First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program.
Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further.
For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm
I agree. Fetuses shouldn't be used for research. Especially when adult stem cells avoid the entire controversy, are more useful, and have actually produced treatments that are in human trials right now, unlike ESC. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research mostly seem to be trying to fight a proxy war for abortion by saying,"Look, Science tells us to kill babies!"
For a very well written article that expresses how I've always felt
about the stem cell issue, and mentions points about it that most
people are unaware of:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/102405D.html
The article does neglect to mention however that not only do ASC lead
to more promising treatments, but that they don't even have to deal
with tissue rejection in any of their therapies, unlike ESC.
However, what's not measurable is how much humans are contributing.
The Middle ages was considerably warmer than now: England was famous for it's wine, and one of the more Northern countries in Europe was famous for peaches. At some point the Earth cooled back down again.
I never hear Global Warmists talk about how the earth heated up or cooled back down then, and I want to know!
I take this article as an example of a natural process on the Earth that would strongly contribute to global warming -- Without human involvement. So what other natural processes are there that change Earth's temperature? Because inevitably they're always orders of magnitude more powerful than our own contributions, even by the more alarmist predictions of how much of an effect we're having.
Also, I would remind people that signing Kyoto would have a negligible effect on climate, especially with the way it allowed developing countries (that's India and China) to continue their pollution unimpeded. The new treaty we've signed, which focuses on trying to develop and share cleaner technologies, is more of what we need. If technology got us into this, only technology will help get us out.
I would point out that During the 60s, the current environmental fear was that we where heading towards an Ice Age.
Also, During the middle ages several of the scandinavian countries were famous for growing peaches, as the climate was considerably warmer than it is today.
Only within recent memory have meteoroligists understood the El-nino La-nina cycle of weather, who knows how many other cycles there are that they don't understand?
Finally, consider that man-made C02 Emission amounts are dwarfed by the amounts kicked out by active volcanoes whenever one blows.
There is not scientific consensus, there is strongly conflicting evidence and groups of scientists that debate that evidence strongly. Linking wikipedia does not make something true.
You're right, I don't personally know what's going on in Iraq, but I know quite a few Iraqi bloggers who do. I will point out that most of them love America and Bush.
Well, by that reasoning, I'd also have to take a good, critically thinking look at the candidate who's always had the way paved by him from old money, made his fortune by marrying into it (twice), consistently lied about his service in Vietnam, dishonored his fellow soldiers with horrible accusations that were later proven to be almost completely false and unjustified, and met with enemy nationalists not once, not twice, but three times under circumstances which border or even constitute treason.
When you take a look at the dark side and things hiding in the closet of either candidate they're both bad, but Kerry's is by far much worse, even if only a tiny fraction of it is true, although there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary.
As for safety, that was my number one concern when I voted for Bush. I think that Bush has a much better grasp on what makes America safe than Kerry, who's voted the wrong way on almost every security issue that's faced our nation. Also, Kerry himself said in the debates several statements which I believe show that he just doesn't grasp security issues properly. He wanted to go back to the old system of bribing Iran and N. Korea with Nuclear Technology in exchange for them not building Nuclear Missiles, a system that has been clearly shown not to work. He wanted to go back to talking one on one with N. Korea- A MAJOR mistake, since China has a HUGE influence on N. Korea, and having China help us at the table is a MAJOR asset.
As for the argument that foreign opinions of us are worse and therefore we are less safe, most of the countries that dislike us were already doing so, only in secret. Most of those countries are not going to be attacking us regardless. And I can name two countries that like us very much: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Very Simple. Read the Dalfour report beyond the headlines the biased media reported. Saddam was actively seeking to break down the remaining sanctions and start rebuilding his weapons programs, and everyone thought he already had started reconstruction, especially with the massively curropt oil for food program. Saddam was definitely not against using his weapons against us, as he used them on his own people and WAS a sponsorer of terrorists and their families, despite being a secular leader. Also, clearly detailed is the rapidly forming friendship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, even though it is true that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
What many democrats don't seem to get is that when we declared war on terror, we weren't saying we're only going to pay attention to Osama Bin Laden. We want terrorism, and especially the powers that harbor and encourage terrorism, gone.
The point is that Micheal Moore is so biased that he creates evidence by using clever editing tricks that are dishonest in spirit if not in letter.
If the Senator was saying that he would be more tha willing to send his faily over, Micheal Moore shouldn't be using the tape scene to make the point that senators and congressmen wouldn't risk their families.
