its probably gonna be another record hot summer this year. past few summers were milder here in Oklahoma, more like the old "average"; more rain (lot more), and not as many 100's. helped with the drought some. but 2011 summer they had something like 130 consecutive days above 100F, and very little rain, capping off a prolonged drought.
this year looks to possibly beat that. or worse....we repeat the heat, and get a ton of water because of the lingering effects of El Nino. worse because, that's a prime recipe for an epic tornado and flood season. (and whats this about florida getting tornados?? IN FEBRUARY?!?! jfc.)
and with no winter this year, and few days below freezing, our critters (bugs, ant, crickets and spiders) didn't get killed off this year either, and are waking up early too. it's a damn biblical infestation in my garage; been sweeping their corpses out every day (3 RAID). thank god I just got new windows installed and sealed, or I'd probably have them inside this old house too. I haven't checked the attic yet, but probably need to.
there was no winter this year in Oklahoma. the past few year's winters were pitiful, but this year took the cake. no snow, one windy ice storm that broke a few trees but melted quickly because the next day because it was >60F... I spent Xmas Fing Eve cutting down and removing the widowmakers in my trees, in gym shorts and thin tee, cause it it was in the 70s all day. this in a state that used to get several snow storms and consecutive days below freezing per year, just 20 years ago.
and, ok, yes: the F4 wasn't designed for nimbleness. It was designed for range, speed, and robustness, being a an all weather interceptor design for carrier battle groups that the air force later adopted for both bomb trucking and air-air roles. Not quite the workhorse the Thud was when it came to ground attack, but still fairly adaptable.
In comparison The MiG 17s and 19's were more maneuverable...but slower. Mig21s, the other major type seen, were about on par in maneuverability, being likewise designed for speed above other concerns.
And those design limitations combined with the Air Force fighter culture having lost its dogfight mindset (ie, it wasn't a big focus of training doctrine) meant if caught our pilots could be in trouble. But again, this was corrected and overcome. Dogfighting became a part of training again, and gun pods were quickly produced that could be attached to the aircraft.
and that ultimately is a real sign of progress, the UK being one of the original heavy coal users, along with Germany, and dependent upon it more than most.
and technology hasn't progressed in the ensuing 50 years?
hint: IFF didn't exist back then. neither did AWACS. both are a result of that lesson.
and the biggest reason the F4s came to a dogfight was they ran out of missiles. the number of enemy aircraft likely to be faced was simply underestimated, leaving them vulnerable once their load was depleted. and no they were not at a disadvantage: missile lock can be done far far longer away than a gun shot can. the idea of taking them out at range with missiles worked.
the problem was once the missiles were gone., and their were still bad guys left.
its just that our doctrine wasn't exactly secret, so the obvious counter of sending up more aircraft than we were loaded for easily presented itself, which forced us to spend more effort in establishing air superiority than we had planned for. but we did establish almost unrestricted air superiority.
let me be clear: there was no disadvantage from the F4 to the MiGs until the missiles were gone, and even then only if the remaining MiGs closed the distance, which didn't happen very often. the most frequent scenario where an empty F4 encountered another hostile was when they were already on the way home.
^ armchair expert with little knowledge of actual combat doctrine and capabilities.
these design capabilities and doctrines are not meant for lukewarm battles, where things such as airliners might be overflying the Ukraine, etc. they are meant for shooting wars, where the question of who a target belongs to is a binary answer: us or them. and even an armchair expert should be well aware that the F22 and F35 both are intended to be part of a data grid, where their accompanying AWACS craft, well back from front lines, is providing targeting information and identification, precluding the need to use their own radar until after the initial contact.
We already know the dinosaurs drowned in the flood. And the few that went ont he ark starved afterwards for lack of vegetation*.
Just ask the former teacher and new Texas State Board of Education member Mary Lou Bruner. (http://gawker.com/meet-the-science-and-muslim-hating-conspiracy-theorist-1758545449)
Mary Lou Bruner on climate change:
Just think about how much money the government has wasted educating the people about the government hoax which officials first called “Global Warming”. Government later changed the term to “Climate Change” because government lies or predictions did not come true, and the people were becoming very suspicious because the world wasn’t getting warmer. It was much easier to call the hoax “Climate Change” because with the new name, corrupt government officials and scientists could say every hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, snow storm, earthquake, tsunami, blizzard, and EVERYTHING that happened was caused by “Climate Change”. And a few people still believe them.
