Slashdot Mirror

US military spending remains outrageous, at about the level of the rest of the world put together.

That is irrelevant to the question regarding the US defense budget rising or falling.

I assume you mean the 2013 cuts -- those have been matched, basically dollar for dollar, by increasing the "temporary" budget for Afghanistan.

Sorry, but no. US defense spending has been falling since 2010. For 2015 it will probably end up being about $120 billion less than 2010.

Major personnel cuts are happening too.

Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

Fundamentalism is a part of it, yes, but would never amount to anything like what we've seen were it not for widespread anti-US sentiments stemming from more pragmatic reasons

Islamist insurrections have been on-going since at least the 1950s (ignoring the earlier ones) and have been aimed at taking control of the local nation. They have nothing to do with the US. You don't know what you are talking about.

Coming from someone who apparently still believes the Iraq war had anything to do with 911 ...

Please provide some evidence for this. You are simply engaging in cheap, misleading rhetoric.

somehow still manages to delude himself that anti-American sentiment somehow thrives in complete isolation of its international posturing

Enjoy your illusions while you still can.

Intelligence Report: Number of Islamists in Germany Grows
Germany: Islamists Infiltrating Schools in Hamburg

German interior minister warns of threat of lethal attacks by Islamists

On Wednesday, German interior minister Thomas de Maizière (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) warned of an imminent threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist “religious warriors” in Germany and throughout Europe.

“An abstract danger has become a concrete, lethal threat in Europe, with an impact on Germany,” the interior minister said at the presentation of the domestic intelligence agency’s 2013 report in Berlin. The attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels, where four people were killed by a jihadi at the end of May, had “made clear that the possibility of an attack by such forces returning from Syria has become a deadly reality,” de Maizière explained.

Domestic intelligence chief Hans-Georg Maaßen added, “Islamist terrorism represents the greatest threat to society. Germany is not far from terrorism. We continue to be a target for the planning of attacks.”

Officials Say Islamic Terrorism Is Germany's Big Domestic Security Risk

You can be "stopped by" all the time. ( Not that I agree that they should be allowed to do that, but such is the law - get the law changed. ) Being stopped by doesn't mean being searched. And searched doesn't necessarily mean searched without consent. etc.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, friend.

I never said it was legal or constitutional. Police abuse is rampant, and people's rights are being violated. You can blather on about refusing a search if you want, but if you find yourself getting stopped/frisked, good luck with that.

Check this out as well.

Meanwhile, government agencies use the same exploit without any fear of retaliation (even buys them with your money)

http://www.wsws.org/en/article...

>LA Police
Yes, they are criminals too.

Communism was beaten,

Err....China?

few people are starving,

2.3 million children die each year directly due to malnutrition. That's one every 15 seconds.
According to World Hunger, malnutrition is a factor in at least 5 million child deaths per year worldwide. Hardly what I'd call "few people."

access to education is easy,

Easy to say this when you live in North America....

there are no major wars looming

Other than terrorists behind every blade of grass intent on blowing us all to kingdom come....

and the world doesn't seem likely to blow up tomorrow.

Other than all the terrorists that want to blow us to kingdom come.....

I realize the whole terrorist thing is a red herring. But if there are no terrorists wanting to blow us up, then there's no need to spend the billions we (you, really...as I'm not American) are spending to prevent them. You either need to agree that the government is horribly wasting money on this, or think that we're in serious trouble at the hands of terrorists who want to blow us all up. Regardless of who you believe, you should be pissed at one of two groups: politicians, or terrorists.

Apathy really isn't an option for this situation.

Ugh.

So people have bought then, hook, line, etc., the total lie that Assad used gas on his own people. He didn't.

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1958

http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-850/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418378/Syrian-hostage-Domenico-Quirico-overheard-rebels-blame-Damascus-chemical-attacks.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/504735/20130909/syria-chemical-attack-assad-rebels-blame-hostage.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/syri-j13.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article180149.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-military-and-intelligence-officials-to-obama-assad-not-responsible-for-chemical-attack/5348576

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/

the digital generation seems to consider almost any charges as harsh, and any punishment but the lightest slap on the wrist as unconscionable

Ahh! The digital generation! They are not us, they are the others, they are the enemy, the muslim communist nazi terrorists. Meanwhile, in the real world, this story is about the prosecution urging the judge to impose the maximum sentence of 136 years on Manning. Are you capable of understanding the difference between "lightest slap" and "maximum sentence" or are you completely trapped in the us vs. them model?

