You seem to forget that Obama spent ages in court arguing for DADT. And health care reform? The no insurer left behind act? Gitmo isn't even close to closed and Obama resumed military commissions there.
Things you don't mention are that he's incited 5x as many drone attacks in 3 years than Bush did in 8. He's using the same tactic of secret legal memos to say he has the power of due process free execution, that Bush used to validate due process free detention. He's used the State Secrets Doctrine to prevent people from suing for being wrongly tortured or spied on.
He tried to undermine the Cluster Bomb Treaty ban -- even though the US is not a signatory. The list just goes on and on and on. If all you got is a belated DADT reversal, health care "reform" that isn't, and GITMO -- which is open and operating just the same as always -- what do you have?
Oh -- financial reform -- you mean the castrated bill that experts indicate wouldn't have prevented the financial crisis even if it had been around at the time? That's no achievement -- that's just another example of the cozy relationship Obama has with Goldman Sachs and their lobbyists.
But that's fine, just keep on thinking Obama is a liberal. Self delusion can be very satisfying.
You need to understand, Obama doesn't say he thinks due process free detention statutes are a bad idea, he says that as President, he already has that power and Congress does not have the right to usurp it by passing a law. This is not an example of Obama displaying concern for civil liberties, it is an example of Obama asserting the philosophy of imperial presidency.
Misses a button on his coat? Are you serious? Obama's term looks exactly like a GWB third term would look like. You may not want to believe it, but Obama's policies have been horrid and his record on human rights, heinous.
It is very unlikely that the software itself would directly protect against the police state mentality, BUT, the philosophy underlying the Free (as in speech) software movement is deeply rooted in individual rights (to know, to learn, and to tinker) as well as social mores that encourage cooperation. Closed source software values include the use of big-money and power to bludgeon competitors into the dust (e.g., look at the whole patent debacle), a value fully in line with the assumption of tyrannical powers by the Bush and Obama administrations with respect to civil liberties. Had those administrations been permeated with a care for individual freedom and human rights, their administrations would have looked wholly different, and if there were more people who bought into the Free software philosophy, there might not have been enough gullible voters to elect these neo-cons.
Obama is not even trying to dig us out, he is extending those abuses. I can't believe people actually believe the notion that of the actions that are Obama's to make on his own, are somehow the fault of the GOP. People could be understanding if he actually tried to reverse Bush era policies and met resistance, but he isn't. He is extending them -- do you really think the GOP forced him to claim the right to execute Americans without trial, evidence, or any due process at all? That was his own evil, and nobody else's. So don't give me the blame it on the GOP crap -- what a fucking smokescreen.
I can't go with "not Obama's fault" on this, exactly because his original veto threat was couched in the notion he inherently had that power. Since he believes that, he can't be fault free.
So, you advocate the slow slide into imperial presidency, then to imperial presidency for life or something? Because that is where we are going and the risk of doing nothing is the greatest risk of all.
These types of polices are the hallmarks of tyrannical governments. This is where we are going now if nothing changes, and shivering in your boots about a third party will only speed it along, rather than prevent it as you fear.
President Barack Obama reversed course Monday and ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making his once ironclad promise to close the isolated prison look even more distant.
I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush", but when I do, the scorecard will be:
Worse than Bush: 8 Same as Bush: 10 Better than Bush: 1 Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault: 1 Better than Bush, but not Obama's accomplishment: 1 Can't make a fair comparison: 1
Quit blaming the GOP for Obama's abject failure. His foreign policy is as blindly neo-con as Bush's was. His policies, the things he does without any help or hindrance from the GOP, demonstrate a neo-con philosophy toward domestic civil liberties (due process free detention/execution, excusing torturers, excusing wiretappers, higher secrecy levels than ever, harshest on leakers). And on any social issue you pick to name, why is the fault of the GOP that Obama doesn't have the balls to fight a losing battle. People don't expect anyone to always win -- but the do expect effort.
Obama has been absolutely devastating for civil liberties -- he turned the what was radical under GWB into the new normal, and that makes HIM the worst president ever.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you aren't giving this a fair chance. That's not to say I'm blindly optimistic, but really, unless there is some kind of push back, nothing will change at all. The mainstream media is too expensive and too married to the monoparty system we have to be of any use at all, so it would be exceptionally unreasonable to expect change from that quarter. What does that leave for a means of national recognition but the internet?
