Man, if only we had known that wormholes were unsafe for space travel back in 1995, we could have been spared the agony of seven seasons of Star Trek: Voyager JANEWAY: Chakotay, take us into the wormhole.
CHAKOTY: Aye aye, Captain!
PARIS: (aside to TORRES) Heh, she said "wormhole."
Obviously, I don't mean Osama's physical, geographical base. I'm referring to a broader phenomena, the rise of what might be called Islamic Nationalism, except it transcends the Western concept of the Nation and fans out five thousand miles on either side of India. Call it a Funamentalist Islamic Renaissance. Which was, to my limited historical perspective, first manifest in the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.
But if you want to get specific about Osama, you need look no further than the CIA training and millions of dollars we gave him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Are you suggesting that since Mohammad Atta et. al. used Florida as a base, we should look there? That Jeb Bush and George Bush were a part of some sort of conspiracy, and cast a blind eye while the terrorists trained right under our noses?
I take it then that you're against Social Security, and would prefer to go back to a time when the leading causes of death for the elderly were malnutrition and hypothermia, and most of the elderly lived in poverty?
Name three evils of Socialism. Seriously. I'm curious to know what they are.
Explain why the US spends more (at least 2.5x more) per capita on health care than any other industrialized country (all of which practice some degree of national health care) but does not have the highest life expectancy, best child mortality (and don't take that as your queue to start talking about abortion) or healthiest population. You call that a good investment?
You wrote no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work.
This leaves me wondering what does work? How about public education, is that socialism? Libraries? The fire department? How about a political system in which one political party controls everything? Subsidies for farmers? Corporate welfare? Protectionist tarriffs? NAFTA? The largest expansion of the Federal government since FDR? American citizens in prison indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and no charges brought against them?
In your position statement I see a lot of words and passion, but I don't see substance. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" merely stand in opposition to one another and don't convey much about what you, personally, (morally, I dare say) believe in.
I'd also like to see these conservative forums you speak of where Bush gets slammed, because my account at freerepublic was banned after two posts.
His point was that the courts have consistently ruled that campaign contributions are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee on Freedom of Speech. Most attempts to restrict donations (think soft money) ultimately fail the test of law.
For instance, the laws they have in the UK, where there is only one month of media blitz prior to elections, would instanly be found unconstitutional by every court in America. It's a constitutional right to buy airtime and saturate the airwaves with your message. And it's a constitutional right to give me money to buy that airtime.
But since political contributions are free speech, it can then be argued that what Bush is doing is an attempt to suppress said speech, and might even serve as a form of prior restraint, which is illegal. Especially if they just go down the list and cross off every name that dontated to Kerry -- that is discriminatory on the face. It might be illegal for other reasons, such as federal statues preventing discrimination based on race, color, creed, etc.
At the very least they should be able to sue for some sort of damages, as speaking out about who you want for President operates independently of your telecommunications expertise.
In fact that seems like a pretty good lawsuit that Nokia has the deep pockets to pursue, should they care to.
Such a lawsuit might even bring about honest to goodness campaign finance reform!
it's a matter of degrees... and bush's needle is pegged in the red zone.
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
We have learned that like it or not we will be dragged into the world problems. We were reminded again in 2001 when a couple buildings fell, even though Bush was up to that time persuing a more isolationist policy. The US cannot be an isolationist.
We haven't been isolationist since WWII. We have troops in over 100 countries and have had them there for decades.
There's not much we can do about the world problems we get dragged into. The problem is all the world problems we create ourselves.
For example, 50 years before 9/11 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President of Iran and installed that secular puppet dictator the Shah. 25 years ago he in turn was overthrown by an anti-American religious fanatic Ayatollah. That in turn gave Osama bin Laden his "base" to pull off 9/11.
I guess I'm wondering, then, if it isn't illegal, does that mean I could open an import business and start selling Region Brown People DVDs for 1/10th of Wal-Mart prices?
Or is price-fixing not illegal but circumventing price-fixing is illegal?
There's no need for GMO crops. There's more than enough food in the world. We've been farming for 5,000 years without GMO crops, you think we're so special now that we REQUIRE GMO? Get over yourself.
