GM does not meet that definition for good reason. Your GM food has seen a few generations of testing... not thousands.
To anyone with even a college-level understanding of science, that is not a good reason... Thousands of generations may be required to determine long-term survivability of the species, but they are just as edible. Far more "dangerous" things can be done by simply mixing various organic foods into a meal (or a food product) after slaughter/harvesting, than can happen in a living organism.
If you want a new label for GM only, but OTHERWISE natural, lobby for it. "Pesticide Free" maybe.
Why don't you lobby instead for non-GM to be a separate certification? That would make far more sense... People opposed to GM, for whatever reason, will then be able to buy non-GM foods, but if they don't care for pesticides or anti-biotics, they don't have to pay extra for that?
but fuck you for even insinuating GM should be included in the "organic" family of foods
Oh! So that is the high-minded discourse one gets for doubting the dogma. Thank you very much...
If you don't care about eating organic, don't eat organic.
I do care. But I don't want anti-business fear-mongering to affect the meaning of what "organic" means. Things like traces of anti-biotics and pesticides may well be harmful. Genetic modifications can not.
Except Clinton told Bush that bin Laden was someone to watch out for
You have a record of that conversation? If bin Laden was such a concern for Clinton, why didn't he target himself — there is perfectly credible evidence, that he could've done it himself even as late as July 2000 — mere six months before Bush assumed power... Perhaps, Clinton didn't really consider bin Laden to be such a threat, after all... Foolishly so.
because the only threat in his eyes was Iraq.
No, actually, prior to 9/11 Bush was concentrating on his domestic agenda in 2001 — cutting taxes to get out of Clinton's bubble-bursting (NASDAQ fell nearly 3-times in 2000, remember?), reforming education, Social Security, and Medicare. It was only after 9/11, that he decided to stop "fly-swatting" (taking out individual terrorists) and go to Middle East in force (starting with Iraq)...
How long before use of this technology by a farm will disqualify the farm's produce from the "USDA organic" label?
They already can not use genetically modified ingredients (which are harmless), equating GM with pesticides and anti-biotics (which aren't)...
Someone (PETA?) will claim, that such twisting of nature is bad, unethical, and somehow unhealthy and lobby the government to add the requirement for its "organic" certification...
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment out-standing.
Please don't do that here.
Your snobbery may have gathered you some "insightful" moderations, but you are still full of shit, fluxrad...
This kind of prepared terrorist attack is nearly impossible to prevent, particularly in a reasonably free nation.
Well, in 2002 the papers were full of gloomy predictions like yours, stating, that the next attack would take place within 12-18 months. None happened. Either all those "experts" were full of shit, or Bush is owed some credit. Or both...
The source for your link is an LA Times opinion piece. Please don't do that here.
Why? What's wrong with an — educated and reasonably substantiated — opinion?
That Clinton rejected Sudan's offer is a matter of fact. Why he did so is the matter of speculation, of course. But the point of my posting was to demonstrate, that blaming Clinton for 9/11 is not entirely without merit.
Back to Clinton's mistake — it does exemplify the difference in approaches. Clinton rejected bin Laden, and he, probably, wouldn't have authorized Guantanamo either.
Bush would've taken bin Laden and worry about legalities later. Hate it all you want, but 9/11 would've been prevented, and the major hassles and invasions into citizens' privacy along with it...
Another point against Clinton is that he refused to accept Osama bin Laden, when Sudan offered him. Clinton was a lawyer and rejected the offer, because there was no grand jury indictment against Osama (yet). So instead of going to a US jail, Osama went to Yemen and is mocking the US ever since — inspiring thousands of terrorists world-wide. For better or worse, Bush — not being a lawyer — would've taken Sudan on their offer and the 9/11 would never have happened. USS Cole would, probably, not have been attacked either.
There is plenty in 9/11 to blame Clinton for... Most in fact...
As for whether or not he's innocent or not is irrelevant at this point. He never got a fair trial. And without a fair trial, the justice system cannot prove something one way or another.
Am I the only one suspecting, the Justice Department deliberately mishandled the case to allow the man to get off? This is something, that can be done very gently and without any trail. Just appoint your worst (instead of the best, as a high-profile case deserves) prosecutor and watch him screw up here and here...
Thank you very much for agreeing, that hers is, indeed, a crime — however insignificant.
