Call me an Asshat but I like the fact that many people do not vote. In my mind, the only thing worse than people not voting, is uniformed people voting. I like the fact that you have to put forth at least a little effort to vote... at least then I know people have convictions about what they are voting about.
This is closer to the X-15 project: carried up by a
plane and dropped and then firing a rocket engine to just reach the edge
of space. There is a big difference.
Don't forget almost 50 years worth of technology advancement, most notably the availability of composite structures....
I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters.
By this definition, Churchill didn't do anything either.
Ok, for what I am about to say, I may as well be cornholing Tux, but here goes:
Why not go the next level and automaticly fine cars who exceed the speed limit. Seriously, if speed limits are set unrealisticly low, then we should raise them where appropriate - but why do we even have traffic laws if they are essentially unenforcable. The current system relies completely the flock/herd mentality. Lots of us versus few of them - you only need to drive less crazy than the next guy. The irony is that I lean freaking libertarian! And no, I don't see this stance at odds with my beliefs. I simply believe that if you are going to have statutes, freaking enforce them, and the fairest way to administer justice is to administer it evenly.
Congratulations! I went through the same exercise when my wife was about to pop just over two years ago. I wanted it all, spy cameras in the nursery, wired via ethernet or x10 into my netork so I could see/spy anytime/anywhere. The reality of the last weeks of pregnancy caught up with me and I decided I would wait a few weeks and do all this shortly after the baby arrived. We settled on a nice wireless baby monitor that worked just fine. As it turns out, the baby's built-in monitor worked as advertised and unless your wife is giving birth to a mouse (or you live in a 10,000sq ft mansion) you will hear your baby just fine.
We used the baby monitor for a few months, but eventually we realized something: babies make noise. And I am not talking about crying, they make all sorts of noises. They make noise as they fall asleep, and they make noise before they wake up. Listening via a sensitive baby monitor, these perfectly natural coo's will rile up you and your wife.
At some point I broached the subject again about video, but we decided that that would just further our obsession. The baby is fine.
Now, with a two-year old about to move into a "big" bed, is the time it might be appropriate to get a camera,... if not just to be able to see what he is getting into at bedtime without disturbing him. Then again, I have heard lots of stories about weirdos driving around and watching people's surveillance feeds, if that doesn't freak you out yet, wait until you have a child and some freaky part of your brain you didn't know you had that governs "protective instinct" kicks in... no joke, I check the locks on every door in the house twice each night - I never did anything like that before.
Oh, and I hate to plug a book, but make yourself and your wife read "The Baby Whisperer". Babies don't come with instructions (not that we would read them anyway), but this is as close as it gets. There wasn't a single thing in this book that wasn't directly applicable to raising our child. Oh, and while at it, this is a great lullaby cd... I think I will use it when my kid gets too big.
As punishement for violating Slashdot group-think, you will have three zeros added to your user number, therefore losing your 'coveted' 5-digit number.
while the documents the White House had which corroborated that were (Unbeknownst to the administration) forged, it still looks due to an abundance of European intelligence that that was still accurate.
Hey... where have I heard that line of reasoning before...let me see...
while the documents [CBS]had which corroborated that were (Unbeknownst to the [CBS]) forged, it still looks due to an abundance of [dead-enders]that that was still accurate.
Here is what I don't get about the whole line of accusations that Bush lied:
I know that sounds like blasphemy but think through it... saying Bush lied about WMD implies that he knew there weren't any. What was his plan going to be when WMD's weren't found? He had to know that that would be political suicide. Heck, in my mind, the fact that WMD's weren't found is some of the strongest proof that Bush didn't lie! If we had found WMD (or if they are found tomorrow, I (and I am not alone here), would have been at least a little suspicious that the US had planted them.
In other words, insisting that Bush "lied" demands that you accept that Bush knew and accepted that they wouldn't be found and then continued anyway despite all the political damage he had to know he would receive.
So, Bush would have to be amoral enough to lie to the American people, lie to UN, and then be too "righteous" to not go that extra yard and simply plant the evidence? That doesn't make any sense, but then again I am not a Yalee.
Doesn't it make more sense that Bush was just flat out wrong? I think Bush thought he would ride into Iraq, find a pile of half-built nukes, and think he had the next election locked-up.
First off, my response to you got modded as a Troll - go figure.
I'm not going to go hunt for that analysis. I saw it in the last week or two. I don't remember the web site, but it wasn't some fringe source, it was something about as respectable as the New York Times, I just don't remember who.
