Personally, I try to link to posts to which I refer, or at least quote them. The Slashdot post editor should automate that, but it sucks. And I didn't compensate by clicking through the posts and reading them carefully enough.
On adequately closer examination, you seem reasonable and honest to me.
The problem isn't "that if you watch Fox News [...] you're politically unsophisticated or [...] you have a personal agenda that flies in the face of common sense".
The problem is precisely the reverse. If you're politically unsophisticated, or you have a personal agenda that flies in the face of common sense, you're more likely to watch Fox News. And then, since Fox News produces mainly rightwing/Republican propaganda, those viewers have their political unsophistication and common nonsensical personal agendas reinforced. And watch Fox News more.
If you think Fox News has "liberal" content, you must be referring to allen colmes, the sacrificial liberal milquetoast Sean Hannity wears as a fig leaf. Or maybe the various tabloid features appealing to hypocritical "Conservatives", like the excuses of moral outrage used to broadcast video of scantily clad young girls and other salacious content. Or maybe you're just so rightwing yourself that Fox's merely authoritarian content looks "left" from your extreme right position. Fox offers all kinds of ways to pretend it's "fair and balanced" (though mainly depending on chanting that propaganda tagline like hypnosis).
Your belief in "liberal bias" comes from where? Fox News? Your minister? God told you? Nearly all mass media, especially counted by viewership, is corporate. Corporations are "conservative", because they worked and spent hard to create the status quo that feeds their bottom line. Because "Conservatism" is authoritarian in its political effects, and corporations are not democratic, they're authoritarian. No one who analyzes actual media content and activity believes it's "liberal", except people with an antiliberal agenda who work to push everthing steadily further to the right.
You even admit Fox News is "Conservative" when you say "I am a conservative, so Fox News naturally appeals to me". Come on, if you just read your own posts honestly, I wouldn't have to reply with anything.
Many Christians have a persecution complex. To avoid getting trapped in inverted logic about political sophistication/agendas and Fox News viewership, I'll clarify how it works. Some people have a persecution complex, for various reasons. Christianity's central beliefs are tied up in a sacrificed god, persecuted by the public and government in its holiest episodes. People with a persecution complex are attracted to this acting out of their own fantasies, and are more likely to join. Current American pop Christianity has many people promoting the persecution complex. Ignoring that nearly all government power in America has always been controlled by Christians, even despite explicit setups to prevent Christianity (or any religion) from controlling government power. And ignoring the destruction of many of those protections from religious control of society - because that would reveal how Christianity is far from persecuted, but rather privileged in government concessions to Christian interests at the expense of nonbelievers and their interests. The persecution complex perpetuates itself despite reality, because it works to get more power (at least for the leaders who promote it all), and because that power, and the Christianity itself, does little to solve the personality problems from which the actual persecution complex comes.
Man, I could go on for days with you. You claim you're not a "straw man", but what you're supposed to be claiming (or denying) by that is totally unknowable. Because you threw out several straw man arguments, like your introduction of the idea that "if you watch Fox News that you're politically unsophisticated / have an agenda", as if someone had said that, so you could argue against it. Or your introduction of "conservatives are uneducated", so you can argue against it, though no one said so to begin with. Or even your introduction of the (incomprehensible) idea that "you are a straw man", which no one said you were (what would they mean if they d
The situation starts before S.1 is is written, say last December. At that time, "lobbying" is a specific set of activities, defined by law involving paid people interacting directly with officials, not with the public. They are so privileged in their access, and that access is so powerful, that they must register with the government, in public. They must also register which Party with which they affiliate. Because lobbying is really "borderline" unethical (often writing the law itself, acting like a senior staff member, but explicitly representing only one interested constituent/group - I say it's just unethical), there are many laws defining it and controlling it - though clearly not enough laws, because they're central to some of the worst corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress.
Paid advocacy journalists like newspaper reporters and astroturfers, who interact with the public, and only loosely (if on a large scale) by publishing, might be unethical, but they're not illegal. And they're not lobbyists. And they didn't have to register.
Some lobbyists (Jack Abramoff) got into a lot of trouble last year, and their Republican clients with them. In fact, Karl Rove tried to blame his crushing defeat, loss of his Republican Congress essential to the way his administration governs, on "corruption", a codeword for Abramoff and some non-lobbyist scandals like Foley the child molester and his coverup.
So the incoming Democrats, who first ran against Republicans by chanting "Culture of Corruption", write S.1 to outlaw some obvious bribes, including ones Democrats have taken (Harry Reid (D-NV), Democratic Majority Leader, introduced the bill, with a speech about his "friend" the Mandalay Bay Casino CEO, and his "harmless generosity" flying Reid around in Mandalay Bay corporate jets, now required to be paid at the "market rate"). It doesn't say anything about bloggers at first, but then Republicans like Vitter (R-LA) add amendment creating Section 220, which requires paid political bloggers, not even the print journalists like Armstrong Williams paid by Bush's Republican White House, to register. Then even Vitter turns against that baseless, unconstitutional amendment, with a new amendment to withdraw it. But it's still in there so far. And it's freaking out a lot of people.
It's Section 220 which requires political bloggers to register with the government. It's got to go, because the government cannot be in a position of control like that ("didn't register, go to jail").
Paid bloggers are elsewhere required by that law to disclose their payments, but not to register - they can disclose wherever they publish. That kind of transparency is essential to ethical blogging, like the "truth in advertising" and libel laws are essential to ethical print journalism (and to blogging, too). If anything, the law doesn't go far enough with mass media paid advocacy "journalism". I suppose it's too early to destroy Fox News' entore biz model, and upset the applecart of the rest of the corporate mass media that's operated that way, though with "sustainable restraint", for centuries. But it's good to see the new Congress planting an ethical beachhead in the interactive media that will doubtless replace mass media. I'm surprised that even Democrats would discard such as powerful tool for their own political manipulations of the public. But I'm not surprised that Republicans would hijack it to convert transparency into fascism.
