Therefore people who are searching for information about the candidate are more likely to read the targeted article. It's simple and not at all misleading.
That really depends on the article being link to, doesn't it? Some stories evolve over time, and are even shown to be false in the end. Retractions never seem to get as much ink in a paper as the main story. By linking multiple stories you might even succeed in burying the later story with correct information, pushing it back several pages in a search engine. It may take time for enough links to be tallied for any correcting information to show up in a search. Linking to a story in an obscure journal would produce a negative story with nothing questioning it. And then there are the crank sites with lots of links to echo chambers, outrageous claims, and few helpful facts. Over a short period of time, google bombing could be a powerful way to mislead people.
This story certainly evolved over time. There are still people on Slashdot who believe, or at least pretend, that the first story is true. What if it had been broadcast 6 weeks later than it was?
These days, however, we have good old Johnny Howard getting up close and personal with Shrub and Blair, pi**ing everybody off and making us almost as big a target as all the other Iraq invaders. Nice one Johnny.
There's a chance that it will improve again, but currently there's a (grassroots/astroturf?) fear campaign against foreigners, mostly focussed on islamic cultured or coloured people,
Washington is routinely criticized for not contributing enough to support the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, if private donations are included in this analysis, the United States is among the most generous donor countries in the world.
The traditional basis for measuring aid transfers may understate U.S. contributions, because it omits donations that come from individuals, foundations, religious organizations and other private sources...
-- The U.S. government is frequently maligned for contributing only about 0.16% of its gross national income to development assistance--usually the most parsimonious figure among DAC members. However, U.S. private agency grants tallied by the DAC represent 2.1 cents per capita, ranking the generosity of U.S. citizens below only the people of Norway, Ireland and Switzerland....
U.S. private donations abroad are strikingly high relative to other wealthy nations. Several cultural factors may account for this discrepancy:
-- The Japan Foundation for Global Partnership concluded that Americans provide about eight times as much per capita in charitable donations, noting that Japanese avoid seeking personal credit for charitable giving.
-- Europeans largely view social problems as the responsibility of government, a factor that may limit direct private contributions but also explains the greater degree of support for official assistance. Many U.S. citizens view "big government" sceptically and prefer to provide aid with their own funds.
The difference in individual giving between Americans and Europeans is striking:
Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French." America the stingy
The inadequacy of the counting of American contributions, and the various reactions to it, is further demonstrated by part of the relief assistance to the Indonesian tsunami victims. The US sent an aircraft carrier to assist. The result? Very different reactions by the survivors, the Indonesian government, and no doubt, most Europeans.
Just a week ago, a stunned world watched televised footage of U.S. helicopter pilots plucking grateful survivors from the devastated Indonesian island of Sumatra and dropping off food and medicine to desperate victims unreachable by road.
In recent days, however, a political blow-back has ensued, with the government of Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim country - getting antsy about perceptions of a mounting U.S. military presence.
And the Europeans? I'm sure there were many converstaions like this, except most of them didn't have the American & Hindi present.
I wonder how much that aircraft carrier, the sailors and marines that worked from it, the supplies it caried, the services it performed, and the facilities provided, the helicopters that did such service, counted as a contribution? Well, it isn't really cash being paid through the UN, is it? I guess it probably doesn't count.
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism....
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran...
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'.....
Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'....
Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'
Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'....
Biographies of Winston Churchill note mostly in passing that the BBC systematically barred Churchill from discussing his defense and foreign policy views during the 1930's; Sir John Reith was head of the BBC at the time. In the second volume of his Churchill biography, for example, William Manchester states that "Reith saw to it that [Churchill] was seldom heard over the BBC..." Reith wrote of Churchill in Reith's monumentally voluminous diaries, "I absolutely hate him."
