So, how did you get a trillion dollars of spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars? By adding up all the spending for each year, right? Well, if you are figuring out the percentage you still have to do the same thing wth total spending. Guess what? When you do that, the percentage doesn't change. And you don't get to pretend that we wouldn't have an army or navy if we weren't fighting those wars so the cost for their existence doesn't really change. Bottom line, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a fraction of defense spending, and defense spending is less than half of total federal spending.
You are full of nonsense about Social Security as well. The trustees issued a report saying it needs to be fixed. You also left out Medicare and Medicaid. The total cost of these programs is causing a serious problem for the US and it needs to be fixed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I neither stole, nor am I smoking, your crack.
So, how did you get a trillion dollars of spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars? By adding up all the spending for each year, right? Well, if you are figuring out the percentage you still have to do the same thing wth total spending. Guess what? When you do that, the percentage doesn't change. And you don't get to pretend that we wouldn't have an army or navy if we weren't fighting those wars so the cost for their existence doesn't really change. Bottom line, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a fraction of defense spending, and defense spending is less than half of total federal spending.
You are full of nonsense about Social Security as well. The trustees issued a report [ssab.gov] saying it needs to be fixed. You also left out Medicare and Medicaid. The total cost of these programs is causing a serious problem for the US and it needs to be fixed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Fuck you ideologically programmed intellectually dishonest asshole.
"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.
Do not suppose for a minute that Herman Cain’s victory in the Florida straw poll will alter the liberal narrative about the Tea Party and Republicans. No, we will continue to be instructed by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Today Show and the New York Times that the eruption of the tea parties is a reflection of the dark id of American conservatism; that it is primarily racist and xenophobic; and that the Tea Party movement is radical and extremist.
Waving the “bloody shirt” of racism has been the most reliable workhorse of Democratic politics for at least a generation. Remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the “epidemic” of black-church fires in the 1990s? Remember George W. Bush’s “insensitivity” regarding the ghastly lynching of James Byrd? The epidemic turned out to be imaginary and Bush was happy to sign the death warrant for one of Byrd’s murderers, but the tactic is too precious for Democrats to abandon.
It will take some imagination to explain away Herman Cain’s success. Among the very voters Democrats demonize, Cain achieved a resounding victory with 37.1 percent of the vote — more than twice the percentage of his next nearest competitor, Rick Perry, who received 15.4 percent.
And it wasn’t that Republicans and conservatives were acting upon an affirmative action spirit — trying to prove that they too could pull the lever for a black guy. It’s that Herman Cain delivers a great speech, is willing to propose solutions commensurate with our problems, and is possessed of a remarkably sunny personality. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it.”
And it doesn’t hurt that Cain embodies the Horatio Alger rise to success that liberals dismiss as myth but conservatives still believe.
If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
If there was ever any doubt that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, that doubt should have been put to rest when Barack Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Stop whining!”
And Al Awlaki, too. An American citizen. Never indicted, charged, or tried for any crime.
The men represented in this video, who were shot down en mass by the Federal government without benefit of indictment or trial, and Al-Awlaki, share a common trait. Do you know what it is?
Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States and made himself the enemy during wartime. He aided those trying to kill Americans. Killing Al-Awlaki was a completely legitimate act of war that did not require charges, indictment, trial, or sentencing. It isn't a question of criminal law, but war. And yes, the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war - that is settled law. If he actually wanted to be judged in a court of law, he could have surrendered.
This man and his sprawling NewsCorp media empire have almost single-handedly ruined/corrupted objective journalism, and done so across multiple countries where NewsCorp is active.
This man will just try to spread his twisted, f^cked up neocon-ultra-jingo-conservative values to school children, given the chance.
You apparently missed the part where it states this is about software to track student performance, not curriculum or instructional materials? But I can understand your concern - no schools should permit any deviation from "progressive" messages and practices, or "progressive" programs like racistcurriculum .
Yeah... although I'd prefer Ron Paul, I *can* think of reasons to vote Obama back in again:
; . . . Paul isn't going to be supported by the republicans because they prefer an idiot or a scumbag to an actual conservative who would try to obey the constitution. Which, I guess, is why I'm seriously thinking about voting for Obama. Again. . . .