Mary Lou Bruner on dinosaurs:
When the flood waters subsided and rushed to the oceans there was no vegetation on the earth because the earth had been covered with water. It took a while for grass and trees to grow back and the big plant-eating dinosaurs needed lots of vegetation to live. The dinosaurs on the ark may have been babies and not able to reproduce. It might make sense to take the small dinosaurs onto the ark instead of the ones bigger than a bus. After the flood, the few remaining Behemoths and Leviathans may have become extinct because there was not enough vegetation on earth for them to survive to reproductive age. Most of the dinosaur fossils which scientists have found are permanently preserved in positions of great distress as if they were trying to keep their heads above water or above the mud.
Mary Lou Bruner on school shootings:... The school shootings started after government removed the Ten Commandments and the Bible from public school buildings, and disallowed prayer at school and school events. The school shootings started after the schools started teaching evolution is an absolute fact and the classes cannot talk about weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. The shootings started after the schools started teaching the Constitution of the USA is a flawed document written by selfish aristocrats who were only looking out for their own wealth, The school shootings started after the government started teaching children to feel sorry for themselves if they do not have as much as other children in the school....
Mary Lou Bruner on sexual education:
Every parent of young children should hear this woman speak. Most parents do not know about the drawings of nude men, women, boys, and girls in some children’s books in our public schools. Many children’s books on the recommended list contain frank discussions about sexual issues which are inappropriate in my opinion. Many of the books which teachers read to your small children are not allowed in jails and prisons because of the bad effect the books have on the prisoners. These books stimulate children to experiment with sex. Please attend this meeting if you can.
Mary Lou Bruner on the JFK assassination:
Many people believe the Democrat Party had JFK killed because the socialists and Communists in the party did not want a conservative president. Remember who followed JFK as president — (LBJ). the exact opposite of Kennedy — a socialist and an unethical politician. It does seem like this might have been the master plan: They sneaked the bad guy (LBJ)into the administration on the coat-tail of a good guy (JFK). Then they got rid of the good guy; in the end, they got a socialist president which is what they originally wanted.
*Bonus round*: Meet the Science- and Muslim-Hating Conspiracy Th
1/30/01 Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]
Sep 2001 Curveball granted German asylum, ceases cooperating. British spy agency MI6 has told CIA that "elements of [his] behavior strike us as typical offabricators." [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
9/11/01 Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]
9/12/01 According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, "[Bush] told us, 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]
9/20/01 British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: "I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]
9/20/01 PNAC letter to Bush: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]
11/21/01 Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."—Bob Woodward. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
12/9/01 Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.
12/12/01 Rumsfeld demands plan for war against Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks proposes softening up Iraq: "I'm thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary. Spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity." [Date the public knew: 8/3/04]
12/28/01 Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]
Feb 2002 "I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'"—Sen. Bob Graham. [Date the public knew: 3/26/04]
March 2002 "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."—Bush to Rice and three senators. [Date the public knew: 12/8/03]
3/13/02 Bush on Osama: "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
3/22/02 Downing Street memo: "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincingWe are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from IraqRegime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/24/02 Saddam "is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."—Cheney on CNN
Dude, talk about re-writing history.... Bush specifically committed us to war specifically because of the threat of a current and on-going weapons program, not the existence of weapons from the 1980s that we (and by that we mean Cheney and his old employer) gave them. Old weapons that Bush himself acknowledged the existence of, and stated were not the weapons he was referring to, while selling the country on the war.
better stated: -A Ponzi scheme is simply an investment vehicle -There is no requirement that the investment actually be "invested" in any sort of commodity or good or what have you. -This particular vehicle operates by promising investor A some sort of return on investment, and then fulfills that promise by finding Investor B, and using his monies to pay A. -It then repeats this process with more and newer investments, typically also including some sort of fee for handling the work.
The most successful Ponzi schemes don't end quickly, and don't rely on snagging and investors cash to make their money, at least until the end. Instead the biggest profit comes from the fees they charge for running it, much like any other investment management operation. It's only when they run out of new investors and can no longer meet promised obligations that the scheme collapses and people lose money. It is when the remaining investors have been defrauded that a crime has been committed.