I agre with you on nuclear though. That's an imperfect solution, sure, but it's better than greenhouse gases. Look at Japan and France, they're nuke-crazy and I don't see them melting down.
Though, nuclear power might not be able to be done safely in the American model of privatized everything. That is a legitimate concern, but it has nothing to do with nuclear power itself. It's more of a problem with our managerial (public policy) approach.
Similarly, Chernobyl was bad because the Russians just didn't have the money to run a nuclear power plant safely. Sort of like how NASA keeps blowing up shuttles.
GM crops are an attempt to hide the fact that agriculture is unsustainable.
Africa should never have been converted to a farm in the first place. That's the reason for all the suffering there.
Africans were largely hunter-gatherers and nomadic, moving with the herd they coexisted with. The introduction of European subsistence farming set off the population bomb, which meant even more farming and even larger populations.
Africa is worse off today than it was 500 years ago, and the import of European technology is the reason why.
Holy Christ. Al Qaeda was in control of Iraq? That's precious.
Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
We spent $70 million and give a special prosecutor free reign to dig up something -- anything -- on President Clinton. Meanwhile the 9/11 Comission, grudgingly appointed by President Bush, gets a budget of $14 million.
That's the real world, pal. Open your eyes -- and watch where you step!
Your statement that I "don't like conservatives. Anybody who's a conservative" is demonstrably false. Why just the other day I found myself agreeing with Phyllis Schalfly that database information should not be given special copyright-like protections by Congress, despite what Reed-Elsevier wants. I stood with Pat Buchanan in opposition of NAFTA and GATT, unlike the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats.
Gannon's life isn't destroyed, but his credibility as a reporter is. And rightfully so. Personally I'd like to see him tarred and feathered. There's nothing wrong with calling bullshit on his shenanigans. When Gannon asks the questions and Helen Thomas gets snubbed, something's fishy in Denmark.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert Humphrey
I haven't even read anything that Gannon has written, so I have no clue whether or not I would "like it."
A reporter doesn't just write, he investigates. Consider this exchange between Gannon and McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jeff.
Q: Thank you. The imam [Yassin M. Aref] that was arrested in [Albany] New York last week was discovered because his name appeared in a Rolodex in a terrorist training camp in Iraq before the war. The book was found after, by U.S. troops, but he was in Iraq before the war. Is this another piece of evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, that's an ongoing investigation. I think the questions related to those particular individuals are best directed to the Department of Justice. And so that's -- I would refer any questions about that investigation to the Department of Justice. We are continuing to wage the war on terrorism on many fronts, both abroad and at home. And I think you're seeing that through the actions that we are taking.
Q: Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the revelation of the deepest mole that we've ever had in al Qaeda? The publication of that man's name by The New York Times -- how damaging is that to our war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- which specific instance are you referring to?
Q: The New York Times published the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep mole we've ever had within al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure where it was published, first. Obviously, it was published recently -- the capture of this individual. It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And sometimes we aren't able to go into as much detail we would like to because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a responsibility to keep that in mind.
That's not reporting, that's espousing propaganda, only in a cleverly disguised Jeopardy-format where you must present your propaganda in the form of a question -- and the lack of an answer signifies tacit approval.
He reasserst the fictitious Iraq - Al-Qaeda conneciton, then he implies the (liberal) NY Times is undercutting the War on Terror. Central tenets of the dittohead community.
The end result is that Gannon is the mouthpiece for the mythology this adminstration would like us all to believe, and McClellan does nothing to disabuse the American people of those notions.
Not only that, it takes time away from what might be a real question.
Sure, we're all hypocrites. But we're not all shills. Gannon was. I'm surprised you persist in not seeing this.
But don't take my word for it. If Gannon were a real reporter, why isn't he attenting press conferences anymore?
More here http://mediamatters.org/items/200502020014
I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..
Ever heard of lobbying?
Do you think it was because of a grass-roots letter writing campaign that Congress passed and the President signed new bankruptcy laws?
Why should a company bother with good practices internally and trying to produce a quality product when they can get Congress to give them special protetction? (For example, the Baby Bells. Or the Airlines. Or Major League Baseball.)