Well, there's an additional factor as well

No. The imbecilic witch hunt, that you try to fuel with you post, is not an additional factor. It is the sole topic of TFA.

Is this the same Warner Brothers that threatened children over their Harry Potter fansites?

What is it the kids say these days? Oh, yes, Avada Kedavra.

That people are more concerned with government potentially using drones in America to kill people instead of worrying about government killing random people in America directly from helicopters.

People really only concern themselves with their beliefs, instead of the actual problems.

Not sure why Rand Paul didn't filibuster helicopter shootings.. I guess libertarians don't believe in freedom and due process?

You can't actually do this. Grand juries can compel testimony. There are people in prison right now for refusing to testify in front of grand juries. And because it's considered civil contempt, you get no trial, no appeal.

You forgot your sarcasm tag. Just in case you were actually serious.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/tapp-j10.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Obama+Administration+to+Spy+on+Citizens+Online+to+Fight+Terror/article19734.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

Warrant-less spying has surged under the Obama administration. From what I understand he has maintained every domestic spying program created under the Bush administration, and even expanded some of them and created new ones. Not that I think a republican would do any better mind you. Both parties have little interest in protecting any of our rights, they are far too interested in pandering to corporate lobbyists and expanding their own powers beyond all reason.

Mod parent up (odd, I had a ton of points yesterday but none today).

Gerald Bull solved this problem 20-30 years ago. He even offered it to America, and we told him to kindly go fuck himself, so he did his work in Canada (actually right on the border, with his campus straddling both sides of the border).

Then the Jews decided he didn't deserve to continue living, so they sent a team of assassins to another sovereign country (without permission from that country) to kill him.

Hmm, violating national sovereignty to assassinate scientists... Where have I heard that before?. Oh, right... Looks like pretty standard operating procedure for our bestest buds in the world, killing geeks.

Fuck you. Children die all the fucking time. Want some examples?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/afgh-o24.shtml
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/3-killed-kids-hurt-as-fury-grows-over-u-s-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/177737.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

So stop with the knee-jerk attempts to shout down civilised debate. Shit, I just handed you several compelling reasons to disarm Americans, you really shouldn't need to resort to appeals to emotion.

Actually happened, and still happening. Some more recent examples. http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/phil-m10.shtml

Let's not forget that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq (33%) and they were actually used against US troops in the invasion (22%)

Yes, attacks on civilians aiming to frighten them into changing their ways is terrorism. But attributing every such attack to "the Taliban" is a mistake (or a lazy political convenience) - the anti-occupation attacks are carried out by a wide spectrum of armed resistance.

It might also be considered terrorism to deliberately bomb civilian houses because there *might* be a Taliban commander hiding in the same village; it is a bit rich of the West to criticize the Afghan resistance for killing civilians, when Western troops do the same. Both sides consider civilians to be legitimate targets if they think they are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

“In bombardments carried out by coalition forces in Logar, Kapisa, Helmand and Badghis provinces since Saturday [May 5] dozens of our innocent fellow countrymen, including women and children, lost their lives and have been martyred,”

That might sound like a quote from the Taiban - but no, it is a quote from our ally Karzai. It is a very bad sign when even your friends start to describe the victims of your actions as "martyrs".

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.

Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time.

2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)

It's good you mention Bill Clinton's administration on this.

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.

Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets?

Look, this is Slashdot and Politics aside there's a ton of blame for the mess we have. As Will Rodgers once said "If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging."

The fundamental problems with our government are created by the people who vote for these idiots over and over again. From the people who vote for corrupt politicians to those who vote for people with IQs less than the McDonalds dollar menu prices.

Speaking from direct experience, the leadership we have is no better than what you find in an episode of "The Office", what should we expect? It doesn't matter, Democrat or Republican and there is the problem, there's only two degrees of separation between them. Close your eyes and you get the same turd sandwich, it's all shit just go ahead and take a bite. Both parties have rigged the political processes, the election laws and created a million barriers for qualified people to run for office. What ever happened to write-in candidates? That's a whole other discussion.

Back in Feb. 2009 I flew from DC to RDU and sat behind two congressmen. One was so myopic that even with glasses he had to keep the paper an inch off of his nose. When they boarded they were high-fiving each other saying "We passed it" referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). During the flight they kept passing pieces of paper back and forth, you couldn't help but overhear occasionally even on a noisy plane. One quip was disturbing "I didn't know that was in there" referring to the ARRA
legislation.

