The only problem with slashdot is that no matter how far I adjust the brightness on my monitor, the AGW denial posters just aren't getting brighter.
You might have one or both of these two common issues:
You need to adjust your contrast between the global warming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change believers with the scientists that have contrary data.
You may have a polarized filter in place that blocks data not aligned with the filter.
I don't recall that E=mc^2 needed peer pressure (consensus) to win converts.
If Huawei (and all equipments from all Chinese companies) are suspicious, what makes you think that equipments from Germany or Japan or Britain or Korea or Canada or USA aren't?
Hmmm . . . are there any other one party communist states with aspirations of hegemony, a long history of enmity against democratic government, free enterprise, and personal liberty, that currently have intense foreign espionage efforts directed against the West, that make direct threats against the United States while being armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons, on the list? No, China. . . make that the People's Republic of China, one of the few remaining Communist dictatorships on earth, is unique in that regard. Isn't that clear? China is reforming economically much faster than politically, although that is coming along in small fits and starts. But fundamentally, China is still a dictatorship run by the Chinese Communist Party.
Which equipment the Stuxnet virus targeted?
That was SCADA controllers made by Siemens, a German company, being used by Iran - a Shia lead theocratic government imposing Sharia law in Iran while they seek hegemony in the region. Iran is using that equipment to run centrifuges to develop highly enriched Uranium, and has been discovered to be engaged in activities applicable to only nuclear weapons development. Iran tries to intimidate its neighbors, is a state sponsor of terrorismworld-wide, fund, trains, and arms Hezbollah with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to control Lebanon and attack Israel until it can make good on it barely veiled threats of genocide against Israel, and general threats against Europe and the United States. Until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran and Israel had been on good terms. It is the theocratic government in Iran that has declared them to be enemies - the conflict isn't Israel's fault - Iran was not part of the Arab-Israeli wars. And yet some people take the bankrupt position that it is Iran that needs protection from Israel. Stuxnet and its kin may be the only reason the world isn't in a shooting war in the region now.
It's easy to bash China - as China has become the poster boy for bashing orgy - from Presidential debate to this one in Slashdot - but I do expect MORE from those who come to Slashdot. Unlike the tweedledee and tweedeldum on the presidential debate, you guys do have brains. It's time you use your brain to think, rather than letting others doing the thinking for you.
Some people use their powers of reason to understand the facts above and their implications, others use their reason to rationalize away uncomfortable facts, like those above.
In much of the West, the well educated have been taught to believe that they can know nothing and that they can draw no independent conclusions about truth, unless they cite a study and "experts" have affirmed it. "Studies show" is to the modern secular college graduate what "Scripture says" is to the religious fundamentalist. -- Dennis Prager
Iraqi citizens and officials say documents found in al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's home in Pakistan, released a day after the first anniversary of his death, indicate al-Qaeda is losing its safe havens in the Islamic world.
Al-Qaeda's willingness to kill innocent civilians has led to its inability to recruit new fighters and has increased public resentment towards the organisation, they say.
These documents take the form of emails and draft messages dated between September 2006 and April 2011 -- 175 pages of which are written in Arabic -- and show bin Laden was concerned about his organisation's image, worried about the decline of public support for al-Qaeda's operations, and fearful of the safety of his followers. . . .
"It goes without saying that al-Qaeda has suffered huge losses in the past couple of years due to the death of most of its key leaders and the drying up of their funding sources," parliamentarian Shawn Mohammed Taha of parliament's security and defence committee told Mawtani.
"Its heaviest loss, however, has been its inability to recruit fighters as a result of growing public anger within Muslim societies in regard to its terrorist activities. This is made clear through bin Laden's exclusive focus on this aspect in his message," he said. . . . more . . .
Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration. It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened. If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.
Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.
Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely. Saddam used the food money to build palaces and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.
You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.
. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.
Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”
It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”
Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport
The weak opponent doesn't have that benefit already being weak. Mitt Romney had it too easy, surrounded by yes men or suckers not used to taking on really skilled opponents if Obama pushes him hard Romney could lose it and expose his vicious self serving nature
Romney is the weak one? Romney, who had to fight for the nomination against a large field of challengers versus President Obama who walked through the primaries? I don't think that makes sense.
Romney is surrounded by yes men? I think you somehow missed picking up on Obama's cult of personality.
Romney: weak, but also vicious and self serving? You seem a bit conflicted there. I'm not sure that will hold up either.