I think I saw the same one. It is a professor in Utah who runs a media center. He is one of the experts consulted by CBS. The folks at Little Green Footballs claim to have caught him manipulating the evidence to support his claims that the documents were created on a typewriter. Of course, LGF is hardly without their motives either but it is certainly interesting.
There is no proof either way, and besides, they just agree with the general knowledge that Bush pulled some fast moves and walked away from his obligation, whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.
There is no "general" knowledge here. As best as I can count, there are only two people claiming that the Bush "pulled fast moves", Barnes and the Colonel's secretary, both of whom have ulterior motives. There are *lots* of people who say Bush served honorably. In addition, there is weird circular reference going on. Most of the questions raised in the memo had been brought up in previous election by Burkett. He was widely discreditted at the time. This time, he made the same allegations, but with documents "proving" his case. Ironicly, many have said that perhaps the documents are forged but the content was accurate - when the fact may have been that the very reason they were created was to support the "accurate content".
whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.
Prosecution for what?! You must be talking about missing a flight physical since there is ample evidence that Bush met all his guard requirements. As for the physical, let me let you in on a little secret. I am a Naval Aviator - and I have missed a required flight physical I was at graduate school at the time but missed my physical date by a month. Guess what... nothing happened. I got my physical and resumed flying the next year.
As for Bush lying, he was told several times by the very CIA who was boosting the case for war that the Nigerian yellowcake document was an utter forgery. He kept on putting it in speeches, they'd vet the speech and tell him to take it out, and the next speech, it would go right back in.Do you have a reference for this? I don't mean to bust your chops, but this would be clear-cut evidence of lying and I haven't heard that the CIA knew that the Nigerian docs were forgeries. I did hear that the CIA used language that was more conservative than the president's language, but that is a far cry from being told specificly that the documents were forged. It is true that at some point, it became known that the story was false. However, bear in mind that British and Russian intelligence both corroborated that Iraq had WMDs. While we are on the subject, how about this little gem I have been following for a couple weeks... allegations that France forged the Nigerian documents to sabotage the US's case for war. Doubt it is true but what would you think if it ends up being true?
He also had started making plans to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office, well before 9-11.
As well he should have. I think the administration's biggest mistake was trying to sell Iraq mostly on WMD claims. I would have placed far more emphasis on the simple fact that Iraq had been in violation of the GWI cease fire for over 10 years simply by firing on US aircraft pretty-much daily. Again, let me let you in on a little secret... we have plans to invade pretty much every country on Earth.
In short, he was fishing for any excuse to finish daddy's war. H
Got a reference on the for the analysis showing typewriter wear? The only one I have seen was by a professor in Utah that itself has become dubious.
As for the issue of Bush's service. According to Wikipedia Bush served all but the last 6 months of a 6 year commitment. Oh, and he had already met his quota for the final year when he got out. You had stated that he got out 2 years early from a 5 year commitment.
What is your evidence that Bush "lied" leading up to the war?
I know that sounds like blasphemy but think through it... saying Bush lied about WMD implied that he knew there weren't any. What was his plan going to be when WMD's weren't found? Heck, in my mind, the fact that WMD's weren't found is some of the strongest proof that Bush didn't lie! If we had found WMD, I and I am not alone here, would have been at least a little suspicious that the US had planted them.
In other words, insisting that Bush "lied" demands that you accept that Bush knew and accepted that they wouldn't be found and then continued anyway despite all the political damage he had to know he would receive.
On the contrary, I think Bush though he would ride into Iraq, find a pile of half-built nukes, and think he had the next election locked-up.
Wait,...there is plenty of blame to go around! First, read up on the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol was negotiated in 1997, opened for signing in 1998 and closed in 1999. I am pretty sure there wasn't a signature spot for "Governor Bush". Contrary to popular belief however,... it was signed by the US. Gore signed the document, in a completely symbolic gesture. However, the US Senate had already passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which was really just a warning to President Clinton that if he sent the protocol to the Senate for ratification, it would fail. Incidently, the Senate vote on the resolution was 95-0, including Senator Kerry. As an excuse the Senator has said that the resolution was passed before the Kyoto protocol was finalized and was written so broadly that he pretty much had to.
Read it for yourself. It does say that the US should not sign any agreement unless all the countries are held to the same standard (currently 80% of the world is not restricted what-so-ever by the protocol - including China) and it shouldn't be signed if it would do severe damage to the US economy. It also says that if it is passed on to the Senate for ratification.. it needs to be delivered with an impact assessment.