B) It's likely to attract Dems. Giving pubs more power.
Ironically, that would be an awesome outcome for civil liberties because then the Democrats could then go back to pretending to care about them. Presuming the third party supports civil liberties, we'd then have the GOP against, the Democrats pretending to support them, and a party with a conscience defending civil liberties.
What he have now is the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights by the GOP and Democrats and a complete failure to even talk about it because neither have any interest in a free and open America.
What cavernous divide? There is a divide in rhetoric to be sure, and an emotional divide (*), but in terms actual policy differences between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins.
(*) I'm not sure how to characterize this -- I think of the people who despise "rednecks" and those that despise "hippies" -- they have a visceral hate for each other but it has nothing to do with policies apparently, because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB. Hence, the somewhat obscure term of "emotional divide".
Environmental protection? Obama has kinda sucked, even granting BP special dispensation from various environmental regs just prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Things like not requiring disaster plans and such. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml
That leaves public education, social service programs, and trickle-down. It's lunch time though and I'm hungry so I'm going to quit googling.
My point is that by voting for Obama, based on the premise that he will do some small good things may not be warranted. Obama is good at saying stuff and making promises, but when it gets down to policies, he's just another republican. Seems to me the better choice, if you are a liberal, is to not vote for a GOP candidate like Obama because you aren't likely to get even the small gains you want and all the while, the neocon agenda will just be further cemented into the new normal.
I still vote according to the lesser of two evils philosophy
The problem with this philosophy is that it can have the opposite effect and lead ironically to greater evil (*). Take for instance civil liberties. Obama has pushed forward every single civil liberty violating policy of the Bush administration. Yet because he is a democrat, there has been no push back at all. As a result, the radical usurpation of power by the Executive branch under Bush, has become the new normal under Obama.
As an example of the democrats' cynical nature, Marty Lederman once excoriated the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to justify due process free detention. Now that he is part of Obama's legal team, he is writing secret legal memos justifying due process free execution. The sad fact is, if there was a GOP president doing what Obama is doing, the democrats would pretend to care about civil liberties and at least put on a show of resistance. Instead, violating civil rights just became standard practice, a result far more evil than having the practice but also having some hope that opposition would change it.
Vote for a third party candidate. No they won't win, but if enough people abandon the mono-party with the dem/GOP faces, it will inject issues into the discussion as dem/GOP politicians try to figure out how to pander to the disaffected. It certainly is not a waste of a vote to refuse to choose between A) being raped to death at night by the Democrats or B) being raped to death by day by the GOP. You can't win that so don't play.
(*) While Obama did not appear to be a "lesser evil" candidate in 08, he clearly will be in 2012 given his wholehearted embrace of neocon philosophy.
Of course they're all from the same site -- it's my site. If you bothered to look, you'd find all the citations you seek. It's a hassle to have to keep repeating them, so I aggregated them.
Par.2: Obama ran in 08 as a candidate who would be different from the Mitts and Newts. He turned out to be their brother in policy however. It's very faint praise to say he's no worse than the GOP, which should be a hint at how much he sucks.
What exactly has Obama done to avoid the christian nation thing? Nothing. In fact, look at what happened with Plan B, where Obama allowed his appointee with a MA in Public Administration to overrule the FDA and whole panel of scientists. This stems from the same case BTW, wherein a federal judge excoriated the Bush administration for using politics instead of science to base its decisions. Indeed, Obama seems just as intent on perpetuating and financing myth as anyone: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships
Nobody pretends to be ticked off: Marty Lederman ripped the Bush administration hard for using secret legal memos to support due process free detention. Now that he is part of the White House legal team, Marty Lederman is WRITING secret legal memos to support due process free execution. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/
If the Democrats really cared about civil liberties, little ones like the right to not be killed without trial or incarcerated without trial, they would be calling for Obama's blood. Because they are not, I can only conclude that their support of civil rights is a campaign issue when engaging the GOP and nothing else at all.
As for your last paragraph, there are not two parties. There is one party, with two faces, to trick people like you into voting for its candidates. That way, nothing changes.