In 2011, the Romneys donated about 29% of their income to charity – $4 million out of their total $13.7 million in income. For 2010, they donated about 13.8% of their income, $2.98 million out of $21.6 million. Over a 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income, according to an accountants’ letter they provided on Friday. -- Romney’s Taxes: A Window Into Charitable Giving
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
44x Even assuming your numbers are correct, Romney is a piker. I'll show you a real rate of return:
Under increasing pressure from the media on Whitewater, Hillary Clinton called a dramatic press conference in the East Wing of the White House in April 1994. She answered the questions with calm authority, momentarily silencing her critics. . ..
First, reporters had discovered that Mrs. Clinton had realized a $100,000 return on a $1,000 investment in commodities futures back in 1979. Jim Blair, a friend and chief attorney for Arkansas food giant Tyson, had advised her. Now, the first lady said she had made the trades by herself. Later, she would admit that Blair and others had taken the lead. . . . -- Arkansas Roots
That would be 100X for Secretary Clinton. No doubt it was that sort of savy that landed her the Secretary of State's job.
And Mr. Romney's IRA is something I'd like to know more about, too.
It looks to me that Romney was a good investor and business man that made the most of the opportunities available, including getting in on the ground floor of several very successful companies. He also did it starting almost 30 years ago. That is a long time for investments to compound, especially for large amounts put in up front, and investments bought at a discount. Maybe this will help:
You go to work for a brewery, you might get discounts on beer. You go to work for an investment firm, you may get interesting financial opportunities. Pretty straight forward, I think.
Before Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital, the enormously profitable investment firm he founded, he made sure to lock in his gains, both realized and expected, for years to come. . .
Romney’s former colleagues say his retirement package is a well-justified reward for a chief executive who built Bain from scratch in 1984 into a financial powerhouse that backed business successes such as Staples and the Sports Authority.
The structure and tax treatment of his retirement, including the IRA, was legally sound and appropriate, they say, adding that he has earned less money over his career than some other top private-equity executives, who earned billions of dollars during the same period.
His severance package, for instance, allowed him to continue sharing in the profits of the company as if he were still a partner managing it, according to his 2010 tax return and interviews with present and former Bain executives. And because he benefited from the firm’s investments as if he were an active Bain partner, he paid taxes at a lower rate on these earnings than if they were treated as ordinary retirement income. Romney negotiated the package when he was leaving the firm, Bain executives said, while he set up his IRA long before.
. . . Under the law today, individuals may contribute up to $5,000 per year and employers may contribute up to $50,000 a year to an employer-sponsored IRA. The money is invested, and the investments grow tax-free until retirement. There is no limit on how much money an IRA can earn tax-free.
What determines an IRA’s growth is the performance of the investments, and Bain enabled Romney, its other employee
“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” -- Winston Churchill, Europe Unite
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama:)
That wouldn't be fair to the Russians. After all, they are still spinning up the old Soviet practices, aping the Cold War, and they apparently aren't done with them yet. It certainly appears that the Russians would rather be the enemy than be ignored.
Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.
That's funny, according to this poll, Romney lost the overall chest beating contest, but was winning on issues:
Post-Debate CNN Poll: Romney Buries Obama On Economy Like the CBS poll, Obama won the overall debate, 46-39%, but Romney beat him senseless on all the important individual issues like the economy, health care, deficit, and taxes. . . - Economy: Romney wins 58-40% - Health care: Romney wins 49-46% - Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%. - Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%. - Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%.
There are plenty of publicly accessible sites that mirror data from trivial to critical. I would contact a few of them and see what agreements they have in place, if any.
I would think you would want to make sure they note their data is a mirror, and that updates should be sent to your site. That might be handled by doc files for each file, or some type of about file in each directory. You probably want something like that if for no other reason so as to note metadata.
I've seen quite a few sites that prefer that you go to a mirror to download actual data.
. . . there is absolutely no guarantee in black box voting (especially the kind with no paper audit) that voters' votes are being counted. We have examples of elections where votes were NOT counted and the machines were manipulated to fix the results.
I'll agree with you on that one, that black box is not the way to go. I think optical scan machines are a better route.
No, but you learn very quickly what the boss wants and expects without him having to be explicit.
I think you are overstating things there - major vote fraud by "warm/cold" and foot stamps is not likely. I also can't imagine too many people intelligent enough to work on code for a voting system that also wouldn't be intelligent enough to see the serious downsides there, and would want it in writing - exactly what do you want me to do? If nothing else, they would need to document how to execute the fraud, and communicate that to the people doing it. Still, see my answer above.
And thank god they've got your back, too.
I think it is a good thing they exist, I just think it is nonsense that they are being brought in to American elections.* But, it is certainly within the right of the organization to ask for them, just as it is within the rights of others to point out the foolishness.
