or sometimes it *is* the scientists.. you know, the ones just out for their careers or agendas. the ones who falsify or maliciously modify data to suit their hypotheses. the ones who get published and waste other scientists' time having to debunk their bad work. those scientists.
news flash: science is also a profession. scientists are also human beings, not angels or robots.
there have been many in the past who have ranted about situation x (whatever subject may be at hand) who have failed to act or even acted directly against their former rants when in power. for an example, look no further than candidate Obama versus president Obama regarding civil liberties, whistle blowers, and state secrets vis a vis the courts. it's not impossible that Franken could actually mean it, but neither do i consider it terribly likely.
Guess the estate of whoever invented the pencil should start suing for a metric ton of money then. People still use that... guess it shouldn't be public domain yet.
if i hadn't posted in this topic i would have modded you up.
no, i think the timing of the measure is... oddly coincidental. and i don't believe in coincidences when so much power is on the line. oh, and most of the country supports the wars, even if we do not. otherwise the politicians wouldn't.
Perhaps you were asleep during Bush's presidency... Bush brought us medicare part d, the largest expansion in entitlements in 20 years. not that that or Obama's "reform" are any good... for anyone who isn't in the health care industry. one of the statistics the left used as a rhetoric bludgeon was the lower cost of healthcare as a % of GDP in countries with socialized health care. a casual look at the "reform" enacted shows clearly that healthcare spending as a % of GDP in the US will go dramatically *up*, not down. it's change you can't believe in.
at the time DADT was instituted it was considered a progressive reform, enabling gays to serve in a military that had thitherto been actively pursuing them rather than simply reacting to reports. was it still bad? yes. but to pretend that its end was some great victory of Obama is madness, especially when our military has such trouble meeting recruitment objectives that nearly half our forces in iraq and afghanistan are mercenaries. letting gays serve openly is just one lever to alleviate pressure before having to reinstitute the draft, something which would instantly invert popular support for the wars.
and in some ways he's *worse* than Bush, not merely "deeply disappointing." don't take my word for it, ask the EFF or the ACLU.
and how about them wars after all? no, you can keep your Bush III. sane people will be voting for someone else. almost anyone else.
but back to the topic. Obama ran explicitly on a platform of openness, transparency, and not punishing whistleblowers. Most Transparent Administration EVAR.
i will exhibit concern for HBGary as a victim the moment the jury in the criminal case against them is sequestered. Unfortunately, since DoJ connected BoA with the law firm that was soliciting these plans from HBGary and companies, I don't expect those crimes will ever be prosecuted, much less convicted on. So unless you're prepared to show some concern for the life and livelihoods of those targeted by HBGary for persecution (investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald for one) then I think you're just concern trolling for the powerful. They don't need your help. They have enough power already.
and the colonists who rebelled against Britain to form the USA were what, exactly? oh, that's right. they were terrorists. terrorism is essentially a meaningless term.
In sum: a Muslim who attacks military targets, including in war zones or even in their own countries that have been invaded by a foreign army, are Terrorists. A non-Muslim who flies an airplane into a government building in pursuit of a political agenda is not, or at least is not a Real Terrorist with a capital T -- not the kind who should be tortured and thrown in a cage with no charges and assassinated with no due process. Nor are Christians who stand outside abortion clinics and murder doctors and clinic workers. Nor are acts undertaken by us or our favored allies designed to kill large numbers of civilians or which will recklessly cause such deaths as a means of terrorizing the population into desired behavioral change -- the Glorious Shock and Awe campaign and the pummeling of Gaza. Except as a means for demonizing Muslims, the word is used so inconsistently and manipulatively that it is impoverished of any discernible meaning.
When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia, and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots at British vessels out in the river, the response of destruction of those buildings was ingeniously used to the advantage of the rebels, who encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town, and spread propaganda blaming it on the British. Shortly afterwards they destroyed the remaining houses, on the grounds that they might provide cover for British soldiers.
you are naive if you think the Republican party hasn't tried to subvert and misdirect the tea party grassroots. which is why i made the distinction i made. there is much good in the citizen involvement the tea party represents, but don't expect the establishment to sit idly by and allow it to happen.
Boehner's irrepressible hackosity is a serious problem for the Republican establishment, which desperately needs a more convincing con man to stave off voter anger on the right. In this regard, the contrast between Boehner and Littleton, the Tea Party leader in Boehner's home state, is interesting. The two men live in the same place, the small township of West Chester near Cincinnati, so Littleton is very familiar with Boehner. But Littleton's opinion of the Republican establishment couldn't be lower: It was precisely programs like the Medicare drug benefit bill and No Child Left Behind, programs he considers unacceptably wasteful and intrusive, that moved him to get into politics. "These were all Republican programs," Littleton says. "If you look at Republican congressmen from Ohio, they all voted for this stuff."