In the fall of 1938 Churchill was scheduled to appear on the BBC for a half-hour talk -- on the Mediterranean. When the Czech crisis erupted, Manchester reports, Churchill asked that the program be cancelled. On the Saturday before Parliament's debate on the Munich Agreement, Churchill agreed nevertheless to meet with (future Communist spy) Guy Burgess of the BBC. Churchill complained to Burgess, according to Burgess's recollection, that "he had been very badly treated in the matter of political broadcasts and that he was always muzzled by the BBC."
Why did Reith detest Churchill? In Reith's eyes, Churchill was of course a warmonger, and Reith, not coincidentally, held Hitler in the highest regard. How little times have changed.
It's a pity more news institutions don't do a little more self-examination, especially before they act.
How many problems do they have with terrorists? I can see Bush trying to implement such a "security" plan. I mean, someone has to think of the children!
Say there, "Rick" 'ol buddy.... this is what the criminal, terrorist North Korean regime does for "security".
Now... do you really think that is what President Bush plans to do? If so, when? He has already had six years, is he saving it for the last day in office instead of a Clinton style flurry of pardons? Who do you think would help him perpetrate a similar atrocity? Do you think the FBI and Army are going to help do that? Hmmmm? And who do you think they are going to do it to? American citizens? Democrats?
Think of the children? I'm thinking of one......, make that four, right now.
From Publishers Weekly In France, this damning reckoning of communism's worldwide legacy was a bestseller that sparked passionate arguments among intellectuals of the Left. Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the century.
The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, maintains that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million. The breakdown of the number of deaths given in the Black Book is as follows: 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million in the People's Republic of China, 1 million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power" The authors explicitly claim that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movemnt, including fascism. -- The Black Book of Communism
Lets add a bit more context to what Ahmadinejad said:
To someone of such limited background and experience, the outside world is an unknown quantity. Ahmadinejad's religious beliefs are no doubt as sincere as they are narrow, and they prompt regular pronouncements in a messianic style: "The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world." Or again, "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi." In the middle of the 10th century, this imam went into hiding, supposedly in a well in Jamkaran, south of Tehran, but it is an article of Shiite faith that he will return and herald the End of Days. Ahmadinejad and his cabinet signed a petition to the hidden imam, proceeded to Jamkaran, and threw it down the well for his attention. Similarly unself-conscious, he claimed that while speaking at the United Nations "I became surrounded by a green light," so that for 27 to 28 minutes all the attentive listeners did not blink -- the chronological exactitude is a touch a thriller writer might envy. And he closed that speech by urging God to "hasten the emergence of Your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one who will fill the world with justice and peace."
This isn't "old news" - this is very important news. The US is - all at the same time - unnecessarily creating a hostile space race, further alienating itself from the world, declaring itself king of space and who can fly there, and basically creating an "anyone who is hostile to the US" policy of disabling, shooting down, or destroying other countries' equipment in space.
I think you are misrepresenting the policy. I cheated and looked at page 2 of the article:
"Nearly six years into his presidency, the Bush space policy has been long overdue," he says in an e-mail to ABC News. "Despite fears that it would mark a bold new initiative to weaponize space, it largely codifies previously announced changes from Clinton space policies of a decade ago."
I very much doubt that the policy will be to immediately shoot down anything that isn't US gear. I expect that it will be that they want to have the ability to shoot down hostile equipment, not unlike they have the ability to shoot down hostile planes today even though they don't make a habit of shooting down non-US planes when they see them in the air. If a war starts though, I wouldn't want to be aboard either a plane or satellite of the hostile power.
In October 2003, Indian Air Chief S. Krishnaswamy stated that India had started development of an operations command station for an eventual space platform for nuclear weapons.[10] However, he retracted the statement within days, under pressure from India's civilian leaders.[11] India: Military Programs
According to a senior U.S. Air Force official, Brazil is one of a group of countries "seriously involved in using space assets for military purposes."[1] Indeed, when Brazil became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 1995, it was allowed to keep its space launch program, despite the potential for military applications.[2] Brazil: Military Programs
Japan's Liberal Democratic Party has drafted a bill to allow Japan's into space. The calls for the military to venture into space within the parameters of self-defense rights. That would be a drastic change from the current civilian-based limitations that Japan has placed on space ventures. Japanese Military Going Into Space
The 9/11 hijackers didn't lack manpower, they wanted stealth.