*I'm willing to grant the case of Chicago - something must be done about the Zombie voters. Besides, how many governors in a row have gone to jail now? Chicago could play in the same league as Massachusetts.
How do you expect to have "secret voting" when Mitt Romney's son holds an equity interest in a company that makes voting machines (a company which has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Romney campaign).
The vote is secret since there isn't personally identifiable information linked to the vote itself.
Do you think that everyone at the company are both Romney only voters and are unethical? If not, how would they expect to keep quiet the sort of conspiracy you posit? Surely they would expect their behavior to be under scrutiny?
Does their contract cover the whole state, and do they actually have the means to change the vote?
We've outsourced our elections.
Only the manufacture of voting machines, and do you really want the government in that business? The elections are supervised the same old way, and votes are still cast by voters.
I have absolutely zero confidence in the integrity of US elections. and not because of "voter fraud".
. . . But Morris doesn't stop here. Having stigmatized the Zionist founding fathers as quintessential European-type colonialists, he would not discard the other part of this Arab canard, which he has been peddling for decades, namely, that they were also unreconstructed ethnic cleansers "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."
I have been battling this defamation of Zionism's very essence for quite some time, showing time and again the extraordinary lengths to which Morris would go by way of fabricating Israeli history (see here, here, here, here, and here). I will therefore confine myself to one telling example of his professional misconduct.
In an October 1937 letter to his son David Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." In The Birth Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."
Tellingly, in his Hebrew language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers could check the original for themselves.)
- - -
Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
Here is an interesting question: Why are there hostilities at all between Iran and Israel? You do know that Iran and Israel had good relations between them into the 1970s, right? You do know that Iran didn't take part in the Arab-Israeli wars and so never fought against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973, right? It was only after Iran underwent the Islamic revolution of 1979 that it declared itself to be an enemy of Israel. Israel has no reason to be an enemy of Iran other than Iran's behavior. Iran's current behavior is to train and arm Hezbollah and other terrorists with tens of thousands of artillery rockets, antitank missiles, and other weapons, to use in attacking Israel, not to mention suicide bomb attacks and assassinations. Iran itself is engaged in a world-wide series of assassination attempts against Israeli diplomats. That is before we even get into the whole, wipe Israel from the pages of history thing, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Is there no aspect of Iran's behavior, including its support of terrorism, that troubles you?
Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'?
There might be a point where it would be a reasonable suspicion when you ignore Iran's hatred of choice, aggression of choice, and terrorism of choice while painting Israel as the aggressor against Iran, in defiance of the facts, while using forged quotes.
Why do you hate Persians?
Why do you support them? Wouldn't their campaigns of terrorism and barely veiled threats of genocide be enough to make you reconsider?
Knowledge is power, and science as an institution makes no bones about who gets it. That's why the Dark Ages happened, and why we're just one major disaster or war away from it happening again.
Sorry, but no. The Dark Ages happened as a result of the fall of Rome and the invasions of barbarians, and the Muslim conquests.
Pharmaceuticals spend billions developing new versions of dick hardening pills, while research into HIV, cancer, and other serious quality of life diseases languish.
Curing a patient means denying yourself all that profit from name-brand life-saving drugs. I could come up with a hundred more examples from every industry in every country worldwide -- but you get the point.
I think the point is that you have an exaggerated sense of what is possible - the "Man on the moon syndrome", maybe? Modern medicine offers wonders, but it isn't even close to being able to cure everything. If anything the trend is the reverse - there are more and more antibiotic resistant diseases. Finding new ones that work is expensive, time consuming, and filled with all manner of difficulties posed by law and regulation. Changing social mores drop various former barriers to the spread of disease. The future of medicine, especially where infectious disease is considered, looks a bit grim at the moment.
You views tend to run contrary to what the facts and common sense suggest.
It would if their neighbour who they are currently at war with didn't already have nuclear weapons.
Whose fault is it that they are at war? Israel and Iran had good relations into the 70's, until the Islamic revolution. Iran didn't go to war along with the Arab countries in Arab-Israeli Wars of 1948. 1956, 1967, 1973, and so on. Iran declared themselves an enemy of Israel after the Islamic revolution of 1979 - it is a matter of religious hatred. Iran wouldn't be threatened if it didn't threaten Israel and train, fund, and equip terrorists attacking Israel with thousands of rockets and other weapons. Even now, Iran is sending assassination teams all over the world to try to kill Israeli diplomats.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons to defend itself from Israel, it wants them to throw its weight around in the nations along the Arabian Gulf, and to help provide either means or cover for destroying Israel.