She "stole" something that has less value than a pack of chewing gum, and they're attempting to prosecute her as if she had stolen a Mercedes.
No, stealing a Mercedes lands one in prison. She is facing merely $10K — a fraction of what a defense lawyer would get, in case of a "real" theft.
If you, or anyone you let use your computer, has ever downloaded an MP3 of a song without getting full permission from the copyright holder, go ahead and pay them $50,000
Ok, so the imaginary $50K is too much. The actual $10K, that's being demanded from her (according to the summary), is — in your opinion — too much too. So, what is the appropriate punishment, in your opinion?
Until then, shut the hell up.
Right. Because freedom of speech is only for porn-sellers and anti-Capitalist protesters...
She 'couldn't sleep, couldn't study, couldn't live a normal life because of the worry.' The RIAA 'evidence' came from MediaSentry, accused of operating illegally."
What if MediaSentry presents an employee, who can't sleep, study, or "live a normal life" because of the worry (over the accusations of operating illegally)? Would that absolve MediaSentry of all responsibility and make us all sympathize with the poor guys?
No? Then why are we all in pieces over the girl in legal trouble (of her own making)?
The democrats weren't in charge for the last eight years, actually longer.
Actually, they were in charge of both Congress and Senate since 2006.
A time of some of the worst abuses of power in recent memory
Nothing that Bush Administration has done compares to this. The rot of the Executive Democrats is staggering:
Jim McGreevey, governor of New Jersey skillfully turns his "simple" corruption case of awarding state money to his lover into a "homosexual issue". He is currently serving — no, not prison time for corruption — as a professor of ethics (!!) in a state college. Although a big pay-cut from his government salary, a few more years in the position will allow him to retire on the generous "civil servant" pension and benefits. Meanwhile, any construction contractor dealing with the State in New Jersey must pay 30% of his revenue to the union racketeers — just to give you an example, of what Democratic misrule means.
Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York — an anti-business demagogue, busted committing crimes he was himself prosecuting only a few years earlier. No jail-time for some reason.
Rod Blagojevich, governor of Illinois — caught on tape by the FBI trying to exact a (big) favor in return for the US Senate appointment. He was willing to accept either a government appointment (such as ambassadorship), or a cushy union position, or head a charity created for the purpose — just to illustrate the level of corruption in his State (the same state, that gave us our current President). Indicted.
While on the subject of Illinois and Chicago, that's the city, whose Democratic mayor (having inherited the position from his election-stealing dad, BTW), now wants a surveilance camera on every corner. I can't hear you comparing today's Chicago to Munich of 1923...
And, of course, the case at hand. The current (Democratic) mayor of Phoenix is in office since 2004...
Right now, we're still seeing the abuses from the republicans being in charge.
The only significant wrong of the Bush administration was Guantanamo. And now that Obama is President he can not close the place, just like Bush had no other option for those people — the puzzle of what to do with combatants fighting not for a foreign state, but a terrorist organization really has no better solution... But those inmates there are foreigners, most of them credibly accused of attacking and conspiring against our country. There is no similar justification — not even in theory — for the listed Democratic corruption.
Or is your point that implementing progressive taxation for the purpose of helping all members of society have opportunities available to them is even comparable to illegally seizing private property for merely speaking against corruption?
Yes, it is comparable — and increasingly so. First of all, your priorities are screwed up. "Progressive taxation" is a fact of life, because of the principle, that your taxes are based on your ability to pay. This principle existed since long before the politicians recognized, that they can get elected by promising the poor to "take care" of them. It was neither meant to "give opportunities", nor is it achieving that goal. Despite the poorer half of the Americans paying less than 3% of the total tax, the upward mobility in the country has slowed over the decades.
And now back to the validity of comparing to the case at hand... Contrary to your accusations, the guy's property was seized neither illegally (explicit accusation) nor permanently (implicit). In fact, most of his property is still with him, thankfully. He is, by all appearances, being harassed by the government (incidentally — Democratic government) he criticized, which is very wrong.
ACLU time, and even up to the supreme court. The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal raping.
One would think so, but... Phoenix is governed by a Democrat since, at least, 2004. I doubt, a Democrat federal Administration would target their own. And, before you ask, yes, I believe, Blagojevich would've still been comfortably miss-governing, had the previous President been a Democrat.