So, two congressmen who voted yes on a bill that became law and they didn't read it. Two votes making decisions for you and I. I can't fault their political views or party affiliations but I can fault them for not at least reading the damn legislation that they were voting on. It sounds like they should be part of a human centipad.

True leadership means making the decisions that are best, not politically expedient and not all of them will be popular. Doing your best also means researching the problem and understanding what you're trying to solve. Unfortunately nowadays everybody in this country has the attention span of a 4 year old and now we have an entire generation of adults who grew up not paying attention, barely passed their courses in College and now are running things.

Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run. Yeah, you'd get rocks thrown at you but at least you'd be doing the country's business rather than trying to

I think your debate is skewed to the right. You didn't leave room on your spectrum for organisations like WSW. They are way left of NPR. I am also including extremists, there are those that are much more extreme than WSW. There are also plenty of right wingers that are far to the right of fox. My point is that from another perspective CNN are fairly right wing and NPR is centrist or slighly left. Fox is still batshit-crazy conservative though. I don't even claim that conservatives are wrong, fox isn't wrong because they are too far right, they are wrong because they are incoherent and idiotic.

I call bullshit. Racial profiling can get a police organization into all sorts of shit.

Example: The NJ State Police got into big trouble for racial profiling.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/race-d02.shtml

They are subject to all sorts of monitoring as a result.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/gov_corzine_signs_racial_profi.html

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.

Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US. This was outside the US borders, and a military action to boot.

"And how is it against the law? ... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."

Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.

It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.

Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.

citations?

Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you.
Try reading this article.

There was proof he was associated with terrorists. Whether he was associated with a specific plot is irrelevant. It takes more than operations to carry out large scale and continuous activity. It takes people like, surprise, Awlaki.

Regarding his previous arrests, you are less than ingenious: 1996 and 1997, and by Yemen in 2006? Really? He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008. Would you care to present any of your points with some relevant facts?

As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous. Had he surrendered himself, he could have been found guilty of being a traitor. Last time I checked, that one crime is explicitly listed in the Constitution with a clear potential penalty of death, carried out by hanging by the founders of the country.

"Enemy combatants can be captured etc, but it requires boots on the ground, lots of them. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have those in the areas these people are..."

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.

"And how is it against the law? ... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."

Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.

It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.

Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.

Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you. Try reading this article.

Your point about shooting for a weak goal rather than an impossible goal is also valid, but I think there are some problems with your premises.

Maintaining separation of church and state? Obama not doing so great -- rather than end the Bush system of funneling public money to myth mongers, Obama perpetuates it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Environmental protection? Obama has kinda sucked, even granting BP special dispensation from various environmental regs just prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Things like not requiring disaster plans and such. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml

As for fracking -- has Obama actually done anything to prevent it? No -- instead, he's set up a panel of industry shills which has been roundly criticized by scientists but concluded fracking is safe. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/Scientists_CHU_Letter_SIGNED.pdf

That leaves public education, social service programs, and trickle-down. It's lunch time though and I'm hungry so I'm going to quit googling.

My point is that by voting for Obama, based on the premise that he will do some small good things may not be warranted. Obama is good at saying stuff and making promises, but when it gets down to policies, he's just another republican. Seems to me the better choice, if you are a liberal, is to not vote for a GOP candidate like Obama because you aren't likely to get even the small gains you want and all the while, the neocon agenda will just be further cemented into the new normal.

• Imperial presidency: judge jury and executioner.
• Unconstitutional detention.
• Unconstitutional wiretapping.
• Unconstitutionally waging war and not even bothering with the War Powers Act.
• Taking credit for Iraq ending when it was Iraq that kicked us out on Bush II's timetable and Obama was trying to stay longer. Assange has a much bigger claim for the removal of troops from Iraq.
• Cut deal with insurance industry while touting the public option. In the end, we get the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Recent financial reform legislation so weak it would not have even slowed the meltdown had it already been in place. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Forgiving torturers Excusing them makes him complicit.
• Not even a show-attempt to prosecute fraud in the meltdown. Instead its bailouts and bonuses.
• Made deepwater horizon more likely.
• And the famous "hire the lobbyists for the industry you bow to" tactic. Good for what I don't know.
• Whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing should not be treated as Manning has been, and we don't even know if manning was responsible. He'll probably just get indefinite detention because the president says so. Welcome to Napoleonic America.