Aren't you against "wars of choice"? Shouldn't you oppose genocides of choice? Why do you not oppose Iran's naked hatred?
Again and again Israel has shown its willingness to attack Iran and other neighbouring states with conventional weapons.
You have it backwards. What are all these attacks on Iran by Israel that you speak of - when did the Israeli army cross into Iran? Iran played no part in the Arab-Israeli wars. Iran and Israel were on friendly terms until Iran declared Israel its enemy after the Islamic revolution of 1979. In fact it is Iran that is the aggressor, training and arming terrorists and guerillas to attack israel with rockets and suicde bombers. Shouldn't you be opposing hatred and the wars and terrorism of choice of Iran?
Of course Israel has had to defend itself against Arab armies in this century - since the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel time after time. The Arab nations invaded Palestine within hours of Israel's existence. When Israel was the attacker it was only after the actions and intent of the Arab nations was made clear, such as in 1967:
The attack follows a build-up of Arab military forces along the Israeli border.
The Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria.
On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." - - 1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt
The Arab leaders made their intent known. Do you not oppose genocide, especially when it is open announced?
Apparently the fault you find with the Israelis is that they do not wait meekly for execution by those who have made their hatred and intent clear.
Since they are backed by the US the only realistic defence is mutually assured nuclear annihilation.
The US has never fought alongside Israeli troops, so that is nonsense. Furthermore, Iran could do what Egypt and Jordan did - sign a peace treaty with Israel. You would think that it would be easier for Iran that Egypt and Jordan since Iran wasn't part of the Arab-Israeli wars, and used to have good relations with Israel until the revolution and the self-declared war against Israel and, in fact, the Jews. Israel would have no interest in hostilities with Iran if Iran left Israel alone.
Why do you not urge Iran to seek peace instead of nuclear weapons?
North Korea is in the same boat. The US doesn't like them, . .
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with slashdot is that no matter how far I adjust the brightness on my monitor, the AGW denial posters just aren't getting brighter.
You might have one or both of these two common issues:
You need to adjust your contrast between the global warming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H climate change believers with the scientists that have contrary data.
You may have a polarized filter in place that blocks data not aligned with the filter.
I don't recall that E=mc^2 needed peer pressure (consensus) to win converts.
If Huawei (and all equipments from all Chinese companies) are suspicious, what makes you think that equipments from Germany or Japan or Britain or Korea or Canada or USA aren't?
Hmmm . . . are there any other one party communist states with aspirations of hegemony, a long history of enmity against democratic government, free enterprise, and personal liberty, that currently have intense foreign espionage efforts directed against the West, that make direct threats against the United States while being armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons, on the list? No, China. . . make that the People's Republic of China, one of the few remaining Communist dictatorships on earth, is unique in that regard. Isn't that clear? China is reforming economically much faster than politically, although that is coming along in small fits and starts. But fundamentally, China is still a dictatorship run by the Chinese Communist Party.
Which equipment the Stuxnet virus targeted?
That was SCADA controllers made by Siemens, a German company, being used by Iran - a Shia lead theocratic government imposing Sharia law in Iran while they seek hegemony in the region. Iran is using that equipment to run centrifuges to develop highly enriched Uranium, and has been discovered to be engaged in activities applicable to only nuclear weapons development. Iran tries to intimidate its neighbors, is a state sponsor of terrorism world-wide, fund, trains, and arms Hezbollah with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to control Lebanon and attack Israel until it can make good on it barely veiled threats of genocide against Israel, and general threats against Europe and the United States. Until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran and Israel had been on good terms. It is the theocratic government in Iran that has declared them to be enemies - the conflict isn't Israel's fault - Iran was not part of the Arab-Israeli wars. And yet some people take the bankrupt position that it is Iran that needs protection from Israel. Stuxnet and its kin may be the only reason the world isn't in a shooting war in the region now.
It's easy to bash China - as China has become the poster boy for bashing orgy - from Presidential debate to this one in Slashdot - but I do expect MORE from those who come to Slashdot. Unlike the tweedledee and tweedeldum on the presidential debate, you guys do have brains. It's time you use your brain to think, rather than letting others doing the thinking for you.
Some people use their powers of reason to understand the facts above and their implications, others use their reason to rationalize away uncomfortable facts, like those above.
In much of the West, the well educated have been taught to believe that they can know nothing and that they can draw no independent conclusions about truth, unless they cite a study and "experts" have affirmed it. "Studies show" is to the modern secular college graduate what "Scripture says" is to the religious fundamentalist. -- Dennis Prager
Before the Lights Go Out: A Survey of EMP Preparedness Reveals Significant Shortfalls
Maybe you shouldn't read this - you might find it distressing to encounter facts contrary to your views.