What's interesting is that the survival of the hack political class that Boehner represents now depends almost entirely on their ability to neutralize grass-roots leaders like Littleton — and the word "leader" here is used in the real sense of the word. While Boehner often negotiates for a Republican delegation that winds up rejecting the compromises he reaches, Littleton, when I speak with him, strikes me in exactly the opposite way — I feel very aware that I am talking to someone with a lot of political power, who represents quite a lot of actual human beings.
I have to admit to being a little confused about the whole Tea Party phenomenon. In the year-plus I've been covering Tea Partiers, 99% of them are completely disingenuous goons -- Rush/Hannity fans and Bush Republicans who've crudely reinvented themselves as "constitutionalists" and appropriated Ron Paul's small-government rhetoric in order to disguise their basically unchanging political belief system, which almost exclusively involves hating liberals and leftists and Democrats, and immigrants and nonwhite "water drinkers," no matter what they do. I see the Tea Party mainly as a vehicle for the Republican Party to corral public anger and turn it against Democrats, and also to aid the campaign contributors of both parties in continuing to deregulate the economy and keep certain subsidies in place, and most Tea Partiers are I think willing participants in this scheme.
But I have met a few, like this Chris Littleton fellow in Ohio, who seemed deadly focused on the spending issue, and on some legitimate concerns about expanded government power even when it's the result of Republican legislation (i.e. No Child Left Behind depriving local public schools of autonomy with regard to curricula), and they seemed sincere in that at least. I did not have the same experience with Tea Party leaders in Kentucky, in Nevada, in New York, or other states, where I mostly heard a lot of preposterous Beck-fueled hysteria about how Obama is converting America into a Sov
yes, and as a result of this and many better known abuses (like spying on and attempting to assassinate the character of MLK and other peace groups (if there was someone less threatening to national security that a pacifist i'm not sure who they could be)) the Church Commission investigated the executive branch and changed some things, including instituting what was at the time considered to be adequate congressional oversight. today that oversight has largely been corrupted. e.g. Feinstein whose husband is a defense contractor.
regarding your argument to tradition: do you also support Dredd Scott and think it was a mistake to challenge it?
regarding your argument to legitimate(?) threats: so the terrorists have won. we're less free. you know there was an easier solution that didn't require as much of a loss of freedom: leave the muslim world the hell alone for 50 or so years. i doubt very much that we would be considered the great satan if we hadn't overthrown Iran's democracy to help the British in their post-colonial efforts. Or if we hadn't given Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons and then pushed him to war against Iran, killing >500,000 people. Or if we weren't there now hiring mercenaries and precipitating the deaths of >100,000 in Iraq alone. Or perhaps we have bombed a few too many actual weddings in Afghanistan. I know if I were on the receiving end of so much capricious force in pursuit of simple materialistic ends (oil and dominance) that i'd be pissed.
so by your logic, Mubarak's a stand-up guy? i'm confused (not really).
in the world you live in people don't act out of short term personal interest? corruption is not an issue? the only rule in DC with respect to corruption is "don't get caught (in public)". corollary to that is "have enough dirt on enough other people to prevent them from making your corruption public." Examples of recent failures to follow this rule are Rangel and Cunningham.
Alas, however, that is not as corrupt as America gets. Political scandals in Congress always seem to focus unflinchingly on the trees, without so much as a glance at the wood. Does anyone really believe that donors—especially corporate ones—stump up millions of dollars for candidates at each election without any hope of reward? Does anyone really think that the benefactors that presidents routinely appoint to plum positions are really the best men for the job? Is it possible for politicians to raise the sums needed to win important public offices in America without compromising themselves in some way? None of these questions, needless to say, will be answered at the hearing about Mr Rangel that the Democratic leadership is trying so hard to forestall.
federal executive policies and legal opinions are *not* federal law. show me which federal law allows telcos to voluntarily give information to third parties in contravention of state laws. you can't because it doesn't exist. the issue was whether the federal government could hide illegal actions behind state secrecy, something that again, is itself an illegal act (this time it's illegal under federal laws enacting federal secrecy).
it's kooky to want out of our foreign imbroglios? it's kooky to allow failed businesses to fail? those sound like pretty good things to me. you act as though there wouldn't have been a congress much like the one that was elected along side the president to keep the president from doing some things.
personally i consider all our security theater kooky *and* extremely wasteful of money, resources, and time. i consider our obsession with perfect safety to the exclusion of all other values to be kooky. i consider our neo-isolationism (mistrust of all foreigners and imposition of insane hurdles on their visits (USVISIT) to be kooky. setting policy that encourages using corn for biodiesel when sugar is far more efficient and corn is a staple food in shortage is kooky. i could go on, but clearly you have an agenda that is not driven by actual concern but by preserving the status quo, no matter how kooky or doomed to failure it is.