It will be fascinating to watch which journalists, especially bloggers, advocate for the Republican registration amendment to stand. We should get rid of every part of that cancer that this outrageous amendment traces out.
If you're a "Fox News Republican" then, yes, hating the Democrats is a prerequisite for being considered unbiased.
The "notion" did say Fox News has bias (obvious to anyone honest who watches it, a nonneglibigle fraction of its audience). But it didn't say only Fox News has a bias.
You are the peddler of the strawman. You are likely a satisfied Fox News viewer.
The Senate's lobbying bill is bipartisan. The "blogger registration" amendment is Republican.
If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evidence produced by real investigations with legit processes, not Clinton-blowjob-style impeachment bullshit. But I'm not a Democrat, so I have no problem badgering them to do their duty and impeach. And to end the Iraq War, rather than merely enable Bush to brand all Republicans in 2008 as "Iraq Warmongers". Which I do regularly, as well.
Next loaded hypothetical question, please.
In the meantime, who did you vote for president in 2004?
"Trying to get Congress to make a particular action" isn't "lobbying" (except in specific formats, well documented in law). It's known as "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" in the Constitution. Which includes lobbying, but not all such petitions are lobbying.
It looks like you're reading S.1, Section 220, a Republican (Vitter (R-LA)) amendment "DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING." That section is the entire problem we're discussing. Just because some Republican says writing a letter to someone not in government, or publishing an article on the Web, is "lobbying", doesn't make it so. Unless Congress does pass this bill with that amendment. Which even the amendment's author, Vitter, is now trying to reverse, according to the article linked from this story's summary.
So I'd say that the travesty attempted by Vitter (and so far succeeding) will ultimately fail. Vitter, a true Louisiana Republican, is combining fascism and incompetence in one bill, which will most likely fail to implement the political speech control.
Which is just fine. Because not only is publishing political journalism not "lobbying", it's just the exact speech/press the First Amendment was designed to protect. So it would have been ruled unconstitutional. And in the meantime is alerting awake people that Republicans are not done attacking America with tyrannical legislation, just because they're not running the show anymore.
Again, you really don't know much about telephony. The GSM codec is pretty good: the robocalls I've run with them got rave reviews for their audio quality, because I tweaked everything (including the EQ) to use the GSM quality. The problem you're talking about has nothing to do with the codec, and everything to do with mobile telcos cheaping out on their transponder tech, locations and configs.
The economics of codecs are quite well established, and the audio quality of GSM and G.729 is fine. I know all about the obvious customer service details you're laboriously pointing out, too.
So stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about. You're just spreading FUD. Learn something accurate about this subject before you try teaching it to anyone else.
So I point out the facts about the bipartisan sponsors of this bill, contrary to the lies in the parent post about it being "Democrats", and I'm the troll? No, the trollMods are a zombie army never resting in their war to defend the "Conservative" brand from the truth.
No, it was 100% illegal, as ruled in Federal court last year. If you still believe in 2nd Millennium institutions as quaint as "Federal courts", it's obvious that Bush has repeatedly and determinedly broken the FISA law, violated the 4th Amendment, and committed other high crimes against Americans. The very kind of tyrant the Constitution provides for the Congress impeaching. Maybe this Congress, not a wholly owned Rove subsidiary, will actually do it. And not a moment too soon.
Especially as Bush has already started a new war with Iran. Just when you think it can't get any worse, Bush breaks new ground.
Oh, yeah, and you apparently missed the 11 antiwar bills introduced so far in the Democratic 110th Congress, in session for only two weeks.
So you're obviously paying attention only to the evidence that proves that your Republicans are wise and just, and Democrats aren't. You did hear that Democrats control Congress now, and that we're losing in Iraq, right?
Calling you "fascist" isn't "ad hominem". You're a fascist. I backed up that identification with plenty of evidence.
Your link about impeachment doesn't prove that Democrats aren't going to vote to do something about Iraq or FISA violations. You're wallowing in the favorite rightwinger fallacy of the excluded middle. Even if Congress doesn't impeach Bush for lying us into Iraq of violating FISA (and the 4th Amendment), that doesn't mean they're doing nothing. In fact, today Bush/Gonzales announced that Bush will return to using FISA every time (and he might even do so), which is obviously a result of Democrats doing something, or the credible threat of it, about exactly that. You're just so rightwing that you can't recognize actual democracy in action anymore: a Congress which actually debates in public issues and their resolution/consequences, rather than the Party bosses deciding in a backroom what the representatives will vote into law, without even consulting the opposition/minority. But you're going to have to get used to it.
Especially if Congress does impeach Bush anyway. You'll see how impeachment can go right onto the table, when investigations produce irrefutable evidence of Bush's crimes. When over 75% of the public (3:1) wants Bush impeached. For a combination of lying us into an Iraq War hated by over 85% (5:1) of the people, and breaking the FISA, and the litany of other crimes that collectively piss off over 65% of people who want him gone. Whose House Representatives all have to stand for election again in just 20 months. When Bush stands in the way of all kinds of other work the Democrats want to fund their preferred recipients to do, instead of handing $1 TRILLION to Bush every year for his wars.
And your link to the "nonbinding" antiwar resolution is even worse "counter" argument. Because it's gibberish: forcing Republicans to split with Bush and each other over the war is both meaningful action, and bipartisan by definition. So you're lying about "Dems" doing it, and you're almost as naive about politics as you are unfamiliar with valid logic.
So stop whining about evidence, throwing around debate terms like "ad hominem" that you don't understand, pontificating about politics and justice that are a game to you that you barely recognize. You voted for these crooks, you were for the war, you're a fascist, you're always wrong, and you're not even remotely funny. Stop pretending your words have any weight, when they rarely even have any basis in meaning.
Actually, lobbying has a very specific definition, if a very wide scope. Lobbyist registration is connected with their physical access to politicians, which they are privileged to get prioritized above the general public. That's still undemocratic and wrong, but the registration is part of their control.