Bin Laden letters indicate Muslims' growing aversion to al-Qaeda
Iraqi citizens and officials say documents found in al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's home in Pakistan, released a day after the first anniversary of his death, indicate al-Qaeda is losing its safe havens in the Islamic world.
Al-Qaeda's willingness to kill innocent civilians has led to its inability to recruit new fighters and has increased public resentment towards the organisation, they say.
These documents take the form of emails and draft messages dated between September 2006 and April 2011 -- 175 pages of which are written in Arabic -- and show bin Laden was concerned about his organisation's image, worried about the decline of public support for al-Qaeda's operations, and fearful of the safety of his followers. . . .
"It goes without saying that al-Qaeda has suffered huge losses in the past couple of years due to the death of most of its key leaders and the drying up of their funding sources," parliamentarian Shawn Mohammed Taha of parliament's security and defence committee told Mawtani.
"Its heaviest loss, however, has been its inability to recruit fighters as a result of growing public anger within Muslim societies in regard to its terrorist activities. This is made clear through bin Laden's exclusive focus on this aspect in his message," he said. . . . more . . .
Hint: When one side has 6 nukes, and the other side 6000+, MAD doesn't even begin to enter the picture
Hint: Time to learn abou EMP.
You may find ditches preferable to cliffs.
550 goddamn votes in Florida and you'd see what difference not electing Bush the Lesser would have made, kemosabe.
Would we? Here are a couple of views:
The History of the U.S. – If Al Gore Became President
If Al Gore Had Won in 2000
Here are a few of mine:
Al Qaida was attacking United States embassies and the Cole under the Clinton administration.
It seems pretty certain that 9/11 would still have happened.
If 9/11 happens, it's pretty certain a global war against Al Qaida follows, and very likely war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Invasion? Probably.
Economic crashes? Of course. The internet-centric business meltdown is virtually certain to have occurred, and the housing bubble not much less so. The internet-centric business meltdown was the result of trends started in the Clinton administration. The actual wrong-doing for Enron occurred under the Clinton administration. The housing bubble was a result of policies with broad bi-partisan support.
Iraq? That is more of a wildcard. The US policy calling for regime change in Iraq was set under the Clinton administration. It is virtually certain that there would have been conflicts with Iraq, including armed action. Would it have lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq? Somewhere along the line of less likely to no. There almost certainly would have been bombings though, probably a lot more of them to compensate for the lack of ground forces. Saddams army in 2003 was strong enough to hold Iraq against rebellion that wasn't aided externally. It seems pretty certain that either Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power. They might even have thrown off sanctions due to the "Oil for Food" program bribes and the loss of interest in the world community in containing him. Saddam with no sanctions means a Saddam rearming and continuing to support terrorism (no, not Al Qaida). He might ever do it with a vengence. Would Iraqis be better off? Very unlikely. Saddam used the food money to build palaces and buy weapons while the infrastructure crumbled, and people perished. That is from simple neglect. Saddam's government filled Iraq with large numbers of mass graves. Had Saddam's regime not been overthrown, the killing would have continued.
You may recall that Saddam had to restrain his sons, they were crueler than he was.
How Bad Was Saddam’s Son?
. . . Latif’s first lesson was to learn how to not react in disgust or become sick at Hussein regime cruelty. He was taken to a viewing room holding thousands of videos of torture sessions.
Saddam’s son had learned the same way. “Uday told me whenever he seemed weak or squeamish as a child his father would beat him with an iron bar and then force him to watch videos of prisoners being tortured.”
It worked. “Just wait until I become president,” Uday promised, “I’ll be crueler than my father ever was. You mark my words. You’ll yearn for the days of Saddam
Hussein.”
Now, read this carefully. If there is no US invasion of Iraq, there is not the same opportunity for an Al Qaida supported and led insurgency in Iraq that drew Al Qaida members from around the world to Iraq. That movement generated intelligence and provided opport
The weak opponent doesn't have that benefit already being weak. Mitt Romney had it too easy, surrounded by yes men or suckers not used to taking on really skilled opponents if Obama pushes him hard Romney could lose it and expose his vicious self serving nature
Romney is the weak one? Romney, who had to fight for the nomination against a large field of challengers versus President Obama who walked through the primaries? I don't think that makes sense.
Romney is surrounded by yes men? I think you somehow missed picking up on Obama's cult of personality.
Romney: weak, but also vicious and self serving? You seem a bit conflicted there. I'm not sure that will hold up either.