As such Ponzi schemes are completely legal for investors to invest in, even knowing that it is a Ponzi scheme. the only threat to the investor is that they might lose their money if their round of investing is the one to finally get screwed.
Again: the Ponzi scheme is legal for the person running it....as long as he keep meeting his obligations to his investors. It is only once he fails to do so that a crime has actually been committed.
You know why the Great Recession wasn't the Second Great Depression, even though that actual crash was much worse? Because of all those public assistance programs kept money flowing in the economy. That's what safety net programs do: they arrest a crashing economy, slowing its fall, and reducing its impact.
those emails Gowdy talked about are ones the CIA itself said is not sensitive, and that the CIA itself rebuked Gowdy for not only implying, but editing his release to give impression it was sensitive by redacting the information himself. in other words: Gowdy lied.
Oh I have a pretty good idea. It's shown by all the armchair "experts", including you, posting on this thread, and modding up each other's increasingly ignorant statements of "fact".
This is just Mi flashing out some of his libertarian crazy again. Surveillance cam footage on buses goes back at least to the early 90's. Hell, it was even a big part of that most excellent cinematic feature, Speed.
Slashdot Mirror
haha.
you're quoting goddard.
you could only be more offbase by quoting watts.
its probably gonna be another record hot summer this year.
past few summers were milder here in Oklahoma, more like the old "average"; more rain (lot more), and not as many 100's. helped with the drought some.
but 2011 summer they had something like 130 consecutive days above 100F, and very little rain, capping off a prolonged drought.
this year looks to possibly beat that.
or worse....we repeat the heat, and get a ton of water because of the lingering effects of El Nino.
worse because, that's a prime recipe for an epic tornado and flood season.
(and whats this about florida getting tornados?? IN FEBRUARY?!?! jfc.)
and with no winter this year, and few days below freezing, our critters (bugs, ant, crickets and spiders) didn't get killed off this year either, and are waking up early too. it's a damn biblical infestation in my garage; been sweeping their corpses out every day (3 RAID). thank god I just got new windows installed and sealed, or I'd probably have them inside this old house too. I haven't checked the attic yet, but probably need to.
there was no winter this year in Oklahoma.
the past few year's winters were pitiful, but this year took the cake.
no snow, one windy ice storm that broke a few trees but melted quickly because the next day because it was >60F...
I spent Xmas Fing Eve cutting down and removing the widowmakers in my trees, in gym shorts and thin tee, cause it it was in the 70s all day.
this in a state that used to get several snow storms and consecutive days below freezing per year, just 20 years ago.
and, ok, yes: the F4 wasn't designed for nimbleness. It was designed for range, speed, and robustness, being a an all weather interceptor design for carrier battle groups that the air force later adopted for both bomb trucking and air-air roles. Not quite the workhorse the Thud was when it came to ground attack, but still fairly adaptable.
In comparison The MiG 17s and 19's were more maneuverable...but slower.
Mig21s, the other major type seen, were about on par in maneuverability, being likewise designed for speed above other concerns.
And those design limitations combined with the Air Force fighter culture having lost its dogfight mindset (ie, it wasn't a big focus of training doctrine) meant if caught our pilots could be in trouble. But again, this was corrected and overcome. Dogfighting became a part of training again, and gun pods were quickly produced that could be attached to the aircraft.
not on any meaningful scale related to the carbon cycle
and that ultimately is a real sign of progress, the UK being one of the original heavy coal users, along with Germany, and dependent upon it more than most.
and technology hasn't progressed in the ensuing 50 years?
hint:
IFF didn't exist back then.
neither did AWACS.
both are a result of that lesson.
and the biggest reason the F4s came to a dogfight was they ran out of missiles. the number of enemy aircraft likely to be faced was simply underestimated, leaving them vulnerable once their load was depleted. and no they were not at a disadvantage: missile lock can be done far far longer away than a gun shot can. the idea of taking them out at range with missiles worked.
the problem was once the missiles were gone., and their were still bad guys left.
its just that our doctrine wasn't exactly secret, so the obvious counter of sending up more aircraft than we were loaded for easily presented itself, which forced us to spend more effort in establishing air superiority than we had planned for. but we did establish almost unrestricted air superiority.
let me be clear: there was no disadvantage from the F4 to the MiGs until the missiles were gone, and even then only if the remaining MiGs closed the distance, which didn't happen very often. the most frequent scenario where an empty F4 encountered another hostile was when they were already on the way home.