The incredibly vile, criminal state of North Korea has tested one nuclear weapon, and is preparing for more.
And then there is Iran, also seeking nuclear weapons, and whose President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, and who made these interesting comments about his recent UN visit:
Ansari: I think where he really crossed the line where the domestic audience is concerned is when he said a green aura was coming out of his head during his speech to the United Nations. This conversation got filmed, and people can watch it on DVD. Ahmadinejad came home from his speech and told an ayatollah that everyone at the General Assembly -- all these world leaders -- didn't even blink for thirty minutes (out of awe). Lots of people have seen this in Iran, and it makes him seem a bit too superstitious.
You should put down Occam's Razor until you can pass a reality self-test.
Cardinal Richelieu was stating that he could basically manufacture evidence, but you can't really contend that the US is doing that. Instead, you want to go here...
No, he probably just could detain them without trials, access to an attorney, letting them know what they are accused of, or any evidence against them. Maybe he labeled them "enemy conbatents" or something.
So, maybe you could help me?
The US held 425,000 enemy prisoners inside its borders during WW2 under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. Where exactly are the almost half million trial records that you must think exist? You know, US vs Hauptman Keitel, US vs Oberst Jahn, etc.
I'll give you a hint... they don't exist, because that is not what the Law of War requires. We are at war with Al Qaeda and its associates, and no, it doesn't take a ritual formal Declaration of War:
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
So, it's not just Terrorists (TM) anymore, it's the "disaffected" they're after.
I guess you didn't see the word violent in the secion you quoted?
Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday.
It isn't the disaffected they care about so much as the violent. If it was the disaffected they were after, Slashdot would have many fewer people posting than it does.
"We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet," Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.
"They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to the training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination," Chertoff said. "Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites."
Chertoff pointed to the July 7, 2005 attacks on London's transit system, which killed 56 people, as an example a home-grown threat.
Confusing terrorism, killing people, with ordinary political dissent is a level of cluelessness that is dangerous.
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
Convert to Islam
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
Implement Sharia, abolish the separation of church and state, etc.
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
Cut off the Jews
There are, of course, other demands.
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.....
The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.
If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.
Comply with their demands, or they will try to destroy the US.
They have sought religous permission to kill four million Americans and render more homeless. They think that they are the ones that caused the Soviet Union to fall, and they think they can do the same to the US. They also have designs on Europe.
But there are plenty of idiot would-be terrorists who have no hope of carrying out what they are planning, but who are more than willing to martyr themselves by pleading guilty when they are caught (here is an example).
Hmmm... lets see....
"The principal planned attack involved packing three limousines with gas cylinders, explosives and the like and detonating them in underground car parks," Mr Lawson said.
Barot was said to have three other projects, including one that he called the "Radiation (Dirty Bomb) Project".
Wow! No chance at all of carrying out that principal attack, eh?
If the police can keep up a steady trickle of arrests of people like this, the "war on terror" can be kept going indefinitely.
Don't you mean, "As long as the Islamist extremists can keep finding volunteers, they can continue to threaten us"?
Well, don't worry.... there is a way out. All a country has to do, according to Bin Laden, is to convert to Islam, implement Sharia, cut off the Jews,...
With the AT&Ts "collaboration" with the NSA, and CARNIVORE, one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough? That's kind of pathetic, don't you think?
No, it just may mean that they aren't doing what you think they are doing in the way you think they are doing it, if they are doing anything at all.