In 2011, the Romneys donated about 29% of their income to charity – $4 million out of their total $13.7 million in income. For 2010, they donated about 13.8% of their income, $2.98 million out of $21.6 million. Over a 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income, according to an accountants’ letter they provided on Friday. -- Romney’s Taxes: A Window Into Charitable Giving
That means Mr. Romney got a return of at least 44 times his initial investment. If you don't think that's suspicious, maybe you're the one wearing a tinfoil hat...
44x Even assuming your numbers are correct, Romney is a piker. I'll show you a real rate of return:
Under increasing pressure from the media on Whitewater, Hillary Clinton called a dramatic press conference in the East Wing of the White House in April 1994. She answered the questions with calm authority, momentarily silencing her critics. . . .
First, reporters had discovered that Mrs. Clinton had realized a $100,000 return on a $1,000 investment in commodities futures back in 1979. Jim Blair, a friend and chief attorney for Arkansas food giant Tyson, had advised her. Now, the first lady said she had made the trades by herself. Later, she would admit that Blair and others had taken the lead. . . . -- Arkansas Roots
That would be 100X for Secretary Clinton. No doubt it was that sort of savy that landed her the Secretary of State's job.
And Mr. Romney's IRA is something I'd like to know more about, too.
It looks to me that Romney was a good investor and business man that made the most of the opportunities available, including getting in on the ground floor of several very successful companies. He also did it starting almost 30 years ago. That is a long time for investments to compound, especially for large amounts put in up front, and investments bought at a discount. Maybe this will help:
Myths Vs. Truths: The Truth About Saving for Retirement
You go to work for a brewery, you might get discounts on beer. You go to work for an investment firm, you may get interesting financial opportunities. Pretty straight forward, I think.
Mitt Romney exited Bain Capital with rare tax benefits in retirement
Before Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital, the enormously profitable investment firm he founded, he made sure to lock in his gains, both realized and expected, for years to come. . .
Romney’s former colleagues say his retirement package is a well-justified reward for a chief executive who built Bain from scratch in 1984 into a financial powerhouse that backed business successes such as Staples and the Sports Authority.
The structure and tax treatment of his retirement, including the IRA, was legally sound and appropriate, they say, adding that he has earned less money over his career than some other top private-equity executives, who earned billions of dollars during the same period.
His severance package, for instance, allowed him to continue sharing in the profits of the company as if he were still a partner managing it, according to his 2010 tax return and interviews with present and former Bain executives. And because he benefited from the firm’s investments as if he were an active Bain partner, he paid taxes at a lower rate on these earnings than if they were treated as ordinary retirement income. Romney negotiated the package when he was leaving the firm, Bain executives said, while he set up his IRA long before.
. . . Under the law today, individuals may contribute up to $5,000 per year and employers may contribute up to $50,000 a year to an employer-sponsored IRA. The money is invested, and the investments grow tax-free until retirement. There is no limit on how much money an IRA can earn tax-free.
What determines an IRA’s growth is the performance of the investments, and Bain enabled Romney, its other employee
“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” -- Winston Churchill, Europe Unite
With a track record like that, who wouldn't be in favor?*
You do realize that "violent revolution" involves killing people and not music or flowers, right?
*Eye roll
And quoting Breitbart is like quoting Fox News.
Well then, you must think you have an easy target. Why don't you show they are wrong? Or isn't that going to work out for you?
If he voted for Bush he got a two term president who signed a lot of legislation, and appointed two Supreme Court justices.
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama :)
That wouldn't be fair to the Russians. After all, they are still spinning up the old Soviet practices, aping the Cold War, and they apparently aren't done with them yet. It certainly appears that the Russians would rather be the enemy than be ignored.
Russia restarts Cold War patrols
Report: Russia may base bombers in Cuba
More Russian bombers flying off Alaska coast
Report: Russian Nuclear Attack Sub Patrolled Waters Off Gulf for a MonthUndetected
Canada does not like Russian nuclear bombers patrolling Arctic territory
Japanese, South Korean jets trail Russian bombers over Pacific
UK jets greet Russian bombers
New Russian Anti-Missile Facility Opens in Kaliningrad
Russia claims new missile can overcome missile defenses
Apparently the Romney ape beat his chest harder than the Obama ape, and that is enough for the rest of the tribe to decide that Romney is alpha and Obama the beta.
That's funny, according to this poll, Romney lost the overall chest beating contest, but was winning on issues:
Post-Debate CNN Poll: Romney Buries Obama On Economy
Like the CBS poll, Obama won the overall debate, 46-39%, but Romney beat him senseless on all the important individual issues like the economy, health care, deficit, and taxes. . .