^ armchair expert with little knowledge of actual combat doctrine and capabilities.
these design capabilities and doctrines are not meant for lukewarm battles, where things such as airliners might be overflying the Ukraine, etc.
they are meant for shooting wars, where the question of who a target belongs to is a binary answer: us or them.
and even an armchair expert should be well aware that the F22 and F35 both are intended to be part of a data grid, where their accompanying AWACS craft, well back from front lines, is providing targeting information and identification, precluding the need to use their own radar until after the initial contact.
almost as ignorant as your "reagan governed like a liberal" comment.
once again you prove youre delusional
We already know the dinosaurs drowned in the flood.
And the few that went ont he ark starved afterwards for lack of vegetation*.
Just ask the former teacher and new Texas State Board of Education member Mary Lou Bruner.
(http://gawker.com/meet-the-science-and-muslim-hating-conspiracy-theorist-1758545449)
Mary Lou Bruner on climate change:
Just think about how much money the government has wasted educating the people about the government hoax which officials first called “Global Warming”. Government later changed the term to “Climate Change” because government lies or predictions did not come true, and the people were becoming very suspicious because the world wasn’t getting warmer. It was much easier to call the hoax “Climate Change” because with the new name, corrupt government officials and scientists could say every hurricane, tornado, flood, drought, snow storm, earthquake, tsunami, blizzard, and EVERYTHING that happened was caused by “Climate Change”. And a few people still believe them.
Mary Lou Bruner on dinosaurs:
When the flood waters subsided and rushed to the oceans there was no vegetation on the earth because the earth had been covered with water. It took a while for grass and trees to grow back and the big plant-eating dinosaurs needed lots of vegetation to live. The dinosaurs on the ark may have been babies and not able to reproduce. It might make sense to take the small dinosaurs onto the ark instead of the ones bigger than a bus. After the flood, the few remaining Behemoths and Leviathans may have become extinct because there was not enough vegetation on earth for them to survive to reproductive age. Most of the dinosaur fossils which scientists have found are permanently preserved in positions of great distress as if they were trying to keep their heads above water or above the mud.
Mary Lou Bruner on school shootings: ... The school shootings started after government removed the Ten Commandments and the Bible from public school buildings, and disallowed prayer at school and school events. The school shootings started after the schools started teaching evolution is an absolute fact and the classes cannot talk about weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. The shootings started after the schools started teaching the Constitution of the USA is a flawed document written by selfish aristocrats who were only looking out for their own wealth, The school shootings started after the government started teaching children to feel sorry for themselves if they do not have as much as other children in the school....
Mary Lou Bruner on sexual education:
Every parent of young children should hear this woman speak. Most parents do not know about the drawings of nude men, women, boys, and girls in some children’s books in our public schools. Many children’s books on the recommended list contain frank discussions about sexual issues which are inappropriate in my opinion. Many of the books which teachers read to your small children are not allowed in jails and prisons because of the bad effect the books have on the prisoners. These books stimulate children to experiment with sex. Please attend this meeting if you can.
Mary Lou Bruner on the JFK assassination:
Many people believe the Democrat Party had JFK killed because the socialists and Communists in the party did not want a conservative president. Remember who followed JFK as president — (LBJ). the exact opposite of Kennedy — a socialist and an unethical politician. It does seem like this might have been the master plan: They sneaked the bad guy (LBJ)into the administration on the coat-tail of a good guy (JFK). Then they got rid of the good guy; in the end, they got a socialist president which is what they originally wanted.
*Bonus round*:
Meet the Science- and Muslim-Hating Conspiracy Th
hes the best liar in politics today.
better even than Slick Willy was ever given credit for being.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3vzZLWBJ...
no, that face is pretty scary.
like....stephen king's clown scary
fuck off mod.
thats niether flamebait nor trolling, but cold hard fact.
And lets not forget that Bush had a hard on for getting Iraq, someway, somehow.
Security briefing on day 1 of Bush's presidency: "How do we get Iraq?"
Security briefing on 9/11 attacks: "Can we use this to get Iraq?"
