By using Diebold's GEMS tabulation software, to count all votes and maintain the official system of record.
A chimp has been trained to exploit weaknesses in this software, who's vulnerability teeters from the negligent towards the deliberate.
There are two types of errors that could occur, either of which would be relatively easy to detect by trained chimps.
Input errors - Does the number of votes cast, in this case with punch cards, match what is in the system.
Addition errors - Do the totals add correctly.
Trying to bias either of those seems to be an invitation to prison time. It is too easy to detect by means of paper, pencil, and an hour or two of time. Just look at Ohio's results. They are broken out by county. It wouldn't be hard to check the addition, and check the reported figures to see if they match the source reports. I would be surprised if the various political parties don't go over the results anyway. Political Scientists certainly do.
No, the least likely place to catch fraud is as the ballots are cast by the dead, repeat voters, felons, etc. Playing around with totals and simple addition is far too risky.
That doesn't mean nobody will try it though. People do stupid things all the time.
They are building a war fighting and intelligence network. I doubt that they will want civilians, activists, and nuts on "their" internet which will carry intelligence data, military orders, and other information. "Our" internet, with all of the crackpots, porn sites, and conspiracy theorists is safe.
Isn't is amazing what you can pick up when you actually read an article, even the first couple of paragraphs?
The Pentagon is building its own Internet, the military's world wide web for the wars of the future.
The goal is to give all American commanders and troops a moving picture of all foreign enemies and threats - "a God's-eye view" of battle.
This "Internet in the sky," Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force, told Congress, would allow "marines in a Humvee, in a faraway land, in the middle of a rainstorm, to open up their laptops, request imagery" from a spy satellite, and "get it downloaded within seconds."
And a couple of others later on...
John Garing, strategic planning director at the Defense Information Security Agency, now starting to build the war net, said: "The essence of net-centric warfare is our ability to deploy a war-fighting force anywhere, anytime. Information technology is the key to that."...
That is the vision of the new web: war machines with a common language for all military forces, instantly emitting encyclopedias of lethal information against all enemies....
The bandwidth requirements seem bottomless. The military will need 40 or 50 times what it used at the height of the Iraq war last year, a Rand Corporation study estimates - enough to give front-line soldiers bandwidth equal to downloading three feature-length movies a second.
I doubt that there will be election data on there either. By the way, how to you throw an election over the internet when the voters use punch cards, like 73% of Ohio? TCP/CHAD?
The idea that a "Linux Stanard" could appear, against which Solaris could be compliant or certified, would strengthen Sun's hand.
It is called the Linux Standard Base Project. It strengthens Linux because without it commercial software vendors live in a sea of confusion over what Linux release to target, and testing becomes a nightmare. Commercial software is important because there is a lot more to do in the data center than just serving web pages. Without some sort of standard, the Independent Software Vendors will just gravitate toward one big Linux distro and create a new "Microsoft". If you are a software vendor and target "Bob's Garage Linux distro" instead of a LSB compliant distro, you are begging, just begging for trouble, and maybe bankruptcy.
The LSB is moving toward the POSIX / Open Group standard, which it a good thing. It helps Linux integrate into standards based and compliant environments. It also helps to reduce the "not better, just different" problem that Linux has had. It also reduces training and operations costs.
Now, nothing says you have to use LSB compliant distros, especially if you don't rely upon commercial software. But, I would think twice before I headed down that path with a company or data center minus some specific exceptions.
Does that mean he regrets congradulating those Navy guys on their 9-month trip?
No, what he means is that he regrets creating "convenient symbols" for people to distort for cheap political shots at the President. Maybe you missed this part of the article you quoted:
"I wish the banner was not up there," White House political strategist Karl Rove said Thursday at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."
Rove echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier crew's completing their 10-month mission, not the military's completing its mission in Iraq
Personally I think it is pathetic that so many politicains have tried to score cheap points from President Bush's thank you to the sailors in that carrier battle group. I wonder how many of them would jump at the first chance they had to go in front of a camera to say "I support the troops!" I suspect most.
Face it, even if the "explanation" of the banner is true, which I most seriously doubt, printing and presenting such a message in such a way would still be a bad idea.