Yeah, "troll" and "flamebait", right. The people issuing glum warnings and dire predictions about America becoming a "police state" and — my favorite — being "just like" Germany of 1937, not only always vote Democrat, but are the most active and vocal part of Democrat electorate. And yet, the worst abuses of power by the governments Federal and local alike tend to happen on the Democrats' watch...
The source of Wind turbine's power is neither unlimited, nor free — it is just largely untapped. Enough turbines will alter climates along the coasts (and deeper inland) will weaken the winds and thus change, for example, the rainfall amounts...
Has anybody thought of that? It will also be a hazard to navigation, but that, probably, is easier to solve...
You mean this isn't the BIG CHANGE everyone was HOPING for ?
Emphasis added, where appropriate. Barack Obama — with the aide of his trusty Media — has skillfully mesmerized a lot of people. To the point of simply "feeling good" about him, but unable to state, what exactly the like so much.
And as for bad things, he managed to neutralize them all too. When asked, the vast majority of his supporters proved rather ignorant and, in particular, could not recognize some damaging facts as having to do with Obama. Yet almost everybody "knew", Sarah Palin claimed to be able to see Russia from her house (she never said that, Tina Fey did).
Looks like we replaced one set of idiots with an even more morally bankrupt set.
Obama is not an idiot (neither was Bush, but that's a different story). He is a determined politician, in there for the money, power, and prestige — and with a chip on his (and his wife's, in particular) shoulder... He figured out long ago, that poorer people are always a majority, and is shamelessly manipulating them to get his way.
His support is waning, though, America just needs to persevere 'till 2010, when Republicans will, hopefully, get their act together and regain some standing in Congress... Until then, bills like the one we are discussing will be sailing through unhindered.
Many of us are angry and frustrated by the erosion of our liberties and the illegal government power grabs that have happened since 9-11.
In perspective, the power-grabs of Bush Administration pale in comparison with those by some of the earlier war-time Presidents, such as Roosevelt, on whose watch a few American citizens were not just locked up on a brig without trial, but simply killed — by a foreign (British) agency. This was, actually, before the US even entered the war and while relations with Germany were still legal — even if hated by the Brits. And yet, that same FDR — who lied to Americans and Congress to gauge the country towards war (that nearly 80% of Americans opposed at the time) — is judged by the History as a Nazi-defeating hero and his abuses of power (such as the infamous detainment of tens of thousands Japanese-Americans — conditions in their "war relocation camps" were worse, than those of Guantanamo, where only a several hundred people were ever housed).
Further back into time, an even greater hero — Abe Lincoln — has not only resorted to military force to keep Confederates inside the US (against their will), but gone so far as to suspend Habeas Corpus, and not just to "enemy combatants"(as Bush did), but to the supposed fellow Americans, who happened to disagree with him. And then he allowed his military to get away with the kind of atrocities against civilians (such as in Athens, Alabama), that would shock even the Marines, who fought in Haditha and Falluja...
But, I guess, all this is outside the Public School curriculum, which is written by people, who can not imagine an evil greater, than G.W. Bush...
I'm not sold on the doomsayers, but most climate scientists agree that SOMETHING is going on, and CO2 levels are a strong possible cause. I'm trying to be open-minded in the face of the media frenzy.
The most polarizing part of the debate is not whether anything is going on, but whether humans' (negative) contribution to it is significant enough to warrant forcible altering of our behavior — something anti-Capitalists in particular are most fond of. Examples of very significant, visible, rapid changes affecting planets with no occupants (and no media) certainly weaken their (already weak) argument...
However, looking at a gas giant is a bit of a stretch. There are basically no points of congruence between a supermassive ball of gaseous, liquid, and metallic hydrogen, and a tiny ball of rock with a thin scrim of water on the top.
The point is, very significant changes can happen to a planet without any human contribution. This much we can all agree on, and the observation in subject is a good illustration.
Back to partisan sniping — has not Barack Obama already fixed the global warming problem some time last year (before even taking office)? The 2008 was, like, the coldest in decades and 2009 is not particularly warm either...
Every time a story like this comes out, I recall the dreadful attempts by America-haters towards delegating the oversight of the Internet to an international, rather than, American body...
Certainly, Ireland is a fairly mild case — the country's ban on abortions, for example, is not as bad as curbs on freedoms placed by the likes of China, Russia, or Thailand.