So you really are borderline between the libertarian, mini-Federal government, personal liberty, no Federal healthcare mandate, uber-Constitutionalist Dr. Paul or the liberal, make big government bigger, bureaucrats know best, grow the mandates, President Obama? Really?
What part of this do you think the small goverment libertarian leaning Dr. Paul would approve of?
Fourteen months into his presidency, in March 2010, Obama succeeded in muscling through Congress a partial government takeover of the national health-care system. That legislative accomplishment followed Obama’s decision a year earlier, without congressional approval, to nationalize two of the country’s Big Three automobile companies. In the intervening months, he had also imposed specific wage ceilings on employees at banks that had taken federal bailout money—the first such federal wage controls since an ill-fated experiment by Richard Nixon in 1971. Obama also made the federal government the direct provider of student loans, and did so by putting that significant change in American policy inside the larger health-care bill. In a September 2009 press conference, Obama suggested that a publicly funded health-care system might help “avoid. ..some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs”—thus mistaking the act of making money, the foundational cornerstone of capitalism itself, with the generation of unnecessary expenses.
In lieu of Ron Paul, do you truly believe that any Republican now running would move the country that far to the left?
Is Obama perfect? Hell, no. Is he better than Romney or Gingrich? Yes, in fact, so much so that it's a slam dunk to vote for him, if those are the choices.
At first I wasn't sure what to think about you. Are you bipolar? A troll? Simply unreflective? Now it looks like a Democrat playing a game.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone who declares a preference for Ron Paul could vote for Obama - their ideas tend to be opposite. It's like a vegetarian going out for a big steak dinner... every Friday and Saturday night.
Nonsense. The Democrats blocked the last major attempt at reform. I doubt either the Republicans or Democrats would support cuts to those programs to pay for a moon base. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will run into trouble on their own. Things that can't continue, won't. The US is doomed to a massive problem unless they fix those programs. Unless the Democrats move their thinking past the 1930s, they won't allow it, thus ensuring their ultimate failure.
And everyone should be clear - the spending on the wars in Iraq (the US is out on the schedule Bush set) and Afghanistan are a small percentage compared to total Federal spending. It is a fraction of Defense spending, and Defense spending is dwarfed by social welfare programs.
Also Rupert Murdoch hates global warming because it's very existence questions the fundamental core assumptions of laissez-faire economics.
I doubt that Rupert Murdoch is stupid enough to believe that he can banish global warming with editorials and opinion pieces any more than he can the rain or tides. The man made his money by seeing opportunities that other people had missed, not by denying reality.
And questioning laissez-faire economics can lead to undesirable outcomes, like regulation of media barons who use their political influence to undermine the democratic process.
I'm a scientist. We live or die by how well our theories explain the natural world. You seem to be suggesting that there's a cabal of scientists who are for various reasons trumpeting "the hoax" for precisely what? Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.
Science is an honorable profession, but it is still a human activity. Not everyone engaged in science has pure motives. The reward system in terms of grant and program money directs the money to those who are producing the desired results, generally in programs that already take global warming a given. Some people clearly understand that large emergency programs to take control of economies to curb carbon emissions to reduce global warming before the imminent catastrophe predicted represent two things: power, and enormous amounts of money. Sadly, both will be misused if recent history is any guide.
This somewhat reminds me, and here I'm betraying my own bias, of the controversy over smoking. Does it cause lung cancer or not? It took years and many "scientists" on the take form the tobacco industry to swear it didn't before it was finally resolved. And it wasn't resolved within the scientific community (they were adamant that it did), it was resolved when the public finally decided whom to believe.
And now we have states and localities moving to ban tobacco smoking and permitting marijuana smoking. We're trading off a source of lung disease for a source of psychosis and lung disease. I wonder how many bodies it will take for the next discussion to get through?
Do you feel lucky? Should we wager the planet on, "Gee, I don't think it could happen" when most scientists are telling you it could?
Should we wager our freedom, economy, and way of life on something that could happen? (With the value of could varying greatly from can't reproduce what's happening now to never happen to "Oh my God! We're all gonna die next spring!"* depending upon whose cracker jack model is being used, with what assumptions, with what scrubbed/adjusted/fudged data?) I think we can afford to let the "consensus" die down, improve the science, and make some better choices.