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://www.timelines.ws/countr...
1/30/01
Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]
8/10/01
Major air raid on Iraq. (air defense installations destroyed)
Sep 2001
Curveball granted German asylum, ceases cooperating. British spy agency MI6 has told CIA that "elements of [his] behavior strike us as typical offabricators." [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]
9/11/01
Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]
9/12/01
According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, "[Bush] told us, 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]
9/20/01
British PM Tony Blair advises Bush not to lose focus on Al Qaeda. Bush replies: "I agree with you, Tony. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." [Date the public knew: 5/1/04]
9/20/01
PNAC letter to Bush: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." [Date the public knew: 9/21/01]
11/21/01
Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."—Bob Woodward. [Date the public knew: 4/18/04]
12/9/01
Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.
12/12/01
Rumsfeld demands plan for war against Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks proposes softening up Iraq: "I'm thinking in terms of spikes, Mr. Secretary. Spurts of activity followed by periods of inactivity." [Date the public knew: 8/3/04]
12/28/01
Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]
Feb 2002
"I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.'"—Sen. Bob Graham. [Date the public knew: 3/26/04]
March 2002
"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."—Bush to Rice and three senators. [Date the public knew: 12/8/03]
3/13/02
Bush on Osama: "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
3/22/02
Downing Street memo: "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincingWe are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from IraqRegime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." [Date the public knew: 9/18/04]
3/24/02
Saddam "is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time."—Cheney on CNN
3/25/02
Downing Str
the mistake here is in thinking that SDI ever actually went away.
It didn't.
It changed names several times, but the research has continued this entire time.
Dude, talk about re-writing history....
Bush specifically committed us to war specifically because of the threat of a current and on-going weapons program, not the existence of weapons from the 1980s that we (and by that we mean Cheney and his old employer) gave them. Old weapons that Bush himself acknowledged the existence of, and stated were not the weapons he was referring to, while selling the country on the war.
Yes.
better stated:
-A Ponzi scheme is simply an investment vehicle
-There is no requirement that the investment actually be "invested" in any sort of commodity or good or what have you.
-This particular vehicle operates by promising investor A some sort of return on investment, and then fulfills that promise by finding Investor B, and using his monies to pay A.
-It then repeats this process with more and newer investments, typically also including some sort of fee for handling the work.
The most successful Ponzi schemes don't end quickly, and don't rely on snagging and investors cash to make their money, at least until the end. Instead the biggest profit comes from the fees they charge for running it, much like any other investment management operation. It's only when they run out of new investors and can no longer meet promised obligations that the scheme collapses and people lose money. It is when the remaining investors have been defrauded that a crime has been committed.
As such Ponzi schemes are completely legal for investors to invest in, even knowing that it is a Ponzi scheme.
the only threat to the investor is that they might lose their money if their round of investing is the one to finally get screwed.
Again: the Ponzi scheme is legal for the person running it....as long as he keep meeting his obligations to his investors.
It is only once he fails to do so that a crime has actually been committed.
that bogus article includes many expenditures that are not welfare.
they included Pell grants for college and Head Start for preschoolers, and other such most definitely not welfare programs in their tally.
it is a deliberate deception by Heritage (which frankly isn't surprising).
its not some obscure 90s program
TANF is WELFARE.
when you "go on welfare" you sign up for TANF.
this is not a difficult concept.
Friedman is an idiot.
You know why the Great Recession wasn't the Second Great Depression, even though that actual crash was much worse?
Because of all those public assistance programs kept money flowing in the economy.
That's what safety net programs do: they arrest a crashing economy, slowing its fall, and reducing its impact.
those emails Gowdy talked about are ones the CIA itself said is not sensitive, and that the CIA itself rebuked Gowdy for not only implying, but editing his release to give impression it was sensitive by redacting the information himself. in other words: Gowdy lied.
Oh I have a pretty good idea.
It's shown by all the armchair "experts", including you, posting on this thread, and modding up each other's increasingly ignorant statements of "fact".
This is just Mi flashing out some of his libertarian crazy again.
Surveillance cam footage on buses goes back at least to the early 90's.
Hell, it was even a big part of that most excellent cinematic feature, Speed.
That's not biased, nor does it tell you what to think about it.
The law IS draconian.
It IS taking effect soon.
The headline IS purely factual.