There are plenty of cases where people "know" the government is doing things, which are false or absurd. Fake moon landings and some of the wilder stories about Area 51 come to mind. I find those more pathetic than the idea that additional evidence (data) could be useful in tracking down terrorists and their connections.
However, by one tiny chip of compromise after another, one infinitesimal shift to accommodate a "reasonable response" after another, a group of people can turn into "The (choose ethnic group) Problem" and suddenly it's okay to treat people as things, the only capital crime there is. You never quite know where you cross the line and suddenly you have become the enemy your grandparents fought war, bloody war to prevent from turning the future into a long night of horror.
This is utter bull. The crimes are planning terrorist attacks, conducting terrorist attacks, and supporting terrorists with tangible resources, or treason
Voting against President Clinton or Bush is not a crime.
Complaining against government policy in the newspapers or to your representative is not a crime.
Peaceful, lawful protests are not a crime. (Ya, ya, I know.)
Civil disobedience can be a crime, but one which is generally lightly punished.
Taking up arms against the United States is a crime.
Blowing up, shooting, stabbing, poisoning, or otherwise killing or plotting to kill Americans is a crime.
Donating to charity acting as a front to funnel money to terrorist organizations is a crime. (See Hamas) Those charities are generally designated in public records.
These aren't hard lines to understand, or avoid. (When in doubt, leave the bomb or gun at home.)
Despite all the statistical evidence that this does NOT work to PREVENT any "terrorist" acts... they will attempt to use this to intimidate people into voluntarily restricting their actions.
What evidence? Something along the lines of: "Log all network traffic of 300 million Americans, forming vast haystack, in which is one terrorist needle that you can't find, therefore it doesnt' work." Something like that?
I don't suppose that tracking and focusing on known terrorists, or communications with sites with known links to terrorist organizations, figures into that.
When every search / posting / IM / etc from you is available to elected officials (and may be accidentally "leaked"), they hope that most people will self-censor their activities to only items that would be "appropriate".
Elected officials? Like who? Exactly how are they going to get these to leak them? Do you think that county treasurers will be showing up to demand copies of email? No chance of any backlash by voters? Self-censor? As if that is a huge problem.
Should you ever take a stand against the elected officials, they will have access to your records...
Doubtful.. There will be more records, but access to them probably won't be much different than today.
but you will not have access to their's. Asymmetrical.
Isn't that pretty much the way access to any other records held by the government work out? Do you get the see the tax records of the cop who gave you a ticket, or the adoption records of the driver's license examiner?
And because they are the government, they can release only the information they want from your records. Only the information that shows that you are really a wannabe child molesting, America hating, terrorist loving, Communistic, gay atheist.
I guess it is impossible for someone to keep their own logs / records, or get copies of the retained ones, and release the data that sets the story straight. Of course, where you are going, why should any of them go to the trouble of actually getting records and not just make things up? That is more or less what you are already heading. It would certainly be more convenient to just make it up.
It's all about maintaining power and control.
Nonsense. Power and control in America comes from winning elections. The US has a president for two terms, at most, not a "President for Life" who has to try and prop himself up.
Struck me dumb. This is a bright guy who I highly respect and yet his focus, despite his strengths, was on confidence.
Confidence makes it easier for you to make use of your strengths, and more likely that you will. That can have an enormous impact on your happiness, social life, career, and so on. The same thing applies to families, companies, countries and even cultures. Confidence levels can ebb and flow over time for various reasons. Self-doubt is inhibiting. To be gifted but inhibited from using those gifts can be a terrible curse.
One could also put it in a slightly different way: Europe lacks what America still has, namely the so-called "conservative reserves," or as the German sociologist Arnold Gehlen explained over 30 years ago, "the reserves in national energy and self-confidence, primitiveness and generosity, wealth and potential of every kind." Every so often I travel to the U.S. to recharge my batteries, and I am not the only European Conservative to do so. From time to time one needs to breathe the air of freedom before submerging again in the stifling atmosphere of Europe.
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."