• Stop unconstitutional execution of the American citizenry.
• Stop unconstitutional detention.
• Stop unconstitutional wiretapping and prosectue AT&T's complicity (and that of any other carrier).
• Stop unconstitutionally waging war. From Korea onward, all our wars have been illegal, but Obama doesn't even feel constrained by the weak tea requirements of the war powers act. Our founding fathers never intended for the president to be a Napoleon.
• End the wars we are in. And please don't cite Iraq. The ONLY reason we are pulling out troops is because Iraq would not succumb to Obama's lobbying for a longer stay with immunity from war crimes. Thanks to wikipedia for that.
• Quit sucking insurance industry cock, i.e., real nice move touting the public option while secretly cutting a deal for the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. I guess they got their money's worth.
• Quit sucking Wall Street cock, and don't pretend that the financial reform legislation would have even been a mild hindrance to the meltdown had it already been in place.
• Prosecute torturers rather than let them off the hook. Excusing them makes him complicit.
• At least make a show of investigating fraud on Street. The S&L crisis was 1/40th the size and 1000 bankers went to jail. This meltdown isn't even being investigated, instead, their handing out bonuses. A big "Fuck You Very Much Mr. Obama" for that.
• Thanks for helping to enable Deepwater horizon, it was exactly the gift I wanted!
• Quit hiring Keystone Pipeline lobbyists for your campaign.
• Bradley Manning. We know you have a hardon for anyone that might stand in the way of relentless war, but Christ, grow a soul and a sense of morality.

30% of Harvard students are 'legacy', meaning they got in because their Daddy's rich, so right there I don't get to 'just go to Harvard'. I also need an enormous amount of cash for tuition, books, living expenses (it's not cheap to live in that area), etc.

As for climbing the social ladder, good luck. You didn't do it not because you'd crack under the pressure, it's just really, really hard. You don't need a little luck, you need the kind of luck that wins the lottery. You don't just 'become the ruling class'. Daily life grinds you down. 50 hour work weeks grind you down. And it takes so little to screw up. Just one kid you weren't planning, and your finances are a mess. Just one illness and a few months without work, and you're done. There's a really culture of blame and self recrimination among the working class in America. It's not the crappy eduction, heath care systems. The transportation system that makes you spend the first 3 months of the year working to pay for a car or the long hours with low pay and no hope of advancement. No. It's your fault, because you didn't work hard and play by the rules.

Oh, and the poor never catch up, because as soon as they start to, all the gov't programs that help them get yanked away, and they next problem stops them dead in their tracks.

UN HDI map is one interesting data source. See that huge green blob at the top of Africa, the only one on the continent? That's Libya. For all that can be said about Gaddafi, he really did make a working welfare state, head and shoulders above all his neighbors, and in many aspects on par even with some European countries.

As for spontaneous revolt, well... it may be true, but the fact that rebels - from the get go! - included high-profile people and organizations strongly affiliated with CIA - excuse me if I find it dubious.

Even if true, that grassroots movement seems to have just as strong radical Islamist component as the liberal one. If Iran is anything to go by, once the dictator is overthrown, the groups will inevitably start to fight between themselves - and Islamists are much more likely to win due to their determination and willingness to sacrifice.

Are you suggesting that they just took the names and added them to the no-fly list without identity verification? Is this not even more outrageous?

Actually, that is exactly what happens. How do you think Edward Kennedy, former US Senator (RIP), ended up on a no-fly list?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kenn-a21.shtml

The 72-year-old Kennedy briefly recounted the Kafkaesque incidents: âoeHe [the ticket agent] said, âWe canâ(TM)t give it to you ... You canâ(TM)t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.â(TM) I said, âWell, why not?â(TM) He said, âWe canâ(TM)t tell you.â(TM) Tried to get on a plane back to Washington ... âYou canâ(TM)t get on the plane.â(TM) I went up to the desk and said, âIâ(TM)ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years. Why canâ(TM)t I get on the plane?â(TM)â

On each occasion, at Bostonâ(TM)s Logan International Airport, Washingtonâ(TM)s Reagan National Airport and one other, airline supervisors ultimately overruled the ticket agents and permitted Kennedy to board his plane. All the flights were on US Airways.

Kennedy staff members eventually telephoned the Transportation Security Administration, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, and officials there promised to rectify the mistake. However, it took them several weeks to clear up the matter. In fact, only days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called Kennedy in early April to apologize, another airline agent attempted to block the Massachusetts Democrat from boarding.

In France, they literally cut down the rich. After a predictable period of chaos, things got much better.

lol you mean after a decade of blood, a war that covered all of Europe, followed by a return to monarchy, and a generation later finally moving on to democracy? Well by that measurement, communism in the USSR was a rousing success!