Why do you think it is a bad idea to thank the sailors on that carrier? Their mission was accomplished. Or is it that part that you don't like?
Sure thing, I just knock on W's door and order one! Did you actually read your post before you pressed "submit"?
You must hate the Texas Rangers. What you have against them and the sailors is beyond me.
Yeah, sure, right, whatever, and Bush's jet landing and the world wide broadcast of same in front of the banner was obviously not meant to refer to the Iraq war.
The United States does not have a government run media. They choose what to run. It was an interesting story and they went with it.
And maybe you missed the point. The carrier had fought in the war in Iraq, but its part was over with. The carrier's mission was accomplished. End of story. Unfortunately that is the point where the spin starts.
Take a hike, you fascist.
This is apparently what is considered the "informative" part of your post.
John Ashcroft come of age when very few men typed. Who knows if he even uses a computer. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. He is a policy maker, not a typist.
Hand written letters are more personal anyway.
Psychotic? *Cough* *Cough* Riiiiight....
Not a single case in the past 3 years was prosecuted successfully as a terrorism case, with conviction. All of the high profile arrests where Aschroft made press conferences with huge pomp, touting them as major victories in the war on terrorism, are just for show.
SEATTLE -- National Guard Spec. Ryan Anderson, 27, was sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges he tried to aid al Qaeda by detailing ways to destroy U.S. weapons and kill soldiers to undercover agents, the Army said. Anderson, a convert to Islam, was convicted of passing on diagrams of tanks and their vulnerabilities to undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.
Thanks to your post I just discovered this site which lists:
# Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa and Portland (Oregon);
# 368 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;
# Already, 194 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and
# Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.
Anyone taking bets that there might be more to come?
Of course, the Patriot Act, Secret Evidence, and the eroding civil liberties that goes with it, is exactly what is wrong, since terrorists have achieved an objective with these things.
The goal of Bin Laden and is followers is to either convert the United States into an Islamic Republic under Islamic Sharia law and without separation of church and state, or to destroy it. Read his letter. His demands are listed starting at Q2.
Their current body count is at least 3,000 inside the country and thousands more outside the country. They have contributed to something like $100 billion in damage to the US economy.
Well, surprise, surprise, the parent post is false. There have been a number of convictions, including the, or at least a, Disneyland video case:
One of the tapes, found in Madrid, showed possible al-Qaida European operatives casing Las Vegas casinos in 1997 and engaging in casual conversation that included a possible reference to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The tape, which included footage of the MGM Grand, Excalibur and New York-New York casinos, was sent to al-Qaida's leadership to help in the selection of targets, documents obtained by the AP indicated.
Another video, seized from the apartment of a Detroit terror cell, was used as evidence in the first major terrorism trial following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It shows footage of the same three casinos and Disneyland. Prosecutors presented the footage to jurors as terrorists' surveillance of targets they wanted to raze.
Prosecutors won two terror conspiracy convictions in the case, which included evidence that one defendant referred to Las Vegas as the "city of Satan" and spoke about Islamic extremist "brothers" destroying it.
There have been many other convictions, of course. (Trivial exercise left to reader.) One more freebie:
SEATTLE -- National Guard Spec. Ryan Anderson, 27, was sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges he tried to aid al Qaeda by detailing ways to destroy U.S. weapons and kill soldiers to undercover agents, the Army said. Anderson, a convert to Islam, was convicted of passing on diagrams of tanks and their vulnerabilities to undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.
I hope people start taking the war against the terrorists seriously sometime soon.
I wish I would have read your post before the stock market closed. There is going to be a spike in clean underwear sales and I'm not going to a dime in that market.:(
That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.
The left doesn't need a real reason to believe that the election was rigged. Bush won, that's enough for them. They refuse to believe that anyone they hate so badly, who is so obviously inferior to them, could have won an honest election.
Just out of curiousity, how often does the President fly out to thank the crew of a carrier returning from not just a float, but from a campaign in war time?
A little more detail:
Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner's message, the White House printed it.
"The Navy asked for help in the production of the banner for the president's visit. So we helped," said White House spokesman Allen Abney.