Journalists aren't lobbyists. They don't have special access to politicians - they have access to publishing technology and distributors (including the Internet). Bloggers are journalists. And there's no real line: I'm a journalist while I'm telling you a story in a public medium about lobbyists and others. The right to publish speech is protected by the government, and is not to be infringed by the government (except when it creates a clear and present danger to infringing others' rights, especially when it's a lie, but that's not at issue here).
This bill would require anyone publishing political speech with any effect (over 500 readers) to register. That's clearly unconstitutional, restraining speech. There is a case to be made requiring publishers to report their income when the payers have an interest in what they publish, but it will require a lot more debate than we've seen to make the balanced implementation fair and clear. Because there is a danger to paid journalism: it's PR, which is like journalism, but without the ethics. We can see how bad it is in the cases of known journalists secretly paid by vested interests to promote conclusions or attitudes about their subject, many of which have come to light in the past few years of the Bush administration's nonstop propaganda campaigns. So reining in the abuse by requiring transparency is good.
Criminal penalties for not registering with the government whenever several hundred people read you is bad.
We have a huge corporate/government effort underway in America and across our sphere of influence to create official publishers. You can see it everywhere, from draconian copyright enforcement especially against publishers, to "Net Bias" attacks on Net Neutrality, which mainly makes giant media/network corporations the arbiters of what gets published, and what gets consumed. "Corporate/government" is a long word for "fascism". And like past fascisms, the control of information is essential to monopolizing power.
So while I'm glad to see the Senate reforming lobbying laws at least a little (Reid says he'll pay the retail fare for riding his "friends" private jets, and so will everyone else), registering the new political journalists called "bloggers" is not lobbyist reform. It has nothing to do with Duke Cunningham (R-CA) taking millions in bribes from lobbyists, or Jack Abramoff (registered Republican lobbyist) spreading around many millions more for legislative favors. It is to control political speech among the public, which is forbidden by the people in our Constitution to our government.
No, this is a bipartisan attempt at totalitarianism.
You linked to "the Democrats", but that list (which doesn't indicate the party of its cosponsor senators) is of both parties (I added their parties):
Republican Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 1/8/2007 Democrat Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 1/4/2007 Republican Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 1/4/2007 Independent Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 1/4/2007 Republican Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 1/4/2007 Republican Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] - 1/9/2007 Democrat Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 1/4/2007 Democrat Sen Webb, Jim [VA] - 1/4/2007
So that's 4:12:1 Republican:Democrat:Independent cosponsors. One of the Republicans is the Republican Minority Leader, another was the Republican Majority Leader. It reads more like a list of the "Conservative" members of the Senate: Webb (D-VA) was a Republican, even Reagan's Navy Secretary. Feinstein (D-CA) and Salazar (D-CO) are among the most Conservative Senators, regardless of party. Menendez (D-NJ) just barely (because he didn't distinguish himself) won his election against the very Conservative Tom Kean Jr. Lieberman (I-CT) is so "Conservative" that he's really a Republican, but ran as "Independent" to fool his Democratic state into voting for him after Democrats voted him out in the primaries. The bill's sponsor, Reid (D-NV) is fairly Conservative, but is also Senate Majority Leader, which is an inherently "conservative" position. And Schumer (D-NY) is somewhat "Conservative", because he's running the Democrats' national Senate campaign organization. Leahy (D-VT) and Brown (D-OH) are pretty liberal, but that end of the spectrum is in the tiny minority: of the 18% of all the senators in the chamber, who are helping to sponsor this bill, only 2% of those are liberal cosponsors.
The article we're discussing mentions only 2 senators, both Republicans. Vitter (R-LA) introduced the "criminal penalties" amendment that is the bill's teeth, though now a cosponsor with Bennett (R-UT) of the amendment to remove that penalty - though Bennett is still a sponsor of the bill itself:
"On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'
"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy.
So while your comment is correct to point out that Democrats are among those powermongers who are trying to control regular citizens from entering and affecting the political process, it's wrong to say (as it did) that it's just Democrats. The "bipartisan" coalition here is mainly a "Conservative" one. Which is extremely relevant, because "Conservatives" claim to want government out of interfering with people, want equal access to politics, prize the Constitution and its Bill of Rights above any other government construct. But the "Conservatives" are acting contrary to that. As usual, with the "Conservative" movement opposing powermongers until they get some power, then abusing it worse than any other kind of political animal.
You really don't know much about Internet telephony, do you? G.729 is quite good for telephony, as is GSM. They use around 10Kbps. That's 6x as many calls on a single CPU, which runs maybe 100-200 simul calls. To serve 10,000 simul calls, that's 50-100 servers. Which is a lot more costs in HW, operators, network bandwidth, facilities square footage, power, etc. Those savings are what makes VoIP cost-effective enough for little players to challenge the big telcos. In which change lies the revolution. Don't fight it, go with it.
You're a fascist. But here's some help for you anyway, in case anyone who doesn't just worship authority is watching:
to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars
Last I checked, juries determined the outcome of cases, and judges determined the outcome of appeals.
Check yourself. If you don't think Gonzales assigning the US Attorney of his choice to select cases will determine their outcome, by pulling their punches or worse collaboration, you aren't paying attention to this story. The one where Gonzales is abusing the Patriot Act provision for indefinite "interim" attorneys by firing without cause existing US Attorneys, then installing his picks for the rest of Bush's term. Wake up and smell the tyranny.
Also, changing a legislative loophole is in the purview of the legislature. The consent of US district attorneys is provided for by statute, not by Constitutional mandate, and if the law says that the executive branch can make these nominations without Senate approval, then they can:
and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. --Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2.
"Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone/I>"
"May", but didn't. Congress did require US Attorneys to be confirmed by the Senate. Gonzales is endrunning around this requirement with a loophole passed only last year by his Republican Congress. You're not consistent in the authorities you're worshipping: you prefer the Republicans. No surprise: they're fascists, too.
Your accusations regarding attempts to try Halliburton execs under courts martial are ridiculous. You have zero evidence that this is the plan, and your logic is flawed, besides. If, as you say, trying civilians in a court martial is unconstitutional, then double jeopardy will not apply, because the accused will never have faced true jeopardy backed by the force of law in the first place.