Of course I'm arguing exactly the same point you are, I think, but your initial statement made my head spin.
it's possible that gannon technically meets the definition of reporter.
but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'
there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a small time rag get into white house briefings while career reporers from established papers were denied access.
Every country violates treaties. Or as Stalin put it, "treaties are made to be broken."
Just becuase you can come up with justification for doing something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Not to mention that Saddam didn't even have a nuclear weapons program... so how could the Nuclaer Non-Proliferation Treaty even come into play?
Furthermore, Saddam was allowing inspections until he discovered that the inspectors from America were CIA spies planting sureveillance devices at all his bases.
But no matter, you got your war. Does it fill you with pride to see the picture of the US bomb going off in one of Baghdad's residential neighborhoods?
Trolling aside, you are quite right about spy satellites not being all that useful unless we know where to look. Our reliance on overly technological methods hasn't really produced accurate intelligence.
But you must realize the powers that be like it that way, becuase that affords them the ability to model the threat to meet their political agenda. The value of the intelligence is not in its accuracy. No, the purpose of intelligence is to provide a rationale for a given course of action, such as war in Vietnam or Iraq.
Policy drives the intelligence gathering and analysis, not the other way around. And there's not even a feedback mechanism whereby intel has a chance to alter policy. It's completely ass-backwards. You can build up a "slam dunk" case for whatever preposterous assertion you wish, just by cherry-picking the few facts which, taken out of context, build a compelling case.
That's not an intelligence failure, that's a policy failure, and a systems failure. The intel was all there what Al Qaeda was planning for 9/11, the system just didn't process it. The intel was all there that Saddam had no WMD, but the system discarded that information because those facts didn't jibe with the goals.
And a large part of the reason the system failed to piece together the big picture was not too little intelligence, but too much. Far too much. And far too people to analyze the mass of data we've got.
But of course, those in power want it that way.
Not too many politicians are going to let the facts stand between them and their goals. It's a lot easier to say "we erred on the side of Democracy" than "we were wrong."
my point was supposed to be: what's an article about math doing in the Economist. It would be the equally odd if the article about maths appeared in Mother Jones.
It just seems out of place, that's all. Sort of like if Nature published a bit about Yukos. They're not really experts in the field.
How does the fact that your health care records are held by a variety of private corporations make them more secure than if they were held by a government agency?
You realize you don't even have rights to that information? It's their property, not yours. You call that privacy? You're a commodity.
I'll take a bumbling inefficient bureaucracy over a cutthroat profit-hungry corporation in which shareholders come first and everything else comes last. So would most of the planet as it turns out.
By the way, the best thing to do is to just maintain your own medical records. That way you don't have to trust the government or the corporations.
Don't be a dipshit. England has seen her share of terrorism from the IRA. Bombs rocked the streets of London for decades.
If you think Bush is a simpleton, you have (mis)underestimated him at your peril.
Then again if you think his policies, which include
- diverting bilions of public money to private corporations under the guise of social security reform (hey, it's an ownership society. It's just not owned by you)
- fingerprinting and photographing all non-citizens at the border
- sending prisoners abroad to be tortured far away from the reach of US law (to fight against those who might terrorize us)
- keeping citizens in jail indefinitely with no charges filed and no access to a lawyer (we had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it)
- alighing with military dictatorships like Pakistan (in the name of Democracy, of course)
are "reasonable" then we clearly have different views on how the United States ought to behave.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, if only we had known that wormholes were unsafe for space travel back in 1995, we could have been spared the agony of seven seasons of Star Trek: Voyager
JANEWAY: Chakotay, take us into the wormhole.
CHAKOTY: Aye aye, Captain!
PARIS: (aside to TORRES) Heh, she said "wormhole."
*crunch*
Back in the good-old dot com days, one user decided to zip his entire MP3 collection and email it to his home account.
The zip file was about 1GB. Exchange server had 640MB RAM. Do the math.
Obviously, I don't mean Osama's physical, geographical base. I'm referring to a broader phenomena, the rise of what might be called Islamic Nationalism, except it transcends the Western concept of the Nation and fans out five thousand miles on either side of India. Call it a Funamentalist Islamic Renaissance. Which was, to my limited historical perspective, first manifest in the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.