The crew felt the banner reflected their recent operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Navy officials and the White House.
The banner is identical in style, but not message, from one the President used the week before shown in the story above.
Sorry, but this is one of those after-the-fact rationalizations that people have invented to justify the banner once it became clear just how ridiculous it was.
Sorry, but that is blatant political spin that is contradicted by the stories you link to. But, just to clarify things:
Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while
the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner's message, the White House printed it.
It is sad that the so many leading Democrats, like soon to be former Senator Daschle, just couldn't pass up the opportunity to twist the thank you to the sailors of the Abraham Lincoln battle group to try and make the President look like a fool. You apparently join them.
If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity. That didn't happen. Why? Because the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to thank the sailors. But hey, the truth be damned if a lie can hurt Bush, right?
By the way, who is it that keeps saying that the United States is in a war that is going to last years? The Bush administration.
Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.
This will no doubt come as a shock to you, being as you seem to be more acquainted with political spin than military considerations, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a floating print shop. If you want 20 F-18s with fighter cover and radar jamming support to drop 2 x 2,000 pound bombs each 250 miles away to help a Marine regiment take a beach, they can help you. You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.
But please, if you have some special insight into why it isn't possible for the President's group to print and bring the sign as part of their thanking the sailors, please tell us.
The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe.
There are, without a doubt, people in America who think that thanking American sailors for successfully completing their mission is a gaffe, but the members of the Bush administration aren't likely to be part of them. Apparently you are. That is sad.
Washington, DC, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft Monday hailed a new FBI report that said violent crime and property crime rates in 2003 were the lowest in three decades.
Major corporate scandal? Enron took place during the Clinton administration. It was investigated and prosecuted under the Bush administration. Haliburton had no-bid contracts awarded under both the Clinton and Bush administrations for the same reason: they are one of only a couple of firms in the world that do some types of work, and are uniquely placed to do others. VP Cheney has nothing to do with awarding Federal contracts, and Haliburton has had their hands slapped by the Bush administration for overcharging for fuel in Iraq. I have to admit that I've always found it curious that many of the same people that think that the Republicans are too pro-business also seem to think that they wink that corporate corruption. Who gets left holding the bag when there is corporate corruption? Shareholders (individual and institution, like insurance companies, etc.), and other businesses. Corruption is bad for business.
Republicans are Dixiecrats? Do you even know who the Dixiecrats were? They were Democrats who resisted desegregation in the Old South. How you confuse them with the Republicans is beyond me. The Republicans are actively working to attract more blacks and hispanic voters. That doesn't really seem to fit in with the whole Dixiecrat thing.
The Republicans trying to undo the New Deal, and Reconstruction, as in Civil War Reconstruction? I would love to know what part of "Reconstruction" you think the Republicans are trying to undo. Is it the "40 acres and a mule" thing? Or do you think it is the Constitutional amendment ending slavery? Carpetbaggers? Or maybe that sharecroper issue has you all worked up? Well, whatever it is, I'm sure the Republicans will have it as part of their platform in 2008. You should get a good crack at them then.
Why should we "get over" someone stealing an election?
I'd have thought the rules of engagement in a war on fear were obvious; if it scares you, shoot it or blow it up.
And thats whats happening.
Not quite. It is a war on Islamist extremist internalional terrorists, typically referred to in the shorthand of the "war on terror". That is, a war on terrorists, not on fear. And frankly, if you don't fear being shot by someone shotting at you, or being blown up by a suicide bomber heading toward you, there is something wrong with you that you aren't likely to survive.
When properly channeled, fear can be helpful, stupidity seldom is.
You don't seem to have grasped the argument. Try this restatement:
On average, Saddam killed a certain number of people we will call 2Y.
2 * Y = 2Y.
Liberating the Iraqi people interfered with Saddams killing 2Y people on his own. Instead, the battles fought to liberate Iraq, and actions by Saddam's forces as the final chapters of his regimes murders, have killed only Y people. Therefore, instead of the expected 2Y people being killed, only Y people have been killed, and an extra Y people are still alive.