i'm sorry, but your concern trolling is not helping anyone.
clearly he was also not responsible for his Senate vote in favor of telecom immunity from violating the law to help with warantless wiretaps and dragnet domestic surveillance.
clearly he is just a victim in all of this. he has no real power to e.g. order us out of our foreign wars. apologize for him if you want, but it's pretty clear he's a willing participant.
last i checked, it's an army of mostly conscripts from across the poorer segments of Egypt. If the leadership don't ceded power in a reasonable time frame I think there's likely to be a revolt from within the army itself.
actually i was referring to e.g. the Church commission and the social upheaval that lead to it. would your highness care to come down off your high horse? And both Carter and Regan would have been much worse if not for the watchdog provisions freshly minted in response to prior CIA, FBI, and McCarthyite abuses of power.
This was actually the crux of several of the EFF supported lawsuits that got consolidated into Hepting v. ATT. Several state communication commissions were trying to investigate and enforce state laws against the phone company voluntarily giving records or phone data to *any* entity. It just happened that the entity in question was the federal government. It's one of the few times that Missouri has been on the forefront of advocating civil liberties. And they got no credit. And of course, the FCC was of no help due to their boss. Again, too much power concentrated in one place. We need more checks and balances.
Slashdot Mirror
ask any legislator, especially in the US congress.
i heard he liked to drink a lot.
from a professor who had a surprising amount in common with Tycho.
or sometimes it *is* the scientists.. you know, the ones just out for their careers or agendas. the ones who falsify or maliciously modify data to suit their hypotheses. the ones who get published and waste other scientists' time having to debunk their bad work. those scientists.
news flash: science is also a profession. scientists are also human beings, not angels or robots.
i have mod points but couldn't find a "-1 Nerd Rage" modifier. so i'm posting it. asher09 can share too.
there have been many in the past who have ranted about situation x (whatever subject may be at hand) who have failed to act or even acted directly against their former rants when in power. for an example, look no further than candidate Obama versus president Obama regarding civil liberties, whistle blowers, and state secrets vis a vis the courts. it's not impossible that Franken could actually mean it, but neither do i consider it terribly likely.
Guess the estate of whoever invented the pencil should start suing for a metric ton of money then. People still use that... guess it shouldn't be public domain yet.
if i hadn't posted in this topic i would have modded you up.
al franken has a fiduciary interest in long or infinite copyright given his numerous publications and other copyright protected merchandise.
with fava beans. and a fine chanti.
like revenge.
no, i think the timing of the measure is... oddly coincidental. and i don't believe in coincidences when so much power is on the line. oh, and most of the country supports the wars, even if we do not. otherwise the politicians wouldn't.
Perhaps you were asleep during Bush's presidency... Bush brought us medicare part d, the largest expansion in entitlements in 20 years. not that that or Obama's "reform" are any good... for anyone who isn't in the health care industry. one of the statistics the left used as a rhetoric bludgeon was the lower cost of healthcare as a % of GDP in countries with socialized health care. a casual look at the "reform" enacted shows clearly that healthcare spending as a % of GDP in the US will go dramatically *up*, not down. it's change you can't believe in.
at the time DADT was instituted it was considered a progressive reform, enabling gays to serve in a military that had thitherto been actively pursuing them rather than simply reacting to reports. was it still bad? yes. but to pretend that its end was some great victory of Obama is madness, especially when our military has such trouble meeting recruitment objectives that nearly half our forces in iraq and afghanistan are mercenaries. letting gays serve openly is just one lever to alleviate pressure before having to reinstitute the draft, something which would instantly invert popular support for the wars.
and in some ways he's *worse* than Bush, not merely "deeply disappointing." don't take my word for it, ask the EFF or the ACLU.
and how about them wars after all? no, you can keep your Bush III. sane people will be voting for someone else. almost anyone else.
but back to the topic. Obama ran explicitly on a platform of openness, transparency, and not punishing whistleblowers. Most Transparent Administration EVAR.
i will exhibit concern for HBGary as a victim the moment the jury in the criminal case against them is sequestered. Unfortunately, since DoJ connected BoA with the law firm that was soliciting these plans from HBGary and companies, I don't expect those crimes will ever be prosecuted, much less convicted on. So unless you're prepared to show some concern for the life and livelihoods of those targeted by HBGary for persecution (investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald for one) then I think you're just concern trolling for the powerful. They don't need your help. They have enough power already.