But it would still suck to see America's influence over the Internet be diluted by that of the (some times much) less free countries...
Ireland is, in many respects, a fairly civilized country
With its debt being about eleven times their GDP, which is huge even by European standards, Ireland may, indeed, be considered "civilized"... But only by those, who share the America's Administration vision of civilization...
Of note, for instance, is the fact that divorce only became constitutional in 1995.
And abortions are still prohibited. Unbeknown to most of Bono's "liberal" fans, moaning: "Why can't the US be more like Europe?"
What this tells me more than anything else is that although they want to be transparent, the people who put this together know almost nothing about presentation of data.
Man, this data presentation job sucks! Mocking McCain's computer-illiteracy last year was sooo much more fun...
This money was wasted, this money was not wasted, we have no idea what happened to this money but we no longer have it and I could have sworn we had it.
Now we are talking — and moderating — like we have (very) fallible humans in the White House, not a Deity (who, for example, has solved the Global Warming problem before even taking office).
Why, perhaps, those impartial newspapers (whatever is left of them) may some day begin writing, what they surely would've written by now about John McCain, had he won the Presidency last year...
I hope they are building them on a budget. 1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me;)
You are supposing, that Quassam is a weapon of war. It is not. Its used not to kill, but to terrorize, and as such it is very effective. Israelis near Gaza live in constant fear (a.k.a. terror) and are always advised to be within 15 seconds from the nearest shelter...
Slashdot Mirror
To anyone with even a college-level understanding of science, that is not a good reason... Thousands of generations may be required to determine long-term survivability of the species, but they are just as edible. Far more "dangerous" things can be done by simply mixing various organic foods into a meal (or a food product) after slaughter/harvesting, than can happen in a living organism.
Why don't you lobby instead for non-GM to be a separate certification? That would make far more sense... People opposed to GM, for whatever reason, will then be able to buy non-GM foods, but if they don't care for pesticides or anti-biotics, they don't have to pay extra for that?
Oh! So that is the high-minded discourse one gets for doubting the dogma. Thank you very much...
I do care. But I don't want anti-business fear-mongering to affect the meaning of what "organic" means. Things like traces of anti-biotics and pesticides may well be harmful. Genetic modifications can not.
You have a record of that conversation? If bin Laden was such a concern for Clinton, why didn't he target himself — there is perfectly credible evidence, that he could've done it himself even as late as July 2000 — mere six months before Bush assumed power... Perhaps, Clinton didn't really consider bin Laden to be such a threat, after all... Foolishly so.
No, actually, prior to 9/11 Bush was concentrating on his domestic agenda in 2001 — cutting taxes to get out of Clinton's bubble-bursting (NASDAQ fell nearly 3-times in 2000, remember?), reforming education, Social Security, and Medicare. It was only after 9/11, that he decided to stop "fly-swatting" (taking out individual terrorists) and go to Middle East in force (starting with Iraq)...
How long before use of this technology by a farm will disqualify the farm's produce from the "USDA organic" label?
They already can not use genetically modified ingredients (which are harmless), equating GM with pesticides and anti-biotics (which aren't)...
Someone (PETA?) will claim, that such twisting of nature is bad, unethical, and somehow unhealthy and lobby the government to add the requirement for its "organic" certification...
Actually, it is an "opinion" of a man, who organized and participated in the negotiations. Unless he is lying, what he says is facts — not mere speculation.
Interestingly, the strongest statement intended to counter the above allegation falls completely flat and, in fact, supports the conclusion, that Clinton (and the rest of us) was let down by his legal background:
Your snobbery may have gathered you some "insightful" moderations, but you are still full of shit, fluxrad...
Well, in 2002 the papers were full of gloomy predictions like yours, stating, that the next attack would take place within 12-18 months. None happened. Either all those "experts" were full of shit, or Bush is owed some credit. Or both...
Why? What's wrong with an — educated and reasonably substantiated — opinion?
That Clinton rejected Sudan's offer is a matter of fact. Why he did so is the matter of speculation, of course. But the point of my posting was to demonstrate, that blaming Clinton for 9/11 is not entirely without merit.
Back to Clinton's mistake — it does exemplify the difference in approaches. Clinton rejected bin Laden, and he, probably, wouldn't have authorized Guantanamo either.