I never said that the protocol had been submitted to the Senate. If you had both my comment and the wikipedia entry, you would know that:
a. Gore did sign the protocol (which was symbolic only).
b. And that both Clinton and Bush decided to not pass the treaty on to the senate, citing the Byrd-Hagel resolution as strongly suggestive that the Senate would not ratify it.
As for this:
The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees... that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.... Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently... [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."
What was in the resolution that was so "broad" that "strong supporters" of the protocol had had to vote for this resolution?
Here is the text of the resolution. Find the statement that was so compelling that John and Joe couldn't resist voting for it...
I've read it... it is one of the most straight-forward resolutions I have seen from the Senate.
Actually, the US hassigned the Kyoto protocol, however it was a purely symbolic gesture by the Clinton administration. The Senate had voted 95-0 (and yes, Kerry was one of the 95) for a resolution stating that the US should not sign the protocol. Since the senate is the body with the US government that ratifies treaties, neither the Clinton or Bush administration pushed the issue further.
why wouldn't they.. it would have no impact on them: from Wikipedia
So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, Canada for instance.
So they would be stupid not too... signing on means they can actually make money by trading their "unused pollution ration".
Dan Senor, the person who helped Allawi write the speach was the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Think about that. He was the mouthpiece for America before the handover. He probably knows more about conveying the American point of view on Iraq to Iraqis than anyone on the planet.
Now flash forward a few months.. you are the leader of Iraq and are about to make an important address in the United States. Who do you get to help you write you speach? You want someone who has seen the situation in Iraq first hand, but more importantly knows the US governments policies and attitudes for a future free Iraq. Oh, and you probably already have a working relationship with the man established over the months leading up to the hand-over of power...
Moving on,... what is the basis for the claims that Senor is a Bush campaign operative? The Bush campaign has publicly stated that Senor "did not work for the campaign." Considering the number of posts swallowing the Senators suggestion as fact and deriding the link between the "campaign" and Allawi's speech, I would think that this would be an easy fact to check and catch the GOP in a flat-out lie...
I don't doubt that he is partisan... this story points out that he was seen jogging wearing a Bush-Cheney 2004 t-shirt. But the senator's allegation is that he is part of the Bush campaign though... can anyone prove this?
Ok, I've just read every >3 comment in this thread but must have missed something... the linked story says:
"To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks," Feinstein wrote.
And later...
Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.
So I did a google news search for Dan Senor and for Allawi speech. I can't find any amplifying information, other than from the Bush campaign which denies that Dan Senor is employed by the campaign. What is the basis for going off on this tangent that the Bush campaign had anything to do with the help Allawi may or may not have received? Anyone have a link?
So when it is forged memos... we should ignore the minor detail of who actually wrote them and stay focused on what the memo's say... but when it is a speech we have to disregard it, regardless of content because someone may have helped with the message?
I'll play devils advocate here and suggest that perhaps O'Reilly wasn't wasn't trying to deride Stewart for having an influence on the election, but rather its frightening that the politcal views of his audience are influenced by a comedy show. Then again, I only read the transcript but it seems like the interview was done in good fun. But I do think O'Reilly has a point: my vote, despite exhaustive research on issues and candidates, carries with it precisely the same voting power as someone who learns of the issues by accident while channel surfing. It may be fair, but it is still terrifying.
Slashdot Mirror
When the subject of spoilers comes up... why do we alway refer to Nadar? Perot took 19% of the vote in 1992. He was the ultimate spoiler.
funny... how often does a typo remain grammaticly correct but with a completely know meaning?
Call me an Asshat but I like the fact that many people do not vote. In my mind, the only thing worse than people not voting, is uniformed people voting. I like the fact that you have to put forth at least a little effort to vote... at least then I know people have convictions about what they are voting about.
Don't forget almost 50 years worth of technology advancement, most notably the availability of composite structures....
Actually, it was Burt's brother Dick who made the round-the-world flight.
By this definition, Churchill didn't do anything either.
Why not go the next level and automaticly fine cars who exceed the speed limit. Seriously, if speed limits are set unrealisticly low, then we should raise them where appropriate - but why do we even have traffic laws if they are essentially unenforcable. The current system relies completely the flock/herd mentality. Lots of us versus few of them - you only need to drive less crazy than the next guy. The irony is that I lean freaking libertarian! And no, I don't see this stance at odds with my beliefs. I simply believe that if you are going to have statutes, freaking enforce them, and the fairest way to administer justice is to administer it evenly.
And the collective scientific community breathed a sigh of relief.