In future years, there will be no Saddam, and no war of liberation. Therefore the number killed will not be 2Y, or Y, but will approach 0. This results in 2Y additional people living instead of being killed each year. This is a good thing, assuming you consider being killed as part of a regime policy of mass murder, or being killed in war to be a bad thing.
If Y = 15,000, that is a significant number of people, and a significant effect upon the country.
It appears to me we have a prescription for disaster. This is spoken by a person that believed that the Iraq adventure could possibly be successful and benefical to the Iraqi populous.
Past tense? I think you are being too cynical. It takes time to rebuild a nation with a people that have been oppressed as long and as harshly as the Iraqis. Look at Russia. It took years for a significant percentage of the population to shake off the psychic bonds of the Soviet state and use their newly found freedom to build a better future. From what I read, Russia is bustling today, although at times fitfully. We should start seeing some real indicators in Iraq within the next year or so.
You also might want to keep in mind that in WWII we killed innocent Frenchmen, Germans, Japanese, and a host of other nationalities. They don't seem to be holding that against us now, or for that matter, not since shortly after the war. I'm not sure why Iraq should be any different.
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Now only half as bad as Saddam! Get yours now!
Act now and we will throw in the bonuses!
In year 2 - only 10% as many die as under Saddam with the added bonuses of: - Freedom from - Secret police, torture, and mass graves! - Freedom to - vote and live in peace - Massive rebuilding of nation and economy - No more diversion of oil money from food and medicine to weapons - No more messy invasions caused by old regime
In year 3 - only 1% as many die as under Saddam as the last of the insurgents are crushed!
Don't be stuck with that old 100% dictator forever! Be the envy of citizens in nations all around you!
Quantities of interventions are limited. Get yours today!
Fine print: Offer subject to availability. Priority goes to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Offer void where prohibited. Judgement of the Bush administration is final.
I can provide you with one side of the equation. More than 100k people have died since the begining of the US invasion on Iraq, as a consequence of that invasion. Here's my source: New scientist.
The problem with your equasion is that you are almost certainly using inflated numbers. The 100k number that you are using is very suspect in terms of timing, results, and methodology.
You can read more about the problems with that "100k" figure here and here.
Finding information on the mass murder by Saddam's regime isn't hard. Here are some places to start.
As to better figures for casualty counts instead of the dubious 100,000, you can start here and expand your search:
The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.
That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.
"We cannot compare the situation now with how it was before," Nouri Jaber al-Nouri, inspector general of the Interior Ministry, said recently. "Iraqis used to fear everything.... But now, despite all that is happening, we feel safe." -- In Baghdad, a city of about 5.6 million, 4,279 people were recorded killed in the 12 months through April 30, according to figures provided by Kais Hassan, director of statistics at Baghdad's Medicolegal Institute (search), which administers the city's morgues. --- U.S. forces have records for the numbers of claims for compensation from Iraqis for personal injury, deaths of family members, or for property damage caused by U.S. military action in "non-combat" situations.
Some $3 million has been paid to about 5,000 claimants, American officials said last month. About 8,000 claims had been rejected and 3,000 were pending, they said.
The officials declined to provide a breakdown of the figures to show how many claims were for deaths. They also said a single incident involving U.S. forces could lead to multiple compensation claims. --- The human rights organization Amnesty International (search), based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed "as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation."
"This figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings," the group said in a statement.
There are no precise estimates for deaths during last year's invasion.
The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians from March 20 to April 20, 2003.
That investigation, conducted last May and June, was based on a survey of about half of Iraq's hospitals, and counted only those deaths for which hospitals had good documentation. The report concluded the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.
10-20k killed seems likely. 30k - 40k, maybe. 100k? I doubt it.
The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.
Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.
I think so. Think of it. No more UN imposed sanctions. Saddam's mass murdering regime is no longer filling mass grave
We could understand that Americans didn't know he was a fuckup when they first (barely) voted him in, but it's hard not to know he's a fuckup now. Although I work with a number of Americans I respect, I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.
That's all right, we won't let it bother us too much. Personally, I find your unfounded chauvinism and dubious recollection of events amusing. Please continue, what do you think about Cheney?
Slashdot Mirror
By using Diebold's GEMS tabulation software, to count all votes and maintain the official system of record.