In England, the rich forced the even richer king to surrender his absolute power and things got better.

Come on man, not everything needs to be seen through the lens of class struggle. The rich king did not have absolute power, and (assuming you are talking about Charles) you can't deny the important religious element of that revolution.

Most of the EU taxes the rich much more than the U.S. and are prospering for it.

? By what measure? Certainly not median income. Typically unemployment is higher as well, in say, France. And Germany has growing inequality.

The U.S. used to tax the rich a good bit more and all (including the rich) prospered.

Hard to say. The median income in the US has increased a LOT since those days, so you might say we are prospering a lot more now that taxes have been cut. Economies are complicated things, and, as you of course know, you can't credit an increase or decrease in the GDP entirely on a change in tax law.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/pers-j20.shtml

There's an article that includes the video here:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/flor-j11.shtml

I've also seen a top-down video online somewhere taken from one the tall buildings around the intersection.

Isn't doing business with ruthless oppressive regimes supposed to be bad?

didn't do IBM any real harm...

Or, you know, Dick Cheney's commission of what we considered war crimes when the Germans and Japanese did it in the 1940's. It's an open-and-shut case: We have video footage and transcripts of him telling the world all about the crimes he committed on national television.

Don't forget, though, we need to Look forward, not backward. And they hate us for our freedoms. It has nothing to do with committing crimes with impunity, killing children and civilians, or supporting dictators in their country.

When I say this, I say it with this intent:

The united states would become every bit as despotic as china, and just as rife with abuses, should it no longer be necessary for our government to placate the populace. (Something that is quickly being manifest with eroded liberties and freedoms even as we sit here and argue about it.)

You can find a long littany of such "Secret" abuses if you are willing to suspend your belief that the US is a great place to live. Take for instance, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the more recent study that abused HIV infected orphans on the east coast-- Not to mention what the US government does to soldiers in terms of medical experimentation. (Seriously, look it up.)

The "Velvet Glove" metaphor I use is meant to point out that the US is "Like China", except it "Takes measures to appear softer and more cuddly, so it can delude you into letting your guard down."

China makes no such concession-- They just shoot you. No argument from me there. In the US though, where we are *supposed* to be beholden to higher ideals and ethics (which as pointed out with the Tuskegee study-- and other horrors like it, of which there are many-- are only window dressing for how things actually happen behind closed doors) the government *HAS* to make such concession, or lose face.

It disturbs me greatly how so many good little americans chime in and say how much better the US is compared to China in terms of hipocricy-- when the smelly corpses of victims can be found easily beneath thin layers of soiled propaganda, which scream otherwise.

Of course, we have it so much better here--- I mean, They have flagrant media manipulation and misinformation systems in place... Wait-- So do we. Well... They do prison labor! Wait... So do we... .. Uhm-- Oh yes! We have fast food! And we can protest from Free Speech zones!

Really, the only differences are int he DEGREE of abuse. Something that can change VERY easily.

This is worth reading: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/tepc-m17.shtml Insightful article, things are making sense now...

I hope Japan seriously consider to go with a single standard, so they can share and balance their needs in situations like this.
It intrigues me, how could they chose a common voltage but not a common alternating frequency? And i wonder about the advantages disadvantages form using, say, 100volts instead of 120 or 220?

'The CIA wants the American people and the world to understand its mission and its vital role in keeping our country safe.'

The CIA is trying to regain some credibility/reputation which has rapidly gone downhill since the Iraq war. News and leaks from Wikileaks and other sources keeps throwing their smelly shit into the fan for all to see. It seems to be nearly every day now we hear of a new scandal, or some gross misuse of our taxpayers funds. But never fear, they have a plan: Apart from this new "Spy goodies" for geeks section to woo us with pretty trinkets, they have also thought of the children - adding games and quizzes to their website - helping them become your all American family-friendly organization again. Further, soon there will be no more bad news thanks to the CIA teaming up with the Democrats to clean out those with faulty moral compasses - so we can all live safe and ignorant again.

The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place.

So you agree that providing false testimony, editing videotape evidence, or spying of dissident groups would not be under the police's lawful duties?

As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Rand Paul. If you want to learn about unions and violence, this would be a more useful link. Here is a good historical overview. For the motive behind the FUD about "union violence", see this and this.

Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member.

Of course. Conservatives may be, by and large, mistaken in their views, but I certainly do not wish to suggest that they all are directly responsible for the reprehensible acts of a few -- any more than everyone on the left is directly responsible for the reprehensible acts of a few.