In an online story in newspaper The Daily Telegraph that was removed "for legal reasons," former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warned that British Muslims could soon form a state within the state. Dr Sookhdeo believed that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law." "In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate." "Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on."
The next step will be pushing the Government to recognize sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" to deny them this. Sookhdeo noted that there is already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. "There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time - and stay married, in sharia law, to all four." "The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore people who are searching for information about the candidate are more likely to read the targeted article. It's simple and not at all misleading.
That really depends on the article being link to, doesn't it? Some stories evolve over time, and are even shown to be false in the end. Retractions never seem to get as much ink in a paper as the main story. By linking multiple stories you might even succeed in burying the later story with correct information, pushing it back several pages in a search engine. It may take time for enough links to be tallied for any correcting information to show up in a search. Linking to a story in an obscure journal would produce a negative story with nothing questioning it. And then there are the crank sites with lots of links to echo chambers, outrageous claims, and few helpful facts. Over a short period of time, google bombing could be a powerful way to mislead people.
This story certainly evolved over time. There are still people on Slashdot who believe, or at least pretend, that the first story is true. What if it had been broadcast 6 weeks later than it was?
Sept 9, 2004:Old memos bring new turbulence for Bush
September 20, 2004:CBS can't vouch for Bush Guard memos
Jan 10, 2005: CBS ousts four for roles in Bush Guard story
These days, however, we have good old Johnny Howard getting up close and personal with Shrub and Blair, pi**ing everybody off and making us almost as big a target as all the other Iraq invaders. Nice one Johnny.
Do you have any ideas about what sort of thing might have caused this? Has it been going on since the 2003 Iraq Invasion? Is it an on-going problem in Australian society? Any idea what the grievance is?
Maybe New Zealand is a refuge from the trouble you see in Australia.
There's a chance that it will improve again, but currently there's a (grassroots/astroturf?) fear campaign against foreigners, mostly focussed on islamic cultured or coloured people,
I expect you have no idea why there might be some concern, or what is being done?
but americans as well (your current president isn't helping your reputation!).
Oh, please! Back that up, will you? I think you've had a few too many "special" brownies.
Hmm...Interesting Dutch blog...
Which is exactly why the "war on drugs" is bullshit.
Or not...
Based on per-capita giving, the United States is nearly first among all nations.
U.S. Giving Routinely Underestimated
The difference in individual giving between Americans and Europeans is striking:
The inadequacy of the counting of American contributions, and the various reactions to it, is further demonstrated by part of the relief assistance to the Indonesian tsunami victims. The US sent an aircraft carrier to assist. The result? Very different reactions by the survivors, the Indonesian government, and no doubt, most Europeans.
And the Europeans? I'm sure there were many converstaions like this, except most of them didn't have the American & Hindi present.
I wonder how much that aircraft carrier, the sailors and marines that worked from it, the supplies it caried, the services it performed, and the facilities provided, the helicopters that did such service, counted as a contribution? Well, it isn't really cash being paid through the UN, is it? I guess it probably doesn't count.
Fox News, on the other hand, actually takes itself seriously.
Sort of like CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, etc., right?
Bias in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; attempting to claim objectivity when clearly you're not objective is far worse.
I agree
Owning up to your own bias is in my estimation, a very mature thing to do.
I agree.
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
Of course, this is hardly new at the BBC
It's a pity more news institutions don't do a little more self-examination, especially before they act.
How many problems do they have with terrorists? I can see Bush trying to implement such a "security" plan. I mean, someone has to think of the children!
Say there, "Rick" 'ol buddy.... this is what the criminal, terrorist North Korean regime does for "security".
Now... do you really think that is what President Bush plans to do? If so, when? He has already had six years, is he saving it for the last day in office instead of a Clinton style flurry of pardons? Who do you think would help him perpetrate a similar atrocity? Do you think the FBI and Army are going to help do that? Hmmmm? And who do you think they are going to do it to? American citizens? Democrats?