- Economy: Romney wins 58-40%
- Health care: Romney wins 49-46%
- Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.
- Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.
- Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%.
Apparently ideas matter in some respect.
There are plenty of publicly accessible sites that mirror data from trivial to critical. I would contact a few of them and see what agreements they have in place, if any.
I would think you would want to make sure they note their data is a mirror, and that updates should be sent to your site. That might be handled by doc files for each file, or some type of about file in each directory. You probably want something like that if for no other reason so as to note metadata.
I've seen quite a few sites that prefer that you go to a mirror to download actual data.
. . . there is absolutely no guarantee in black box voting (especially the kind with no paper audit) that voters' votes are being counted. We have examples of elections where votes were NOT counted and the machines were manipulated to fix the results.
I'll agree with you on that one, that black box is not the way to go. I think optical scan machines are a better route.
No, but you learn very quickly what the boss wants and expects without him having to be explicit.
I think you are overstating things there - major vote fraud by "warm/cold" and foot stamps is not likely. I also can't imagine too many people intelligent enough to work on code for a voting system that also wouldn't be intelligent enough to see the serious downsides there, and would want it in writing - exactly what do you want me to do? If nothing else, they would need to document how to execute the fraud, and communicate that to the people doing it. Still, see my answer above.
And thank god they've got your back, too.
I think it is a good thing they exist, I just think it is nonsense that they are being brought in to American elections.* But, it is certainly within the right of the organization to ask for them, just as it is within the rights of others to point out the foolishness.
*I'm willing to grant the case of Chicago - something must be done about the Zombie voters. Besides, how many governors in a row have gone to jail now? Chicago could play in the same league as Massachusetts.
Ah, poperatzo, good to hear from you.
How do you expect to have "secret voting" when Mitt Romney's son holds an equity interest in a company that makes voting machines (a company which has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Romney campaign).
The vote is secret since there isn't personally identifiable information linked to the vote itself.
Do you think that everyone at the company are both Romney only voters and are unethical? If not, how would they expect to keep quiet the sort of conspiracy you posit? Surely they would expect their behavior to be under scrutiny?
Does their contract cover the whole state, and do they actually have the means to change the vote?
We've outsourced our elections.
Only the manufacture of voting machines, and do you really want the government in that business? The elections are supervised the same old way, and votes are still cast by voters.
I have absolutely zero confidence in the integrity of US elections. and not because of "voter fraud".
Voter fraud? The very idea! Rest assurred, it doesn't always work. ;) (Just because I know you've listened.)
Besides, don't worry, the the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU have your back, in yet another embarrassment to the United States.
Digging up dirt on potential voters to keep them in line with some form of blackmail.
Which is why the secret vote has been important, and will continue to be important. A pity not everyone is committed to it.
All arabs? Who said anything about all arabs? Oh, but wait:
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion
You asked for only one, but there a literally hundreds by prominent Israelis.
You should probably start looking for a different quote, that one is fraudulent.
A Chameleon, Nevertheless
. . . But Morris doesn't stop here. Having stigmatized the Zionist founding fathers as quintessential European-type colonialists, he would not discard the other part of this Arab canard, which he has been peddling for decades, namely, that they were also unreconstructed ethnic cleansers "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."
I have been battling this defamation of Zionism's very essence for quite some time, showing time and again the extraordinary lengths to which Morris would go by way of fabricating Israeli history (see here, here, here, here, and here). I will therefore confine myself to one telling example of his professional misconduct.
In an October 1937 letter to his son David Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." In The Birth Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their places."
Tellingly, in his Hebrew language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers could check the original for themselves.)
- - -
Now, for more relevant to the topic at hand, I suggest you google 'Israel threatens Iran'. You'll find plenty, with specific threats and timelines ("within months").
Here is an interesting question: Why are there hostilities at all between Iran and Israel? You do know that Iran and Israel had good relations between them into the 1970s, right? You do know that Iran didn't take part in the Arab-Israeli wars and so never fought against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, or 1973, right? It was only after Iran underwent the Islamic revolution of 1979 that it declared itself to be an enemy of Israel. Israel has no reason to be an enemy of Iran other than Iran's behavior. Iran's current behavior is to train and arm Hezbollah and other terrorists with tens of thousands of artillery rockets, antitank missiles, and other weapons, to use in attacking Israel, not to mention suicide bomb attacks and assassinations. Iran itself is engaged in a world-wide series of assassination attempts against Israeli diplomats. That is before we even get into the whole, wipe Israel from the pages of history thing, and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Is there no aspect of Iran's behavior, including its support of terrorism, that troubles you?