Notice this wasn't published in a science journal... But instead, was published in a right-wing newspaper.
The global-warming deniers obviously have no evidence, because if they did, they'd publish it in a science journal.
What exactly are these right-wingers trying to hide? Their corporate oil-industry donors?
You seem to have missed the obvious fact that they were addressing this to the general public, not publishing a piece of scientific research for scientific review. That is why they published it in the WSJ. Really, is this rocket science?
Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?
the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials.
And yet Wikileaks did in fact release materials that put the lives of informants against terrorists and human rights activists at risk, which is why Wikileaks has been criticized by both governments and human rights activists.
Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.
Sage advice. I hope you remember it when the subject isn't Julian Asange / Wikileaks and it isn't your favored ox being gored.
Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site. . . .
"Assange is a narcissistic individual," claims Young. "Wikileaks is willing to sacrifice Bradley Manning and anyone else to advance their own interests." . . .
"The free stuff is meant [to] lure volunteers and promote high-profile public service, lipsticked with risk, with the enterprise funded by selling costly material sold on the black market of worldwide spying in the tradition of public benefit ops, ID, spies and ever more spies. No better customers for illicit information that [sic] those with depthless pockets.
"Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."
Writing last month, Young shared his disgust at Wikileaks' similar tactics to advertising-supported or state-supported media - which Young claims cannot be trusted by definition.
"Wikileaks lies as much as the media, indeed, exactly in the advertising format of the media. Its consumers like it for that very reason. It rides the wave of imaginary disgust with MSM and governments, but it has not modified the formula of braggardy and drama essential to capture eyeballs and through eyeballs, minds and hearts."
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA [wikipedia.org] agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
They refused.
Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.
Taliban courts are preparing to try and punish any Afghan informers identified in thousands of sensitive documents due for imminent release by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.
If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.
That is ridiculous. Drones are pretty clearly necessary, so finding an actual vulnerability would generate more contracts to fix the problem, not fewer from the elimination of drones.
In other news, no one involved in the massive fraud and graft that trashed the world economy has seen the inside of a jail cell.
Much of the pressure that lead to the problem was created by powerful politicians pursuing seemingly noble progressive goals. Unfortunately their meddling lead to disaster as they pressured mortgage companies to make more and more loans to people that couldn't afford them. The politicians did their damage and are now retiring, their friends and lovers got their money. America is left holding the bag. Actually it is worse that that - those same politicians created important legislation claimed to address the mess they made, but it doesn't. In some cases it only creates the opportunity to damage more of the economy. President Bush had tried to reform things, but was blocked by the Democrats.
In Reckless Endangerment, Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators, and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near “Armageddon” of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.
Jim Johnson, advisor to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. “Under Johnson,” Morgenson and Rosner write, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.”
Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation), and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists, and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank’s partner).
Reckless Endangerment includes the Clinton administration’s contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy; instead, “in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with . . . the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.”
Reckless Endangerment utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not “unregulated capitalism” — that led the economy to disaster.
Among the Congressional “leaders” invited to the White House to devise a bailout “solution” are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.
Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the “soundness” of Fannie Ma
It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job. And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery. If it landed intact why hide it?
You must remember this is Iran. Although in English, the word drone is neuter, I believe that in Farsi, the word for drone is feminine, so the drone is considered female. As such it must be properly draped so as to be modest. Also, the old paint job done by the American manufacturers, in the eyes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made the drone look like a whore. And as far as the widely rumored Revolutionary Guards rubber tire fetish.... let's not go there. The Revolutionary Guards did what they could so that they would not have to stone the drone, although they were apparently forced to flog it.
In truth, the drone probably broke into pieces due to not executing a controlled landing on a runway. The Iranians pieced it back together and repainted it. The drapes were probably to hide further damage or missing pieces.
The warning was issued as European leaders prepared to debate sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
"Iran sits on 50 percent of the world’s energy, and if it wants, Europe will spend the winter in the cold," Salami told Iranian troops in the city of Kerman. His speech was published by the Iranian Fars news agency.