Vote for a third party candidate of your choice. Winning isn't the only thing that voting is for. If enough people voice dissatisfaction, it will inject new issues into the mainstream consciousness, which may in itself be enough to cause change even without an electoral victory. But voting for Anthrax because you hate Ebola, or vice-versa, does nothing. Absolutely nothing at all and is the dumbest choice you can make. Choose to resist, not suck it up.
Obama forgave all the torturers thus making him complicit. But that's par now that we have a system where certain people are simply above the law.
Obama doesn't villainize Muslims the way the Republicans do. The fact that he uses drones to attack the Taliban is irrelevant, as they aren't true Muslims, just murderers and thugs using religion as an excuse.
Nice job of rationalization, that. And if you think only a handful of innocents being killed by remote control bombs is OK -- that's insane. If you think it's not, I suggest you volunteer to be an innocent bystander and see how that makes you feel.
As for Gitmo -- it's BS to blame the GOP. Was Newt holding a gun to his head when Obama did this:
March 2011:
The president goes back on his campaign pledge completely. He signs an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the captives still kept at the Cuban facility.
Abortion is such a non-issue when we're talking about true fundamental human rights, like the right not be executed without trial or the right to a hearing where the government must prove it has a right to hold you in prison. When people are subject to due process free execution and detention, all other issues pale in comparison. None of that matters if you are dead or in a gulag.
Obama is a neocon. Accept it and run a primary challenger.
I'll vote for Obama over those guys; as much as he fucking pisses me off, at least he's not at war with gays, Muslims, and reproductive rights. That is a deal-breaker for me.
Obama has argued in court for every constitution shredding policy of the Bush administration and added a few of his own, like due process free execution.
Obama is as evil as Bush was and what is worse, because he is democrat nobody pretends to be ticked off anymore. All Obama has done has take the radical crap Bush did at make it the new normal.
Obama, change you can believe in if you live in a neocon's wet dream.
They've tossed butteric acid, which is produced in the Swedish fermented fish dish called Surstromming.
Oooooooh -- how evil!/sarcasm
When opened, the contents release a strong and sometimes overwhelming odor, which explains why the dish is often eaten outdoors. A Japanese study has shown that the smell of a newly opened can of surstrÃmming is the most putrid smell of food in the world, beating similar fermented fish dishes such as the Korean Hongeohoe or Japanese Kusaya.
If you have unlimited time, anything is possible. But sometimes, it's just nice to be able to give the installer a few simple bits of information and come back 20 minutes later with a fully functioning system. That's just me whining though because once the damage is done, it leaves the users with little other option but to kludge something together. I just don't understand why perfectly good stuff gets ruined -- and it isn't just linux. Look at iCal in Lion compared to previous versions.
Hangar One is 349,964 sq ft. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_One_(Mountain_View,_California) ). I don't know if costs go down or up when building a hangar 17.5x the size of a $1.9m hangar, but if there is a linear relationship between size and price, the cost to build one would be around $33m. Of course, the 8 acres of land it covers is worth something, but the space sharing arrangement may make the deal a fair one.
Like many, I am disgusted by the way the US takes from the middle class in order give assets and special treatment to the super-rich, but this particular example might not be such a bad deal. The only way to really know that however, is to estimate the value of Hangar One by more valid means than googling up a random contractor's price list.
Maybe the criticism is due. Maybe America isn't the place it was designed to be after the concerted attempts of Bush and Obama to shred every civil liberty provision it contained. Maybe some recognize that unless something is changed soon, we've gone into the Decline and Fall of the Republic phase.
Instead of criticism, we should all just shut up and scream "America, Fuck Yeah!". Thanks for the advice. At least we'll all be hoarse and deaf as we slide into oblivion.
Awlaki, a US citizen, was murdered basically because he expressed certain views. Those views might have been repugnant, but palatability is not really a consideration in free speech, and we are certainly not the bastion of free speech we once were. See for example, the court case from the 70s involving Nazis being allowed to march in Skokie: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to forget that Obama spent ages in court arguing for DADT. And health care reform? The no insurer left behind act? Gitmo isn't even close to closed and Obama resumed military commissions there.
Things you don't mention are that he's incited 5x as many drone attacks in 3 years than Bush did in 8. He's using the same tactic of secret legal memos to say he has the power of due process free execution, that Bush used to validate due process free detention. He's used the State Secrets Doctrine to prevent people from suing for being wrongly tortured or spied on.
