says the USA Today map's population numbers bu counties are accurate

See this.

Question 1: Retrain in what? Will the new jobs created by trading our jobs with India be created here?

During the 1980s, blue-collar manufacturing workers whose jobs were offshored were told to retrain in some other area, particularly knowledge jobs. Some did, most others moved into other blue-collar jobs such as construction, automobile repair, and other such jobs which aren't so easily offshorable.

Today, the message from economists and CEOs is the same: retrain in some other field. We know that jobs in programming, software-engineering, and most other fields of engineering (electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc.) are being offshored.

So what exactly does one retrain in? Let's look at the options:

* Biotech -- is there any reason that new biotech jobs can't be created overseas instead?
* Nanotech -- is there any reason that new nanotech jobs can't be created overseas instead?
* Medicine -- oooh, wait, radiology is already being offshored, and so are surgical jobs

Note that those are all technology-oriented jobs which do not require one's presence. What technology-oriented jobs require one's presence then?

* Auto mechanic -- for the few geeks who can tolerate working outdoors, with their hands, getting dirty, etc.
* IT technician -- the basically blue-collar guys who schlep computers around, run cables, and replace bad hardware
* Nuclear engineer -- because It Is Stupid to not have people on-site to prevent a nuclear plant from going boom in the event of an emergency

So, can the hundreds of thousands of software geeks who have had their jobs offshored retrain to be auto mechanics? Even if they wanted to, I doubt they could, and as cars become increasingly-reliable, demand for those jobs will decrease. IT technicians? We have a glut of them as it is. Nuclear engineers? This nation is too scared of nuclear power (thanks to Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island) for there to be much of a market for nuclear power.

So, what do we do? Just what jobs are there beyond "knowledge" jobs? If you assume that international trade (and preferably free trade) is a good thing -- as I do, due to comparative advantage -- then you must admit that many of these jobs can go overseas now thanks to the Internet's ability to send data worldwide at dirt-cheap prices.

Now, the standard economist's response to that is that "new jobs will be created as a result of trade." On the face of things, this is true.

But return to the fact that the Internet makes all jobs which deal primarily with information (instead of people) offshorable. Given that fact, what reason is there that the new jobs -- which WILL be created, just as economists tell you -- won't be created overseas, but will be created here in America? Again, is there any reason the new jobs -- which we can reasonably expect to see in biotech and nanotech -- won't simply skip the step of being created in America and instead get created in India first?

I wrote an email to one of my economics professors asking that question (and many others) recently. His response? "Gee, you know that's what interests me about economics so much - why do these things happen?" But he never really answered the question.

If a college professor in Econ. doesn't know the answer, who does?

Question 2: Education.

Often the advice to unemployed IT geeks is to retrain. Retraining requires education. Education requires years of time and money.

Simple question: Where does an unemployed IT geek *get* that money to retrain with, given the rapidly-rising costs of a college education?

Moreover, how can America -- which largely does not subsidize post-secondary education -- compete with foreign nations which do subsidize post-secondary education?

So long as this educational barrier-

Ah yes, that's the motto of the American Revolution.

In 1774, Hezekiah Niles, a British governor, wrote to England about events in America in "Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America"

"If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ."

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come."

A few news stories are here.

The UN is also culpable in the deaths of the 18 US soldiers killed in Somalia:

(The story orginally ran in Debkafile, an Israeli based news service. Make up you own mind about their credibility. 60 Minutes previewed them a year ago and didn't say they were bad.)

Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.

It seems the violent crime rates in Britain and Australia went up significantly with stricter gun laws.

Perhaps one would do good to take care of their own back yard before complaining about their neighbor.

2 - Put on at least 25 stone
From my experience of actually being an American, there is a wide gulf forming between the ultra-fat and ultra-fit. They both have commercial markets that cater to their needs. Fat people are good for the economy. :)

3 - Learn the lingo

Or alternately, become one of those annoying, self righteous spelling nazi's that NOBODY likes.