Evidence? How can you possibly bring up "evidence" while you defend Gonzales' travesty of justice? Dick Cheney, is that you? You watch and see what Cheney, whose Halliburton options increased by over 20x in value last year alone, barfs up in the last 2 years he's got the VP power. Your argument against double jeopardy sounds good, but is it compliant with the Patriot Acts? The host of other abusive laws Bush/Cheney pissed all over our Constitution the past 6 years? Wait and see. Unless outrage like what ripped majority control from those fascist Republicans last November decapitates this criminal regime in lawyers' monkey suits.
I agree concerning the FISA court, by the way. Ignoring a facility put in place to accomplish the very things the administration wanted to achieve - namely, obtaining warrants in secret - never made sense to me, and it is likely that their actions violated the law.
Likely? A Federal judge has already ruled in no uncertain terms that it violated the law, and it's obvious that it violated the law. The law protecting you from their tyranny. But you're still defending their further tyranny. That makes your attitude worse, inexcusable by "ignorance" of their criminal enterprise.
But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes wher
I just watched Sen Feinstein (D-CA) telling the (probably empty, except the C-SPAN camera) Senate floor about how Chief Inqusitor^W^WAttorney General Gonzales has been firing US Attorneys in various districts, without any just cause (except "just 'cause I say so"), replacing them with "interim" Attorneys to last the rest of Bush's administration, avoiding the required Senate confirmation, to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars. Like the "recess appointments" of Bush admin hacks like UN bomber^WAmbassador John Bolton and others. A "loophole" designed into the Patriot Act II (With a Vengance) voted in by the Republican Congress in 2006, which threw away the old "120 days maximum" for "interim" Attorney appointments, in favor of... as long as the Attorney General pleases, with whoever he pleases, whenever he pleases. Pleases himself, that is, not people interested in justice or Constitutional rule.
And this morning I read how Republicans want courts martial to try civilians. I expect they'll lock up trying war profiteers like Halliburton, find them "not guilty/liable", and use our Constitution's "no double jeopardy" rules to exclude real courts from trying them and exposing the evidence to shareholders and citizens. Then I won't be surprised when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales find excuses to apply military courts all over the globe. From US occupations like Afghanistan and Iraq, to battlegrounds in other countries like probably Iran and Syria, to anarchies where they're bombing like Somalia. Then widening to other Terror War territories, wherever they can find them. All in defiance of international laws, US treaties, and our Constitution itself, which is universal, yielding only in the face of sovereign foreign jurisdiction.
After all, Cheney/Gonzales/Bush don't even have any use for the required FISA court that bends over backwards to grant warrants, even after the fact, when spying on Americans. Why shouldn't this gang of "Conservatives" use the laws they've passed the past 6 years with their wholly-owned Congressional subsidiary to do whatever they want, regardless of how tyrannical?
After all, there's no law against Cheney lying to us on TV talk shows - as far as Cheney cares, anyway.
Speex and iLBC aren't as hifi as G.729, not for all telephony (which is somewhat wider than just voice). If the new codec were $free, and its TCO as low as G.729 for quality due to low network/CPU bandwidth, everyone, especially carriers and an Internet full of small operating peers, would use it.
How about an alternative codec to G.729, that isn't constrained by the G.729 patent? That means a different algorithm, but which still gives the high quality and low network/CPU bandwidth to "telephony" audio that makes it the favorite for VoIP? With the patent, G.729 codecs are all proprietary, licensing fees costing at least $10 per simultaneous call leg capacity. Which is the greatest ecomomic bottleneck to the growing revolution in packetized voice: an $800 server with an $80:mo ($1000:y) FTTP connection can use otherwise free SW to carry up to 400 call legs, which cost $4000 for the codecs.
A $free codec competitive with G.729 were available, it could unleash "phone servers" the way that multi-IP httpd unleashed webservers, powering the entire Bubble that got you to read Slashdot.
No, Star Wars is a Republican programme. The Democratic Congress voted in the 1980s to kill it, and any successor programs. Though Bush Sr continued to fund it covertly or through "voodoo budgeting". The Republican Congress of the 1990s started refunding it, through Bush Jr. It's Bush Jr's military priority, which is one reason why we're losing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars through mismanagement and strategic misdirection, why we're cultivating nuke missile threats in Iran and N Korea. And why Bush just appointed a Star Wars scientist to run NASA, right after Tom Delay's last days in power increased NASA's budget higher than it requested, culminating in this year's announcement that NASA will militarize space for the Pentagon and intel orgs.
Of course both parties and every administration has viewed the space program as a "status" symbol, among other symbols. But Bush has treated it purely as a symbol, except when militarizing space (usually covertly, where symbols are bad except as misdirection). Bush doesn't want the space research that corroborates "Big Bang" theories debunking Creationism, or more importantly demonstrating manmade climate change, or even just offering info to the public, rather than corporations. In these priorities Bush is extreme, if not quite unique (other Republicans naturally shared those agendas; Democrats, not so much).
Grounding the Space Shuttle for years after Columbia, then relaunching it despite serious continuing risks, while announcing the death of the programme, makes Bush's administration the worst space admin ever. Symbol over science, transforming space into a battleground.
I'm all for cheap, fast, expendible automated missions. I'm even more enthusiastic about whatever the US can do to drag American industry to the Moon and various orbits, whatever it takes. And I want American humans landing on Mars first. The US has a lot of global prestige to recapture after the past 5 years of disgrace. The space programme is probably the most popular government operation overall, domestically and in the world. And it directly attacks our worst enemies - jihadists, anti-intellectuals, doomsayers, defeatists - both foreign and domestic. It's clearly demonstrated that until Bush is gone, NASA will be the Pentagon's bitch. In a couple of years, though, we might be able to get back on the path to an American pioneering Mars, and a Lunar solar platform.