We used the baby monitor for a few months, but eventually we realized something: babies make noise. And I am not talking about crying, they make all sorts of noises. They make noise as they fall asleep, and they make noise before they wake up. Listening via a sensitive baby monitor, these perfectly natural coo's will rile up you and your wife.
At some point I broached the subject again about video, but we decided that that would just further our obsession. The baby is fine.
Now, with a two-year old about to move into a "big" bed, is the time it might be appropriate to get a camera,... if not just to be able to see what he is getting into at bedtime without disturbing him. Then again, I have heard lots of stories about weirdos driving around and watching people's surveillance feeds, if that doesn't freak you out yet, wait until you have a child and some freaky part of your brain you didn't know you had that governs "protective instinct" kicks in... no joke, I check the locks on every door in the house twice each night - I never did anything like that before.
Oh, and I hate to plug a book, but make yourself and your wife read "The Baby Whisperer". Babies don't come with instructions (not that we would read them anyway), but this is as close as it gets. There wasn't a single thing in this book that wasn't directly applicable to raising our child. Oh, and while at it, this is a great lullaby cd... I think I will use it when my kid gets too big.
As punishement for violating Slashdot group-think, you will have three zeros added to your user number, therefore losing your 'coveted' 5-digit number.
Since you and I seem to think along the same lines, thought you might like this story.
Hey... where have I heard that line of reasoning before...let me see...
while the documents [CBS]had which corroborated that were (Unbeknownst to the [CBS]) forged, it still looks due to an abundance of [dead-enders]that that was still accurate.
just an observation....
Here is what I don't get about the whole line of accusations that Bush lied:
I know that sounds like blasphemy but think through it... saying Bush lied about WMD implies that he knew there weren't any. What was his plan going to be when WMD's weren't found? He had to know that that would be political suicide. Heck, in my mind, the fact that WMD's weren't found is some of the strongest proof that Bush didn't lie! If we had found WMD (or if they are found tomorrow, I (and I am not alone here), would have been at least a little suspicious that the US had planted them.
In other words, insisting that Bush "lied" demands that you accept that Bush knew and accepted that they wouldn't be found and then continued anyway despite all the political damage he had to know he would receive.
So, Bush would have to be amoral enough to lie to the American people, lie to UN, and then be too "righteous" to not go that extra yard and simply plant the evidence? That doesn't make any sense, but then again I am not a Yalee.
Doesn't it make more sense that Bush was just flat out wrong? I think Bush thought he would ride into Iraq, find a pile of half-built nukes, and think he had the next election locked-up.
I'm not going to go hunt for that analysis. I saw it in the last week or two. I don't remember the web site, but it wasn't some fringe source, it was something about as respectable as the New York Times, I just don't remember who.
I think I saw the same one. It is a professor in Utah who runs a media center. He is one of the experts consulted by CBS. The folks at Little Green Footballs claim to have caught him manipulating the evidence to support his claims that the documents were created on a typewriter. Of course, LGF is hardly without their motives either but it is certainly interesting. There is no proof either way, and besides, they just agree with the general knowledge that Bush pulled some fast moves and walked away from his obligation, whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.
There is no "general" knowledge here. As best as I can count, there are only two people claiming that the Bush "pulled fast moves", Barnes and the Colonel's secretary, both of whom have ulterior motives. There are *lots* of people who say Bush served honorably. In addition, there is weird circular reference going on. Most of the questions raised in the memo had been brought up in previous election by Burkett. He was widely discreditted at the time. This time, he made the same allegations, but with documents "proving" his case. Ironicly, many have said that perhaps the documents are forged but the content was accurate - when the fact may have been that the very reason they were created was to support the "accurate content".
whether with tacit approval because he wasn't worth prosecuting or not.
Prosecution for what?! You must be talking about missing a flight physical since there is ample evidence that Bush met all his guard requirements. As for the physical, let me let you in on a little secret. I am a Naval Aviator - and I have missed a required flight physical I was at graduate school at the time but missed my physical date by a month. Guess what... nothing happened. I got my physical and resumed flying the next year.
As for Bush lying, he was told several times by the very CIA who was boosting the case for war that the Nigerian yellowcake document was an utter forgery. He kept on putting it in speeches, they'd vet the speech and tell him to take it out, and the next speech, it would go right back in.Do you have a reference for this? I don't mean to bust your chops, but this would be clear-cut evidence of lying and I haven't heard that the CIA knew that the Nigerian docs were forgeries. I did hear that the CIA used language that was more conservative than the president's language, but that is a far cry from being told specificly that the documents were forged. It is true that at some point, it became known that the story was false. However, bear in mind that British and Russian intelligence both corroborated that Iraq had WMDs. While we are on the subject, how about this little gem I have been following for a couple weeks... allegations that France forged the Nigerian documents to sabotage the US's case for war. Doubt it is true but what would you think if it ends up being true?