Is questioning Israel's foreign policy 'jew hatred'?
There might be a point where it would be a reasonable suspicion when you ignore Iran's hatred of choice, aggression of choice, and terrorism of choice while painting Israel as the aggressor against Iran, in defiance of the facts, while using forged quotes.
Why do you hate Persians?
Why do you support them? Wouldn't their campaigns of terrorism and barely veiled threats of genocide be enough to make you reconsider?
Knowledge is power, and science as an institution makes no bones about who gets it. That's why the Dark Ages happened, and why we're just one major disaster or war away from it happening again.
Sorry, but no. The Dark Ages happened as a result of the fall of Rome and the invasions of barbarians, and the Muslim conquests.
Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The Epilogue
The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism
The Church Educates Europe
Pharmaceuticals spend billions developing new versions of dick hardening pills, while research into HIV, cancer, and other serious quality of life diseases languish.
Languish at their current high levels of research funding? HIV and cancer research seem to do especially well.
Curing a patient means denying yourself all that profit from name-brand life-saving drugs. I could come up with a hundred more examples from every industry in every country worldwide -- but you get the point.
I think the point is that you have an exaggerated sense of what is possible - the "Man on the moon syndrome", maybe? Modern medicine offers wonders, but it isn't even close to being able to cure everything. If anything the trend is the reverse - there are more and more antibiotic resistant diseases. Finding new ones that work is expensive, time consuming, and filled with all manner of difficulties posed by law and regulation. Changing social mores drop various former barriers to the spread of disease. The future of medicine, especially where infectious disease is considered, looks a bit grim at the moment.
Will humans lose the battle with microbes?
That is the country of Italy (southern Europe, part of the EU), not Italy, Texas. We return you now to the regularly scheduled posts.
That is an overstatement. You have actually contradicted yourself.
It turns out that irony is not just an under-appreciated literary device, it apparently is an often unrecognized one as well.
You views tend to run contrary to what the facts and common sense suggest.
It would if their neighbour who they are currently at war with didn't already have nuclear weapons.
Whose fault is it that they are at war? Israel and Iran had good relations into the 70's, until the Islamic revolution. Iran didn't go to war along with the Arab countries in Arab-Israeli Wars of 1948. 1956, 1967, 1973, and so on. Iran declared themselves an enemy of Israel after the Islamic revolution of 1979 - it is a matter of religious hatred. Iran wouldn't be threatened if it didn't threaten Israel and train, fund, and equip terrorists attacking Israel with thousands of rockets and other weapons. Even now, Iran is sending assassination teams all over the world to try to kill Israeli diplomats.
Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons to defend itself from Israel, it wants them to throw its weight around in the nations along the Arabian Gulf, and to help provide either means or cover for destroying Israel.
Aren't you against "wars of choice"? Shouldn't you oppose genocides of choice? Why do you not oppose Iran's naked hatred?
Again and again Israel has shown its willingness to attack Iran and other neighbouring states with conventional weapons.
You have it backwards. What are all these attacks on Iran by Israel that you speak of - when did the Israeli army cross into Iran? Iran played no part in the Arab-Israeli wars. Iran and Israel were on friendly terms until Iran declared Israel its enemy after the Islamic revolution of 1979. In fact it is Iran that is the aggressor, training and arming terrorists and guerillas to attack israel with rockets and suicde bombers. Shouldn't you be opposing hatred and the wars and terrorism of choice of Iran?
Of course Israel has had to defend itself against Arab armies in this century - since the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel time after time. The Arab nations invaded Palestine within hours of Israel's existence. When Israel was the attacker it was only after the actions and intent of the Arab nations was made clear, such as in 1967:
The attack follows a build-up of Arab military forces along the Israeli border.
The Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria.
On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." - - 1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt
The Arab leaders made their intent known. Do you not oppose genocide, especially when it is open announced?
Apparently the fault you find with the Israelis is that they do not wait meekly for execution by those who have made their hatred and intent clear.
Since they are backed by the US the only realistic defence is mutually assured nuclear annihilation.
The US has never fought alongside Israeli troops, so that is nonsense. Furthermore, Iran could do what Egypt and Jordan did - sign a peace treaty with Israel. You would think that it would be easier for Iran that Egypt and Jordan since Iran wasn't part of the Arab-Israeli wars, and used to have good relations with Israel until the revolution and the self-declared war against Israel and, in fact, the Jews. Israel would have no interest in hostilities with Iran if Iran left Israel alone.
Why do you not urge Iran to seek peace instead of nuclear weapons?
North Korea is in the same boat. The US doesn't like them, . .
That would be minimeme.