He tried to undermine the Cluster Bomb Treaty ban -- even though the US is not a signatory. The list just goes on and on and on. If all you got is a belated DADT reversal, health care "reform" that isn't, and GITMO -- which is open and operating just the same as always -- what do you have?
Oh -- financial reform -- you mean the castrated bill that experts indicate wouldn't have prevented the financial crisis even if it had been around at the time? That's no achievement -- that's just another example of the cozy relationship Obama has with Goldman Sachs and their lobbyists.
But that's fine, just keep on thinking Obama is a liberal. Self delusion can be very satisfying.
You need to understand, Obama doesn't say he thinks due process free detention statutes are a bad idea, he says that as President, he already has that power and Congress does not have the right to usurp it by passing a law. This is not an example of Obama displaying concern for civil liberties, it is an example of Obama asserting the philosophy of imperial presidency.
Misses a button on his coat? Are you serious? Obama's term looks exactly like a GWB third term would look like. You may not want to believe it, but Obama's policies have been horrid and his record on human rights, heinous.
http://nothingchanged.org/
It is very unlikely that the software itself would directly protect against the police state mentality, BUT, the philosophy underlying the Free (as in speech) software movement is deeply rooted in individual rights (to know, to learn, and to tinker) as well as social mores that encourage cooperation. Closed source software values include the use of big-money and power to bludgeon competitors into the dust (e.g., look at the whole patent debacle), a value fully in line with the assumption of tyrannical powers by the Bush and Obama administrations with respect to civil liberties. Had those administrations been permeated with a care for individual freedom and human rights, their administrations would have looked wholly different, and if there were more people who bought into the Free software philosophy, there might not have been enough gullible voters to elect these neo-cons.
Obama is not even trying to dig us out, he is extending those abuses. I can't believe people actually believe the notion that of the actions that are Obama's to make on his own, are somehow the fault of the GOP. People could be understanding if he actually tried to reverse Bush era policies and met resistance, but he isn't. He is extending them -- do you really think the GOP forced him to claim the right to execute Americans without trial, evidence, or any due process at all? That was his own evil, and nobody else's. So don't give me the blame it on the GOP crap -- what a fucking smokescreen.
I can't go with "not Obama's fault" on this, exactly because his original veto threat was couched in the notion he inherently had that power. Since he believes that, he can't be fault free.
So, you advocate the slow slide into imperial presidency, then to imperial presidency for life or something? Because that is where we are going and the risk of doing nothing is the greatest risk of all.
Obama has solidified due process free detention, execution, and even enshrined indefinite detention in statute: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
These types of polices are the hallmarks of tyrannical governments. This is where we are going now if nothing changes, and shivering in your boots about a third party will only speed it along, rather than prevent it as you fear.
You need to remove one of your examples:
I usually try to avoid thinking that 3 year old stories are news, and this link on your site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html is way outdated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.html
Check my sig. Here, I'll link to it again: http://nothingchanged.org/
I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush", but when I do, the scorecard will be:
Worse than Bush: 8
Same as Bush: 10
Better than Bush: 1
Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault: 1
Better than Bush, but not Obama's accomplishment: 1
Can't make a fair comparison: 1
Quit blaming the GOP for Obama's abject failure. His foreign policy is as blindly neo-con as Bush's was. His policies, the things he does without any help or hindrance from the GOP, demonstrate a neo-con philosophy toward domestic civil liberties (due process free detention/execution, excusing torturers, excusing wiretappers, higher secrecy levels than ever, harshest on leakers). And on any social issue you pick to name, why is the fault of the GOP that Obama doesn't have the balls to fight a losing battle. People don't expect anyone to always win -- but the do expect effort.
Obama has been absolutely devastating for civil liberties -- he turned the what was radical under GWB into the new normal, and that makes HIM the worst president ever.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you aren't giving this a fair chance. That's not to say I'm blindly optimistic, but really, unless there is some kind of push back, nothing will change at all. The mainstream media is too expensive and too married to the monoparty system we have to be of any use at all, so it would be exceptionally unreasonable to expect change from that quarter. What does that leave for a means of national recognition but the internet?