5 - Become totally irrational and nonsensical

Or, dwell on the past of your once great empire and invent anything you can to poke fun at the Americans because it helps you overcome the pain of the fact that you got your asses kicked a while back and are now our lapdog.

6 - Sue everyone you ever meet
Or, bend over and accept your "station" in life. Become a big pussy that accepts a class structure and never strive to be anything better than what you were "born" to be.

7 - Get a "shrink"

Or, do nothing about your repressed problems and feelings and declare the entire field of psychotherapy voodoo. Become the most annoying race of people on earth with your bottled up psychosis. Take that superiority complex and decide to impose your systems of "checks and balances and order" on the world, only to get your asses beaten the whole way back to your island.

8 - Watch abysmal TV

Or, watch abysmal TV. Your TV isn't much better bub. I've watched it while trying to choak down that crap you people call "food" over there while staying in what you people think a 5 star hotel is.

That agreement was with the U.N. Are we the U.N.?

Attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.

Was that a response to us attempting to assassinate Saddam? Or, Kaddafi, or Castro, or [insert long list of U.S. successful and unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders from South America to Asia]?

Giving aid and comfort to terrorists

Who? The U.S.? If it were that, then why not invade North Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia...etc? The answer is below.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN.

Again, are we the U.N.?

Being a rat-bastard tyrant

Finally, the honest answer. But, only partially honest. His daddy was made a fool by Saddam, and everyone knew that if Shrub got into office, the Iraqis would pay. Shrub's Secretary of the Treasury reports that plans for invading Iraq were in the making only within a few days of Shrub's theft of the election. If it were simply a matter of being a rat-bastard, there are plenty of others further along the road to bastard-hood: North Korea's loony leader for one. The problem is, no oil there, so no business drive to get there. Afghanistan proved a perfect, inarguable cause. Not for the one you think. True, Bin-Loonie was there, but that was simply the inescapable argument for invasion. If we could tame that country (only an asteroid dropped from space could achieve that), we could finally lay that oil pipeline we've been planning on for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, CNN and FauxNews channels don't cover this little bit of history, but we've been in a chess game with the Russians and Chinese for this bit of inhospitable land for quite a while. By the way, this is also why we're "friends" with Pakistan.

Simple failture of Washington/Baghdad diplomacy

No. Simple failure of Shrub Administration/U.N. diplomacy. His daddy was better at it, but this numbskull couldn't control his trigger finger. His only half-way feasable argument (even Powell had to excise some of the outright lies from the deceptive rhetoric he was forced to spew to the U.N.'s collective face) of Weapons of Mass Destruction have vanished into thin air, leaving a unpleasant odor that the rest of the world blames us for.

'they're trying to get nukes'

Again, why not invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan? They're the biggest terrorist threats outside of Afghanistan. They've been attempting to get nuclear long before Iraq, and have actual terrorist ties. The reason is this was a personal vendetta and business agenda, and he used to this country to fulfill it. If he should force Iraq's oil wells within U.S. corporate controls in the process of taking revenge, all the better. This monkey has to go come November.

You're right in that Shrub didn't attack Iraq simply for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's just what he used to sell it.

The truth is, the rest of the world was behind us going into Afghanistan because that's where t

If so, then you might want to look at this article which shows that Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime. Or better yet, look up the statistics yourself on the respective governments' websites. Just google it like other researchers.

It seems that many people have a knee-jerk reaction to hating the US in the same way many posters on /. have a reaction to Microsoft products. When you start looking at the real facts and take into account a larger view of the situation, sometimes you find that your enemy is not the vilified demon that public opinion (or propaganda) has made him out to be.

Do we really need this stuff? I could see arguments for more communications hardware up there, but hypervelocity weapons and lasers?

Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, long range missiles, calls the US "The Great Satan," and would no doubt love to nuke, in order: Israel, the US.