Iran is in possession of roughly 16 percent of the world’s natural gas and is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil. In addition, Iran borders the Strait of Hormuz (Persian Gulf), through which much of the world’s oil supply passes.
Salami also mentioned Iran’s missiles. The country has recently tested long-range missiles, and announced just weeks ago that it had launched a satellite-capable rocket.
"Our missiles are now able to target any spot which the conspirators are in," he said.
Western powers have been discussing the possibility of sanctions on Iran in the United Nations security council. Israel has lobbied for tough sanctions, while Russia and China continue to oppose harsh measures. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plans to discuss Iran’s nuclear program next week.
* A couple of years ago this story was available from more news outlets - I guess it just isn't popular to remember it.
We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.
Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.
Yes, because obviously what the American public believes has a direct effect on the technical capabilities of the Iranian government in a sort of "mind over matter" fashion. Most people don't make that connection.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds unpleasant.
For the 98.5%*, yes.
The 1.5%
I neither stole, nor am I smoking, your crack.
So, how did you get a trillion dollars of spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars? By adding up all the spending for each year, right? Well, if you are figuring out the percentage you still have to do the same thing wth total spending. Guess what? When you do that, the percentage doesn't change. And you don't get to pretend that we wouldn't have an army or navy if we weren't fighting those wars so the cost for their existence doesn't really change. Bottom line, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a fraction of defense spending, and defense spending is less than half of total federal spending.
You are full of nonsense about Social Security as well. The trustees issued a report saying it needs to be fixed. You also left out Medicare and Medicaid. The total cost of these programs is causing a serious problem for the US and it needs to be fixed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I neither stole, nor am I smoking, your crack.
So, how did you get a trillion dollars of spending for Iraq and Afghanistan wars? By adding up all the spending for each year, right? Well, if you are figuring out the percentage you still have to do the same thing wth total spending. Guess what? When you do that, the percentage doesn't change. And you don't get to pretend that we wouldn't have an army or navy if we weren't fighting those wars so the cost for their existence doesn't really change. Bottom line, spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a fraction of defense spending, and defense spending is less than half of total federal spending.
You are full of nonsense about Social Security as well. The trustees issued a report [ssab.gov] saying it needs to be fixed. You also left out Medicare and Medicaid. The total cost of these programs is causing a serious problem for the US and it needs to be fixed.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Fuck you ideologically programmed intellectually dishonest asshole.
I'll leave you and your crack pipe in peace.
"Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
No, the Tea Party is not composed of Neocons. Neocons are a small number of former Democrats who became Republicans. The TEA Party isn't even a Republican group, per se. The concerns they have make it more likely that they will align with Republicans, but there isn't any guarantee. The only sense in which "Tea Party" is a replacement for "NeoCon" is as an object and epithet of fear and hate by leftists.
A Short History of the Tea Parties
The Coming Tea-Party Election
I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people.
That's funny, really.
Racists’ for Cain
If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
‘Stop Whining’?
Blacks and Republicans
And Al Awlaki, too. An American citizen. Never indicted, charged, or tried for any crime.
The men represented in this video, who were shot down en mass by the Federal government without benefit of indictment or trial, and Al-Awlaki, share a common trait. Do you know what it is?
Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States and made himself the enemy during wartime. He aided those trying to kill Americans. Killing Al-Awlaki was a completely legitimate act of war that did not require charges, indictment, trial, or sentencing. It isn't a question of criminal law, but war. And yes, the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war - that is settled law. If he actually wanted to be judged in a court of law, he could have surrendered.
This man and his sprawling NewsCorp media empire have almost single-handedly ruined/corrupted objective journalism, and done so across multiple countries where NewsCorp is active.
How can that be true? The BBC is as objective as ever.
The idea the Murdoch has corrupted the entire media is silly
This man will just try to spread his twisted, f^cked up neocon-ultra-jingo-conservative values to school children, given the chance.
You apparently missed the part where it states this is about software to track student performance, not curriculum or instructional materials?
But I can understand your concern - no schools should permit any deviation from "progressive" messages and practices, or "progressive" programs like racist curriculum .