Think of the children? I'm thinking of one......, make that four, right now.
Try Janes for the weapons counts, they tend to be the gold standard.
The US has pulled back from the border. That should actually increase their combat power and flexibility if it comes to that.
That is rather dubious, given the competition....
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Hardcover)
Lets add a bit more context to what Ahmadinejad said:
I think you are misrepresenting the policy. I cheated and looked at page 2 of the article:
I very much doubt that the policy will be to immediately shoot down anything that isn't US gear. I expect that it will be that they want to have the ability to shoot down hostile equipment, not unlike they have the ability to shoot down hostile planes today even though they don't make a habit of shooting down non-US planes when they see them in the air. If a war starts though, I wouldn't want to be aboard either a plane or satellite of the hostile power.
Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites
Red Dragon Rising: China's Space Program Driven by Military Ambitions
Soviet Space Battle Station Skif and Its Prototype Polus
Europe's space race with US begins
No doubt there is more if you dig a bit.
If you havn't already seen it, PLEASE check out "The Power of Nightmares":
If you are planning on expending some portion of your life watching the above, you might want to read a short critique first.
Your post is pretty much entirely false.
There have been many arrests and convictions in the US for offenses related to terrorism.
There have been a number of foiled terrorist plots.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't lack manpower, they wanted stealth.
The incredibly vile, criminal state of North Korea has tested one nuclear weapon, and is preparing for more.
And then there is Iran, also seeking nuclear weapons, and whose President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, and who made these interesting comments about his recent UN visit:
You should put down Occam's Razor until you can pass a reality self-test.
No, he probably just could detain them without trials, access to an attorney, letting them know what they are accused of, or any evidence against them. Maybe he labeled them "enemy conbatents" or something.
So, maybe you could help me?
The US held 425,000 enemy prisoners inside its borders during WW2 under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. Where exactly are the almost half million trial records that you must think exist? You know, US vs Hauptman Keitel, US vs Oberst Jahn, etc.
I'll give you a hint... they don't exist, because that is not what the Law of War requires. We are at war with Al Qaeda and its associates, and no, it doesn't take a ritual formal Declaration of War:
It doesn't. If they suspect/know of a terrorist, they get disappeared to a secret prison and tortured.
If that were true, there should not be any web sites used by terrorists, and yet there are.
And if you're not with us, you're "disaffected."
They don't care about the disaffected, they care about the violent.
Protest all you want, it is OK in the US. If you start threatening or killing people, the sky will start to fall on you.
If you're not with us on this distinction, you're probably an idiot.
I guess you didn't see the word violent in the secion you quoted?
It isn't the disaffected they care about so much as the violent. If it was the disaffected they were after, Slashdot would have many fewer people posting than it does.
Lets add in some bits you left out:
Confusing terrorism, killing people, with ordinary political dissent is a level of cluelessness that is dangerous.
Convert to Islam
Implement Sharia, abolish the separation of church and state, etc.
Cut off the Jews
There are, of course, other demands.
Comply with their demands, or they will try to destroy the US.
They have sought religous permission to kill four million Americans and render more homeless. They think that they are the ones that caused the Soviet Union to fall, and they think they can do the same to the US. They also have designs on Europe.
Hmmm... lets see....
Wow! No chance at all of carrying out that principal attack, eh?
If the police can keep up a steady trickle of arrests of people like this, the "war on terror" can be kept going indefinitely.
Don't you mean, "As long as the Islamist extremists can keep finding volunteers, they can continue to threaten us"?
Well, don't worry.... there is a way out. All a country has to do, according to Bin Laden, is to convert to Islam, implement Sharia, cut off the Jews,
With the AT&Ts "collaboration" with the NSA, and CARNIVORE, one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough? That's kind of pathetic, don't you think?
No, it just may mean that they aren't doing what you think they are doing in the way you think they are doing it, if they are doing anything at all.