A chimp has been trained to exploit weaknesses in this software, who's vulnerability teeters from the negligent towards the deliberate.
There are two types of errors that could occur, either of which would be relatively easy to detect by trained chimps.
Input errors - Does the number of votes cast, in this case with punch cards, match what is in the system.
Addition errors - Do the totals add correctly.
Trying to bias either of those seems to be an invitation to prison time. It is too easy to detect by means of paper, pencil, and an hour or two of time. Just look at Ohio's results. They are broken out by county. It wouldn't be hard to check the addition, and check the reported figures to see if they match the source reports. I would be surprised if the various political parties don't go over the results anyway. Political Scientists certainly do.
No, the least likely place to catch fraud is as the ballots are cast by the dead, repeat voters, felons, etc. Playing around with totals and simple addition is far too risky.
That doesn't mean nobody will try it though. People do stupid things all the time.
Isn't is amazing what you can pick up when you actually read an article, even the first couple of paragraphs?
And a couple of others later on...
I doubt that there will be election data on there either. By the way, how to you throw an election over the internet when the voters use punch cards, like 73% of Ohio? TCP/CHAD?
U.S.S.A.
U.S.S.A.???
The idea that a "Linux Stanard" could appear, against which Solaris could be compliant or certified, would strengthen Sun's hand.
It is called the Linux Standard Base Project. It strengthens Linux because without it commercial software vendors live in a sea of confusion over what Linux release to target, and testing becomes a nightmare. Commercial software is important because there is a lot more to do in the data center than just serving web pages. Without some sort of standard, the Independent Software Vendors will just gravitate toward one big Linux distro and create a new "Microsoft". If you are a software vendor and target "Bob's Garage Linux distro" instead of a LSB compliant distro, you are begging, just begging for trouble, and maybe bankruptcy.
The LSB is moving toward the POSIX / Open Group standard, which it a good thing. It helps Linux integrate into standards based and compliant environments. It also helps to reduce the "not better, just different" problem that Linux has had. It also reduces training and operations costs.
Now, nothing says you have to use LSB compliant distros, especially if you don't rely upon commercial software. But, I would think twice before I headed down that path with a company or data center minus some specific exceptions.
But the feds still expect the states to do the executions for them.
The Federal government has started executing at least some of its own death sentences again.
No, what he means is that he regrets creating "convenient symbols" for people to distort for cheap political shots at the President. Maybe you missed this part of the article you quoted:
Personally I think it is pathetic that so many politicains have tried to score cheap points from President Bush's thank you to the sailors in that carrier battle group. I wonder how many of them would jump at the first chance they had to go in front of a camera to say "I support the troops!" I suspect most.
Face it, even if the "explanation" of the banner is true, which I most seriously doubt, printing and presenting such a message in such a way would still be a bad idea.
Why do you think it is a bad idea to thank the sailors on that carrier? Their mission was accomplished. Or is it that part that you don't like?
Sure thing, I just knock on W's door and order one! Did you actually read your post before you pressed "submit"?
You must hate the Texas Rangers. What you have against them and the sailors is beyond me.
Yeah, sure, right, whatever, and Bush's jet landing and the world wide broadcast of same in front of the banner was obviously not meant to refer to the Iraq war.
The United States does not have a government run media. They choose what to run. It was an interesting story and they went with it.
And maybe you missed the point. The carrier had fought in the war in Iraq, but its part was over with. The carrier's mission was accomplished. End of story. Unfortunately that is the point where the spin starts.
Take a hike, you fascist.
This is apparently what is considered the "informative" part of your post.
John Ashcroft come of age when very few men typed. Who knows if he even uses a computer. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. He is a policy maker, not a typist. Hand written letters are more personal anyway. Psychotic? *Cough* *Cough* Riiiiight....
Not one, huh?:
Thanks to your post I just discovered this site which lists:
Anyone taking bets that there might be more to come?
Of course, the Patriot Act, Secret Evidence, and the eroding civil liberties that goes with it, is exactly what is wrong, since terrorists have achieved an objective with these things.