NBC: Mitt Romney, tear down this ad. Yet NBC keeps running it, getting paid
There is an online version.
Yeah... although I'd prefer Ron Paul, I *can* think of reasons to vote Obama back in again:
; . . . Paul isn't going to be supported by the republicans because they prefer an idiot or a scumbag to an actual conservative who would try to obey the constitution. Which, I guess, is why I'm seriously thinking about voting for Obama. Again. . . .
So you really are borderline between the libertarian, mini-Federal government, personal liberty, no Federal healthcare mandate, uber-Constitutionalist Dr. Paul or the liberal, make big government bigger, bureaucrats know best, grow the mandates, President Obama? Really?
What part of this do you think the small goverment libertarian leaning Dr. Paul would approve of?
In lieu of Ron Paul, do you truly believe that any Republican now running would move the country that far to the left?
Is Obama perfect? Hell, no. Is he better than Romney or Gingrich? Yes, in fact, so much so that it's a slam dunk to vote for him, if those are the choices.
At first I wasn't sure what to think about you. Are you bipolar? A troll? Simply unreflective? Now it looks like a Democrat playing a game.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone who declares a preference for Ron Paul could vote for Obama - their ideas tend to be opposite. It's like a vegetarian going out for a big steak dinner... every Friday and Saturday night.
I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
I've been wondering where you get your . . . ideas.
Nonsense. The Democrats blocked the last major attempt at reform. I doubt either the Republicans or Democrats would support cuts to those programs to pay for a moon base. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will run into trouble on their own. Things that can't continue, won't. The US is doomed to a massive problem unless they fix those programs. Unless the Democrats move their thinking past the 1930s, they won't allow it, thus ensuring their ultimate failure.
Social Security: Why Action Should Be Taken Soon
That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...
Technically I don't think you can say there is a Federal budget. The US Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1,000 days.
More here.
And everyone should be clear - the spending on the wars in Iraq (the US is out on the schedule Bush set) and Afghanistan are a small percentage compared to total Federal spending. It is a fraction of Defense spending, and Defense spending is dwarfed by social welfare programs.
Also Rupert Murdoch hates global warming because it's very existence questions the fundamental core assumptions of laissez-faire economics.
I doubt that Rupert Murdoch is stupid enough to believe that he can banish global warming with editorials and opinion pieces any more than he can the rain or tides. The man made his money by seeing opportunities that other people had missed, not by denying reality.
And questioning laissez-faire economics can lead to undesirable outcomes, like regulation of media barons who use their political influence to undermine the democratic process.
You mean like Michael Moore and George Soros?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Even when Murdoch is involved....?
I'm a scientist. We live or die by how well our theories explain the natural world. You seem to be suggesting that there's a cabal of scientists who are for various reasons trumpeting "the hoax" for precisely what? Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.
Science is an honorable profession, but it is still a human activity. Not everyone engaged in science has pure motives. The reward system in terms of grant and program money directs the money to those who are producing the desired results, generally in programs that already take global warming a given. Some people clearly understand that large emergency programs to take control of economies to curb carbon emissions to reduce global warming before the imminent catastrophe predicted represent two things: power, and enormous amounts of money. Sadly, both will be misused if recent history is any guide.
This somewhat reminds me, and here I'm betraying my own bias, of the controversy over smoking. Does it cause lung cancer or not? It took years and many "scientists" on the take form the tobacco industry to swear it didn't before it was finally resolved. And it wasn't resolved within the scientific community (they were adamant that it did), it was resolved when the public finally decided whom to believe.
And now we have states and localities moving to ban tobacco smoking and permitting marijuana smoking. We're trading off a source of lung disease for a source of psychosis and lung disease. I wonder how many bodies it will take for the next discussion to get through?
Do you feel lucky? Should we wager the planet on, "Gee, I don't think it could happen" when most scientists are telling you it could?
Should we wager our freedom, economy, and way of life on something that could happen? (With the value of could varying greatly from can't reproduce what's happening now to never happen to "Oh my God! We're all gonna die next spring!"* depending upon whose cracker jack model is being used, with what assumptions, with what scrubbed/adjusted/fudged data?) I think we can afford to let the "consensus" die down, improve the science, and make some better choices.