But that's not the proposition you put forth. Your claim was that you has not seen evidence that anyone on the right was in favor of forceful censorship. That can only be true if you are living in near-isolation from the world, or if you were -- consciously or unconsciously -- closing your mind to highly visible evidence. And you specifically named Palin; a few minutes with Google could have saved you from looking pretty ignorant there.

If viewing child porn doesn't have the power to convert ordinary people to paedophiles, I don't see why it needs to be filtered.

There are a LOT of men and some women out there who but for social rules and the morality their parents ingrained in them growing up would think nothing of molesting their own 14 year old girl or maybe their own 8 year old boy.

The availability of child porn and pedophile-apologist material online can have a corrosive effect on such people, removing their inhibitions.

This can turn someone who "by nature" is a mix of pedophile and non-pedophile but who "by nurture" is an upstanding citizen who would cringe at the idea of molesting children into someone who might consider or even do such an act, ruining many lives including their own in the process.

By far most people do not have a "latent pedophile" side to them so they are not harmed by exposure to such material other than needing a new keyboard after they vomit, but a significant number of people are. Even if it's only 0.5-2% of men and say 0.1-0.4% of women who are vulnerable in this way but who aren't "100% pedophiles" already, that's a still a big number in a country the size of the United States or for that matter worldwide.

This is the same reason that in some countries alcohol, tobacco, and adult-entertainment products are not allowed to be advertised even to adults or their advertising is limited to groups that that have already made the decision to buy those types of products. It's also the reason in some countries such products are not allowed to be marketed to children or adolescents.

Here are some examples of what can happen if you have a society where such behavior is tolerated:

*Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004

*Official response to Aboriginal child sexual abuse in Australia: more law and order

*The whole Roman Catholic and other clergy abuses of the last half-century or more that were made worse by official tolerance or official downplaying of the seriousness of the crimes.

*The "peer culture" among teenagers and preteens in Rockdale County, Georgia in the 1990s that led to promiscuity and a syphilis epidemic. See Frontline: The Lost Children of Rockdale County

Granted, none of these directly touch on the question of "does child porn create pedophiles" but they all show the influence a person's contacts have on his willingness to engage in behavior that the larger society condemns.

For some specific cases of child porn creating or awakening a pedophile in a previously-law-abiding person, go through the many court cases of people charged with child porn or child molestation crimes. Many will claim "I was curious and got addicted." Some of these criminals are lying and just looking for sympathy from a jury but some really are who they say they are: People who but for that initial exposure would have remained happy law-abiding responsible adults and who are now paying the price for satisfying their curiosity and the resulting addiction.

By the way, this argument has been used by anti-gay forces to suppress homosexuals. While the argument has merit for "true 50/50 bisexuals" and even the "90/10" "bi-curious" group in that they may be tempted to "try it out" if they live in a gay-tolerant or gay-affirming culture, there is one key difference: It's not child abuse. The "queers recruit" anti-gay argument is about as valid and about as silly as "McDonalds recruits kids to eat unhealthy high-fat foods" - yes, but so what? The "if child porn is widely available you will have more [active, or at least child-porn-viewing] pedophiles" argument, on the other hand, must be taken seriously if it is real, and the evidence I've seen and my general knowledge of human behavior leads me to conclude that it is very real.

They also lead revolutions. Mugabe initially came to power as a revolutionary hero. Violent revolutions rarely deliver on their promises of a vastly better society, they simply demonstrate that "might is right".

I won't go into the topic of African 'revolutions'. Most of them are either not revolutions at all, but coups backed by the US dollars and thirst for oil, or otherwise successful revolutions that end up getting negative press coverage, again backed by US dollars and thirst for oil. I've got buddies from Sudan, Somalia, and other African countries, that more or less told me the same stories about the developments in their respective countries, and if you, on occasion, substitute France for the US, you get a common pattern all over africa.

In statements of the leftist media such as this one, I think there is more than just a hint of truth.

The Guardian’s embrace of CIA dirty tricks and military aggression cuts through the human rights rhetoric with which its has sought to garb its own campaign against the Mugabe regime—and not for the first time. Political assassination, invasions and coups d’état have been the hallmarks of US foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century. Once the Guardian would have registered its own meek protest.

It was reported here in August...

Actually, from what I recall, it was due to deregulation, not price fixing.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/cal-m22.shtml

It's the private bank's debts.