The goal of Bin Laden and is followers is to either convert the United States into an Islamic Republic under Islamic Sharia law and without separation of church and state, or to destroy it. Read his letter. His demands are listed starting at Q2.
Their current body count is at least 3,000 inside the country and thousands more outside the country. They have contributed to something like $100 billion in damage to the US economy.
Nothing to worry about, huh?
Well, surprise, surprise, the parent post is false. There have been a number of convictions, including the, or at least a, Disneyland video case:
There have been many other convictions, of course. (Trivial exercise left to reader.) One more freebie:
I hope people start taking the war against the terrorists seriously sometime soon.
At the cost of extending legal tools used against the mafia to also cover terrorism suspects? (patriot act)
I wish I would have read your post before the stock market closed. There is going to be a spike in clean underwear sales and I'm not going to a dime in that market. :(
That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.
The left doesn't need a real reason to believe that the election was rigged. Bush won, that's enough for them. They refuse to believe that anyone they hate so badly, who is so obviously inferior to them, could have won an honest election.
Sorry, but that is blatant political spin that is contradicted by the stories you link to. But, just to clarify things:
It is sad that the so many leading Democrats, like soon to be former Senator Daschle, just couldn't pass up the opportunity to twist the thank you to the sailors of the Abraham Lincoln battle group to try and make the President look like a fool. You apparently join them.
If the Bush administration wanted to get a mantra of "Mission Accomplished" out for the entire war they would have repeated it at every opportunity. That didn't happen. Why? Because the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to thank the sailors. But hey, the truth be damned if a lie can hurt Bush, right?
By the way, who is it that keeps saying that the United States is in a war that is going to last years? The Bush administration.
Well, if it was a banner meant for the ship's crew, to celebrate the completion of their mission, why did the White House make up the banner and bring it to the ship? Not the sort of thing you would expect if it was just something the Navy does as a matter of course at the end of a long voyage.
This will no doubt come as a shock to you, being as you seem to be more acquainted with political spin than military considerations, but an aircraft carrier is a warship, not a floating print shop. If you want 20 F-18s with fighter cover and radar jamming support to drop 2 x 2,000 pound bombs each 250 miles away to help a Marine regiment take a beach, they can help you. You want a very large, professional, beautifully printed sign to thank the sailors, you go somewhere else.
But please, if you have some special insight into why it isn't possible for the President's group to print and bring the sign as part of their thanking the sailors, please tell us.
The President and his people are saying that the banner was the "Navy's idea" so they don't have to take responsibility for their gaffe.
There are, without a doubt, people in America who think that thanking American sailors for successfully completing their mission is a gaffe, but the members of the Bush administration aren't likely to be part of them. Apparently you are. That is sad.
Crime rates?
Major corporate scandal? Enron took place during the Clinton administration. It was investigated and prosecuted under the Bush administration. Haliburton had no-bid contracts awarded under both the Clinton and Bush administrations for the same reason: they are one of only a couple of firms in the world that do some types of work, and are uniquely placed to do others. VP Cheney has nothing to do with awarding Federal contracts, and Haliburton has had their hands slapped by the Bush administration for overcharging for fuel in Iraq. I have to admit that I've always found it curious that many of the same people that think that the Republicans are too pro-business also seem to think that they wink that corporate corruption. Who gets left holding the bag when there is corporate corruption? Shareholders (individual and institution, like insurance companies, etc.), and other businesses. Corruption is bad for business.
Republicans are Dixiecrats? Do you even know who the Dixiecrats were? They were Democrats who resisted desegregation in the Old South. How you confuse them with the Republicans is beyond me. The Republicans are actively working to attract more blacks and hispanic voters. That doesn't really seem to fit in with the whole Dixiecrat thing.
The Republicans trying to undo the New Deal, and Reconstruction, as in Civil War Reconstruction? I would love to know what part of "Reconstruction" you think the Republicans are trying to undo. Is it the "40 acres and a mule" thing? Or do you think it is the Constitutional amendment ending slavery? Carpetbaggers? Or maybe that sharecroper issue has you all worked up? Well, whatever it is, I'm sure the Republicans will have it as part of their platform in 2008. You should get a good crack at them then.