Libya had had a secret nuclear weapons program for years, long range missiles, a history of terrorism. It was only the example of Iraq, diplomatic pressure from the US & UK, and Libya's hope to rejoin the civilized world that is causing them to drop it. Will they reverse course? Who knows.

North Korea has had secret nuclear weapons program for years, claims to have nuclear weapons now, has long range missiles that could reach the US. This is also a country with which the US is still technically at war. It has pursued expensive nuclear weapons programs while it let as many as 2,000,000 people starve to death over the last couple of years, conducted experiments with chemical weapons on prisoners, and other atrocities.

Pakistan has developed nuclear weapons, long range missiles, and is in danger of falling under the power of Islamist extremists.

Space based defense probably won't help much against Al Qaida's nuclear weapons, if they really have them, but maybe space based surveillance capability will be useful.

Brazils leftist government has been making anti-American noises and has publicly indicated an interest in nuclear weapons. They already have some of the most advanced capabilities in South America.

There are a number of other countries pursuing nuclear weapons, some of which may be hostile to the US.

What we could put in the field now may be good enough against the wacko nations like North Korea. We've waited long enough.

• He was and is respected by his squadron mates
• He was considered quite intelligent
• A former instructor puts him in the top 5% intellectuallu
• He's the first US President with an MBA
• He got better grades than Gore

Now, I actually disagree with many of his policies: he's been more of a socialist than Clinton, increasing social spending beyond belief (labour, education &c.). But the man's not an idiot.

Why is that great?

would you want to live in the world with the same freedoms of uncivilized times?

9/10/2001 was uncivilized times? In that case, yes! The only way to ensure democracy is transparency in the government, not in the citizenry. I would consider this age of secret trials, secret military tribunals, and illegal captivity without due process to be uncivilized.

I'm still miffed that I lost my freedom to dump toxic waste in drinking water.

I can't believe you really did that. If you did, and when you say "I lost my freedom", I hope that means you're in jail for violating the rights of others. But, what I don't understand is how that relates to the State monitoring your every move in public, and after that's allowed who knows how much longer before they do it in private?

Why can't I take guns on airlines?

Because, unlike guarding your privacy from intrusive government, carrying a lethal weapon can be contributive to intentionally lethal acts? Couple that with the ease in which a single bullet could quickly wipe-out hundreds of lives, on the plane and on the ground, made the argument for a gun-ban on planes that much easier to swallow. Mass murder, as it happens, was illegal pre-9/11.

Why can't I have the freedom to molest young children?

Because you would be violating their rights?

This cameras sounds like a good one. Do people really have an expectation of privacy when they're on public streets?

Not from each other, but from a government proven to abuse the power granted to it by the people at every opportunity. Your unreasonable fear of everything in life (from sudden heart-attacks to skidding in the rain), and incessant need for safety, encroaches upon my liberty to enjoy life without intrusive government. Just behave sensibly and you'll survive as your forefathers did across millions of years simply to produce the unique individual known as *you*. There's no government-monitored camera on you right now, and look you're still breathing!!

I'd love to see national ID's, I don't even understand the privacy argument against it.

The reluctance you don't understand stems from years of documented abuse by what at first appeared to be reasonable (to the population at the time) requests and benign acts by various governments to keep order. The arguments are always the same, as are the results. I don't have to name recent government abuses to you, you know them. We won't even go into the governmental abuses throughout history. To ignore the lessons from the past and think that they won't be repeated is naive. People haven't changed, and it's people in government who abuse their responsibilities and their authority. Most do so without penalty.

It's simple the government needs a way to identify it's citizens.

How does it do it now? Have

Why is that great?

would you want to live in the world with the same freedoms of uncivilized times?

9/10/2001 was uncivilized times? In that case, yes! The only way to ensure democracy is transparency in the government, not in the citizenry. I would consider this age of secret trials, secret military tribunals, and illegal captivity without due process to be uncivilized.