Ironically, that would be an awesome outcome for civil liberties because then the Democrats could then go back to pretending to care about them. Presuming the third party supports civil liberties, we'd then have the GOP against, the Democrats pretending to support them, and a party with a conscience defending civil liberties.
What he have now is the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights by the GOP and Democrats and a complete failure to even talk about it because neither have any interest in a free and open America.
What cavernous divide? There is a divide in rhetoric to be sure, and an emotional divide (*), but in terms actual policy differences between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins.
(*) I'm not sure how to characterize this -- I think of the people who despise "rednecks" and those that despise "hippies" -- they have a visceral hate for each other but it has nothing to do with policies apparently, because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB. Hence, the somewhat obscure term of "emotional divide".
The FDA is part of the _executive_ branch, you know, that branch run by a president who talks like a liberal and acts like GWB.
Your point about shooting for a weak goal rather than an impossible goal is also valid, but I think there are some problems with your premises.
Maintaining separation of church and state? Obama not doing so great -- rather than end the Bush system of funneling public money to myth mongers, Obama perpetuates it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships
Environmental protection? Obama has kinda sucked, even granting BP special dispensation from various environmental regs just prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Things like not requiring disaster plans and such. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml
As for fracking -- has Obama actually done anything to prevent it? No -- instead, he's set up a panel of industry shills which has been roundly criticized by scientists but concluded fracking is safe. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/Scientists_CHU_Letter_SIGNED.pdf
That leaves public education, social service programs, and trickle-down. It's lunch time though and I'm hungry so I'm going to quit googling.
My point is that by voting for Obama, based on the premise that he will do some small good things may not be warranted. Obama is good at saying stuff and making promises, but when it gets down to policies, he's just another republican. Seems to me the better choice, if you are a liberal, is to not vote for a GOP candidate like Obama because you aren't likely to get even the small gains you want and all the while, the neocon agenda will just be further cemented into the new normal.
The problem with this philosophy is that it can have the opposite effect and lead ironically to greater evil (*). Take for instance civil liberties. Obama has pushed forward every single civil liberty violating policy of the Bush administration. Yet because he is a democrat, there has been no push back at all. As a result, the radical usurpation of power by the Executive branch under Bush, has become the new normal under Obama.
As an example of the democrats' cynical nature, Marty Lederman once excoriated the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to justify due process free detention. Now that he is part of Obama's legal team, he is writing secret legal memos justifying due process free execution. The sad fact is, if there was a GOP president doing what Obama is doing, the democrats would pretend to care about civil liberties and at least put on a show of resistance. Instead, violating civil rights just became standard practice, a result far more evil than having the practice but also having some hope that opposition would change it.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/
Vote for a third party candidate. No they won't win, but if enough people abandon the mono-party with the dem/GOP faces, it will inject issues into the discussion as dem/GOP politicians try to figure out how to pander to the disaffected. It certainly is not a waste of a vote to refuse to choose between A) being raped to death at night by the Democrats or B) being raped to death by day by the GOP. You can't win that so don't play.
(*) While Obama did not appear to be a "lesser evil" candidate in 08, he clearly will be in 2012 given his wholehearted embrace of neocon philosophy.
Of course they're all from the same site -- it's my site. If you bothered to look, you'd find all the citations you seek. It's a hassle to have to keep repeating them, so I aggregated them.
Par.2: Obama ran in 08 as a candidate who would be different from the Mitts and Newts. He turned out to be their brother in policy however. It's very faint praise to say he's no worse than the GOP, which should be a hint at how much he sucks.
What exactly has Obama done to avoid the christian nation thing? Nothing. In fact, look at what happened with Plan B, where Obama allowed his appointee with a MA in Public Administration to overrule the FDA and whole panel of scientists. This stems from the same case BTW, wherein a federal judge excoriated the Bush administration for using politics instead of science to base its decisions. Indeed, Obama seems just as intent on perpetuating and financing myth as anyone: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships
Nobody pretends to be ticked off: Marty Lederman ripped the Bush administration hard for using secret legal memos to support due process free detention. Now that he is part of the White House legal team, Marty Lederman is WRITING secret legal memos to support due process free execution. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/
If the Democrats really cared about civil liberties, little ones like the right to not be killed without trial or incarcerated without trial, they would be calling for Obama's blood. Because they are not, I can only conclude that their support of civil rights is a campaign issue when engaging the GOP and nothing else at all.