There are plenty of cases where people "know" the government is doing things, which are false or absurd. Fake moon landings and some of the wilder stories about Area 51 come to mind. I find those more pathetic than the idea that additional evidence (data) could be useful in tracking down terrorists and their connections.
I like the way you use "collaboration".
However, by one tiny chip of compromise after another, one infinitesimal shift to accommodate a "reasonable response" after another, a group of people can turn into "The (choose ethnic group) Problem" and suddenly it's okay to treat people as things, the only capital crime there is. You never quite know where you cross the line and suddenly you have become the enemy your grandparents fought war, bloody war to prevent from turning the future into a long night of horror.
This is utter bull. The crimes are planning terrorist attacks, conducting terrorist attacks, and supporting terrorists with tangible resources, or treason
Voting against President Clinton or Bush is not a crime.
Complaining against government policy in the newspapers or to your representative is not a crime.
Peaceful, lawful protests are not a crime. (Ya, ya, I know.)
Civil disobedience can be a crime, but one which is generally lightly punished.
Taking up arms against the United States is a crime.
Blowing up, shooting, stabbing, poisoning, or otherwise killing or plotting to kill Americans is a crime.
Donating to charity acting as a front to funnel money to terrorist organizations is a crime. (See Hamas) Those charities are generally designated in public records.
These aren't hard lines to understand, or avoid. (When in doubt, leave the bomb or gun at home.)
I don't think the vile Cardinal had to convince a jury of his peers, and answer endless appeals through several levels of appeals courts.
Wrong outcomes are still possible under the American system, but I think your odds are much better than under the French monarchy.
Despite all the statistical evidence that this does NOT work to PREVENT any "terrorist" acts ... they will attempt to use this to intimidate people into voluntarily restricting their actions.
...
What evidence? Something along the lines of: "Log all network traffic of 300 million Americans, forming vast haystack, in which is one terrorist needle that you can't find, therefore it doesnt' work." Something like that?
I don't suppose that tracking and focusing on known terrorists, or communications with sites with known links to terrorist organizations, figures into that.
When every search / posting / IM / etc from you is available to elected officials (and may be accidentally "leaked"), they hope that most people will self-censor their activities to only items that would be "appropriate".
Elected officials? Like who? Exactly how are they going to get these to leak them? Do you think that county treasurers will be showing up to demand copies of email? No chance of any backlash by voters? Self-censor? As if that is a huge problem.
Should you ever take a stand against the elected officials, they will have access to your records
Doubtful.. There will be more records, but access to them probably won't be much different than today.
but you will not have access to their's. Asymmetrical.
Isn't that pretty much the way access to any other records held by the government work out? Do you get the see the tax records of the cop who gave you a ticket, or the adoption records of the driver's license examiner?
And because they are the government, they can release only the information they want from your records. Only the information that shows that you are really a wannabe child molesting, America hating, terrorist loving, Communistic, gay atheist.
I guess it is impossible for someone to keep their own logs / records, or get copies of the retained ones, and release the data that sets the story straight. Of course, where you are going, why should any of them go to the trouble of actually getting records and not just make things up? That is more or less what you are already heading. It would certainly be more convenient to just make it up.
It's all about maintaining power and control.
Nonsense. Power and control in America comes from winning elections. The US has a president for two terms, at most, not a "President for Life" who has to try and prop himself up.
Confidence makes it easier for you to make use of your strengths, and more likely that you will. That can have an enormous impact on your happiness, social life, career, and so on. The same thing applies to families, companies, countries and even cultures. Confidence levels can ebb and flow over time for various reasons. Self-doubt is inhibiting. To be gifted but inhibited from using those gifts can be a terrible curse.
The Closing of Civilization in Europe
It is interesting to contrast this....
Facing down a culture where they talk like crazies
Beheading Nations - The Islamization of Europe's Cities
Europe is in trouble....