I dunno, we did mourn and move on after Challenger's 1986 destruction, and again after the 2003 Columbia destruction. It's true that NASA has been largely paralyzed since Columbia, combined with recklessly sending new misions despite serious risks. That shows the mismanagement and opportunism of the Bush administration, which sees the shuttle as a symbol, and a way to militarize the space program. But that's an aberration, not the overall operation of the space program over the past 37 years since Apollo's first Lunar landing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I got mixed up. I'm sorry.
Personally, I try to link to posts to which I refer, or at least quote them. The Slashdot post editor should automate that, but it sucks. And I didn't compensate by clicking through the posts and reading them carefully enough.
On adequately closer examination, you seem reasonable and honest to me.
The problem isn't "that if you watch Fox News [...] you're politically unsophisticated or [...] you have a personal agenda that flies in the face of common sense".
The problem is precisely the reverse. If you're politically unsophisticated, or you have a personal agenda that flies in the face of common sense, you're more likely to watch Fox News. And then, since Fox News produces mainly rightwing/Republican propaganda, those viewers have their political unsophistication and common nonsensical personal agendas reinforced. And watch Fox News more.
If you think Fox News has "liberal" content, you must be referring to allen colmes, the sacrificial liberal milquetoast Sean Hannity wears as a fig leaf. Or maybe the various tabloid features appealing to hypocritical "Conservatives", like the excuses of moral outrage used to broadcast video of scantily clad young girls and other salacious content. Or maybe you're just so rightwing yourself that Fox's merely authoritarian content looks "left" from your extreme right position. Fox offers all kinds of ways to pretend it's "fair and balanced" (though mainly depending on chanting that propaganda tagline like hypnosis).
Your belief in "liberal bias" comes from where? Fox News? Your minister? God told you? Nearly all mass media, especially counted by viewership, is corporate. Corporations are "conservative", because they worked and spent hard to create the status quo that feeds their bottom line. Because "Conservatism" is authoritarian in its political effects, and corporations are not democratic, they're authoritarian. No one who analyzes actual media content and activity believes it's "liberal", except people with an antiliberal agenda who work to push everthing steadily further to the right.
You even admit Fox News is "Conservative" when you say "I am a conservative, so Fox News naturally appeals to me". Come on, if you just read your own posts honestly, I wouldn't have to reply with anything.
Many Christians have a persecution complex. To avoid getting trapped in inverted logic about political sophistication/agendas and Fox News viewership, I'll clarify how it works. Some people have a persecution complex, for various reasons. Christianity's central beliefs are tied up in a sacrificed god, persecuted by the public and government in its holiest episodes. People with a persecution complex are attracted to this acting out of their own fantasies, and are more likely to join. Current American pop Christianity has many people promoting the persecution complex. Ignoring that nearly all government power in America has always been controlled by Christians, even despite explicit setups to prevent Christianity (or any religion) from controlling government power. And ignoring the destruction of many of those protections from religious control of society - because that would reveal how Christianity is far from persecuted, but rather privileged in government concessions to Christian interests at the expense of nonbelievers and their interests. The persecution complex perpetuates itself despite reality, because it works to get more power (at least for the leaders who promote it all), and because that power, and the Christianity itself, does little to solve the personality problems from which the actual persecution complex comes.
Man, I could go on for days with you. You claim you're not a "straw man", but what you're supposed to be claiming (or denying) by that is totally unknowable. Because you threw out several straw man arguments, like your introduction of the idea that "if you watch Fox News that you're politically unsophisticated / have an agenda", as if someone had said that, so you could argue against it. Or your introduction of "conservatives are uneducated", so you can argue against it, though no one said so to begin with. Or even your introduction of the (incomprehensible) idea that "you are a straw man", which no one said you were (what would they mean if they d
No, you're confused.
The situation starts before S.1 is is written, say last December. At that time, "lobbying" is a specific set of activities, defined by law involving paid people interacting directly with officials, not with the public. They are so privileged in their access, and that access is so powerful, that they must register with the government, in public. They must also register which Party with which they affiliate. Because lobbying is really "borderline" unethical (often writing the law itself, acting like a senior staff member, but explicitly representing only one interested constituent/group - I say it's just unethical), there are many laws defining it and controlling it - though clearly not enough laws, because they're central to some of the worst corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress.
Paid advocacy journalists like newspaper reporters and astroturfers, who interact with the public, and only loosely (if on a large scale) by publishing, might be unethical, but they're not illegal. And they're not lobbyists. And they didn't have to register.
Some lobbyists (Jack Abramoff) got into a lot of trouble last year, and their Republican clients with them. In fact, Karl Rove tried to blame his crushing defeat, loss of his Republican Congress essential to the way his administration governs, on "corruption", a codeword for Abramoff and some non-lobbyist scandals like Foley the child molester and his coverup.
So the incoming Democrats, who first ran against Republicans by chanting "Culture of Corruption", write S.1 to outlaw some obvious bribes, including ones Democrats have taken (Harry Reid (D-NV), Democratic Majority Leader, introduced the bill, with a speech about his "friend" the Mandalay Bay Casino CEO, and his "harmless generosity" flying Reid around in Mandalay Bay corporate jets, now required to be paid at the "market rate"). It doesn't say anything about bloggers at first, but then Republicans like Vitter (R-LA) add amendment creating Section 220, which requires paid political bloggers, not even the print journalists like Armstrong Williams paid by Bush's Republican White House, to register. Then even Vitter turns against that baseless, unconstitutional amendment, with a new amendment to withdraw it. But it's still in there so far. And it's freaking out a lot of people.
It's Section 220 which requires political bloggers to register with the government. It's got to go, because the government cannot be in a position of control like that ("didn't register, go to jail").
Paid bloggers are elsewhere required by that law to disclose their payments, but not to register - they can disclose wherever they publish. That kind of transparency is essential to ethical blogging, like the "truth in advertising" and libel laws are essential to ethical print journalism (and to blogging, too). If anything, the law doesn't go far enough with mass media paid advocacy "journalism". I suppose it's too early to destroy Fox News' entore biz model, and upset the applecart of the rest of the corporate mass media that's operated that way, though with "sustainable restraint", for centuries. But it's good to see the new Congress planting an ethical beachhead in the interactive media that will doubtless replace mass media. I'm surprised that even Democrats would discard such as powerful tool for their own political manipulations of the public. But I'm not surprised that Republicans would hijack it to convert transparency into fascism.