As for your last paragraph, there are not two parties. There is one party, with two faces, to trick people like you into voting for its candidates. That way, nothing changes.
Vote for a third party candidate of your choice. Winning isn't the only thing that voting is for. If enough people voice dissatisfaction, it will inject new issues into the mainstream consciousness, which may in itself be enough to cause change even without an electoral victory. But voting for Anthrax because you hate Ebola, or vice-versa, does nothing. Absolutely nothing at all and is the dumbest choice you can make. Choose to resist, not suck it up.
Obama forgave all the torturers thus making him complicit. But that's par now that we have a system where certain people are simply above the law.
Obama doesn't villainize Muslims the way the Republicans do. The fact that he uses drones to attack the Taliban is irrelevant, as they aren't true Muslims, just murderers and thugs using religion as an excuse.
Nice job of rationalization, that. And if you think only a handful of innocents being killed by remote control bombs is OK -- that's insane. If you think it's not, I suggest you volunteer to be an innocent bystander and see how that makes you feel.
As for Gitmo -- it's BS to blame the GOP. Was Newt holding a gun to his head when Obama did this:
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric/singleton/
Abortion is such a non-issue when we're talking about true fundamental human rights, like the right not be executed without trial or the right to a hearing where the government must prove it has a right to hold you in prison. When people are subject to due process free execution and detention, all other issues pale in comparison. None of that matters if you are dead or in a gulag.
Obama is a neocon. Accept it and run a primary challenger.
That's inaccurate.
War with Muslims:
http://nothingchanged.org/obama_and_muder_of_innocents_by_drone.html
Related topics include attempting to undermine the cluster bomb treaty:
http://nothingchanged.org/obama_loves_to_cluster_bomb_innocent_people.html
Plan B is interesting in that a person with a Masters in Public Administration from the U. of Kansas overruled the head of the FDA and her Harvard medical degree.
http://nothingchanged.org/obama_hates_birth_control.html
Obama has argued in court for every constitution shredding policy of the Bush administration and added a few of his own, like due process free execution.
Obama is as evil as Bush was and what is worse, because he is democrat nobody pretends to be ticked off anymore. All Obama has done has take the radical crap Bush did at make it the new normal.
Obama, change you can believe in if you live in a neocon's wet dream.
Oooooooh -- how evil!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surströmming
The engines were on but the boat stopped. All that commotion is just exhaust bubbles.
If you have unlimited time, anything is possible. But sometimes, it's just nice to be able to give the installer a few simple bits of information and come back 20 minutes later with a fully functioning system. That's just me whining though because once the damage is done, it leaves the users with little other option but to kludge something together. I just don't understand why perfectly good stuff gets ruined -- and it isn't just linux. Look at iCal in Lion compared to previous versions.
It depends. How much is the hangar worth? How much would it cost to build or lease such a hangar? I don't really know the answer to those questions.
Random site found by googling, shows that a 20,000 sq ft hanger will run about $1.9m. http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/hangar/
Hangar One is 349,964 sq ft. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar_One_(Mountain_View,_California) ). I don't know if costs go down or up when building a hangar 17.5x the size of a $1.9m hangar, but if there is a linear relationship between size and price, the cost to build one would be around $33m. Of course, the 8 acres of land it covers is worth something, but the space sharing arrangement may make the deal a fair one.
Like many, I am disgusted by the way the US takes from the middle class in order give assets and special treatment to the super-rich, but this particular example might not be such a bad deal. The only way to really know that however, is to estimate the value of Hangar One by more valid means than googling up a random contractor's price list.
Maybe the criticism is due. Maybe America isn't the place it was designed to be after the concerted attempts of Bush and Obama to shred every civil liberty provision it contained. Maybe some recognize that unless something is changed soon, we've gone into the Decline and Fall of the Republic phase.
Instead of criticism, we should all just shut up and scream "America, Fuck Yeah!". Thanks for the advice. At least we'll all be hoarse and deaf as we slide into oblivion.
Awlaki, a US citizen, was murdered basically because he expressed certain views. Those views might have been repugnant, but palatability is not really a consideration in free speech, and we are certainly not the bastion of free speech we once were. See for example, the court case from the 70s involving Nazis being allowed to march in Skokie: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html