He also had started making plans to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office, well before 9-11.
As well he should have. I think the administration's biggest mistake was trying to sell Iraq mostly on WMD claims. I would have placed far more emphasis on the simple fact that Iraq had been in violation of the GWI cease fire for over 10 years simply by firing on US aircraft pretty-much daily. Again, let me let you in on a little secret ... we have plans to invade pretty much every country on Earth.
In short, he was fishing for any excuse to finish daddy's war. H
As for the issue of Bush's service. According to Wikipedia Bush served all but the last 6 months of a 6 year commitment. Oh, and he had already met his quota for the final year when he got out. You had stated that he got out 2 years early from a 5 year commitment.
What is your evidence that Bush "lied" leading up to the war?
I know that sounds like blasphemy but think through it... saying Bush lied about WMD implied that he knew there weren't any. What was his plan going to be when WMD's weren't found? Heck, in my mind, the fact that WMD's weren't found is some of the strongest proof that Bush didn't lie! If we had found WMD, I and I am not alone here, would have been at least a little suspicious that the US had planted them.
In other words, insisting that Bush "lied" demands that you accept that Bush knew and accepted that they wouldn't be found and then continued anyway despite all the political damage he had to know he would receive.
On the contrary, I think Bush though he would ride into Iraq, find a pile of half-built nukes, and think he had the next election locked-up.
Read it for yourself. It does say that the US should not sign any agreement unless all the countries are held to the same standard (currently 80% of the world is not restricted what-so-ever by the protocol - including China) and it shouldn't be signed if it would do severe damage to the US economy. It also says that if it is passed on to the Senate for ratification.. it needs to be delivered with an impact assessment.
To me - it all seems pretty reasonable.
"Bring it on."
a. Gore did sign the protocol (which was symbolic only).
b. And that both Clinton and Bush decided to not pass the treaty on to the senate, citing the Byrd-Hagel resolution as strongly suggestive that the Senate would not ratify it.
As for this:
What was in the resolution that was so "broad" that "strong supporters" of the protocol had had to vote for this resolution?Here is the text of the resolution. Find the statement that was so compelling that John and Joe couldn't resist voting for it...
I've read it... it is one of the most straight-forward resolutions I have seen from the Senate.
Actually, the US has signed the Kyoto protocol, however it was a purely symbolic gesture by the Clinton administration. The Senate had voted 95-0 (and yes, Kerry was one of the 95) for a resolution stating that the US should not sign the protocol. Since the senate is the body with the US government that ratifies treaties, neither the Clinton or Bush administration pushed the issue further.
Now flash forward a few months.. you are the leader of Iraq and are about to make an important address in the United States. Who do you get to help you write you speach? You want someone who has seen the situation in Iraq first hand, but more importantly knows the US governments policies and attitudes for a future free Iraq. Oh, and you probably already have a working relationship with the man established over the months leading up to the hand-over of power...
Moving on, ... what is the basis for the claims that Senor is a Bush campaign operative? The Bush campaign has publicly stated that Senor "did not work for the campaign." Considering the number of posts swallowing the Senators suggestion as fact and deriding the link between the "campaign" and Allawi's speech, I would think that this would be an easy fact to check and catch the GOP in a flat-out lie...
I don't doubt that he is partisan... this story points out that he was seen jogging wearing a Bush-Cheney 2004 t-shirt. But the senator's allegation is that he is part of the Bush campaign though... can anyone prove this?
So when it is forged memos... we should ignore the minor detail of who actually wrote them and stay focused on what the memo's say... but when it is a speech we have to disregard it, regardless of content because someone may have helped with the message?
Piece of cake...is there a way to auto-forward my hotmail account? Should take about a week...
I'll play devils advocate here and suggest that perhaps O'Reilly wasn't wasn't trying to deride Stewart for having an influence on the election, but rather its frightening that the politcal views of his audience are influenced by a comedy show. Then again, I only read the transcript but it seems like the interview was done in good fun. But I do think O'Reilly has a point: my vote, despite exhaustive research on issues and candidates, carries with it precisely the same voting power as someone who learns of the issues by accident while channel surfing. It may be fair, but it is still terrifying.