Bush would've taken bin Laden and worry about legalities later. Hate it all you want, but 9/11 would've been prevented, and the major hassles and invasions into citizens' privacy along with it...
The attack took 5 years to prepare. Most of it — on Clinton's watch.
Another point against Clinton is that he refused to accept Osama bin Laden, when Sudan offered him. Clinton was a lawyer and rejected the offer, because there was no grand jury indictment against Osama (yet). So instead of going to a US jail, Osama went to Yemen and is mocking the US ever since — inspiring thousands of terrorists world-wide. For better or worse, Bush — not being a lawyer — would've taken Sudan on their offer and the 9/11 would never have happened. USS Cole would, probably, not have been attacked either.
There is plenty in 9/11 to blame Clinton for... Most in fact...
Am I the only one suspecting, the Justice Department deliberately mishandled the case to allow the man to get off? This is something, that can be done very gently and without any trail. Just appoint your worst (instead of the best, as a high-profile case deserves) prosecutor and watch him screw up here and here...
Thank you very much for agreeing, that hers is, indeed, a crime — however insignificant.
No, stealing a Mercedes lands one in prison. She is facing merely $10K — a fraction of what a defense lawyer would get, in case of a "real" theft.
Ok, so the imaginary $50K is too much. The actual $10K, that's being demanded from her (according to the summary), is — in your opinion — too much too. So, what is the appropriate punishment, in your opinion?
Right. Because freedom of speech is only for porn-sellers and anti-Capitalist protesters...
What if MediaSentry presents an employee, who can't sleep, study, or "live a normal life" because of the worry (over the accusations of operating illegally)? Would that absolve MediaSentry of all responsibility and make us all sympathize with the poor guys?
No? Then why are we all in pieces over the girl in legal trouble (of her own making)?
Entertainment reporters don't do "investigative reporting". If they are good and go "in-depth" of anything, it is the characters or the story.
"Insightful" my behind...
Actually, they were in charge of both Congress and Senate since 2006.
Nothing that Bush Administration has done compares to this. The rot of the Executive Democrats is staggering:
The only significant wrong of the Bush administration was Guantanamo. And now that Obama is President he can not close the place, just like Bush had no other option for those people — the puzzle of what to do with combatants fighting not for a foreign state, but a terrorist organization really has no better solution... But those inmates there are foreigners, most of them credibly accused of attacking and conspiring against our country. There is no similar justification — not even in theory — for the listed Democratic corruption.
Yes, it is comparable — and increasingly so. First of all, your priorities are screwed up. "Progressive taxation" is a fact of life, because of the principle, that your taxes are based on your ability to pay. This principle existed since long before the politicians recognized, that they can get elected by promising the poor to "take care" of them. It was neither meant to "give opportunities", nor is it achieving that goal. Despite the poorer half of the Americans paying less than 3% of the total tax, the upward mobility in the country has slowed over the decades.
And now back to the validity of comparing to the case at hand... Contrary to your accusations, the guy's property was seized neither illegally (explicit accusation) nor permanently (implicit). In fact, most of his property is still with him, thankfully. He is, by all appearances, being harassed by the government (incidentally — Democratic government) he criticized, which is very wrong.
But the 90% punitive taxes (except, of course, on the government employees), government's takeover of firms (on the Executive's whim), and refusal to release control of the firms willing and able to pay back the government's money are much worse.
One would think so, but... Phoenix is governed by a Democrat since, at least, 2004. I doubt, a Democrat federal Administration would target their own. And, before you ask, yes, I believe, Blagojevich would've still been comfortably miss-governing, had the previous President been a Democrat.
Yeah, "troll" and "flamebait", right. The people issuing glum warnings and dire predictions about America becoming a "police state" and — my favorite — being "just like" Germany of 1937, not only always vote Democrat, but are the most active and vocal part of Democrat electorate. And yet, the worst abuses of power by the governments Federal and local alike tend to happen on the Democrats' watch...
The source of Wind turbine's power is neither unlimited, nor free — it is just largely untapped. Enough turbines will alter climates along the coasts (and deeper inland) will weaken the winds and thus change, for example, the rainfall amounts...
Has anybody thought of that? It will also be a hazard to navigation, but that, probably, is easier to solve...