But if you want to get specific about Osama, you need look no further than the CIA training and millions of dollars we gave him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Are you suggesting that since Mohammad Atta et. al. used Florida as a base, we should look there? That Jeb Bush and George Bush were a part of some sort of conspiracy, and cast a blind eye while the terrorists trained right under our noses?
I take it then that you're against Social Security, and would prefer to go back to a time when the leading causes of death for the elderly were malnutrition and hypothermia, and most of the elderly lived in poverty?
Name three evils of Socialism. Seriously. I'm curious to know what they are.
Explain why the US spends more (at least 2.5x more) per capita on health care than any other industrialized country (all of which practice some degree of national health care) but does not have the highest life expectancy, best child mortality (and don't take that as your queue to start talking about abortion) or healthiest population. You call that a good investment?
You wrote no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work.
This leaves me wondering what does work? How about public education, is that socialism? Libraries? The fire department? How about a political system in which one political party controls everything? Subsidies for farmers? Corporate welfare? Protectionist tarriffs? NAFTA? The largest expansion of the Federal government since FDR? American citizens in prison indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and no charges brought against them?
In your position statement I see a lot of words and passion, but I don't see substance. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" merely stand in opposition to one another and don't convey much about what you, personally, (morally, I dare say) believe in.
I'd also like to see these conservative forums you speak of where Bush gets slammed, because my account at freerepublic was banned after two posts.
His point was that the courts have consistently ruled that campaign contributions are protected by the First Amendment's guarantee on Freedom of Speech. Most attempts to restrict donations (think soft money) ultimately fail the test of law.
For instance, the laws they have in the UK, where there is only one month of media blitz prior to elections, would instanly be found unconstitutional by every court in America. It's a constitutional right to buy airtime and saturate the airwaves with your message. And it's a constitutional right to give me money to buy that airtime.
But since political contributions are free speech, it can then be argued that what Bush is doing is an attempt to suppress said speech, and might even serve as a form of prior restraint, which is illegal. Especially if they just go down the list and cross off every name that dontated to Kerry -- that is discriminatory on the face. It might be illegal for other reasons, such as federal statues preventing discrimination based on race, color, creed, etc.
At the very least they should be able to sue for some sort of damages, as speaking out about who you want for President operates independently of your telecommunications expertise.
In fact that seems like a pretty good lawsuit that Nokia has the deep pockets to pursue, should they care to.
Such a lawsuit might even bring about honest to goodness campaign finance reform!
it's a matter of degrees... and bush's needle is pegged in the red zone.
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
so don't tell me it's just business as usual.
We have learned that like it or not we will be dragged into the world problems. We were reminded again in 2001 when a couple buildings fell, even though Bush was up to that time persuing a more isolationist policy. The US cannot be an isolationist.
We haven't been isolationist since WWII. We have troops in over 100 countries and have had them there for decades.
There's not much we can do about the world problems we get dragged into. The problem is all the world problems we create ourselves.
For example, 50 years before 9/11 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President of Iran and installed that secular puppet dictator the Shah. 25 years ago he in turn was overthrown by an anti-American religious fanatic Ayatollah. That in turn gave Osama bin Laden his "base" to pull off 9/11.
Connect the dots.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/
I guess I'm wondering, then, if it isn't illegal, does that mean I could open an import business and start selling Region Brown People DVDs for 1/10th of Wal-Mart prices?
Or is price-fixing not illegal but circumventing price-fixing is illegal?
This was flamebait? It's not even close to incendiary.
There's no need for GMO crops. There's more than enough food in the world. We've been farming for 5,000 years without GMO crops, you think we're so special now that we REQUIRE GMO? Get over yourself.
I agre with you on nuclear though. That's an imperfect solution, sure, but it's better than greenhouse gases. Look at Japan and France, they're nuke-crazy and I don't see them melting down.
Though, nuclear power might not be able to be done safely in the American model of privatized everything. That is a legitimate concern, but it has nothing to do with nuclear power itself. It's more of a problem with our managerial (public policy) approach.