Why should we "get over" someone stealing an election?
Because it didn't happen?
It is a sad day when race baiting is considered "insightful" on Slashdot.
I'd have thought the rules of engagement in a war on fear were obvious; if it scares you, shoot it or blow it up.
And thats whats happening.
Not quite. It is a war on Islamist extremist internalional terrorists, typically referred to in the shorthand of the "war on terror". That is, a war on terrorists, not on fear. And frankly, if you don't fear being shot by someone shotting at you, or being blown up by a suicide bomber heading toward you, there is something wrong with you that you aren't likely to survive.
When properly channeled, fear can be helpful, stupidity seldom is.
That is for a "Levee en Mass". That isn't what is going on in Iraq. Most of the insurgents don't qualify.
You don't seem to have grasped the argument. Try this restatement:
On average, Saddam killed a certain number of people we will call 2Y.
2 * Y = 2Y.
Liberating the Iraqi people interfered with Saddams killing 2Y people on his own. Instead, the battles fought to liberate Iraq, and actions by Saddam's forces as the final chapters of his regimes murders, have killed only Y people. Therefore, instead of the expected 2Y people being killed, only Y people have been killed, and an extra Y people are still alive.
In future years, there will be no Saddam, and no war of liberation. Therefore the number killed will not be 2Y, or Y, but will approach 0. This results in 2Y additional people living instead of being killed each year. This is a good thing, assuming you consider being killed as part of a regime policy of mass murder, or being killed in war to be a bad thing.
If Y = 15,000, that is a significant number of people, and a significant effect upon the country.
I hope that makes it clearer.
It appears to me we have a prescription for disaster. This is spoken by a person that believed that the Iraq adventure could possibly be successful and benefical to the Iraqi populous.
Past tense? I think you are being too cynical. It takes time to rebuild a nation with a people that have been oppressed as long and as harshly as the Iraqis. Look at Russia. It took years for a significant percentage of the population to shake off the psychic bonds of the Soviet state and use their newly found freedom to build a better future. From what I read, Russia is bustling today, although at times fitfully. We should start seeing some real indicators in Iraq within the next year or so.
You also might want to keep in mind that in WWII we killed innocent Frenchmen, Germans, Japanese, and a host of other nationalities. They don't seem to be holding that against us now, or for that matter, not since shortly after the war. I'm not sure why Iraq should be any different.
Hmm, at 200 thousand per-year, he'd run out of people pretty soon.
The problem is you are using bad numbers as you can see here and here.
You can start getting a better handle on the numbers here and here.
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Now only half as bad as Saddam! Get yours now!
Act now and we will throw in the bonuses!
In year 2 - only 10% as many die as under Saddam with the added bonuses of:
- Freedom from - Secret police, torture, and mass graves!
- Freedom to - vote and live in peace
- Massive rebuilding of nation and economy
- No more diversion of oil money from food and medicine to weapons
- No more messy invasions caused by old regime
In year 3 - only 1% as many die as under Saddam as the last of the insurgents are crushed!
Don't be stuck with that old 100% dictator forever! Be the envy of citizens in nations all around you!
Quantities of interventions are limited. Get yours today!
Fine print: Offer subject to availability. Priority goes to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Offer void where prohibited. Judgement of the Bush administration is final.
The problem with your equasion is that you are almost certainly using inflated numbers. The 100k number that you are using is very suspect in terms of timing, results, and methodology.
You can read more about the problems with that "100k" figure here and here.
Finding information on the mass murder by Saddam's regime isn't hard. Here are some places to start.
As to better figures for casualty counts instead of the dubious 100,000, you can start here and expand your search:
10-20k killed seems likely. 30k - 40k, maybe. 100k? I doubt it.
Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.
I think so. Think of it. No more UN imposed sanctions. Saddam's mass murdering regime is no longer filling mass grave
We could understand that Americans didn't know he was a fuckup when they first (barely) voted him in, but it's hard not to know he's a fuckup now. Although I work with a number of Americans I respect, I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.
That's all right, we won't let it bother us too much. Personally, I find your unfounded chauvinism and dubious recollection of events amusing. Please continue, what do you think about Cheney?