BTW - Good luck with your career.
*Exagerated for effect.
Notice this wasn't published in a science journal ... But instead, was published in a right-wing newspaper.
The global-warming deniers obviously have no evidence, because if they did, they'd publish it in a science journal.
What exactly are these right-wingers trying to hide? Their corporate oil-industry donors?
You seem to have missed the obvious fact that they were addressing this to the general public, not publishing a piece of scientific research for scientific review. That is why they published it in the WSJ. Really, is this rocket science?
Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?
Maybe it depends.
"ultra-wealthy SierraClub and PETA members!" ROFLMAO!!!
So wealthy they're pitching tents on Wall Street.
On what planet are there "ultra-wealthy SierraClub and PETA members" ?!?
Good news! You don't have to save up to buy a rocket ship to find out!
Mayor Bloomberg Donates $50 Million To Sierra Club
Sierra Club - Green Home - Advisory Board
the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials.
And yet Wikileaks did in fact release materials that put the lives of informants against terrorists and human rights activists at risk, which is why Wikileaks has been criticized by both governments and human rights activists.
Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.
Sage advice. I hope you remember it when the subject isn't Julian Asange / Wikileaks and it isn't your favored ox being gored.
Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries - Cryptome
It's important to remember that Wikileaks claims that TLA [wikipedia.org] agencies were contacted in order to assist with redacting sensitive information.
They refused.
Because the documents were illegally obtained, still classified, and not authorized for disclosure. Assange continued anyway, with predictable results. Assange doesn't care who gets hurt by his activities.
Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers
Taliban courts are preparing to try and punish any Afghan informers identified in thousands of sensitive documents due for imminent release by the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.
did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.
Don't worry, a fuller accounting has developed since the 1950s.
In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.
If a half assed regime could down a multi-billion dollar super high tech weapon with shit bought at Home Depot, people might question if all those juicy contracts are really necessary.
That is ridiculous. Drones are pretty clearly necessary, so finding an actual vulnerability would generate more contracts to fix the problem, not fewer from the elimination of drones.
Do you remember when laws used to be enforced? That seemed to work OK. I wonder why they stopped?
It didn't. People simply ask rhetorical questions implying it did and get freebie +5s. My hat is off to you sir, but your post is nonsense.
In other news, no one involved in the massive fraud and graft that trashed the world economy has seen the inside of a jail cell.
Much of the pressure that lead to the problem was created by powerful politicians pursuing seemingly noble progressive goals. Unfortunately their meddling lead to disaster as they pressured mortgage companies to make more and more loans to people that couldn't afford them. The politicians did their damage and are now retiring, their friends and lovers got their money. America is left holding the bag. Actually it is worse that that - those same politicians created important legislation claimed to address the mess they made, but it doesn't. In some cases it only creates the opportunity to damage more of the economy. President Bush had tried to reform things, but was blocked by the Democrats.
The Real Culprits
Bailout Politics
It wasn't even the military that first noticed the paint job.
And the landing gear was always hidden by drapery.
If it landed intact why hide it?
You must remember this is Iran. Although in English, the word drone is neuter, I believe that in Farsi, the word for drone is feminine, so the drone is considered female. As such it must be properly draped so as to be modest. Also, the old paint job done by the American manufacturers, in the eyes of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, made the drone look like a whore. And as far as the widely rumored Revolutionary Guards rubber tire fetish.... let's not go there. The Revolutionary Guards did what they could so that they would not have to stone the drone, although they were apparently forced to flog it.
In truth, the drone probably broke into pieces due to not executing a controlled landing on a runway. The Iranians pieced it back together and repainted it. The drapes were probably to hide further damage or missing pieces.
The only thing crazier than my joke (not the mention dangerous) is the actual government of Iran.
From 2010: Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions*
* A couple of years ago this story was available from more news outlets - I guess it just isn't popular to remember it.
We run a secret intelligence agency, and have an acknowledged PsyOp division, aimed at the general US population.
Please believe us. We are not lying to you, about this. Really.
Yes, because obviously what the American public believes has a direct effect on the technical capabilities of the Iranian government in a sort of "mind over matter" fashion. Most people don't make that connection.