For some unknown reason the Irish government decided to guarantee all debts by banks in Ireland including banks that are owned and run by people who are not Irish or based in Ireland. These debts were not sovereign debts until the Irish government decided to unilaterally back them without any good cause. They did this back in 2008 and it's only now that they massive amount that they've basically handed over to private investors is becoming apparent.

I agree the guarantee was handled disastrously but I'm a little leery of the 'dirty foreigner' angle.

Which dirty foreigner private investors would these be? Bank share holders? Anyone who bought shares in the banks over the last decade has seen their investment wiped out. The Irish government owns the lion's share of Allied Irish Banks and Bank Of Ireland. Anglo Irish Bank is fully nationalised, with all shareholders completely wiped out. They gambled, they lost.

Who else then? Property developers with massive loans to the Banks that they cannot pay off? Maybe, but they are not dirty foreigners, they're home grown entrepreneurs!

Where to next? The bond markets? Dirty foreign bastards, buying Irish bonds on the promise of a coupon paid over five or ten years. The cheek of them!

Our problems are home made. Blaming the foreigners is lazy and unbecoming for a country that has sent her children to all corners of the globe. The sad thing is that because of the home grown cock up the exodus is happening again.

Paul.

It's the private bank's debts.

For some unknown reason the Irish government decided to guarantee all debts by banks in Ireland including banks that are owned and run by people who are not Irish or based in Ireland. These debts were not sovereign debts until the Irish government decided to unilaterally back them without any good cause. They did this back in 2008 and it's only now that they massive amount that they've basically handed over to private investors is becoming apparent.

It's pretty nuts that private investors had hoped to make money by investing in Irish banks - but now that they're actually facing losses the people of Ireland are going to step up and cover all these debts. So for the private investors it's a case of head I win, tails you lose - where there is no risk of the private investors losing any money - and no chance for the public to get a share of the profits that banks were making in the good times.

Step 1 - Be a large company.
Step 2 - Afford the world's best lawyers.
Step 3 - Sue.
No luck for the rest of us.

If the above doesn't work, refer to historical data categorizing Jews for extermination during WWII. Zeig IBM

This is part of the US's PUBLICLY REVEALED campaign to discredit WikiLeaks. The way to do so? Ad Hominem. Make the story about the messenger - over and over, again.

It wouldn't matter if WikiLeaks were fronted by Charles Manson - that's not the point of the disclosures.

But once more, you fall for the legerdemain.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39729526
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9948-news-a-comment-pentagon-campaign-to-discredit-wikileaks-downshifts.html
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/gt/blog/us-plan-to-discredit-wikileaks-leaked/?cs=40078
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/time-o25.shtml

If my attempt at translating redneck-ese to English is correct, it sounds as though he not only had done something similar before, his son's house had previously been on fire as well.

Cranick noted that the fire department used to make exceptions for fires at residences with unpaid fees. "About three years ago in December, there was a fire up here in my boy's house, and they waived the fee till the next day. We had the thing out before they got there," he added, "but they waived the fee and I went in the next day and paid."
Since that time, however, the South Fulton government has refused to put out fires if there are no people known to be inside the structure. Cranick commented that in the past few years, "They let three, and I heard four, burn. On the other side of Union City, they let a barn burn that had horses in it."

The policy appears to be that if there are no people inside the structure, it'll burn. Firefighters won't take the risk.

Are you lost sir?

The United States has the DEA enforcing it's domestic drug policy throughout the world.

Here in Canada:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3261.html

Abroad, Cocaine is tolerated and seen as a great resource in South America yet America is killing civilians to thwart a domestic problem?????? A problem that stems from lack of Education, Health care and Poverty

Missionary plane shot down in Peru: collateral damage in US "drug war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/peru-a24.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/peru_coverup.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/video-of-missionaries-bei_n_449074.html

DEA agents shoot innocent 14-year-old girl in the head, but deny any wrongdoing.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2998.html

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/license-to-kill.html

DEA GO AWAY!!!
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

Lets not forget Marc Emery a Canadian politician extradited because of his influence on the pro marijuana movement. He was extradited for selling seeds (which is legal in Canada) via mail to the U.S. unprecedented enforcement of American pollution on Canadian Sovereignty.

This is why [] we don't put children [] in jail (they are amoral, and cant have a guilty mind)."

Except we do. I always think about this when people express shock and disgust at Mullahs marrying off 13-year-olds. We shouldn't prosecute criminal children as adults either, and for the same reasons.