Similarly, Chernobyl was bad because the Russians just didn't have the money to run a nuclear power plant safely. Sort of like how NASA keeps blowing up shuttles.
GM crops are an attempt to hide the fact that agriculture is unsustainable.
Africa should never have been converted to a farm in the first place. That's the reason for all the suffering there.
Africans were largely hunter-gatherers and nomadic, moving with the herd they coexisted with. The introduction of European subsistence farming set off the population bomb, which meant even more farming and even larger populations.
Africa is worse off today than it was 500 years ago, and the import of European technology is the reason why.
An even smarter solution would be to never use herbicides in the first place.
Holy Christ. Al Qaeda was in control of Iraq? That's precious.
Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
We spent $70 million and give a special prosecutor free reign to dig up something -- anything -- on President Clinton. Meanwhile the 9/11 Comission, grudgingly appointed by President Bush, gets a budget of $14 million.
That's the real world, pal. Open your eyes -- and watch where you step!
Your statement that I "don't like conservatives. Anybody who's a conservative" is demonstrably false. Why just the other day I found myself agreeing with Phyllis Schalfly that database information should not be given special copyright-like protections by Congress, despite what Reed-Elsevier wants. I stood with Pat Buchanan in opposition of NAFTA and GATT, unlike the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats.
Gannon's life isn't destroyed, but his credibility as a reporter is. And rightfully so. Personally I'd like to see him tarred and feathered. There's nothing wrong with calling bullshit on his shenanigans. When Gannon asks the questions and Helen Thomas gets snubbed, something's fishy in Denmark.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert Humphrey
Doorman? Try the President.
I haven't even read anything that Gannon has written, so I have no clue whether or not I would "like it."
A reporter doesn't just write, he investigates. Consider this exchange between Gannon and McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jeff.
Q: Thank you. The imam [Yassin M. Aref] that was arrested in [Albany] New York last week was discovered because his name appeared in a Rolodex in a terrorist training camp in Iraq before the war. The book was found after, by U.S. troops, but he was in Iraq before the war. Is this another piece of evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, that's an ongoing investigation. I think the questions related to those particular individuals are best directed to the Department of Justice. And so that's -- I would refer any questions about that investigation to the Department of Justice. We are continuing to wage the war on terrorism on many fronts, both abroad and at home. And I think you're seeing that through the actions that we are taking.
Q: Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the revelation of the deepest mole that we've ever had in al Qaeda? The publication of that man's name by The New York Times -- how damaging is that to our war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- which specific instance are you referring to?
Q: The New York Times published the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep mole we've ever had within al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure where it was published, first. Obviously, it was published recently -- the capture of this individual. It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And sometimes we aren't able to go into as much detail we would like to because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a responsibility to keep that in mind.
That's not reporting, that's espousing propaganda, only in a cleverly disguised Jeopardy-format where you must present your propaganda in the form of a question -- and the lack of an answer signifies tacit approval.
He reasserst the fictitious Iraq - Al-Qaeda conneciton, then he implies the (liberal) NY Times is undercutting the War on Terror. Central tenets of the dittohead community.
The end result is that Gannon is the mouthpiece for the mythology this adminstration would like us all to believe, and McClellan does nothing to disabuse the American people of those notions.
Not only that, it takes time away from what might be a real question.
Sure, we're all hypocrites. But we're not all shills. Gannon was. I'm surprised you persist in not seeing this.
But don't take my word for it. If Gannon were a real reporter, why isn't he attenting press conferences anymore?
More here
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502020014
I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..
Ever heard of lobbying?
Do you think it was because of a grass-roots letter writing campaign that Congress passed and the President signed new bankruptcy laws?
Why should a company bother with good practices internally and trying to produce a quality product when they can get Congress to give them special protetction? (For example, the Baby Bells. Or the Airlines. Or Major League Baseball.)
Of course I'm arguing exactly the same point you are, I think, but your initial statement made my head spin.
it's possible that gannon technically meets the definition of reporter.
but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'
there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a small time rag get into white house briefings while career reporers from established papers were denied access.
Let me be about the bazillionth person to point out the Irony.