I'm still miffed that I lost my freedom to dump toxic waste in drinking water.

I can't believe you really did that. If you did, and when you say "I lost my freedom", I hope that means you're in jail for violating the rights of others. But, what I don't understand is how that relates to the State monitoring your every move in public, and after that's allowed who knows how much longer before they do it in private?

Why can't I take guns on airlines?

Because, unlike guarding your privacy from intrusive government, carrying a lethal weapon can be contributive to intentionally lethal acts? Couple that with the ease in which a single bullet could quickly wipe-out hundreds of lives, on the plane and on the ground, made the argument for a gun-ban on planes that much easier to swallow. Mass murder, as it happens, was illegal pre-9/11.

Why can't I have the freedom to molest young children?

Because you would be violating their rights?

This cameras sounds like a good one. Do people really have an expectation of privacy when they're on public streets?

Not from each other, but from a government proven to abuse the power granted to it by the people at every opportunity. Your unreasonable fear of everything in life (from sudden heart-attacks to skidding in the rain), and incessant need for safety, encroaches upon my liberty to enjoy life without intrusive government. Just behave sensibly and you'll survive as your forefathers did across millions of years simply to produce the unique individual known as *you*. There's no government-monitored camera on you right now, and look you're still breathing!!

I'd love to see national ID's, I don't even understand the privacy argument against it.

The reluctance you don't understand stems from years of documented abuse by what at first appeared to be reasonable (to the population at the time) requests and benign acts by various governments to keep order. The arguments are always the same, as are the results. I don't have to name recent government abuses to you, you know them. We won't even go into the governmental abuses throughout history. To ignore the lessons from the past and think that they won't be repeated is naive. People haven't changed, and it's people in government who abuse their responsibilities and their authority. Most do so without penalty.

It's simple the government needs a way to identify it's citizens.

How does it do it now? Have

Here...sorry, it's WorldNet Daily - but they also mention the New Yorker article, "The Mosquito Killer", and talk about the inventor's plans for eliminating malaria.

Wow, I'm glad I'm not American. because Canada is soo much better. HAHAHAHA Yeah right!

Just one example of why we are sheep waiting to be fleeced.

Oh and another and and more and amazingly we even sign up for it.

Likely, because Jesus was gay.

Besides, that money would be better spent on AIDS prevention and education. Maybe we could finally take care of this problem.

How can you say this: The deal was: the rich countries will trade manufactured and agricultural goods with the poor countries, and the poor countries will enforce the patents and copyrights of the rich countries.

Then this: The proclaimed trade benefits for the poor countries never happened

Followed by this: but the enforcement of patents, trademarks, and copyrights has been enforced (the US threatens to cease trade and cancel IMF and WorldBank funds when the poor get angry)

If there were trade no benefits to poor countries in the arrangement, then the U.S. would hold no sway when it threatens to cease trade. If there is benefits, then the arrangement is working.

Which is it?

I'd bet China, India, and Korea would be willing say they've benefited.

This is why Africa can't manufacture AIDS treatments even though they cost less than 35 cents to manufacture each daily dose.

Sure they are that cheap, when it wasn't your country and your companies that paid for all the reasearch and development costs. Sweet deal for you, not so good for all the scientists, managers, marketers, FDA lobbyists, and investors back in the U.S.

Besides, that money would be better spent on AIDS prevention and education. Maybe we could finally take care of this problem.

How is this anymore phony then when a TV news anchor is seen reporting from the depths of some jungle, when in reality it's nothing more than a blue screen? Perhaps I should post an article to Slashdot about the repeated gaffs of journalistic integrity at the "Old Gray Lady". Undoubtedly the best source for such an article would be the NY Times itself, thus not being trustworthy and requiring that dreaded registration.

Fox columnist exposes shoddy sourcing behind paper's story network paid singer

The suspended New York Times reporter insists--wrongly--that everybody does it
A story about Jayson Blair

Oh, and let us not forget the historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Each is accused of lifting the work of others.