By the way, RWB/RSF is a French NGO to begin with.

Yeah, nice try. RWB is a US neocon propaganda front, and If you had read the references you would have seen this:

After years of trying to hide it, Robert Menard, Paris-based Secretary-General of Reporters Sans Frontieres or RWB

How does that disprove what I said? Last time I checked, Paris was in France.

confessed that the RWB budget was primarily funded by “US organizations strictly linked to US foreign policy.” [6] Those US organizations behind RWB include the Open Society Foundation of billionaire speculator George Soros, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Also included is the Center for Free Cuba, whose trustee, Otto Reich, was forced to resign from the George W. Bush administration after exposure of his role in a CIA-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez. [7] As one researcher found after months of trying to get a reply from NED about their funding of Reporters Without Borders, which included a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute. The IRI is one of four subsidiaries of NED. [8] The NED, as I detail in my book, Full Spectrum Dominance:Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, was created by the US Congress during the Reagan administration on the initiative of then-CIA Director Bill Casey to replace the CIA's civil society covert action programs, which had been exposed by the Church committee in the mid-1970s. As Allen Weinstein, the man who drafted the legislation creating the NED admitted years later, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” [9]

So, stooge of the US neocon right, to be more specific.

Some of those organizations are left leaning, some are right leaning. And I wouldn't say Soros is a neocon at all.

RSF/RWB opposes Cuba's (and China's, Iran's, ...) attitudes towards reporters (i.e. jailing, torturing, murdering). If that's a political agenda, if that's a bad thing, if that makes you a stooge of the US gov, then I'm afraid I'm a stooge too.

So?! every reporter outside any of these regimes condemns them. It is what RWB do to set themselves apart that makes them very special. Take their reporting on Georgia (country) leading up to the elections, largely acknowledged now to be US orchestrated coup, followed up with a neocon war. Oh, and now Georgia is a US puppet state, the Pipelines from Georgia to Afghanistan can't be privatized quick enough - bringing the plan together to profit from this dirty war long after it is over.

Yes, RWB is one of the worst pro war propaganda fronts out there - they are just supposed to be clandestine about it.

The issue with Georgia is more complex than that. I suggest you read more about the events that led to the war in the Summer 2008.

By the way, RWB/RSF is a French NGO to begin with.

Yeah, nice try. RWB is a US neocon propaganda front, and If you had read the references you would have seen this:

After years of trying to hide it, Robert Menard, Paris-based Secretary-General of Reporters Sans Frontieres or RWB, confessed that the RWB budget was primarily funded by “US organizations strictly linked to US foreign policy.” [6] Those US organizations behind RWB include the Open Society Foundation of billionaire speculator George Soros, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Also included is the Center for Free Cuba, whose trustee, Otto Reich, was forced to resign from the George W. Bush administration after exposure of his role in a CIA-backed coup attempt against Venezuela’s democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez. [7] As one researcher found after months of trying to get a reply from NED about their funding of Reporters Without Borders, which included a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute. The IRI is one of four subsidiaries of NED. [8] The NED, as I detail in my book, Full Spectrum Dominance:Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, was created by the US Congress during the Reagan administration on the initiative of then-CIA Director Bill Casey to replace the CIA's civil society covert action programs, which had been exposed by the Church committee in the mid-1970s. As Allen Weinstein, the man who drafted the legislation creating the NED admitted years later, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” [9]

So, stooge of the US neocon right, to be more specific.

RSF/RWB opposes Cuba's (and China's, Iran's, ...) attitudes towards reporters (i.e. jailing, torturing, murdering). If that's a political agenda, if that's a bad thing, if that makes you a stooge of the US gov, then I'm afraid I'm a stooge too.

So?! every reporter outside any of these regimes condemns them. It is what RWB do to set themselves apart that makes them very special. Take their reporting on Georgia (country) leading up to the elections, largely acknowledged now to be US orchestrated coup, followed up with a neocon war. Oh, and now Georgia is a US puppet state, the Pipelines from Georgia to Afghanistan can't be privatized quick enough - bringing the plan together to profit from this dirty war long after it is over.

Yes, RWB is one of the worst pro war propaganda fronts out there - they are just supposed to be clandestine about it.

Try these:

• Bush wanting permission to do so
• American detained at Guantanamo Bay

Totally aside in answer to the 'what was lost' question, the USA lost a lot of respect. Americans may or may not care, but its true. Do you want your country to stand for freedom and democracy with due process or for totalitarianism and heavy-handed warmongering?