and the colonists who rebelled against Britain to form the USA were what, exactly? oh, that's right. they were terrorists. terrorism is essentially a meaningless term.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#The_American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Norfolk
"thinking", protesting lefties can be blockheaded and ignorant too.
from the Rally to Restore Sanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
Is Obama a Keynesian?
many lefties are confused by this simple question.
you are naive if you think the Republican party hasn't tried to subvert and misdirect the tea party grassroots. which is why i made the distinction i made. there is much good in the citizen involvement the tea party represents, but don't expect the establishment to sit idly by and allow it to happen.
read some taibbi.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105
and particularly his contrast on the 5th page of Bohner against a leader of an Ohio Tea Party:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=5
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-mainstream-punditry-the-financial-crisis-and-the-tea-party-20110117
yes, and as a result of this and many better known abuses (like spying on and attempting to assassinate the character of MLK and other peace groups (if there was someone less threatening to national security that a pacifist i'm not sure who they could be)) the Church Commission investigated the executive branch and changed some things, including instituting what was at the time considered to be adequate congressional oversight. today that oversight has largely been corrupted. e.g. Feinstein whose husband is a defense contractor.
regarding your argument to tradition: do you also support Dredd Scott and think it was a mistake to challenge it?
regarding your argument to legitimate(?) threats: so the terrorists have won. we're less free. you know there was an easier solution that didn't require as much of a loss of freedom: leave the muslim world the hell alone for 50 or so years. i doubt very much that we would be considered the great satan if we hadn't overthrown Iran's democracy to help the British in their post-colonial efforts. Or if we hadn't given Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons and then pushed him to war against Iran, killing >500,000 people. Or if we weren't there now hiring mercenaries and precipitating the deaths of >100,000 in Iraq alone. Or perhaps we have bombed a few too many actual weddings in Afghanistan. I know if I were on the receiving end of so much capricious force in pursuit of simple materialistic ends (oil and dominance) that i'd be pissed.
http://www.eff.org/cases/hepting
so by your logic, Mubarak's a stand-up guy? i'm confused (not really).
in the world you live in people don't act out of short term personal interest? corruption is not an issue? the only rule in DC with respect to corruption is "don't get caught (in public)". corollary to that is "have enough dirt on enough other people to prevent them from making your corruption public." Examples of recent failures to follow this rule are Rangel and Cunningham.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/charlie_rangel
federal executive policies and legal opinions are *not* federal law. show me which federal law allows telcos to voluntarily give information to third parties in contravention of state laws. you can't because it doesn't exist. the issue was whether the federal government could hide illegal actions behind state secrecy, something that again, is itself an illegal act (this time it's illegal under federal laws enacting federal secrecy).
it's kooky to want out of our foreign imbroglios? it's kooky to allow failed businesses to fail? those sound like pretty good things to me. you act as though there wouldn't have been a congress much like the one that was elected along side the president to keep the president from doing some things.
personally i consider all our security theater kooky *and* extremely wasteful of money, resources, and time. i consider our obsession with perfect safety to the exclusion of all other values to be kooky. i consider our neo-isolationism (mistrust of all foreigners and imposition of insane hurdles on their visits (USVISIT) to be kooky. setting policy that encourages using corn for biodiesel when sugar is far more efficient and corn is a staple food in shortage is kooky. i could go on, but clearly you have an agenda that is not driven by actual concern but by preserving the status quo, no matter how kooky or doomed to failure it is.
i'm sorry, but your concern trolling is not helping anyone.
clearly he was also not responsible for his Senate vote in favor of telecom immunity from violating the law to help with warantless wiretaps and dragnet domestic surveillance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html
clearly he is just a victim in all of this. he has no real power to e.g. order us out of our foreign wars. apologize for him if you want, but it's pretty clear he's a willing participant.
last i checked, it's an army of mostly conscripts from across the poorer segments of Egypt. If the leadership don't ceded power in a reasonable time frame I think there's likely to be a revolt from within the army itself.
actually i was referring to e.g. the Church commission and the social upheaval that lead to it. would your highness care to come down off your high horse? And both Carter and Regan would have been much worse if not for the watchdog provisions freshly minted in response to prior CIA, FBI, and McCarthyite abuses of power.
good job misrepresenting the laws.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060731/ai_n16652712/
This was actually the crux of several of the EFF supported lawsuits that got consolidated into Hepting v. ATT. Several state communication commissions were trying to investigate and enforce state laws against the phone company voluntarily giving records or phone data to *any* entity. It just happened that the entity in question was the federal government. It's one of the few times that Missouri has been on the forefront of advocating civil liberties. And they got no credit. And of course, the FCC was of no help due to their boss. Again, too much power concentrated in one place. We need more checks and balances.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060731/ai_n16652712/