It will be fascinating to watch which journalists, especially bloggers, advocate for the Republican registration amendment to stand. We should get rid of every part of that cancer that this outrageous amendment traces out.
The "notion" did say Fox News has bias (obvious to anyone honest who watches it, a nonneglibigle fraction of its audience). But it didn't say only Fox News has a bias.
You are the peddler of the strawman. You are likely a satisfied Fox News viewer.
The Senate's lobbying bill is bipartisan. The "blogger registration" amendment is Republican.
If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evidence produced by real investigations with legit processes, not Clinton-blowjob-style impeachment bullshit. But I'm not a Democrat, so I have no problem badgering them to do their duty and impeach. And to end the Iraq War, rather than merely enable Bush to brand all Republicans in 2008 as "Iraq Warmongers". Which I do regularly, as well.
Next loaded hypothetical question, please.
In the meantime, who did you vote for president in 2004?
"Trying to get Congress to make a particular action" isn't "lobbying" (except in specific formats, well documented in law). It's known as "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" in the Constitution. Which includes lobbying, but not all such petitions are lobbying.
It looks like you're reading S.1, Section 220, a Republican (Vitter (R-LA)) amendment "DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING." That section is the entire problem we're discussing. Just because some Republican says writing a letter to someone not in government, or publishing an article on the Web, is "lobbying", doesn't make it so. Unless Congress does pass this bill with that amendment. Which even the amendment's author, Vitter, is now trying to reverse, according to the article linked from this story's summary.
So I'd say that the travesty attempted by Vitter (and so far succeeding) will ultimately fail. Vitter, a true Louisiana Republican, is combining fascism and incompetence in one bill, which will most likely fail to implement the political speech control.
Which is just fine. Because not only is publishing political journalism not "lobbying", it's just the exact speech/press the First Amendment was designed to protect. So it would have been ruled unconstitutional. And in the meantime is alerting awake people that Republicans are not done attacking America with tyrannical legislation, just because they're not running the show anymore.
Again, you really don't know much about telephony. The GSM codec is pretty good: the robocalls I've run with them got rave reviews for their audio quality, because I tweaked everything (including the EQ) to use the GSM quality. The problem you're talking about has nothing to do with the codec, and everything to do with mobile telcos cheaping out on their transponder tech, locations and configs.
The economics of codecs are quite well established, and the audio quality of GSM and G.729 is fine. I know all about the obvious customer service details you're laboriously pointing out, too.
So stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about. You're just spreading FUD. Learn something accurate about this subject before you try teaching it to anyone else.
Click...
Moderation 0
50% Troll
50% Informative
So I point out the facts about the bipartisan sponsors of this bill, contrary to the lies in the parent post about it being "Democrats", and I'm the troll? No, the trollMods are a zombie army never resting in their war to defend the "Conservative" brand from the truth.
No, it was 100% illegal, as ruled in Federal court last year. If you still believe in 2nd Millennium institutions as quaint as "Federal courts", it's obvious that Bush has repeatedly and determinedly broken the FISA law, violated the 4th Amendment, and committed other high crimes against Americans. The very kind of tyrant the Constitution provides for the Congress impeaching. Maybe this Congress, not a wholly owned Rove subsidiary, will actually do it. And not a moment too soon.
Especially as Bush has already started a new war with Iran. Just when you think it can't get any worse, Bush breaks new ground.
Good thing there's enough cod to go around!
Oh, wait, we've overfished cod into near extinction already, before we've even started grinding them up for birdflu shots.
Oh, yeah, and you apparently missed the 11 antiwar bills introduced so far in the Democratic 110th Congress, in session for only two weeks.
So you're obviously paying attention only to the evidence that proves that your Republicans are wise and just, and Democrats aren't. You did hear that Democrats control Congress now, and that we're losing in Iraq, right?
Now you've even lost all coherence.
Calling you "fascist" isn't "ad hominem". You're a fascist. I backed up that identification with plenty of evidence.
Your link about impeachment doesn't prove that Democrats aren't going to vote to do something about Iraq or FISA violations. You're wallowing in the favorite rightwinger fallacy of the excluded middle. Even if Congress doesn't impeach Bush for lying us into Iraq of violating FISA (and the 4th Amendment), that doesn't mean they're doing nothing. In fact, today Bush/Gonzales announced that Bush will return to using FISA every time (and he might even do so), which is obviously a result of Democrats doing something, or the credible threat of it, about exactly that. You're just so rightwing that you can't recognize actual democracy in action anymore: a Congress which actually debates in public issues and their resolution/consequences, rather than the Party bosses deciding in a backroom what the representatives will vote into law, without even consulting the opposition/minority. But you're going to have to get used to it.
Especially if Congress does impeach Bush anyway. You'll see how impeachment can go right onto the table, when investigations produce irrefutable evidence of Bush's crimes. When over 75% of the public (3:1) wants Bush impeached. For a combination of lying us into an Iraq War hated by over 85% (5:1) of the people, and breaking the FISA, and the litany of other crimes that collectively piss off over 65% of people who want him gone. Whose House Representatives all have to stand for election again in just 20 months. When Bush stands in the way of all kinds of other work the Democrats want to fund their preferred recipients to do, instead of handing $1 TRILLION to Bush every year for his wars.
And your link to the "nonbinding" antiwar resolution is even worse "counter" argument. Because it's gibberish: forcing Republicans to split with Bush and each other over the war is both meaningful action, and bipartisan by definition. So you're lying about "Dems" doing it, and you're almost as naive about politics as you are unfamiliar with valid logic.
So stop whining about evidence, throwing around debate terms like "ad hominem" that you don't understand, pontificating about politics and justice that are a game to you that you barely recognize. You voted for these crooks, you were for the war, you're a fascist, you're always wrong, and you're not even remotely funny. Stop pretending your words have any weight, when they rarely even have any basis in meaning.