Another easy answer: during the scene where he's asking various senators and congressmen to send their children over to the war in Iraq,he shows one senator who answered,"I don't have any children, but I have three nephews who are currently in the military, and two of them are currently overseas." Of course you don't get to see the senator reply, as it's exactly the opposite effect Moore intends, but he still uses the footage, which shouldn't support his statements at all. I'll try and find the news article that lists the exact details of this.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program. Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further. For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm
I agree. Fetuses shouldn't be used for research. Especially when adult stem cells avoid the entire controversy, are more useful, and have actually produced treatments that are in human trials right now, unlike ESC. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research mostly seem to be trying to fight a proxy war for abortion by saying,"Look, Science tells us to kill babies!" For a very well written article that expresses how I've always felt about the stem cell issue, and mentions points about it that most people are unaware of: http://www.techcentralstation.com/102405D.html The article does neglect to mention however that not only do ASC lead to more promising treatments, but that they don't even have to deal with tissue rejection in any of their therapies, unlike ESC.
However, what's not measurable is how much humans are contributing.
The Middle ages was considerably warmer than now: England was famous for it's wine, and one of the more Northern countries in Europe was famous for peaches. At some point the Earth cooled back down again.
I never hear Global Warmists talk about how the earth heated up or cooled back down then, and I want to know!
I take this article as an example of a natural process on the Earth that would strongly contribute to global warming -- Without human involvement. So what other natural processes are there that change Earth's temperature? Because inevitably they're always orders of magnitude more powerful than our own contributions, even by the more alarmist predictions of how much of an effect we're having.
Also, I would remind people that signing Kyoto would have a negligible effect on climate, especially with the way it allowed developing countries (that's India and China) to continue their pollution unimpeded. The new treaty we've signed, which focuses on trying to develop and share cleaner technologies, is more of what we need. If technology got us into this, only technology will help get us out.
I would point out that During the 60s, the current environmental fear was that we where heading towards an Ice Age.
Also, During the middle ages several of the scandinavian countries were famous for growing peaches, as the climate was considerably warmer than it is today.
Only within recent memory have meteoroligists understood the El-nino La-nina cycle of weather, who knows how many other cycles there are that they don't understand?
Finally, consider that man-made C02 Emission amounts are dwarfed by the amounts kicked out by active volcanoes whenever one blows.
There is not scientific consensus, there is strongly conflicting evidence and groups of scientists that debate that evidence strongly. Linking wikipedia does not make something true.
You're right, I don't personally know what's going on in Iraq, but I know quite a few Iraqi bloggers who do. I will point out that most of them love America and Bush.
Well, by that reasoning, I'd also have to take a good, critically thinking look at the candidate who's always had the way paved by him from old money, made his fortune by marrying into it (twice), consistently lied about his service in Vietnam, dishonored his fellow soldiers with horrible accusations that were later proven to be almost completely false and unjustified, and met with enemy nationalists not once, not twice, but three times under circumstances which border or even constitute treason. When you take a look at the dark side and things hiding in the closet of either candidate they're both bad, but Kerry's is by far much worse, even if only a tiny fraction of it is true, although there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary. As for safety, that was my number one concern when I voted for Bush. I think that Bush has a much better grasp on what makes America safe than Kerry, who's voted the wrong way on almost every security issue that's faced our nation. Also, Kerry himself said in the debates several statements which I believe show that he just doesn't grasp security issues properly. He wanted to go back to the old system of bribing Iran and N. Korea with Nuclear Technology in exchange for them not building Nuclear Missiles, a system that has been clearly shown not to work. He wanted to go back to talking one on one with N. Korea- A MAJOR mistake, since China has a HUGE influence on N. Korea, and having China help us at the table is a MAJOR asset. As for the argument that foreign opinions of us are worse and therefore we are less safe, most of the countries that dislike us were already doing so, only in secret. Most of those countries are not going to be attacking us regardless. And I can name two countries that like us very much: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Very Simple. Read the Dalfour report beyond the headlines the biased media reported. Saddam was actively seeking to break down the remaining sanctions and start rebuilding his weapons programs, and everyone thought he already had started reconstruction, especially with the massively curropt oil for food program. Saddam was definitely not against using his weapons against us, as he used them on his own people and WAS a sponsorer of terrorists and their families, despite being a secular leader. Also, clearly detailed is the rapidly forming friendship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, even though it is true that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
What many democrats don't seem to get is that when we declared war on terror, we weren't saying we're only going to pay attention to Osama Bin Laden. We want terrorism, and especially the powers that harbor and encourage terrorism, gone.
The point is that Micheal Moore is so biased that he creates evidence by using clever editing tricks that are dishonest in spirit if not in letter. If the Senator was saying that he would be more tha willing to send his faily over, Micheal Moore shouldn't be using the tape scene to make the point that senators and congressmen wouldn't risk their families.
Another easy answer: during the scene where he's asking various senators and congressmen to send their children over to the war in Iraq,he shows one senator who answered,"I don't have any children, but I have three nephews who are currently in the military, and two of them are currently overseas." Of course you don't get to see the senator reply, as it's exactly the opposite effect Moore intends, but he still uses the footage, which shouldn't support his statements at all. I'll try and find the news article that lists the exact details of this.