Emphasis added, where appropriate. Barack Obama — with the aide of his trusty Media — has skillfully mesmerized a lot of people. To the point of simply "feeling good" about him, but unable to state, what exactly the like so much.
And as for bad things, he managed to neutralize them all too. When asked, the vast majority of his supporters proved rather ignorant and, in particular, could not recognize some damaging facts as having to do with Obama. Yet almost everybody "knew", Sarah Palin claimed to be able to see Russia from her house (she never said that, Tina Fey did).
Obama is not an idiot (neither was Bush, but that's a different story). He is a determined politician, in there for the money, power, and prestige — and with a chip on his (and his wife's, in particular) shoulder... He figured out long ago, that poorer people are always a majority, and is shamelessly manipulating them to get his way.
His support is waning, though, America just needs to persevere 'till 2010, when Republicans will, hopefully, get their act together and regain some standing in Congress... Until then, bills like the one we are discussing will be sailing through unhindered.
In perspective, the power-grabs of Bush Administration pale in comparison with those by some of the earlier war-time Presidents, such as Roosevelt, on whose watch a few American citizens were not just locked up on a brig without trial, but simply killed — by a foreign (British) agency. This was, actually, before the US even entered the war and while relations with Germany were still legal — even if hated by the Brits. And yet, that same FDR — who lied to Americans and Congress to gauge the country towards war (that nearly 80% of Americans opposed at the time) — is judged by the History as a Nazi-defeating hero and his abuses of power (such as the infamous detainment of tens of thousands Japanese-Americans — conditions in their "war relocation camps" were worse, than those of Guantanamo, where only a several hundred people were ever housed).
Further back into time, an even greater hero — Abe Lincoln — has not only resorted to military force to keep Confederates inside the US (against their will), but gone so far as to suspend Habeas Corpus, and not just to "enemy combatants"(as Bush did), but to the supposed fellow Americans, who happened to disagree with him. And then he allowed his military to get away with the kind of atrocities against civilians (such as in Athens, Alabama), that would shock even the Marines, who fought in Haditha and Falluja...
But, I guess, all this is outside the Public School curriculum, which is written by people, who can not imagine an evil greater, than G.W. Bush...
The most polarizing part of the debate is not whether anything is going on, but whether humans' (negative) contribution to it is significant enough to warrant forcible altering of our behavior — something anti-Capitalists in particular are most fond of. Examples of very significant, visible, rapid changes affecting planets with no occupants (and no media) certainly weaken their (already weak) argument...
The point is, very significant changes can happen to a planet without any human contribution. This much we can all agree on, and the observation in subject is a good illustration.
Back to partisan sniping — has not Barack Obama already fixed the global warming problem some time last year (before even taking office)? The 2008 was, like, the coldest in decades and 2009 is not particularly warm either...
Every time a story like this comes out, I recall the dreadful attempts by America-haters towards delegating the oversight of the Internet to an international, rather than, American body...
Certainly, Ireland is a fairly mild case — the country's ban on abortions, for example, is not as bad as curbs on freedoms placed by the likes of China, Russia, or Thailand.
But it would still suck to see America's influence over the Internet be diluted by that of the (some times much) less free countries...
With its debt being about eleven times their GDP, which is huge even by European standards, Ireland may, indeed, be considered "civilized"... But only by those, who share the America's Administration vision of civilization...
And abortions are still prohibited. Unbeknown to most of Bono's "liberal" fans, moaning: "Why can't the US be more like Europe?"
Man, this data presentation job sucks! Mocking McCain's computer-illiteracy last year was sooo much more fun...
Now we are talking — and moderating — like we have (very) fallible humans in the White House, not a Deity (who, for example, has solved the Global Warming problem before even taking office).
Why, perhaps, those impartial newspapers (whatever is left of them) may some day begin writing, what they surely would've written by now about John McCain, had he won the Presidency last year...
Of course they have — the conquerors no longer kill all men of a captured city, rape all women, and sell all survivors to slavery.
Neither Israel, nor the US are a party to the additional protocol banning use of white phosphorus. So, no, they were not violating anything.
You are supposing, that Quassam is a weapon of war. It is not. Its used not to kill, but to terrorize, and as such it is very effective. Israelis near Gaza live in constant fear (a.k.a. terror) and are always advised to be within 15 seconds from the nearest shelter...