Actually, lobbying has a very specific definition, if a very wide scope. Lobbyist registration is connected with their physical access to politicians, which they are privileged to get prioritized above the general public. That's still undemocratic and wrong, but the registration is part of their control.
Journalists aren't lobbyists. They don't have special access to politicians - they have access to publishing technology and distributors (including the Internet). Bloggers are journalists. And there's no real line: I'm a journalist while I'm telling you a story in a public medium about lobbyists and others. The right to publish speech is protected by the government, and is not to be infringed by the government (except when it creates a clear and present danger to infringing others' rights, especially when it's a lie, but that's not at issue here).
This bill would require anyone publishing political speech with any effect (over 500 readers) to register. That's clearly unconstitutional, restraining speech. There is a case to be made requiring publishers to report their income when the payers have an interest in what they publish, but it will require a lot more debate than we've seen to make the balanced implementation fair and clear. Because there is a danger to paid journalism: it's PR, which is like journalism, but without the ethics. We can see how bad it is in the cases of known journalists secretly paid by vested interests to promote conclusions or attitudes about their subject, many of which have come to light in the past few years of the Bush administration's nonstop propaganda campaigns. So reining in the abuse by requiring transparency is good.
Criminal penalties for not registering with the government whenever several hundred people read you is bad.
We have a huge corporate/government effort underway in America and across our sphere of influence to create official publishers. You can see it everywhere, from draconian copyright enforcement especially against publishers, to "Net Bias" attacks on Net Neutrality, which mainly makes giant media/network corporations the arbiters of what gets published, and what gets consumed. "Corporate/government" is a long word for "fascism". And like past fascisms, the control of information is essential to monopolizing power.
So while I'm glad to see the Senate reforming lobbying laws at least a little (Reid says he'll pay the retail fare for riding his "friends" private jets, and so will everyone else), registering the new political journalists called "bloggers" is not lobbyist reform. It has nothing to do with Duke Cunningham (R-CA) taking millions in bribes from lobbyists, or Jack Abramoff (registered Republican lobbyist) spreading around many millions more for legislative favors. It is to control political speech among the public, which is forbidden by the people in our Constitution to our government.
You linked to "the Democrats", but that list (which doesn't indicate the party of its cosponsor senators) is of both parties (I added their parties):
So that's 4:12:1 Republican:Democrat:Independent cosponsors. One of the Republicans is the Republican Minority Leader, another was the Republican Majority Leader. It reads more like a list of the "Conservative" members of the Senate: Webb (D-VA) was a Republican, even Reagan's Navy Secretary. Feinstein (D-CA) and Salazar (D-CO) are among the most Conservative Senators, regardless of party. Menendez (D-NJ) just barely (because he didn't distinguish himself) won his election against the very Conservative Tom Kean Jr. Lieberman (I-CT) is so "Conservative" that he's really a Republican, but ran as "Independent" to fool his Democratic state into voting for him after Democrats voted him out in the primaries. The bill's sponsor, Reid (D-NV) is fairly Conservative, but is also Senate Majority Leader, which is an inherently "conservative" position. And Schumer (D-NY) is somewhat "Conservative", because he's running the Democrats' national Senate campaign organization. Leahy (D-VT) and Brown (D-OH) are pretty liberal, but that end of the spectrum is in the tiny minority: of the 18% of all the senators in the chamber, who are helping to sponsor this bill, only 2% of those are liberal cosponsors.
The article we're discussing mentions only 2 senators, both Republicans. Vitter (R-LA) introduced the "criminal penalties" amendment that is the bill's teeth, though now a cosponsor with Bennett (R-UT) of the amendment to remove that penalty - though Bennett is still a sponsor of the bill itself:
So while your comment is correct to point out that Democrats are among those powermongers who are trying to control regular citizens from entering and affecting the political process, it's wrong to say (as it did) that it's just Democrats. The "bipartisan" coalition here is mainly a "Conservative" one. Which is extremely relevant, because "Conservatives" claim to want government out of interfering with people, want equal access to politics, prize the Constitution and its Bill of Rights above any other government construct. But the "Conservatives" are acting contrary to that. As usual, with the "Conservative" movement opposing powermongers until they get some power, then abusing it worse than any other kind of political animal.
The Feinstein appearance (live) on C-SPAN is now making real news. You can read more details, watch the YouTube, and discuss it somewhere that isn't Slashdot.
"here is a Republican, free-market perspective on the return of the Fairness Doctrine."
Why get all theoretical? We have a "Republican, free-market perspective" on news and fairness: Fox News. The fascism channel, 24x7.
You really don't know much about Internet telephony, do you? G.729 is quite good for telephony, as is GSM. They use around 10Kbps. That's 6x as many calls on a single CPU, which runs maybe 100-200 simul calls. To serve 10,000 simul calls, that's 50-100 servers. Which is a lot more costs in HW, operators, network bandwidth, facilities square footage, power, etc. Those savings are what makes VoIP cost-effective enough for little players to challenge the big telcos. In which change lies the revolution. Don't fight it, go with it.
Check yourself. If you don't think Gonzales assigning the US Attorney of his choice to select cases will determine their outcome, by pulling their punches or worse collaboration, you aren't paying attention to this story. The one where Gonzales is abusing the Patriot Act provision for indefinite "interim" attorneys by firing without cause existing US Attorneys, then installing his picks for the rest of Bush's term. Wake up and smell the tyranny.
"Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone/I>"
"May", but didn't. Congress did require US Attorneys to be confirmed by the Senate. Gonzales is endrunning around this requirement with a loophole passed only last year by his Republican Congress. You're not consistent in the authorities you're worshipping: you prefer the Republicans. No surprise: they're fascists, too.