On a last note, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Rick Bragg are both Pulitzer Prize winners. So, I'm hardly shocked or worried that some radio morning personality (hardly a true journalist) is being raked over the coals for broadcasting remotely.

Read more

Everything's fine until it happens to you.

I've heard it refered to as a "Castle Law". You protect your home as a king protects his castle. Some states have one and some don't.

link to similar story

"... but environmentalism is a religion".
Thats the latest right-wing talking point.

nobody appreciates a clean environment more than i do
"I'm not racist, I have black friends!". These right-wing "conversationist" types are the same people who think clear-cutting old growth forests is the same thing as saving it. Its the same type of people who release big game animals in a fenced-in area, let kooks slaughter them for a fee and call it "hunting".

I'm sure you visit these sites daily, but here they are anyway. These loons should suit you fine:

Lucianne.com
News Max
WorldNet Daily

but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq

Could it possibly be because France tends to sell all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).

Here.

and here.

(Stupid lameness filter
must type something here
to get enough characters per line).

Although I can't find it now, I would swear I just read something regarding China's efforts to modernize and expand their naval ability in World Press Review. Anyhow, this article by the 'Navy League of the United States' seems to take a pretty middle-road look at China's navy, coming to the conclusion:

" In the coming de-cades, the Chinese Navy presents the real likelihood of expanding its capabilities significantly. As it does so, it also is likely that Beijing will increasingly view the Navy as a mechanism to exert pressure on China's neighbors and to assert its influence regionally."

I am not as convinced today as I was several years ago that 'China's saber-rattling is just bluster' -- they seem to be making progress towards modernizing and expanding their naval fleet...

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 [good] reason.

I see in your journal that you are a Christian, but I'm not sure about the details of your beliefs, other than that you suggest that the story of Onan is a prohibition on contraception; therfore I'm going to guess that the abortion issue is very important to you; please correct me if I am wrong. I am a Quaker who believes in salvation through the Grace of Christ's sacrafice, and in the teaching of Jesus in his own words, above the writings of his followers.

To disclose my other assumptions, I am fairly sure from your writings that you must agree with the essential points of this article -- again, please correct me if I am wrong.

So, my question is, what do you think of the difference between Luke 3:7-11, with John the Baptist speaking prior to Christ's sacrifice...

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
9 "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
10 And the people asked him, saying, "What shall we do then?"
11 He answereth and saith unto them, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."

...to that of Mark 10:17-23, with Jesus speaking, prior to his sacrifice:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
18 And Jesus said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."
20 And he answered and said unto him, "Master, all these have I observed from my youth."
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"

Hardly a week goes by when I don't read some biblical prohibition against abortion cut from whole cloth. I wonder what non-Quaker Christians these days make of the plainspoken words of Christ.

Although in the article, they mainly focus on Texas, it's pretty clear that the whole system is being gamed and gamed hardest by the Republicans.

Take gold. Gold is trading a almost $400/ounce. There only reason gold trades that high is because there is more or less a finite supply of it. Sure someone finds a few hundred pounds in a pirate ship, or in ancient treasure every couple of years. But when someone finds a new supply, prices for gold tumble.

Look no further than 1999. People were shitting themselves when gold was trading at $290/oz. Just about everyone and their maiden aunt Sue was involved in gold futures. In the end 10,000 tons of gold was trading on the market that didn't exist yet. Lenders but the kabosh on gold futures. 3 years later we are trading at $400, but most experts think it really should have been trading at $600.

Now, a project to bring pay back $10 billion dollars in asteroid gold would introduce, assuming it broke even, would need to introduce 250 million ounces into the market. IF the market continues to sell at $400/ounce (which it wouldn't for very long.) As the price drops to about $300/ounce, the number of units climbs to 333 million ounces. The more you sell, the more you have to sell, the further the price drops, and so on into a death spiral.