Adobe went after Sklyarov with the DMCA for removing Adobe's ebook protections.
Now they're on the other end of the stick, and have to cripple their premier application.
I wonder if they still think they did the right thing by going after Dmitry.
Someone explain to me how white balance information on a picture you took, on a camera you own, is any of Nikon's business. DMCA or otherwise.
Every country violates treaties. Or as Stalin put it, "treaties are made to be broken."
Just becuase you can come up with justification for doing something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Not to mention that Saddam didn't even have a nuclear weapons program... so how could the Nuclaer Non-Proliferation Treaty even come into play?
Furthermore, Saddam was allowing inspections until he discovered that the inspectors from America were CIA spies planting sureveillance devices at all his bases.
But no matter, you got your war. Does it fill you with pride to see the picture of the US bomb going off in one of Baghdad's residential neighborhoods?
Trolling aside, you are quite right about spy satellites not being all that useful unless we know where to look. Our reliance on overly technological methods hasn't really produced accurate intelligence.
But you must realize the powers that be like it that way, becuase that affords them the ability to model the threat to meet their political agenda. The value of the intelligence is not in its accuracy. No, the purpose of intelligence is to provide a rationale for a given course of action, such as war in Vietnam or Iraq.
Policy drives the intelligence gathering and analysis, not the other way around. And there's not even a feedback mechanism whereby intel has a chance to alter policy. It's completely ass-backwards. You can build up a "slam dunk" case for whatever preposterous assertion you wish, just by cherry-picking the few facts which, taken out of context, build a compelling case.
That's not an intelligence failure, that's a policy failure, and a systems failure. The intel was all there what Al Qaeda was planning for 9/11, the system just didn't process it. The intel was all there that Saddam had no WMD, but the system discarded that information because those facts didn't jibe with the goals.
And a large part of the reason the system failed to piece together the big picture was not too little intelligence, but too much. Far too much. And far too people to analyze the mass of data we've got.
But of course, those in power want it that way.
Not too many politicians are going to let the facts stand between them and their goals. It's a lot easier to say "we erred on the side of Democracy" than "we were wrong."
Jurassic Park -
Letting Timmy fry on the electric fence was one of my favorites. It was pretty hard to get 30 jet bumper hits too... so I was glad he died.
SYSTEM FAILURE was what made that game great.
PINBOT CIRCUITS ACTIVATED
I learned the game on that table. Get to Earth, Special, and just two planets away is the Sun for another Special. Good times.
my point was supposed to be: what's an article about math doing in the Economist. It would be the equally odd if the article about maths appeared in Mother Jones.
It just seems out of place, that's all. Sort of like if Nature published a bit about Yukos. They're not really experts in the field.
But mostly, it was a cheap shot at the Economist.
The Economist on mathematics?
:)
What does The Economist know? It's a right-wing rag.
Wasn't always that way... sadly they're not what they used to be.
In terms of Slashdot, they would be posting at a 2. They've been around the block, but they're nobody special. Sorta like me.
How does the fact that your health care records are held by a variety of private corporations make them more secure than if they were held by a government agency?
You realize you don't even have rights to that information? It's their property, not yours. You call that privacy? You're a commodity.
I'll take a bumbling inefficient bureaucracy over a cutthroat profit-hungry corporation in which shareholders come first and everything else comes last. So would most of the planet as it turns out.
By the way, the best thing to do is to just maintain your own medical records. That way you don't have to trust the government or the corporations.
Don't be a dipshit. England has seen her share of terrorism from the IRA. Bombs rocked the streets of London for decades.
If you think Bush is a simpleton, you have (mis)underestimated him at your peril.
Then again if you think his policies, which include
- diverting bilions of public money to private corporations under the guise of social security reform (hey, it's an ownership society. It's just not owned by you)
- fingerprinting and photographing all non-citizens at the border
- sending prisoners abroad to be tortured far away from the reach of US law (to fight against those who might terrorize us)
- keeping citizens in jail indefinitely with no charges filed and no access to a lawyer (we had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it)
- alighing with military dictatorships like Pakistan (in the name of Democracy, of course)
are "reasonable" then we clearly have different views on how the United States ought to behave.