Evidence? How can you possibly bring up "evidence" while you defend Gonzales' travesty of justice? Dick Cheney, is that you? You watch and see what Cheney, whose Halliburton options increased by over 20x in value last year alone, barfs up in the last 2 years he's got the VP power. Your argument against double jeopardy sounds good, but is it compliant with the Patriot Acts? The host of other abusive laws Bush/Cheney pissed all over our Constitution the past 6 years? Wait and see. Unless outrage like what ripped majority control from those fascist Republicans last November decapitates this criminal regime in lawyers' monkey suits.
Likely? A Federal judge has already ruled in no uncertain terms that it violated the law, and it's obvious that it violated the law. The law protecting you from their tyranny. But you're still defending their further tyranny. That makes your attitude worse, inexcusable by "ignorance" of their criminal enterprise.
Define "should". Besides, I'm just a good citizen like yourself. My favorite NGO is me.
"Cheney's Law" is "I am the Law".
I just watched Sen Feinstein (D-CA) telling the (probably empty, except the C-SPAN camera) Senate floor about how Chief Inqusitor^W^WAttorney General Gonzales has been firing US Attorneys in various districts, without any just cause (except "just 'cause I say so"), replacing them with "interim" Attorneys to last the rest of Bush's administration, avoiding the required Senate confirmation, to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars. Like the "recess appointments" of Bush admin hacks like UN bomber^WAmbassador John Bolton and others. A "loophole" designed into the Patriot Act II (With a Vengance) voted in by the Republican Congress in 2006, which threw away the old "120 days maximum" for "interim" Attorney appointments, in favor of... as long as the Attorney General pleases, with whoever he pleases, whenever he pleases. Pleases himself, that is, not people interested in justice or Constitutional rule.
And this morning I read how Republicans want courts martial to try civilians. I expect they'll lock up trying war profiteers like Halliburton, find them "not guilty/liable", and use our Constitution's "no double jeopardy" rules to exclude real courts from trying them and exposing the evidence to shareholders and citizens. Then I won't be surprised when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales find excuses to apply military courts all over the globe. From US occupations like Afghanistan and Iraq, to battlegrounds in other countries like probably Iran and Syria, to anarchies where they're bombing like Somalia. Then widening to other Terror War territories, wherever they can find them. All in defiance of international laws, US treaties, and our Constitution itself, which is universal, yielding only in the face of sovereign foreign jurisdiction.
After all, Cheney/Gonzales/Bush don't even have any use for the required FISA court that bends over backwards to grant warrants, even after the fact, when spying on Americans. Why shouldn't this gang of "Conservatives" use the laws they've passed the past 6 years with their wholly-owned Congressional subsidiary to do whatever they want, regardless of how tyrannical?
After all, there's no law against Cheney lying to us on TV talk shows - as far as Cheney cares, anyway.
Speex and iLBC aren't as hifi as G.729, not for all telephony (which is somewhat wider than just voice). If the new codec were $free, and its TCO as low as G.729 for quality due to low network/CPU bandwidth, everyone, especially carriers and an Internet full of small operating peers, would use it.
How about an alternative codec to G.729, that isn't constrained by the G.729 patent? That means a different algorithm, but which still gives the high quality and low network/CPU bandwidth to "telephony" audio that makes it the favorite for VoIP? With the patent, G.729 codecs are all proprietary, licensing fees costing at least $10 per simultaneous call leg capacity. Which is the greatest ecomomic bottleneck to the growing revolution in packetized voice: an $800 server with an $80:mo ($1000:y) FTTP connection can use otherwise free SW to carry up to 400 call legs, which cost $4000 for the codecs.
A $free codec competitive with G.729 were available, it could unleash "phone servers" the way that multi-IP httpd unleashed webservers, powering the entire Bubble that got you to read Slashdot.
No, Star Wars is a Republican programme. The Democratic Congress voted in the 1980s to kill it, and any successor programs. Though Bush Sr continued to fund it covertly or through "voodoo budgeting". The Republican Congress of the 1990s started refunding it, through Bush Jr. It's Bush Jr's military priority, which is one reason why we're losing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars through mismanagement and strategic misdirection, why we're cultivating nuke missile threats in Iran and N Korea. And why Bush just appointed a Star Wars scientist to run NASA, right after Tom Delay's last days in power increased NASA's budget higher than it requested, culminating in this year's announcement that NASA will militarize space for the Pentagon and intel orgs.
Of course both parties and every administration has viewed the space program as a "status" symbol, among other symbols. But Bush has treated it purely as a symbol, except when militarizing space (usually covertly, where symbols are bad except as misdirection). Bush doesn't want the space research that corroborates "Big Bang" theories debunking Creationism, or more importantly demonstrating manmade climate change, or even just offering info to the public, rather than corporations. In these priorities Bush is extreme, if not quite unique (other Republicans naturally shared those agendas; Democrats, not so much).
Grounding the Space Shuttle for years after Columbia, then relaunching it despite serious continuing risks, while announcing the death of the programme, makes Bush's administration the worst space admin ever. Symbol over science, transforming space into a battleground.
I'm all for cheap, fast, expendible automated missions. I'm even more enthusiastic about whatever the US can do to drag American industry to the Moon and various orbits, whatever it takes. And I want American humans landing on Mars first. The US has a lot of global prestige to recapture after the past 5 years of disgrace. The space programme is probably the most popular government operation overall, domestically and in the world. And it directly attacks our worst enemies - jihadists, anti-intellectuals, doomsayers, defeatists - both foreign and domestic. It's clearly demonstrated that until Bush is gone, NASA will be the Pentagon's bitch. In a couple of years, though, we might be able to get back on the path to an American pioneering Mars, and a Lunar solar platform.
I dunno, we did mourn and move on after Challenger's 1986 destruction, and again after the 2003 Columbia destruction. It's true that NASA has been largely paralyzed since Columbia, combined with recklessly sending new misions despite serious risks. That shows the mismanagement and opportunism of the Bush administration, which sees the shuttle as a symbol, and a way to militarize the space program. But that's an aberration, not the overall operation of the space program over the past 37 years since Apollo's first Lunar landing.
Then that patent would be totally invalid, if patents were anything but a suffocating scam.